Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise in support of the FIRST STEP Act. This legislation, as the title says, is an important first step toward desperately needed criminal justice reform. I thank Senators Durbin, Grassley, and Lee, as well as my good friend and colleague, Senator Cory Booker, for advancing this bipartisan compromise. I want to particularly recognize the junior Senator from New Jersey, who has been relentless in his efforts to bring moral urgency to this issue, and I think we can thank Senator Booker for his passion and his devotion to justice. The need for criminal justice reform was an issue constituents consistently and frequently raised with me as I crisscrossed New Jersey over the past year. From Woodbury to Paterson, to Newark, and everywhere in between, I heard from faith leaders calling for solutions to a mass incarceration crisis that has disproportionately torn apart communities of color. Indeed, the NAACP found that, nationally, African Americans and Hispanics make up approximately 32 percent of the U.S. population, but they represented 56 percent of all incarcerated people in 2015. I also heard from young people pushing for drug policy reform so fewer students charged with marijuana offenses lose access to Federal financial aid. I met with leaders like former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey, whose work with New Jersey Reentry Corporation helps formerly incarcerated individuals--especially those struggling with addiction-- find jobs and avoid ending up back in prison. I met with African-American law enforcement organizations, like the Bronze Shields, about their efforts to build positive relationships in their communities and address challenges like racial profiling and uneven enforcement. The FIRST STEP Act will not solve all of these problems--far from it. I certainly would have liked to see more concrete reforms to Federal minimum mandatory sentences. However, I am pleased to support a bill that reverses some of the most detrimental effects of Federal mandatory minimum sentences. As a longtime proponent of the Second Chance Act, I am also glad to see provisions reauthorized under this bill that will give nonviolent, low-risk offenders and their families greater hope for a brighter future. Under the FIRST STEP Act, more Americans in the Federal prison system will finally get their second chance. While most offenders are incarcerated at the State level, we know Federal mandatory minimums for drug offenses are among the harshest in the Nation. According to The Sentencing Project, half of the U.S. Federal prison population is serving time for a drug offense, the vast majority of them nonviolent. Under this legislation, low-risk offenders will be able to earn credit by completing anti-recidivism programs that help better prepare them for life after prison. Inmates can then apply these credits for early placement in a halfway house, home confinement, or other types of early release. We know that when prisoners are equipped with the right tools and resources, they are better able to reintegrate into society and avoid old behaviors that could result in them winding up back behind bars. That is not only good for them, it is good for their families and good for their communities. These provisions are important back-end reforms, but I will not stop calling for greater reforms on the front end--the enforcement side of the equation. This is a serious problem in New Jersey. In July 2017, The Sentencing Project reported that racial disparities in New Jersey's marijuana arrests were at an alltime high. In 2013, African Americans were arrested for marijuana possession three times as often as their White counterparts, despite marijuana use being similar among racial groups. The disparities extend far beyond arrest rates. Recently, a 6-month investigation by NJ Advance Media found ``hard evidence of racial disparities in police use of force across New Jersey.'' The data revealed African Americans are three times likelier to face some type of police force compared to Whites. Even more troubling, African- American children faced a disproportionate amount of force. From 2012 through 2016, of the more than 4,600 uses of force against people under the age of 18, slightly more than half were African American. Yet African-American children account for only 14.5 percent of New Jersey's child population. I don't highlight these statistics to denigrate our police force because the men and women who serve in law enforcement put their lives on the line every day to protect our communities, and their bravery will always have my respect, support, and admiration. I do highlight these statistics because they reveal a larger need for greater front- end criminal justice, sentencing, and police reforms that ultimately share our goal of building safe and thriving communities. Passing the FIRST STEP Act is just that--a first step. It cannot be the only step. We have so much more work to do to fix a broken criminal justice system that leaves too many Americans behind. The FIRST STEP Act does not address structural racism and racial disparities in our criminal justice system, nor does it completely alleviate some of the draconian sentences still in place for drug offenses. What this legislation will do is to make a positive difference in the lives of thousands of Federal inmates working to turn their lives around and earn a second chance. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I have always believed that the Federal policies we set can have a ripple effect across the Nation. May the passage of the FIRST STEP Act by Congress spur States across America to take additional steps forward--steps that, together, may advance our Nation's long march for equality and justice under the law. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about the U.S.-Saudi Arabia relationship in the broader context of America's interests in the Middle East. I want to begin by responding to an op-ed Secretary of State Pompeo published in the Wall Street Journal in which he called the U.S.-Saudi Arabia partnership ``vital.'' That statement reflects a distorted view of the U.S.-Saudi Arabia relationship that has permeated the Trump administration in which the United States is somehow dependent on the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for regional stability and security cooperation. It is a view perhaps best articulated by the President's own unhinged pre-Thanksgiving statement in which he suggested that selling weapons to the Saudis was more important than America's enduring commitment to human rights, democratic values, and international norms, or the President and Secretary Pompeo's continued, incredulous insistence that we still don't know whether the Crown Prince is directly responsible for the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. Desperate to justify this myopic view, Trump officials whimper that Saudi Arabia's military operations in Yemen are the only means to ``root out'' Iranian influence and defend the status quo of U.S. support for the Saudi-led coalition. To put it another way, these morally blindered and blinded individuals believe that to advance America's interests in the region, there is no other option than dependence on Riyadh and no other way than business as usual. So the United States should just stay the course, resign to accept, with a so-called ``vital'' partner, a government that lures a Washington Post columnist--an American resident with U.S. citizen children--to its consulate in a third country with the express intent of eliminating his dissenting views from public discourse in the most gruesome way possible. I, for one, reject Secretary Pompeo's false choice. We can be tough on Iranian aggression, and we can continue our efforts to eliminate al- Qaida and ISIS. At the same time, we can have a reality-based debate on the strategic utility of the U.S.-Saudi partnership. Our security interests and our values demand such a debate. I believe that we can pursue an effective strategy to counter terrorism and Iranian aggression while also demanding better from the U.S.-Saudi Arabia partnership. That means standing up for transparency, accountability, and truth when our partners flagrantly violate American values, disregard international norms, and take actions that undermine our broader strategic interests and run counter to regional security. The Trump administration has cynically framed this vote as a binary, zero-sum choice: You are either for Iran, or you are for Saudi Arabia. Well, my answer to that is, I am for the United States of America. I am for America's security interests. I am for American values. And I am for partnerships and alliances deeply rooted in both. I can't imagine that any one of my colleagues on either side of the aisle would put me in the pro-Iran camp. I take a backseat to no one in the Senate in taking the lead to end Iran's pathway to a nuclear weapon and to end its nefarious promotion of terrorism across the world. To be clear, the vote on S.J. Res. 54 is not about the totality of the U.S.-Saudi relationship; it is a vote about whether U.S. support for the Saudi-led coalition's actions in Yemen are in our national interests. We do indeed have important security interests with the Saudis. Both of our nations benefit from cooperation in confronting threatening forces. Yet we cannot sweep under the rug the callous disregard for human life and the flagrant violations of international norms the Saudis have shown. That is why, as ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I continue to look for the opportunity to continue to examine components of the U.S.-Saudi relationship and determine whether that relationship requires a course correction. Beyond Saudi Arabia, I do not want any of our security partners to interpret our relationship as a blank check. Unfortunately, whether due to the President's possibly unconstitutional financial entanglements or his family's overly cozy relationship with the Crown Prince, this administration is putting the Saudi Government on a pedestal that stands above America's values. They continue to extend a blank check to certain players within the Saudi Government, no matter how brazen their actions, rather than meaningfully seeking to influence Riyadh or ensure that U.S. policy toward Saudi Arabia is properly balanced and in line with our strategic interests, not directed by the personal and financial motives of select individuals in our government. This refusal to stand up for American values, to assert true leadership, is part of the Trump administration's willful adherence to a misguided understanding of the most effective ways to bring stability to the Middle East. It is an outgrowth of the President's reckless, morally bankrupt approach to foreign policy and a love affair with authoritarian strongmen. Mr. President, I hope today to frame some critical questions about the U.S.- Saudi relationship in the context of America's long-term interests in the region. Let's start with taking stock of actions taken by Saudi Arabia over the last 2 years--the 2 years that, according to Secretary Pompeo, the Trump administration has been ``rebuilding'' the U.S.-Saudi partnership while we here in the ``salons of Washington'' were caterwauling about human rights. In June of 2017, a quartet of Arab countries announced a full blockade of a fellow Gulf Cooperation Council member, Qatar. The Saudi- led bloc justified this blockade by accusing Qatar of transgressions that, while seriously concerning, are not unique to Qatar or even to some members of the Saudi-led bloc, such as financial support for terror. This blockade tosses out decades of investment by Republicans and Democratic U.S. administrations to partner with the entire Gulf Cooperation Council--Qatar included--on security challenges ranging from Iran, al-Qaida, missile defense, maritime security, and cyber threats. Put another way, the Saudi-Qatar dispute has translated into a lot more work for our military professionals and diplomats for the past year as the gulf Arabs have fought amongst each other and have interrupted critical priorities like defeating ISIS and countering Iranian aggression. It has also complicated the coordination with our Arab partners on U.S. foreign policy priorities, like stabilizing Libya and Syria, and, potentially, deeply undermined U.S. objectives, like stability in the Horn of Africa. Who is the winner of this rift that has been constructed by our Saudi-led partners? Iran. Mr. President, in turning to Yemen, the Saudis and their partners have continued their brutal air campaign in Yemen, often indiscriminately. Tens of thousands of innocent Yemenis have died, and millions more are on the brink of starvation. Meanwhile, Iran's influence has increased within the country, and al-Qaida has taken advantage of the chaos to expand its reach and control of Yemeni territory. The winners of this fruitless war? Iran and al-Qaida. Then, in November 2017, Mr. President, the Prime Minister of Lebanon traveled to Saudi Arabia for what he reportedly believed was to be a friendly visit with the Saudi Crown Prince. Instead, the Crown Prince detained Prime Minister Saad Hariri and, on TV, forced him to resign from his position. Let that sink in for a moment. A newly minted Crown Prince effectively hoodwinked and intimidated a sitting Prime Minister into publicly resigning his position. This entire stunt was reportedly intended to push back on Iran's expanding influence in the region. After days of high drama and uncertainty, including a refusal by Lebanon's President to accept the Prime Minister's resignation, Hariri left Saudi Arabia via Paris and returned to a Lebanon where Iran's proxy Hezbollah remains not only a part of the Lebanese Government but, arguably, in a stronger position for rallying public support behind Hariri. The winner