Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to voice my support of the extension of the Iran Sanctions Act, which I believe we must treat as just one step in our continued efforts to counter Iran's destabilizing and nefarious actions throughout the world. This bill merely extends the basis of our extensive sanctions network against Iran aimed at crippling the Ayatollah's deadly pursuit of a nuclear weapon for 10 years. The Iran Sanctions Act, which is part of the extensive network of sanctions that I helped author for the United States and our allies to levy against the Iranian regime, serves as the basis of the economic leverage that brought Iran to the negotiating table in the first place. Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have authored and championed the foundation of our network of sanctions that crippled Iran's economy and kept its nuclear pursuits at bay. It has been my consistent position that the United States must address these nefarious activities apart from the nuclear portfolio. We need to send a signal to Iran that the United States, while meeting its obligations under the JCPOA, will continue to respond to other threatening and dangerous activities the Iranian regime has taken. Throughout debate over the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, its proponents made a number of repeated claims. Among these were that it was crippling sanctions that brought Iran to the negotiating table and that in the event of a breach of the agreement, the United States and our implementing partners would have every authority to ``snap back''-- the term that was coined--the sanctions that have been lifted. If the sanctions architecture has expired, then we have no sanctions which we can snap back. These sanctions were in place when the JCPOA was authored and signed, and it follows that they should remain in place. Many of the agreement's proponents argued that putting the JCPOA in place would give the United States and our allies the opportunity to focus on countering Iran's more conventional threats to American security and regional stability. Since the nuclear agreement came into force, Iran has continued its efforts to destabilize the region and increase its power through proxy and terrorist networks. Since we signed the nuclear agreement with Iran, Iran has been testing the agreement, testing our resolve, and quite literally testing long-range ballistic missiles. We have seen multiple ballistic missile tests in the past year and a half--in October and November of last year and in March and May of this year and one launch not far from U.S. naval vessels. We have seen American sailors humiliated and detained at gunpoint. Just this weekend, a vessel controlled by the IRGC--the Iranian Revolutionary Guard--pointed a weapon at a U.S. military helicopter in the Strait of Hormuz. Iran continues to support a Houthi insurgency that toppled the legitimate Government of Yemen. It supports Shia militias in Iraq who seek to control the democratically elected Iraqi Government and bring it closer in line with Iran, threatening to return Iraq to civil war or worse. It supports Assad in Syria and continues to send millions of dollars and sophisticated weapons to Hezbollah and Hamas, threatening innocent civilians in Syria and Israel's security. It continues human rights violations and sustains an aging clergy who is losing touch with the hopes and dreams of young Iranians and moderates, an out-of-touch clergy who dominates the power structures and the security apparatus that restricts civil liberties and promotes its hegemonic regional destabilization. It has the largest inventory of ballistic missiles in the Middle East, capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction, chemical weapons, biological weapons, and continues to develop cyber war capabilities. Iran continues its development of space-launch vehicles that can lead to a longer range missile capability. It has cooperated with North Korea on the transfer of ballistic missile technology. This is in addition to the fact that Iran has, by its own admission, violated the JCPOA itself. The International Atomic Agency reported that Iran has twice violated the terms of the agreement by producing more heavy water than the deal allows for. An excess stockpile of heavy water--a critical component of operating nuclear reactors--reduces Iran's nuclear breakout time. Yet, even with this violation, the United States and our implementing partners have upheld our end of the bargain. As I have repeatedly said and which I outlined in the bill I authored earlier this year, we must take decisive action in response to Iran's behavior which is in violation, among other things, of the United Nations Security Council resolutions and threatens America's interests and regional stability. The United States must reserve the right to hold Iran accountable for all of its actions, and that is exactly what my legislation would do by imposing stricter sanctions tied to specific nefarious actions outside the nuclear portfolio. After months of consultations with my colleagues in the Senate, outside experts, and constituents, I introduced a bipartisan bill, S. 3267, the Countering Iranian Threats Act, on July 14, just before Congress broke for recess. Its acronym, CITA, not only extends the Iran Sanctions Act, which we will do independently today, it also expands sanctions for ballistic missile development, support for terrorism, and other illicit Iranian actions, and it sanctions transfers of conventional weapons to or from Iran--the totality of Iran's dangerous behavior