of this foolish plunder? Iran. Mr. President, that very same month of November 2017, Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman directed the detention of hundreds of Saudi princes and executives at the Ritz-Carlton in Riyadh. While this effort was spun as a crackdown on corruption, it was clearly a crackdown on the Crown Prince's political competitors. Reports from this dark period in the gilded prison of the Ritz indicate that Saudi Government-directed forces tortured detainees and coerced them into transferring money to the government or giving up real estate and shares in companies. Now, I don't know how they obtained those resources, and I am, in no way, condoning any graft and exploitation in the Kingdom, but this opaque process--outside any semblance of the rule of law and driven purely by the will of the Crown Prince--is not actually a sustainable approach to promoting transparency and accountability. In fact, it should and did send chills down the spines of investors and American companies that seek to expand commercial and economic ties in the Kingdom. A strong respect for the rule of law is an essential condition for doing business. So when Trump points to the value of business ties with Saudi Arabia as a reason for not imposing consequences for Khashoggi's murder, let's remember that in the hands of the Crown Prince, anyone can be shaken down, locked up, or tortured at a five-star hotel in Muhammad bin Salman's Saudi Arabia. Let's also continue asking who exactly is benefiting from potential business ties. Mr. President, Secretary Pompeo mentioned in his op-ed last week that the Crown Prince has ``moved the country in a reformist direction, from allowing women to drive and attend sporting events, to curbing the religious police and calling for a return to moderate Islam.'' What the Secretary did not mention, however, are the deeply disturbing reports that, at the same time MBS was granting Saudi women the right to drive, he also detained many female activists who were themselves calling for the rights of women, including their right to drive. Now we are hearing reports that these women are being tortured and sexually harassed, bound to iron beds, electrocuted, and beaten. Is this the kind of reform that Secretary Pompeo believes the United States should endorse? As for calling for a return to moderate Islam, the Anti-Defamation League reports that Saudi state television hosted several hour-long programs this Ramadan that featured a preacher who called for God to destroy the Christians, Shiites, Alawites, and Jews. Other analyses published by the Anti-Defamation League this November found that Saudi Government-published textbooks for the 2018-2019 academic year promote incitement to hatred or violence against Jews, Christians, women, and homosexual men. As ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt said: The United States must hold its ally Saudi Arabia to a higher standard. The U.S. cannot look the other way while Saudi Arabia features anti-Semitic hate speech year after year in the educational material it gives its children. Mr. President, let's take stock of Saudi Arabia's contributions to regional stability. It seems a fitting time to ask if an approach that involves bullying another U.S. regional partner, holding the Prime Minister of Lebanon hostage, torturing female activists, business executives, and other princes, and carrying out a military campaign in Yemen that will result in the death of millions more civilians by year's end is an approach that is in line with U.S. values or priorities. Has Iran been weakened by these actions? Is the focus still on al- Qaida and defeating ISIS? I don't think so. Mr. President, the President has made it clear that no U.S. foreign policy objective, especially human rights, is as important to him as securing tens of billions of imaginary dollars to create million fantasy jobs through weapons sales to the Saudis. Congress has long and well established the overseeing of the sale of weapons as part of U.S. foreign policy. We have learned throughout our history that selling weapons is a complex matter and that without close attention to the human rights practices of foreign buyers, the United States can easily find itself in the situation that we are now in with Saudi Arabia. U.S. arms, today, are being used irresponsibly, tragically, and in possible violation of international law in the deaths and injuries of tens of thousands of innocent civilians, including of helpless children. The United States must elevate human rights concerns in all aspects of its foreign security assistance, including arms sales. Otherwise, the abuses that result will do more to foment the conditions of unrest and despair that are the breeding ground of conflict, war, and terrorism. Secretary Pompeo also suggested that if the United States in any way reassesses its relationship with Saudi Arabia, the Kingdom will rush into Russian arms. I would suggest, Mr. Secretary, that most countries in the Middle East are already hedging against perceptions that the United States is not invested in the region and that those assessments are based on the President himself--how else to explain Putin's high five with the Crown Prince at the G20 in Argentina? Is it from the parade of gulf rulers in Russia who are doing deals on the margins of the World Cup earlier this year or by the announcements by several U.S. partners of talks to purchase the Russian S-400 system, despite the prospect of congressional sanctions under the CAATSA law? Given not just the war in Yemen but also the murder of Khashoggi and the blockage of Qatar, I believe we need to take steps to recalibrate the future of the U.S.-Saudi relationship. That is why I am disappointed that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee did not take up the Saudi Arabia Accountability and Yemen Act of 2018, which is legislation that I am leading, along with Senators Young, Reed, Graham, Shaheen, Collins, and others. We will continue to work on this legislation next year. It does not seek to tear down the entire Saudi-U.S. relationship. Instead, it is carefully calibrated to force a rebalancing in priorities. The United States should no longer be selling weapons to the Kingdom that will be used to kill women and children in Yemen. We should, however, continue to support Saudi Arabia's legitimate defensive needs, like intercepting Houthi missiles coming from Yemen. The United States should no longer refuel Saudi coalition aircraft for operations in Yemen, which is clearly correlated with a rise in civilian casualties. The United States must now take a stand against all stakeholders in this conflict that are blocking humanitarian access, preventing forward movement under the U.N. peace process, or receiving weapons from Iran. Our bill also ensures that Congress right-sizes its oversight over this relationship. The Trump administration must follow the letter of the Global Magnitsky Act, and it must take a firm stand in support of human rights when it comes to Saudi Arabia. This is not caterwauling or the media piling on. This is Congress doing what the American people elected us to do--ensure that the U.S. Government conducts foreign policy in a manner that protects the United States and the American people. We are not doing our job if foreign governments believe they can murder journalists and dissidents with impunity and disregard international norms without damaging their relationships with the United States. Saudi Arabia has joined a sinister clique, along with North Korea, Russia, and Iran, in its assassination of Jamal Khashoggi. A few more weapons purchases cannot buy our silence, and they should not buy our silence. If the President will not act, Congress must. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Reserving the right to object, I do not intend to object. I just want to say that on this resolution, there is a central reason why I am not going to object. I don't agree with some of the language that speaks about the economic interests we have with Saudi Arabia. I think their behavior is more than concerning, but what the distinguished chairman on the Foreign Relations Committee is trying to do here at the core of it is the critical element. I am going to be supportive because of this one singular statement under the resolved clause by the Senate and the House of Representatives that the Senate ``believes Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is responsible for the murder of Jamal Khashoggi.'' Regardless of all of my other concerns about language, that is the central essence of what the chairman is going to do. I think it is incredibly important for the Senate to speak on that issue and, hopefully, speak with one voice. With that, I withdraw my objection.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss S.J. Res. 54, a pointed statement from the U.S. Senate that the status quo in Yemen is not tenable, that we will not stand idly by as the President lends our country's name to the calamitous military forays of another nation, and that our security partners across the world do not have a blank check. To my knowledge, this is the first time the Senate has considered a joint resolution under this provision, which is directly derived from the Wars Powers Resolution. This is an important step to reasserting Congress's role in authorizing the use of force. I was proud to see a strong show of support for the procedural vote to move this resolution forward, and I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle continue to embrace that moral fortitude. I am also pleased to support Senator Young's amendment to this resolution, which I understand Senator Sanders also supports. This language would clarify that refueling operations definitively constitute U.S. support for hostilities in this context, and I know he has been very focused on this issue of Yemen and a critical voice in the Senate on this crisis. Some may have been holding out hope that the administration would show a good-faith effort to hold the Saudi coalition accountable for its actions in Yemen or to hold the Saudi Government and the Crown Prince accountable for all of their actions. Well, we haven't seen that leadership. On the contrary, I believe that, in spite of concrete evidence, the Trump administration is intent on doing nothing to hold the Saudi Government or the Crown Prince responsible for their actions. As we debate a path forward to address the tragic humanitarian crisis in Yemen and to hold the Saudi coalition and the Houthi combatants accountable for their actions, children in Yemen continue to starve, people continue to die, and more reports about gruesome torture of detainees continue to emerge. Sadly, we don't actually know the extent of the devastation. Some humanitarian organizations on the ground estimate that as many as 50,000 people have died, with more than 14 million on the brink of starvation. Save the Children recently posited that as many as 130 children are dying each and every day. We may not know the exact numbers, but we know enough to know that the conflict in Yemen has produced the world's worst humanitarian crisis. The Saudi coalition must take responsibility for its actions, and, likewise, the Houthis and their Iranian backers also bear the burden of this tragedy. The United States can take concerted and strategic diplomatic steps to ensure that our involvement--any involvement--promotes a net positive outcome for regional stability, for our own security interests, and for the Yemeni people. We can invest in the U.N.-led talks in Sweden. We can wholeheartedly promote diplomacy as a path forward to solve this conflict, which our own defense and diplomatic leaders concede has no military solution. But let's be clear. This resolution is very important, and I wholeheartedly support it. I have worked so that it can be preserved with only germane amendments. But the resolution itself will not stop the war in Yemen, nor will it somehow stop the immense human suffering, nor put an end to human rights violations. What this resolution does do, however, is send a strong message to the Saudis about U.S. global leadership. It is a message that says the United States will not stand by as countries--even those with which we have important security relationships--flagrantly violate international norms. The United States must assert moral leadership on the global stage. We must proudly embrace the immutable fact that our strongest relationships are those rooted in shared values, such as respect for human life, respect for basic democratic freedoms, respect for international institutions and norms that we have shaped to promote a safer and more prosperous future. When we fail to call out egregious offenses--the slaughter of innocent civilians, the murder of American resident and journalist Jamal Khashoggi, the effective kidnapping of heads of state, just to name a few--we contribute to the steady erosion of fundamental freedoms and values that have driven us to a position of global strength. This resolution is a clear message that if the President of the United States will not stand up in defense of our values, we in the U.S. Senate will. When this President selectively condemns some violations one day and then inexplicably ignores them and condones them another day, the Congress will act as an effective check and balance. As a coequal branch of government, we will defend American values, and we will work to promote our long-term security interests. At the end of the day, the Saudi Government must take responsibility for its actions, for this ugly war does not serve Saudi Arabia's own long-term interests. Achieving a path toward stability and prosperity demands that the Saudi Government hold itself to a higher standard. It must treat its citizens with dignity and respect. It must engage its partners in the region in responsible efforts to protect its borders from ever-growing Iranian threats. Shortsighted, capricious actions will not serve Saudi Arabia's long-term interests. Yes, the United States has an important relationship with Saudi Arabia. But we must also be true to our own long-term interests, and that means we cannot sit idly by, waiting for the Crown Prince and the Saudi Government to act. It should be clear to everyone in this body that the resolution we are considering today is just one part of this effort. I am proud to have worked across party lines with Senators Young, Reed, Graham, and others in introducing the comprehensive Saudi Arabia Accountability and Yemen Act. This bill calls for a limited suspension of offensive weapons sales to Saudi Arabia, prohibits U.S. refueling of Saudi coalition aircraft engaged in Yemen, sanctions persons blocking humanitarian access in Yemen, sanctions persons supporting the Houthis in Yemen, mandates Global Magnitsky sanctions on persons responsible for the death of American resident Jamal Khashoggi. Unfortunately, we have not been able to get to this legislation in the timeframe that we have, but let me be clear. We will continue to work at it, and we do not want to see a weak substitute that degrades the intent of tangible action from the Senate. I hope, after we get through this important vote on this resolution, at the end of the day--whether it be in this Congress or the next--that the only thing we do with reference to Jamal Khashoggi is not simply an expression of our outrage. We need to do something far more than that if we are going to send a global message. The time for waiting and posturing is over. This administration has made abundantly and disappointingly clear that it will not act unless we force it to. President Trump has made clear over and over again that the only way he takes the high road is if he is dragged up to it, kicking and screaming. Taking their cue, the Saudis at this moment see no incentive to change their behavior. It is time for the Senate to act. It is time to stand up for the very values that define us as a nation. The passage of the Sanders-Lee resolution should signal to the world that the U.S. Senate should hold Saudi Arabia accountable--including the royal family. We will continue to demand that we consider additional measures to make clear what we stand for as a nation. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ. If my friend the distinguished chairman of the committee will yield for a moment, let me just say first that I appreciate his good intentions and commitment to having a process in which the Sanders-Lee resolution could move forward. To keep it within a germane sphere, I know that was one of the things the Senator said very early on, which I embrace, and I am glad for his leadership in that regard. I think passing this will be important, and I urge all of our colleagues to vote for it. I look forward to when he presents the resolution he has talked about with reference to the Crown Prince. I do think that if he brings that forward, it is likely something I will support because I think it is important to make it very clear that you cannot kill with impunity just because you are our ally and that human rights and democracy are still values that we--at least in the U.S. Senate--believe are an integral part of our foreign policy. Countries that observe human rights and democracy and share our deepest values at the end of the day are our most reliable allies and are less likely to drag us into conflicts in other places. So I look forward to that debate and discussion when the distinguished Senator offers that. But I will reiterate--and I appreciate the Senator's somewhat endorsement with some reservations. It is critical--I know Senator Young is standing; I will cease in a moment--that we need to do more-- even though I will probably embrace what the Senator is doing--than just say we are outraged that the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia is complicit in the killing of Jamal Khashoggi. There is a long list of things the Crown Prince has already done beyond that, some of which I mentioned in my remarks. But at the end of the day, if all we do is express our outrage, then anybody in the world, any leader in the world, any country we have a relationship with could say: Well, they will publicly slap us on the wrist, but that will be the total consequence. If that is the total consequence, then at the end of the day, people will act with impunity. When they do that, we go down a dangerous path, not just for those who live in those countries and may be subjected to those types of indiscriminate executions and other gross violations of human rights; we send a global message that is a downward spiral. That is what I and some of my colleagues I am going to join briefly to talk about--we intend to pursue this in the next Congress--want to see happen. I appreciate that the Senator supports that sentiment, and I look forward to continuing to work with him until the very end of this session.

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

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss--and I appreciate the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island and the work he has done on this critical question of climate change. I am pleased to join him today on the floor in pursuit of what he has been doing. I rise today to discuss the negotiations taking place in Katowice, Poland, to finalize the rule book on implementing the Paris climate change agreement. There is an immediate urgency for global action to reduce greenhouse gas pollution as emissions continue to increase. The longer it takes for us to fully accept and acknowledge the problem, the more aggressive the world will have to be to avoid the worst effects of climate change from becoming a reality. For decades, the science has yielded increasing causes for concern. Today, the connection between manmade greenhouse gas emissions-- primarily fossil fuel combustion--and climate change is undeniable. Three major reports on the growing climate crisis have been published in the last 30 days alone. That includes reports from the world's top climate scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the U.N. Environment Programme. That includes the National Climate Assessment, which was assembled by 13 Federal agencies and 300 government experts--our Federal agencies and our government experts. What the scientists are telling us is that robust and immediate action is necessary to prevent catastrophic changes in the Earth's climate--changes that have already begun to affect every single American. There is a tendency to dismiss scientific reports as abstract, as hard to understand. The President seems to simply not believe them. So let me speak plainly: The consequences of climate change are anything but abstract--regional food and water shortages, inundation of island nations and coastal communities that are home to billions of people around the world, mass migration, and refugee crises. Our own National Climate Assessment makes clear that the United States--with all our wealth and good fortune--is far from immune from the effects of climate change. If we fail to confront this challenge, the United States will experience effects that will cost American lives and billions in losses to our national economy. While we shouldn't point to any single event as evidence, the changes in trends depicting climate change's harsh reality are undeniable. It is a fact that the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8 degrees Celsius--1.4 degrees Fahrenheit--since 1880, and two- thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975. It is a fact that the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events in many regions of the United States are increasing, including conditions that heighten wildfire risks. It is a fact that sea level has been rising over the past century, and the rate has increased in recent decades. In 2017, global mean sea level was 3 inches above the 1993 average--the highest annual average in the satellite record. None of these facts are new. None of these fact are deniable. The science predicted these climate change effects 20, even 30 years ago. To echo a common sentiment among climate change leaders on the urgency of the situation, ``We are the first generations to experience the effects of climate change and the last that can act to prevent the worst.'' This urgency is fueling the negotiations in Poland this week. Deliberations on the various elements of these rules began shortly after the Paris Agreement's entry into force in November 2016, and the agreement requires that the rules be completed this year, making the COP in Katowice the most consequential conference of parties since COP21 in Paris. The Paris Agreement establishes firm, albeit nonbinding, global emissions reduction goals--reductions sufficient to prevent a 2 degrees Celsius increase in global average temperatures. The Paris Agreement also clearly outlined robust and transparent reporting so that parties can hold each other accountable via diplomatic engagement as opposed to binding legal punishment. Of course, success comes down to execution. That is what makes the development of the implementation rule book so consequential and President Trump's decision to abandon the Paris Agreement so antithetical to our own interests. The current administration's wholesale rejection of meaningful engagement with the global community is disturbingly naive and is bound to result in repeating past mistakes with detrimental outcomes. China is emboldened by President Trump's plan to abandon the Paris Agreement. China effectively slowed progress at COP23 and will continue its efforts. In the leadership vacuum that President Trump has created, China is stepping in to write the rules. It is completely absurd to assume that the United States, by withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, is somehow immune to the global economic implications of climate change. The President couched his decision to abdicate American leadership regarding the Paris Agreement as putting ``America first'' in a June 2017 announcement riddled with inaccurate characterizations of the Paris Agreement and alternative facts on climate change. There is no truthful, factual, or reality-based argument to justify how allowing every country in the world except the United States to build the clean energy economy of the future and confront our most pressing global challenge puts America first. Continued U.S. leadership and climate diplomacy can only yield economic benefits for U.S. workers. More than 900 U.S. businesses support keeping the United States in the Paris Agreement, including more than 20 Fortune 500 companies. Acting to prevent the worst effects of climate change holds tremendous economic and job-growth opportunities for New Jersey and our Nation. I am proud to say that New Jersey is a national leader in deploying clean energy technologies, creating clean energy jobs, and planning and investing in climate change resilience. New Jersey is home to 417 solar energy manufacturing and installation companies employing more than 7,000 workers. New Jersey is also competing hard to become the first Mid-Atlantic State to produce offshore wind energy, supported by the recent enactment of legislation establishing a 3,500-megawatt production goal for offshore wind energy. New Jersey has also recently increased its renewable energy standards to 50 percent by 2030 and set a new State carbon emissions reduction goal of 80 percent by 2050. New Jersey's leadership among the States working to combat climate change is rooted in our vulnerability to the effects of climate change. The fact is, if we continue on our current emissions trajectory, the world could see global average temperature increase by 3 degrees Celsius. This would devastate New Jersey, risking $800 billion in coastal property value, along with the health, security, and livelihood of millions of residents. The potential losses from sea level rise and increased intensity and frequency of extreme weather associated with climate change would cost my State's economy billions in economic losses. Just yesterday, the Star-Ledger--a statewide paper--published a column by Robert Kopp, the director of the Rutgers Institute of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences, highlighting many of these consequences, as outlined by the recent National Climate Assessment. Our winters have been warming faster than our summers. Pests like pine beetle and ash borer are no longer kept in check by winter freezes. Perhaps even more alarming, we have seen our crops begin to bud earlier and earlier, only to see them decimated by cold snaps later in the season. In the Garden State--famous for our tomatoes, cranberry bogs, blueberries, and other specialty crops--that is a big deal. As temperatures rise, we also expect to see a surge in heat-related deaths and illnesses due to allergies and asthma, while disease- carrying bugs like mosquitos and ticks thrive in increased seasonal moisture. Our fisheries--the life blood of so many of our coastal communities-- have already begun to see how changing water temperatures are changing migrations, making it harder for us to manage historic fisheries and harder for our fishermen to earn a living. Of course, perhaps the clearest threat to New Jersey from climate change comes in the form of coastal flooding from sea level rise and extreme weather events. We saw it with Superstorm Sandy, and we understand the devastating consequences it can have for our families, our communities, and our infrastructure. There is no convincing me that ignoring climate change and walking away from the world's only mechanism for holding countries like India, China, and Russia accountable for their emissions puts New Jersey first. The