outside of the nuclear portfolio. Specifically, it requires the administration to identify the specific Iranians, persons, or entities that are engaged in these activities and then apply sanctions that freeze their assets and block their international travel and business interests. In this way, the sanctions are surgical and designed to avoid interference with the terms of the Iran nuclear deal. We must provide leverage to seek necessary change in the conduct of the Iranian regime and hold Iran accountable for meeting its international obligations, including the terms of the JCPOA. We will improve the deplorable human rights situation in Iran and double down on our reassurances to Israel and American allies in the region of our full commitment to regional security. The fact is, there is much we can do to ensure a bright future undimmed by a nuclear cloud. We must authorize the Iran Sanctions Act that I have authored so that, as flawed as the JCPOA was, in my view, the Iranians will know the consequences of any breach and we will deal with missile proliferation, terrorism, and regional destabilization that is just as dangerous and just as threatening to American security and to our ally, the State of Israel, and our other allies in the region. I hope we will get to that new phase in the next Congress. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the bill that is before us today. We hear a lot of nice rhetoric coming from the proponents of this legislation. We hear that the bill is about revenue sharing. We hear that the funds will be used for conservation and coastal restoration. We hear that the bill is about providing parity, and at the same time, there is a lot of rhetoric, but underneath the rhetoric and the rosy picture being painted, one thing is clear: This bill isn't about conservation or infrastructure or environmental restoration. This bill is about one thing and one thing only: another giveaway to Big Oil. It is about paving the way for oil drilling up and down the Atlantic coast. It is about expanding drilling in the gulf, even as those communities work to recover from the BP disaster. It is about turning the Arctic wilderness from a wildlife haven into an oil field. We have seen this from the majority before--a legislative agenda focused on giving handout after handout to Big Oil no matter what the cost to our constituents. The majority party, the party of so-called fiscal conservatism, has no problem breaking out the checkbook when it is time to give billions of dollars of tax subsidies to oil companies. They see no issue with capping the oil industry's liability for the economic costs of offshore oil spills at $134 million--for spills that we know can cost tens of billions of dollars, but their liability is limited at $134 million. They are all too eager to lift the crude oil export ban, shipping U.S. resources and refining jobs overseas, and now we have a bill before us that is designed to make it easier to drill in the Arctic, gulf, and Atlantic. This bill doesn't just line the pockets of oil executives; it takes away revenues from the U.S. Treasury and increases the deficit by $7 billion in the long term--a $7 billion debt that we are signing over to our children and grandchildren, along with a shoreline full of oil rigs. We have a responsibility in Congress to make better for future generations and not to leave them with a dirty, costly legacy based on the fuels of the past, but serving future generations doesn't help oil companies in the short term, and the majority party has made their choice clear. We have seen this before. Yet it is hard not to be surprised by the timing. We are one week past an election where my colleagues on the other side of the aisle campaigned on promises to ``drain the swamp'' and break the mold in Washington and free government from the powerful special interests. What is the first bill we debate on the Senate floor after that election? Another giveaway to Big Oil, one of the most powerful special interests in Washington. Unfortunately for voters who bought into the campaign rhetoric, it is very clear who the majority party is here to serve in Washington. It is not the people who elected them; it is the same corporations and special interests that have set the public agenda for years, and that agenda doesn't come without costs. Drilling for oil is a risk-reward proposition. All of the risk is on the backs of our shore communities, and all of the reward goes to Big Oil. For New Jersey, those risks are substantial. An oil spill in the Atlantic would devastate our tourism industry, which generates $38 billion a year and supports nearly half a million jobs--nearly 10 percent of the State's entire workforce. An oil spill in the Atlantic would destroy one of the largest saltwater recreational fishing industries in the Nation. Just in our State, it would jeopardize over 50,000 jobs in the seafood industry. An oil spill would sink the value of $700 billion worth of coastal properties, family homes, and small businesses. The people I have met on the Jersey Shore are some of the most hard- working, resilient people I have ever known. These are people who, even today, are rebuilding their lives and livelihoods in the wake of Hurricane Sandy. These are the fishermen who wake up at 5 in the morning and spend the day working their fingers to the bone to provide for their families. These are the shore businesses that depend on a summer tourism season to meet their expenses throughout the year. The last thing they need is the threat of an oilspill wiping out their businesses, hard work, and