Trump administration's failure to recognize this potential and its refusal to recognize the growing market demand for clean energy is a stunning example of the transactional relationship this President has with the fossil fuel industry. He is putting wealthy, politically connected corporations ahead of the best interests of the American people. Proof of the administration's political favoritism for fossil fuels is exemplified by the only U.S. Government-sponsored event at COP24 in Poland, titled ``The Future of Coal.'' Never mind how insulting and tone-deaf it is to sponsor an event to promote dirty, coal-powered energy at a climate change conference while countries like the Marshall Islands, the Maldives, Mongolia, and Mozambique, which face existential crises from climate change, look on--even more than that, this public forum flaunts the administration's wholesale sellout to the industries the government is tasked with regulating. It also shows us this administration's contempt for the booming renewable energy sector in the United States, which, according to Trump's own Department of Energy, employs more Americans than the U.S. fossil fuel industries by a 5-to-1 reality. All told, nearly 1 million Americans work in the energy efficiency, solar, wind, and alternative vehicles sectors. That equals nearly five times the number of workers employed in the fossil fuel electric industry, which includes coal, gas, and oil workers. As the ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I believe that climate diplomacy must be a priority for U.S. foreign policy. Climate change poses an imminent and long-term threat not just to U.S. national security but also to the long-term prosperity of this country and of our world. Addressing the crisis requires collective action and cooperation by local and national representatives, small and large businesses, and every one of us. If the United States is to maintain our status as the world's superpower, it is in our best interest to lead the global cooperative effort to address the serious challenges posed by climate change and to promote stability and resilience by helping developing countries reduce their vulnerability to the effects of climate change. If we stand alone on the sidelines as these changes and international economics take shape, we will ultimately be the loser. I urge my colleagues to join me in calling on the administration to advance continuing U.S. climate diplomacy and reconsider the decision to withdraw. It is essential to U.S. national security interests, as defined by our own Department of Defense, and growing U.S. economic opportunity. Congressional Review Act Mr. President, I want to take one moment to speak to a different topic, which is to support the Tester-Wyden Congressional Review Act. This is an administration cloaked in secrecy and deception. It is an administration that doesn't want the American people to know what it is doing. So it is no surprise that in July, the Treasury Department issued their dark money rule. They don't want the American people to know that behind every bill, amendment, and Executive order is a big- money special interest. They want to make it easier for big corporations, billionaires, and even illegal foreign money to influence our elections. These special interests know that so long as the money keeps flowing, there will be someone in Congress to do their bidding. At a time when Americans want transparency from their government, this rule would allow special interests to hide their donors from the IRS. It has been 8 years since the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision--a decision that gave corporations the right to spend unlimited, unchecked, and, more often than not, undisclosed money on our elections. For 8 long years, more and more money has flowed from corporate coffers into campaign ads and political expenditures, and Republicans have defended the dark money poisoning our politics every step of the way. Let me demonstrate the sheer magnitude of the dark money that has been pumped into our recent elections. In 2016, outside groups spent more than $1.4 billion, much of it funneled through trade associations and nonprofits. In 2018, outside groups spent more than $1.3 billion. These funds were not spent by the candidates' campaign committees but by groups that did not have to reveal their donors and disclose them to the public. Spending by independent, outside groups reached an alltime high of $49 million in this year's congressional elections in my home State of New Jersey. State and county parties spent about $8.1 million. In other words, outside groups this year outspent formal parties by over 600 percent. All of this secret cash and dark money undermines the ability of the American people to hold their government accountable. Yet, for the President and some of my Republican colleagues, that is not enough. Ask yourself: Under these rules, what is to prevent anonymous foreign corporate donors that have unlimited amounts of cash to influence the American political system and help elect candidates who benefit them and then exert influence over those candidates once elected? It is no wonder this administration would want to make it harder for the American people to know who is behind donations to tax-exempt organizations. It is the wrong direction and is a dangerous one. As we now know, the President benefited from this dark money, particularly money that came from the NRA. What is baffling, however, is that the administration would make it easier for hidden money to flow through these organizations when we know that the Russian Government and its agents have used them as a conduit to try to influence our political system. The recent indictment and guilty plea of Maria Butina shows this is not fantasy but reality. The Butina case came about because she was discovered to be an unregistered foreign agent. Yet she may just be the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Russians who are trying to pass money into our electoral system. Under this administration's rule, uncovering those efforts will be made harder, not easier. That is why, tomorrow, I will be urging the FBI and the FEC to investigate whether other covert Russian sources may be behind political contributions the NRA made during the 2018 electoral cycle to any House or Senate candidate. We need to know who is contributing millions of dollars to influence the political system right now. In our democracy, the size of your wallet should not determine the power of your voice. I urge my colleagues to listen to the American people, who have been loud and clear that they want disclosure, that they want to reduce special interest influence in our politics, and that they want this government to work for them. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to Lyudmila Alexeyeva, a true giant for human rights in Russia and around the world. Ms. Alexeyeva passed away over the weekend in Moscow and left behind children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren, but that was just her immediate family. Lyudmila's leadership and fearlessness inspired a generation of human rights and democracy activists in Russia; she was the grandmother of human rights in the country, and her stalwart leadership in the face of repression will truly be missed. Today is International Human Rights Day, a fitting moment to pay tribute this incredible leader. In thinking about Lyudmila's legacy, three words come to mind: vision, tenacity, and courage. Starting from her days drafting a Samizdat journal called the Chronicle of Current Events that scrutinized the Khrushchev regime, Lyudmila had the vision of a Soviet Union in which all of its citizens played a role in ensuring accountable governance and democratic principles. She saw the opportunity to fulfill this vision in the 1975 Helsinki Accords, especially those tenets which enshrined the critical notion that signatory countries' respect for human rights inside their borders was integral to security in the transatlantic region. The Brezhnev government at the time had no intention of honoring those elements of Helsinki, but Lyudmila worked together with her compatriots to set up the Moscow Helsinki Group to monitor implementation of the Accords. The Moscow Helsinki Group inspired the proliferation of sister organizations in other countries whose governments had committed to Helsinki principles, including here in Congress with the Commission for Security and Cooperation in Europe. This platform inside of the Soviet Union and across the transatlantic space was critically important to build those bonds of international solidarity among so many likeminded democrats and human rights defenders. She was indeed a true visionary for open, democratic societies, and the bonds she built with and among activists who shared that vision stand strong to this day. Second, tenacity--Lyudmila faced so many obstacles during the Soviet period and the Putin era. After starting Moscow Helsinki, the pressure from the Soviet regime grew so great that she had to seek exile in the United States for 16 years. During that time, she became an American citizen, a proud moment for us here in this country. While in exile, she remained committed to her vision. She advocated for international support for the plight of dissidents and human rights activists suffering repression in the Soviet Bloc. In the tradition of Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Lyudmila wrote extensively on her country, publishing two important works: ``The Thaw Generation. Coming of Age in the Post-Stalin Era'' and ``Soviet Dissent.'' She also worked for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty during this period. Once she was able to return to Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union, Lyudmila dove right back into her work, scrutinizing the human rights record of Boris Yeltsin and resisting the sharp turn away from democracy under Vladimir Putin. As the space for civil society voices contracted inside Russia, Lyudmila was a clear and dogged advocate for freedom, a voice for the universal declaration of human rights and a voice for a better Russia. Despite this closing space, she expended enormous energy on mentoring and organizing a new generation of Russian human rights defenders to carry the torch. During this period, she would travel to Washington and was a true force of nature. She always had a few young activists in tow to make sure they were connected with key policymakers in DC. By doing so, she made clear to us in Washington that not all was lost inside Russia, that a tenacious new generation of activists was willing to take this baton of freedom and run the next leg of the race, and that they deserved our respect, attention, and support. Finally, courage--Lyudmila did not have to do this work. This calling subjected her and her family to pressure and repression by different regimes over the years. It subjected her to 16 years in exile from her homeland. After so much hard work during the Soviet era, she could have settled into retirement, leaving the toils of civil society development and human rights defense to a new generation, but as repression grew under Putin, Lyudmila would continue the work undaunted. Well into her 70s and 80s, she would continue to organize. She would continue to travel to foreign capitals, only to face increased scrutiny at home. She would attend rallies in Moscow, sometimes in the dead of winter, under great physical threat. She would be arrested. She faced these challenges with remarkable composure and grace. Those images of Lyudmila during a Moscow street protest one New Years' Eve, dressed as a Russian holiday character, the Snow Maiden, in a powder blue coat as she stood up to thuggish Russian Government security forces, was a sight to behold. Her undaunted courage during this later period of her life was a true inspiration to so many of us around the world. It is tragic that Lyudmila did not live to see her vision for Russia realized. It is tragic that the Russian people have been robbed of the opportunity to live in a democratic country. It is tragic that the Putin regime continues to impose corruption and repression on a people who deserve so much better. Lyudmila understood what that ``better'' looks like and had a vision for her country: a governing system with true checks and balances; a country with a responsive government, held accountable to the people; a country where a strong civil society understood that it had a very important role and stake in the country's well-being. In her own way, Lyudmila symbolized that check and balance. She symbolized what a vibrant civil society in Russia could be if only taken to scale. She symbolized a place where Russia lived up to international human rights commitments, not as an answer to a foreign power, but because she saw fulfillment of these commitments as good for the citizenry and the country. Our world is better because Lyudmila was here. Our world is better due to her vision, courage, and tenacity. We all have an obligation to carry on her work, not only in support for human rights in Russia, but in all those dark corners of the world where people are repressed by their governments. In the coming days, tributes like this will be heard around the world, extolling Lyudmila's many efforts and accomplishments in defense of liberty and human rights. Lyudmila was a shining example to us all. Let us take this charge and be the embodiment of her life's work. Rest in peace, Lyudmila.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Would the Senator from Tennessee, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, yield for a question? As the sponsor of this legislation, would you explain how our bill relates to international exchange programs run by the Department of State that collect program fees to fund program operations?

Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the Senator from Tennessee. I appreciate your explanation, which also reflects my understanding, about the difference between international exchange program fees and placement and recruitment fees covered by the bill. Let me conclude by saying that I agree with you about the importance of our International Exchange Programs administered by the Department of State, and I know that Congress has long supported these programs.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the nomination of Thomas Farr to the Eastern District of North Carolina. Those who sit on the Federal bench are bound to uphold the Constitution for all Americans, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, or political leaning, but Mr. Farr cannot be trusted to defend equal justice under the law. Working to disenfranchise voters with a particular hostility toward African-American voters has been his lifelong passion. Consider his work for Jesse Helms' 1990 Senate campaign. We all know Helms' record on race. When the Justice Department brought a lawsuit against the Helms campaign for sending over 100,000 postcards to mostly African-American voters, falsely warning them that they were ineligible to vote and could be prosecuted for casting a ballot, it was Mr. Farr who defended the scheme. Yet, despite having served as the Helms' campaign attorney, Farr denied having any involvement with the postcards in his Senate questionnaire. Mr. Farr claimed he did not ``participate in any meetings in which the postcards were discussed before they were sent,'' but according to the former head of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, Gerald Hebert, ``the answers in [Farr's] questionnaire are contrary to the facts.'' Mr. Hebert took contemporaneous notes while investigating the Helms campaign--notes that place Mr. Farr at a meeting on the postcard scheme just 3 weeks before they were sent. Years later, Farr led a 3-year legal battle to defend North Carolina law that disgracefully shortened early voting, instituted onerous government ID requirements, and eliminated same-day voter registration and out-of-precinct voting, all of which are known to disproportionately suppress minority, elderly, and disabled voters. Federal courts ruled the law unconstitutional for targeting African- American voters ``with almost surgical precision''--purposeful, surgical precision--calling it the most restrictive law since the era of Jim Crow. I know Republicans want to confirm as many judges as possible, but why this judge when there are so many other qualified jurists to choose from? I think it is because they know the GOP agenda of enriching big corporations at the expense of everyday working families is incredibly unpopular with the American people. Consider that while the Republicans held onto the Senate this year, they lost by 16 million votes nationwide. Democracy is supposed to be a battle of ideas, but when it comes to healthcare or student loan debt or climate change, they don't have any. When you can't win a fair fight, what do you do? You tilt the playing field in your favor. Republicans want to stack the court with judges who will do their bidding--grossly out of step with the American people on everything from voting rights and redistricting to healthcare and climate change, to the constitutionality of Whitaker's appointment to lead the Justice Department. That is what Leader McConnell meant about nominations being Republicans' best chance of having a long-term impact on the Nation's future. It is their best chance at denying minorities from voting and forcing their bad ideas on the American people. The Republicans are so intent on confirming judges with shameful records on voter suppression that they have shredded the blue-slip process here in the Senate, which allows the Senators to green-light or to prevent hearings on nominees from their home States. It is a process--Senator Hatch once called the blue-slip process the last remaining check on the President's judicial appointment power. Ironically, back in 2013, when President Obama nominated an African- American assistant U.S. attorney named Jennifer May-Parker to this very seat, the Democrats respected Senator Burr's decision not to return a blue slip, and then-Chairman Pat Leahy chose not to hold a Judiciary Committee hearing. Then, in 2016, President Obama nominated Patricia Timmons-Goodson, the first African-American woman on the North Carolina Supreme Court, to this same seat. If confirmed, either of these trailblazing women would have become the first African American to serve in the Eastern District of North Carolina--a district that is 27- percent African American. Yet neither Senator Burr nor Senator Tillis returned a blue slip for Ms. Timmons-Goodson; thus, Chairman Grassley did not act on her nomination. Yet, today, President Trump's nominees are being confirmed despite objections from home State Senators. Paul Matey, a nominee from New Jersey, will likely become another example. Neither I nor Senator Booker were meaningfully consulted by the White House regarding New Jersey's open seat on the Third Circuit. For several reasons, we haven't returned blue slips for Paul Matey; yet they moved ahead with the hearing for him. So it has been eviscerated--totally, totally. It has gone little by little. First, if one of the two Senators turned in a blue slip, that was enough. Now it doesn't matter that neither Senator turns in a blue slip; they go ahead with the hearing and probably with a vote. So the precious check and balance that Senator Hatch talked about as the last vestige of a check and balance on judicial nominations has largely been lost. The Republicans claim to be the party of conservatism. Yet I see nothing conservative in their willingness to sweep aside century-old procedures for policy gain. They put their party before their country and show no fidelity to the institutions that have truly made this country great. Something is wrong with any political party that makes the suppression of voters its chief electoral strategy. Mr. Farr is just one more card in their deliberate effort to stack the deck against our democracy, to disenfranchise voters and force their unpopular, bad ideas on our country. For the sake of our democracy, I urge my colleagues, in this case particularly, to do the decent thing, to do the right thing--to stand up for the voting rights of all Americans and reject this nominee. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, today I wish to raise the alarm about the escalating violence in the Anglophone regions of Cameroon and to urge the administration to develop and execute a meaningful strategy to help prevent additional bloodshed. For several years, Cameroon, a historically stable country bridging west and central Africa, has faced a significant security threat in its far north. Boko Haram combatants, originating from Nigeria, have crossed the border into Cameroon and carried out hundreds of attacks on local residents. Reports indicate Boko Haram killed more than 900 people in 2017 in Nigeria and the Lake Chad Basin subregion, which includes northern Cameroon. Boko Haram's Islamic State-aligned splinter faction, ISIS-West Africa, also poses a threat to the country. With U.S. help, Cameroon has been responding to the challenge, although some of these efforts have prompted concerns about its military's respect for human rights. Now, Cameroon faces another challenge, one that some observers fear has already burgeoned into a civil war. A budding separatist insurgency emerged in Cameroon's Anglophone regions in 2017. Insurgent attacks and a brutal military crackdown have caused significant internal displacement and given rise to credible allegations of serious human rights abuses by both separatists and government security forces. The separatist movement grew out of longstanding grievances among Anglophones over their perceived political and economic marginalization. These tensions worsened in 2016 due to the central government's appointments of French-speakers to local schools and courts in Cameroon's Anglophone majority western provinces in 2016. The government violently suppressed a largely peaceful protest movement that arose in response, quashing demonstrations by force, arresting prominent civil society activists on what appear to be trumped up terrorism charges, cutting internet access to the region, and banning some civil society organizations. On October 1, 2017, secessionists symbolically declared the independence of ``Ambazonia.'' According to Amnesty International, security forces responded by killing at least 20 protestors and arresting over 500. Cameroonian soldiers have reportedly killed civilians, used excessive force against peaceful demonstrators, tortured and mistreated suspected separatists and detainees, and burned hundreds of homes in several villages as violence has escalated. Some extremist Anglophone separatists, meanwhile, have burned down schools; kidnapped traditional leaders, police, and government administrators; and killed civilians. More than 220 civilians have lost their lives, according to the International Crisis Group, including an American missionary killed in October when he was caught in crossfire between armed groups. As of May, at least 160,000 people were internally displaced, 80 percent of whom are reportedly hiding in forests. At least 25,000 Cameroonians have sought refuge in Nigeria since late 2017, according to UN agencies, although some observers on the ground assess the number of refugees and internally displaced to be higher. The separatist insurgency and the heavy handed government response has put thousands of innocent lives at risk, destabilizing an already fragile region. There is no military solution to this problem. Immediate, strategic action by the government, the diaspora, separatist leaders, as well as the U.S, and other international partners could bring peace, but the window of opportunity to prevent widespread civil conflict is quickly closing. I therefore call on each of the aforementioned actors to take steps right away to avert the worst case scenario. The Trump administration must develop a comprehensive strategy to prevent widespread conflict and violence. This strategy must go beyond military support. The State and Defense Departments have administered training and equipment in support of the Cameroonian military's counterterrorism efforts, as well as its peacekeeping deployment to the Central African Republic. However, disturbing reports of security force abuses in the far north and Anglophone regions merit serious attention. I trust and expect that the administration is conducting Leahy vetting on all of the individual and units with whom it is working. But we must do more. Given that security force abuses have been shown to be a major driver of extremist recruitment in Africa, the State Department should conduct a thorough policy review of our decision to partner with Cameroon on counterterrorism and in security assistance more broadly. A critical element of the administration's approach must be support for building democratic practices, assistance aimed at opening political space, and activities to combat corruption in Cameroon. While this administration may fail to understand that democratic values, human rights, and good governance promote long-term sustainable peace, Members of this body understand that these values are and must remain a core component of U.S. foreign policy. I am pleased that the administration has finally seen fit to set aside money in Fiscal Year 2018 funds for such activities, after years of disappointing neglect for the sector. But $1 million is far too modest an amount to have an appreciable impact. Our actions must match our rhetoric. Our Ambassador in Cameroon has been outspoken, forthright, and, as perhaps a predictable result, has been unfairly criticized by the government. State Department officials at the highest levels here in Washington must support him in speaking truth to power both publicly and in private messaging, and follow that messaging with actions that will have a tangible impact. The government of Cameroon must take urgent steps as well. President Paul Biya's administration has applied a military solution to a political problem. It must now must take critical steps to forestall a worse-case scenario by committing to a political resolution. The highest levels of government--including President Biya--must rethink the wisdom of sending the Cameroonian military to make war upon its own citizens. It should publicly and unequivocally instruct security forces to stop targeting civilians, cease abuses and excesses, and hold those responsible for human rights abuses accountable--including through military prosecutions where appropriate--in a clear, transparent manner. The government should facilitate access to the Anglophone regions by humanitarian organizations and independent human rights investigators. I urge the government to consider neutral third party mediation to engage organizations that represent Anglophones and facilitate a dialogue without preconditions to end the violence. In January 2018, Nigerian authorities forcibly returned 47 Anglophone activists, including reported asylum seekers, to Cameroon, where they were detained as ``terrorists.'' To show its good faith support for a peaceful resolution, the government should release peaceful, moderate voices from the Anglophone region who represent those with legitimate political grievances. And the Biya administration must be willing to contemplate greater political decentralization to address legitimate grievances in peripheral regions--possibly including a return to federalism. The government needs to open political space more broadly. In the wake of October's elections, President Biya, who has been in office since 1982, will serve a seventh term in office. October's elections are the latest in a string of elections marred by controversy, harassment of opposition, and other irregularities. A press conference broadcast on state-run television featuring people identified as international election observers from Transparency International--who in fact were in no way affiliated with that organizations endorsing the conduct of elections, was a brazen attempt to provide a veneer of legitimacy to a process that was deeply flawed due to restricted political space. It is time for President Biya to cement his legacy by laying the groundwork for meaningful political competition in Cameroon. As Benin's then-President Mathieu Kerekou said in 2009 when he decided not to change the constitution and run for a third term, ``if you do not leave power, power will leave you.'' Future elections must take place on a level playing field. In this year's elections the field was heavily tilted in favor of the ruling party. Addressing meaningful barriers to political participation may go a long way towards addressing the root causes of discontent in the Anglophone regions. I call upon separatist leaders and their supporters to commit to seeking a peaceful, negotiated solution to the Anglophone crisis. The separatists too must support accountability for all actors engaged in hostilities who may have committed human rights abuses. Attacks on civilians are inexcusable. All armed and political actors must unequivocally condemn human rights abuses, Finally, the diaspora has a critical role to play. I urge members of the diaspora to clearly and unambiguously condemn violence in the Anglophone regions of Cameroon. The inflammatory rhetoric on social media by some Cameroonians at home and abroad is unhelpful. All diaspora should scrupulously investigate the charities and organizations to which they are contributing funding, lest they unwittingly send money to organizations that have engaged in violence against the very people they are trying to help. Mr. President, the U.S. and Cameroon have a long history of cordial relations. Peace Corps has been in Cameroon since 1962. State Department and USAID-administered bilateral funding amounted to $83 million in FY2017. And for the past decade we have partnered with Cameroon to counter terrorism and maritime piracy, with U.S. security assistance rising substantially since 2014 in response to the Boko Haram crisis. Since 2015, Cameroon has hosted hundreds of U.S. military personnel who conduct regional intelligence, reconnaissance, and surveillance operations and otherwise support counterterrorism efforts. As conditions on the ground deteriorate, the U.S. is in a position where immediate concentrated action to support a resolution of the problem might disrupt the cycle of violence and help all parties work toward a negotiated solution. Our diplomatic intervention, if well thought out, could make a difference. I urge the administration to take swift, meaningful action. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I am happy to yield to the chairman. I understand Senator Inhofe wants to speak to this issue.

Mr. MENENDEZ. No, he doesn't want to speak to this issue. I am happy to yield to the chairman, or I am ready to go--whichever way you want.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to speak to S.J. Res. 54, legislation brought forward by Senators Lee, Sanders, and Murphy more than 8 months ago. The past 2 years have reminded us time and again of the urgent responsibility of Congress to perform real checks and balances and to steadfastly defend our American values both at home and abroad. I thank them for their continued efforts throughout these intervening months to shed light on the devastating humanitarian crisis in Yemen and to make sure this body fulfills its oversight duties. Over the last 3\1/2\ years, the tragic humanitarian crisis in Yemen has continued to deteriorate. More than 10,000 people are dead and 14 million people are on the brink of starvation. We have seen the heartbreaking photos of malnourished starving children on the brink of death. We have learned from U.N. reports of the cholera outbreaks that jeopardize more than 10,000 people every week. We have come to the conclusion that the status quo cannot stand. Back in March, I joined a majority of my colleagues in voting to table this resolution with the understanding that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee would hold hearings to fully weigh our options in Yemen and the hope that the administration would strategically leverage our limited military support for the Saudi coalition to lessen civilian casualties, to influence a potential political settlement, or at the very least prevent the situation from getting worse. At the time, I also made clear to this body, to the President, and to the Saudi Government that our relationship and our limited military support was not and is not a blank check. I had hoped the administration would provide convincing evidence that our military support was, in fact, reducing civilian casualties--a goal we heard repeatedly emphasized by U.S. officials. I had hoped the administration would use this foreign policy tool to advocate for a meaningful political process. Unfortunately, this administration has failed to adequately address either problem. The Saudi coalition has not provided any more confidence in its operations. Despite being reassured that our engaging with the Saudis was decreasing civilian casualties, the facts on the ground speak far more powerfully against those assertions. On a broader scale, we are seriously evaluating our bilateral relationship with Saudi Arabia. The bombing of a schoolbus full of children and other civilian targets is not something I want America's fingerprints on. Make no mistake--the United States and Saudi Arabia do share common security interests. Saudi Arabia faces real and imminent threats from Yemeni-originated attacks inside its territory--from ballistic and SCUD missile attacks aimed at major Saudi population centers, to cross- border attacks by Iranian-backed Houthis. Meanwhile, Iran continues its destabilizing behavior across the Middle East, and the terrorists with al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula take advantage of the security breakdown. I continue to believe the United States must live up to our commitments and support our partners in the face of real and imminent threats, but over the past year, I have failed to see how continued U.S. military support for the Saudi-led coalitions operations in Yemen have, in fact, promoted our interests or, indeed, the long-term interests of the Saudi population. As I said in March, this particular resolution raises the question of how we leverage all of the foreign policy tools at our disposal to advance peace and prevent the tragic loss of more human life. Today, it is clear to me that the status quo is not advancing these critical interests. The limited military support we are providing the Saudi coalition is not our best tool, and today I offer my support for discharging something I normally oppose--discharging a resolution from the committee. I call on the administration again to develop a cogent strategy, in concert with the international community, to compel all the parties to the negotiating table and to ensure that the millions of Yemenis at risk of starvation receive the humanitarian support that is ready to be delivered. I have also worked with Senators Young, Reed, Graham, Shaheen, and Collins, as well as with my colleague Senator Murphy, to introduce legislation with reference to the Saudi Arabia Accountability and Yemen Act of 2018. I had hoped the committee would have considered this legislation and that we would have had a vote on it in this Congress. In the aftermath of the Saudi Government's murder of U.S. resident and journalist Jamal Khashoggi and of the whitewashing the Trump administration has performed to avoid real consequences for those who ordered his death, this legislation is needed now more than ever. Without a real diplomatic and political strategy, there is no end to this conflict. There is no end to the violence. There is no end to the human suffering. It is time we bring this resolution to the floor for the full consideration of the Senate. Over the last several months, I have seen nothing to convince me that our limited military support for the Saudi coalition's efforts in Yemen continues to serve our national security interests or to reflect America's enduring values and commitment to freedom and human rights. I continue to believe that an absence of American leadership undermines our interests, our security, and the security of our allies. An American presence does not necessarily equal American leadership. America's leadership on the global stage must always be driven by a sense of purpose and moral clarity. I feel that when we lose that sense of moral clarity, that sense of purpose, then we lose who we are as a nation, and we lose sight of the very values that make America a leader of nations. That is, in fact, what we have lost sight of here. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I yield back all time.

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

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today, as I have many times before, to stand up for a free and independent Ukraine. I come to the floor to unambiguously call out and condemn the Russian Government's escalation of aggression and the increasingly dangerous situation in Ukraine. Over the weekend, Russian forces sharply escalated their campaign in Ukraine by attacking and seizing 3 Ukrainian vessels with 23 crew members and temporarily shutting down commercial shipping through the Kerch Strait. Ukrainian sailors were injured and required medical attention. This was an outrageous violation of Ukraine's sovereignty, so I want to say this clearly and unequivocally: The Kremlin must immediately return the vessels and sailors to Ukraine. The Kremlin must not obstruct the free passage of shipping through the Kerch Strait moving forward. We here in the United States must take the Kremlin's actions seriously in word and in deed, for the Russian Government's actions on Sunday marked a sharp escalation in Putin's ongoing assault on the international rules-based order, this time on the freedom of navigation in the high seas. Indeed, this was an act of war, and Sunday's attack comes in the context of ongoing Russian aggression in eastern Ukraine for the past 4 years. For the past 4 years, Ukrainian forces have endured an unrelenting assault, rendering the Donbas economically shattered and ungovernable. For the past 4 years, 1.5 million displaced people have lived lives of uncertainty, not sure when and if they will ever be able to return home. For the past 4 years, Ukraine has struggled to rebuild its economy and reform its institutions while fighting a hot war and suffering regular casualties. For the past 4 years, Ukraine has been on the frontlines of a struggle against the Kremlin's vision of a world that is not guided by Democratic values, not buttressed by fundamental freedoms, not governed by a rules-based international order but, instead, ruled by Mr. Putin and a corrupt cabal of oligarch insiders. Despite years of aggression, Putin's latest escalation marks an even more insidious turn. Apparently, the Kremlin no longer seeks to hide behind lies of little green men or Russian-backed separatists. The Russian Government, with no pretense or obfuscation, fully admitted to directly firing on Ukrainian forces and seizing their ships. Beyond the military component, this attack tells us that Putin is ramping up an economic war on Ukraine. Since the spring, Russian vessels have blocked Ukrainian commercial ships from sailing through the Kerch Strait, costing Ukraine millions in lost revenue from exports and blocking imports critical to the Ukrainian economy. This weekend, Moscow opened up a new front in the war, one that could ultimately do the most damage to Ukraine's viability as a state. Russia's actions show that its leaders are emboldened, unchastened, and on the march. Clearly our response to Russian efforts to undermine our security, our fundamental democratic values, our institutions, and the rules-based international order has thus far been inadequate. Certainly the State and Defense Departments have taken some steps to counter Russian aggression. Ambassador Kurt Volker, who has led efforts to fully implement the Minsk agreements, has shown clear-eyed leadership in calling out the Kremlin and holding Putin to account. Our Assistant Secretary of State for Europe, Wess Mitchell, has done much of the same. Secretary Jim Mattis has consistently supported a strong military presence in Europe to counter Russian aggression. Nikki Haley, our U.S. Ambassador, issued the first statement from the administration following Sunday's attack and was appropriately firm. Come to think of it, I can't think of any player within the Trump administration who is soft on Russia--except one, of course: the President himself. Just yesterday, when asked by reporters about Russia's escalation in Ukraine, President Trump said: ``We don't like what is happening either way.'' In other words, he once again fell back on the same old both sides excuse he keeps in his back pocket whenever asked about Russia's bad behavior. This is not the kind of clear and unequivocal denouncement the people of Ukraine or the world needs to hear from an American President at a moment in which the international democratic order is under attack, but unfortunately it is what we have come to expect from President Trump, who repeatedly subverts his own administration's positions and efforts on Russia. The work of Mattis, Volker, Mitchell, Haley, and countless others has been repeatedly undermined by a President who has abandoned America's interests and betrayed our core principles time and time again, from the fiasco in Helsinki to an exchange in Paris just weeks ago where he greeted Putin with a giant smile on his face. The President has had many opportunities to restore confidence to the American people and reclaim America's global leadership on Russia policy. While he has repeatedly failed to do so, yet another opportunity lies before him this week at the G20 summit in Buenos Aires, where he is scheduled to meet with Putin. If ever there were a time for this President to defend our country, our principles, and those of our allies, this would be it. If ever there were an opportunity for American leadership, this would be it. If there were ever a time for President Trump to find his spine on Russia, this would be it. In the meantime, President Trump must use this week's opportunity in Buenos Aires to send a clear message to Putin that we will not tolerate its increasingly aggressive behavior in Ukraine. Here is what I believe the President must do: First, the United States needs to increase assistance to our friends in Ukraine in the face of continued aggression in Donbass and now in the Kerch Strait. The Trump administration must immediately increase security assistance to Ukraine, including the provision of lethal maritime equipment and weapons. In addition, we must bolster intelligence-sharing with Kiev and assist Ukraine's efforts to improve its maritime domain awareness. Second, NATO has a critical role and should consider increasing exercises and its presence in the Black Sea. The United States has maintained an active presence in the South China Sea to protect shipping lanes. NATO should move quickly to establish such a presence in the Black Sea. Third, the United States should increase sanctions pressure on Russia immediately. This is long overdue. The President is required to impose sanctions on Russia under the CAATSA law. Several mandatory provisions of the law remain ignored. I would offer that now would be a good time to follow the law. But imposing sanctions alone does not constitute a real strategy. Fourth, Sunday's events present an important opportunity for American engagement with like-minded allies across Europe. Now is the time for serious diplomacy and coalition-building in the face of this threat. Our European friends spoke out in full opposition to Russia's attack on Sunday. Now let's see if we can work together to turn words into action and deter such Kremlin attacks in the future. Finally, as the situation in Ukraine grows more perilous, we in the Senate must also live up to our national security responsibilities. Following the President's failures in Helsinki, Senator Graham and I, along with others, introduced the Defending American Security from Kremlin Aggression Act, known as DASKAA. This legislation is more than another sanctions bill; it charts a comprehensive way forward for how the United States can better defend its interests and those of our close allies against Putin's unrelenting assault on our values, security, economic interests, and the rules-based international order. After months of Senate hearings on the legislation, we have nothing to show for it, as both the Senate Foreign Relations and Banking Committees have refused to mark up new legislation to respond to the Kremlin threat. What are we waiting for? What are we waiting for? The alarm bells are ringing. Yet the Senate Republican leadership is sound asleep. They are asleep as Trump concedes more ground to the Kremlin in Ukraine and cyber space; asleep while Russian ships ram Ukrainian vessels in international waters and injure brave Ukrainian sailors; asleep while Vladimir Putin pounds away at our points of vulnerability. The American people deserve a vote on DASKAA before we leave for the holidays. Anything less would be a mark of shameful abdication of our responsibility to protect and defend our national interests. I hope this Chamber will wake up to this growing threat. Perhaps Sunday's attack will be a ringing alarm clock that compels this body and the international community to act. Finally, the American people cannot afford a weak performance by President Trump at the G20 summit, like we saw in Helsinki--cannot afford such a performance. President Trump, this is your opportunity to finally show American leadership in defense of our principles and our close allies across Europe. The time is now. It is critical. We are waiting to see that in fact the President can rise to the moment.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes with the chairman as well, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, split between us.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, if I may, through the Chair, say to the Senator, No. 1, there was nobody on the floor when the Senator made a motion to ultimately reserve all the time in opposition to the end. Had I been on the floor, had I known such a motion was going to be made, I would have objected to that. There was a certain lack of courtesy in that regard. I say to the Senator, an opposition now will be remembered as an opposition in the future when the Senator is seeking an opportunity. All we are asking for is 5 minutes. If the Senator needs more time to make a final comment----

Mr. MENENDEZ. I do.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I rise in opposition to the resolution. As we evaluate the resolution, we have to consider the characteristics of a specific military system and the context in which it will be used, as well as how we utilize arms sales as a foreign policy tool. I have much in common with Senator Paul on the question of Yemen. I have moved in his direction. The Saudis had their opportunity. I am promoting legislation, with several of our colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, to deal with exactly that. If I am the one holding up arms sales to Saudi Arabia, as we speak, as the ranking member on the Foreign Relations Committee, that is why it has not come to the floor because I am not letting it go through unless the administration breaks through a hold at the end of the day, which would violate all of the existing processes we have. This vote is not Yemen. It is not Saudi Arabia. It is not the United Arab Emirates. It is Bahrain. Bahrain is a critical ally to us. It hosts the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet, providing a vital naval base from which the United States protects its national security interests in the gulf and throughout the region, and its willingness to host our naval forces also places Bahrain at greater risk from attack from Iran and terrorist groups seeking to do harm to the United States. It is also a security partner as it comes to piracy, al-Qaida, ISIS, and Iran. It hosted an Israeli UNESCO delegation in late June. I have great disagreement with the Bahranians as it relates to their human rights record. It is abhorrent. We are going to continue to fight on that issue with them. At the end of the day, halting the sale of weapons intended to defend Bahrain's security is not the solution in this particular case. I will close and yield the balance of time to the chairman. Arms sales to foreign countries provide the United States and this body with important influence and leverage on those countries' views and activities on foreign policy. Sometimes, if used smartly, they can shift a country's actions in a positive direction. As I said, I am currently opposing an important arms sale to Saudi Arabia due to my concern the Saudis are using these weapons in a specific context inappropriately. Civilian casualties are on the rise, and the weapons sale is not part of a comprehensive strategy to end the Civil War in Yemen. I urge us, on this particular occasion, to oppose this particular resolution, and I probably will stand with the Senator when the moment comes as it relates to denying the Saudis arms sales, particularly in the midst of what they are doing in Yemen. With that, I yield to the distinguished Senator of Foreign Relations.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, today I want to once again reaffirm that the U.S. Congress stands firmly behind a strong U.S.-Israel relationship. As threats to Israel continue to increase, as her enemies continue to grow ever closer, the United States will stand firm in our commitments. Despite partisanship interfering with so many pressing policy issues today, an overwhelming majority of members of all political parties continue to reaffirm congressional support for this relationship. Congress continues to fully fund the unprecedented $38 billion of memorandum of understanding for military aid and will continue to do so on a bipartisan basis. Congress continues to authorize and fund missile codevelopment programs, like Iron Dome, David's Sling, and Arrow 3, and will continue to do so on a bipartisan basis. Congress passed the Taylor Force Act, making clear that the United States will not provide assistance that directly benefits the Palestinian Authority until it stops incentivizing violence by paying salaries to prisoners convicted of terrorism against Israeli or American citizens. Should there be any question about where the entirety of the U.S. Senate--Democrats and Republicans--stand, all 100 Senators signed a letter calling for Israel's inclusion in the Global Entry Program. Our relationship with Israel is rooted in this bipartisanship. We are stronger for it, and so is Israel. It is disappointing to see some try to drive a political wedge in this historical support. Those who would try to use Israel or support for the U.S.-Israel relationship as a political football are not helping this relationship, nor are they helping promote either American or Israeli security. Along with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I will continue to be a vocal advocate for a robust U.S.-Israel relationship rooted in strong bipartisan support.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court and to ask my colleagues--Republicans and Democrats alike--to recognize exactly what is at stake here. The philosopher Nietzsche once said that if you stare long enough into the abyss, the abyss will stare back into you. My friends, we here in the U.S. Senate are staring into the abyss. What is staring back at us is a future in which the American people's trust in the Supreme Court is being irreparably damaged. To vote yes on Brett Kavanaugh is to send a message to every woman in America that your voice doesn't matter. If you risk everything--your security, your stability, your reputation--to come forward and speak truth to power about a sexual assault, they will call you credible. They will call you courageous. Yet they will not believe you. It is a message that says, if you have survived a sexual assault, don't bother telling anyone because you must be mistaken. This traumatic and unforgettable moment in your life never happened. It must have been someone else. My friends, to confirm Judge Brett Kavanaugh with what we now know would be to forever tarnish the credibility and reputation of the highest Court in our land. Here is what we know. We know Judge Kavanaugh faces multiple credible allegations of sexual assault. Yet the investigation that was conducted looks nothing like the FBI investigation that was promised--not by President Trump, not by the Senators who called for it, or by anyone else. We know neither Dr. Ford nor Judge Kavanaugh was interviewed by law enforcement--the very essence of what the subject of the investigation is. Neither of them was interviewed. We know dozens of people with corroborating evidence were flatout ignored by investigators. I have heard some of my colleagues call this investigation thorough. How do you call an investigation thorough when neither the accused nor the accuser was interviewed by the FBI? How do you call an investigation thorough when 40 corroborating witnesses who volunteered information to the FBI in recent days were reportedly ignored? You can't get corroboration if you don't talk to corroborating witnesses. The answer is simple: It is not thorough, and it is not trustworthy. This entire process, including the use of Executive privilege to deny the Senate access to hundreds of thousands of documents of Judge Kavanaugh's, has been shrouded in secrecy. And why the secrecy? Because President Trump and his team are desperate to get Judge Kavanaugh confirmed by any means necessary. Let's remember what is going on. The President of the United States is the subject of a Federal investigation into whether his campaign accepted assistance from a hostile foreign power during the 2016 election. Already, the President's campaign chairman, Foreign Policy Advisor, and former National Security Advisor have pled guilty to Federal crimes. He could have chosen any of the judges included on the rightwing list assembled by the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society. Instead, he picked the one judge with unprecedented views of Presidential power. There is no other explanation for President Trump choosing Brett Kavanaugh that I can think of other than he hopes this will be his get-out-of-jail card. The last few weeks have been a flurry of breaking news alerts and breathless gossiping in the halls. I am thankful for Dr. Ford's courage and candor. She spoke her truth and has inspired countless others to break their silence. I believe her. I believe survivors. New Jersey is home to 1.8 million survivors. That is 1.8 million reasons to oppose Brett Kavanaugh. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, less than a quarter of sexual assault victims reported those incidents to police in 2016. After this past week, it is all too easy to see why. Leader McConnell has called the allegations of Dr. Ford ``unsubstantiated smears.'' What an insulting statement. When will we as a society begin to believe women, to trust women? It can't come soon enough. I was in the midst of my first campaign for Congress when Anita Hill's allegations of sexual assault against Justice Clarence Thomas were investigated but ultimately disregarded by the Senate. I am proud to have been elected to the House in 1992, the so-called Year of the Woman. Across the Capitol, a record four women were elected to the Senate. My colleague Patty Murray decided to run after watching what happened to Anita Hill. She is still here fighting for survivors, and I am proud to have her as my colleague. We look back at the Clarence Thomas hearings as a moment that failed America and failed all survivors of sexual assault. Yet here we are in 2018, and it appears as though we have made little progress. After Dr. Ford's testimony, my Republican colleagues and even conservative pundits praised her credibility. It only took Judge Kavanaugh's outrageous performance--a performance we now know was misleading at best and untruthful at worst--for these same Republicans to cast her aside. The message they have sent to survivors who are brave enough to come forward is clear: We will listen to you, but we will not believe you, and we will not trust you. Despite having the cards stacked against her, I was shaken to the core by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford's words last week. She answered every question with bravery, with candor, and with humility. Meanwhile, Judge Kavanaugh was evasive, belligerent, and, according to many of his acquaintances, repeatedly untruthful. What my Republican colleagues can't seem to grasp is that you can be at the top of your wealthy prep school class and still abuse women. You can be a Yale Law School graduate and still abuse women. Unfortunately, you can even be the President of the United States and still abuse women. Furthermore, Judge Kavanaugh's partisan outburst was downright disturbing for a potential Supreme Court Justice. How many norms did Judge Kavanaugh shatter in that hearing room? It is one thing to be emotional; it is another to call the allegations of Dr. Ford or Deborah Ramirez and others a coordinated leftwing conspiracy and an act of political retribution for the Clintons. He said the questions posed by Democratic Senators during his confirmation hearing were ``an embarrassment'' and called the process a circus--this coming from a man who pressed Ken Starr to ask President Clinton sexually explicit questions. And we all know the circus the Starr investigation turned out to be. But I guess the same standards don't apply to Brett Kavanaugh. If you are Brett Kavanaugh, you can lie under oath about things big and small and never face the consequences. At the end of the day, Judge Kavanaugh's hysterical political rant confirmed what many of us already knew about this man: He is a political operative cloaked in judicial robes. As Kavanaugh himself said, ``What goes around, comes around.'' Do those sound like the words of an impartial, independent judge? Never before in my life have I seen a nominee, let alone a Supreme Court nominee, behave as though he were entitled to this lifetime appointment. He is not. It is the American people who are entitled to a Justice who tells the truth, who conducts himself in a dignified manner, a Justice who doesn't face credible accusations of sexual assault. The Supreme Court deserves better than Brett Kavanaugh, and so do the American people. More than 1,000 legal scholars--and counting--agree, coming out against Kavanaugh's nomination because his partisan and venomous rhetoric has no place on the Supreme Court. This process has further poisoned the confirmation process. It was Senate Republicans who orchestrated the theft of a Supreme Court seat with more than 9 months left in President Obama's term. Apparently, being nominated by President Obama is more disqualifying than being accused by multiple women of sexual assault. It is clear my colleagues will stop at nothing to tip the scales of justice against women, consumers, and patients for generations to come. For women, the stakes couldn't be higher. President Trump promised to only nominate judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade. And, yes, earlier today, a colleague of mine pointed out that the Republican National Committee platform has long included overturning Roe v. Wade. In my view, that is precisely why we cannot trust a longtime GOP political operative like Brett Kavanaugh to uphold a woman's right to choose. There is a difference between saying that precedent deserves respect and saying that it cannot be overturned. They are not the same. I think some of the things I have heard about the aspirations of some of my colleagues about Judge Kavanaugh are unlikely to be realized. This is what is at stake here: the basic principle that women have a right to make their own private medical decisions. My daughter has grown up never knowing what it was to live in a country where women were denied reproductive rights. Now I fear my granddaughter may grow up never knowing what it was like to live in a country where women had reproductive rights. It isn't just women's health that is at stake. The Trump administration is arguing in Federal court as we speak that the ACA's protections for preexisting conditions are unconstitutional, which makes Judge Kavanaugh's record of ruling against consumers and siding with corporate interests all the more troubling. There are 3.8 million New Jerseyans who have preexisting conditions-- some illness during the course of their lives, heart attack, diabetes, Parkinson's, maybe some birth defect that in the past had denied them insurance coverage. We eliminated that under the Affordable Care Act. No more discrimination. There are 3.8 million New Jerseyans who have preexisting conditions. For me, those are another 3.8 million reasons to oppose Kavanaugh's confirmation. So, yes, the stakes have never been higher. The threat to our democracy is real. The decisions coming down from a Supreme Court with Kavanaugh will change the course of America for decades to come. The Republican majority views the Supreme Court as an instrument to force an unpopular, anti-woman, anti-worker, anti-civil rights agenda on the American people. Meanwhile, President Trump views the Court as yet another weapon to flout the rule of law. Well, it is time we take a stand for the integrity of our democratic institutions. It is time we live up to our duty set forth by article II of the Constitution to provide advice and consent on Supreme Court nominations. In bestowing on us this responsibility, the Framers entrusted us with protecting the reputation and credibility of the highest Court in our land. To confirm Judge Kavanaugh in the face of these allegations; in the face of the secrecy of the documents we could not obtain; in the face of the positions he took that are clearly, in the minds of many of us, untruthful before the committee, risks forever tarnishing one of the crown jewels of our democracy. My friends, we are standing on the edge of a cliff. Should we blindly go over that edge, we risk doing irreparable damage to the reputation and credibility of the Supreme Court. I implore my colleagues in the majority to pull us back in the direction of truth and decency. This isn't about right or left; this is about right and wrong. A vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh is a vote against survivors of sexual violence. A vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh is a vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and end safe and legal abortion in this country. A vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh is a vote to overturn protections for preexisting conditions. A vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh is a vote to roll back civil rights and voting rights. It is a vote that will take us back to a time and place none of us, I believe, wants to go to. And it is a vote the American people will not forget--not today, not tomorrow, not this November, not ever. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing on Russia's role in Syria and the broader Middle East that had been scheduled for last week has been postponed; therefore, I rise today to raise awareness on the danger and urgency of the moment, given the impending humanitarian catastrophe in Idlib, Syria, and the refusal of the Trump administration to impose meaningful costs on Russia for protecting Bashar al-Assad and his regime. On Syria, Congress again finds itself in a situation where we often hear more from the press than we do directly from the administration. Last week many of us read with interest in the Washington Post a report that President Trump agreed to a new strategy for Syria that indefinitely extends the U.S. military presence and supports a major diplomatic push to end the conflict. This same article also indicated that the administration views the military campaign against ISIS as nearly complete and that U.S. goals have now shifted to Iran's presence in Syria given the doubts that Russia is willing and capable of ejecting Iran from Syria. Congress and the American people deserve to hear directly from the Trump administration whether in fact this is our new strategy. When this hearing is rescheduled, I expect the administration to explain in detail its proposed diplomatic engagement and the plan for U.S. forces in Syria after ISIS is defeated. I also want to know what specific tools the administration proposes to use to ensure the removal of Iran from Syria; compel the Assad regime to cease and Russia to cease support for the bombing, torture, and gassing of Syrian civilians; and hold Assad's brutal regime to account for its crimes against the Syrian people, as well as consequences for the Kremlin's support of this brutal regime. In my view, Russia is fully culpable for perpetuating the war in Syria and rendering that country persistently unstable, a magnet for violent extremists and a direct threat to Israel. Now more than ever, we must shine a light on Russia's role in perpetuating the conflict in Syria, as well as Russia's role in the region. And while we still await details on the disastrous and embarrassing Helsinki summit between Presidents Trump and Putin, I am deeply concerned that for the Syrian people Helsinki made a bad situation worse. I fear that President Trump did not raise Russia's war crimes in Syria, such as Russian aircraft dropping Russian bombs in densely populated areas of Syria. I doubt that President Trump called Putin out for violating the deescalation agreement in southern Syria, agreed to last year by the United States, Russia, and Jordan. I am skeptical that President Trump pressed Putin to commit to delivering Assad to participate in good faith at the UN-led process for a negotiated settlement along the lines of Security Council Resolution 2254. I doubt that President Trump insisted that Russia break its sinister alliance with Tehran that has enabled the survival of Assad in Syria and threatened the security of Israel. And I see no indication that the administration is using any of the tools Congress has given it-- including mandatory sanctions provisions in the Countering American Adversaries Through Sanctions Act of 2017, CAATSA--to change the status quo in Syria or prevent the looming assault on Idlib province, where Russia is already engaged in a bombing campaign alongside its client Assad. It seems to me that the administration is taking a backseat--or maybe has gotten out of the car entirely--while the Assad-Russia-Iran alliance is left unchallenged to starve, torture, and bomb the Syrian people into submission. While the humanitarian dimensions of this tragedy are reason enough for the administration to take a different approach, there are significant strategic consequences for allowing or enabling an Assad- Russia-Iran partnership to solidify as a salient feature of the landscape of the Middle East. But instead of U.S. leadership shaping the region, we have instead Vladimir Putin--the man who has long ensured Bashar al-Assad's survival--flying around the Middle East completing deals for base access and weapons sales. And rather than utilize the threat of CAATSA sanctions to compel U.S. partners in the Arab world to cease significant purchases from the Russian defense and intelligence sectors, the administration instead sought a national security waiver for this provision of the law. While the United States has backed away from its key leadership role in addressing the region's conflicts, governments in the Middle East rolled out the red carpet for Putin and flocked to Russia during the World Cup to sit by his side and sign agreements for increased cooperation. Putin can only take away one message from this posture by the Trump administration: Russian activities and influence in the Middle East will not be challenged in any meaningful way by the United States. With so many vital U.S. national security interests at stake in the region--including the safety and effectiveness of our troops fighting ISIS--this leadership vacuum risks outcomes that serve only Russia's interests, not our own. While President Trump may believe that Russian hegemony in the Middle East and Russian partnership with Iran is not a cause for concern, I am deeply alarmed that we are on the road to a series of outcomes in Syria that will be as catastrophic in human terms as they will be strategically ruinous for U.S. interests and values for years to come.