ability to provide for their families. The oil companies that would benefit from this bill don't need our help. Large oil companies--even with gas prices as low as they are--are making annual profits the likes of which the people on the Jersey Shore will not see in a lifetime. Those people have been working to make their voices heard. I am proud there are currently 11 other Senators who have cosponsored my bill to permanently ban drilling in the Atlantic, but I am even more proud that thousands of my constituents have taken the time to email, call my office, or become citizen cosponsors of the bill. Many of them shared their thoughts on why we should ban Atlantic drilling. Charles from Toms River wrote: ``We already have shoreline concerns thanks to Superstorm Sandy. We definitely don't need another threat to our economy.'' Jeanne from New Brunswick wrote: ``Tourism is a major New Jersey business. Our beaches are pristine and must be protected.'' Leopoldine from Highland Park wrote: ``I would rather give up my car to save on oil consumption than give up the Jersey Shore.'' My constituents are not alone. There are 120 municipalities up and down the Atlantic coast that have opposed offshore drilling and the seismic blasting used to locate oil deposits. Over 1,200 elected officials have done the same. They have been joined by an alliance of over 12,000 businesses and 500,000 fishing families. Their opposition to offshore drilling transcends political boundaries and geographic boundaries alike. It unites local chambers of commerce with environmental advocates. We are hearing the same message, whether it is from a beach town in Georgia, a homeowners association in Delaware, or the North Carolina Council of Churches: Not on our shores. The people who elected us have spoken clearly, and we in this Chamber should be listening. This past March, President Obama made it clear that he was listening when he fully removed the Atlantic Ocean from the 5-year oil and gas leasing plan. This was an important victory, but it was only a temporary victory. It is clear by the Senate's consideration of the legislation before us today that lining the pockets of big oil executives is going to remain a top priority for the majority party. We must do everything in our power to stand up to the oil industry, protect our coastal communities, and fight for the people whose lives depend on a vibrant shore economy. That is why today I am calling on President Obama to use his authority under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to permanently ban drilling in the Atlantic Ocean. The authority was given to the President by Congress to permanently protect coastal waters from oil and gas drilling, while still allowing for important economic activities such as fishing, shipping, and developing offshore wind energy. Unlike a traditional Executive order, this designation cannot be undone by a future administration. It would ensure that the rights of our shore communities--to run their businesses, to vacation with their families, to fish in clean coastal waters--are protected for generations to come. It would continue the administration's commitment to preserving our environment, to protecting public health, and to strengthening global economies. It is not just the Atlantic that deserves this protection; I also hope that President Obama gives the same consideration to the Arctic Ocean. The Arctic is a fragile ecosystem depended on by subsistence hunters and diverse wildlife. Extreme cold and harsh weather conditions make an Arctic oilspill both more likely and harder to clean up. Declaring the Atlantic and the Arctic off limits to Big Oil is a step the President can take immediately to show that we as a nation are committed to the future of our shore towns, our beaches, and our environment, and to being good stewards of the land for future generations of Americans. Our public lands should be just that--public assets that are part of our national heritage. This Presidential action will ensure that we treat them that way instead of monetizing them to build profits for the oil industry. To me, the decision on offshore drilling is a simple question of values. I value the generations of families who spend their vacations on the Jersey Shore. It is a birthright. I value the small businesses and fishermen who have built and sustained a thriving shore economy against all odds in the wake of Superstorm Sandy. I value having clean coastal waters, which are home to diverse and rich ecosystems. I value the commitment New Jerseyans have for a clean energy future. Drilling in the Atlantic is antithetical to any of these values. And it is because of those values that I intend to stand with the millions of Americans who have raised their voices and delivered the message to big oil: Stay off our shores. I look forward to working with my colleagues and my constituents in the coming weeks to secure a permanent drilling ban for the Atlantic and Arctic Oceans. It will be a lasting message for future generations that we are not willing to sell the future of their economy or the future of their environment for short-term profits. It is a fight worth having, and it is one I believe we can win. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about one of the most important responsibilities we have, which is the responsibility to help every community in a time of crisis. When Sandy struck back in my home State of New Jersey, more than 100 people lost their lives, 8.5 million people lost power, and more than 650,000 homes were damaged and 40,000 more were severely damaged or destroyed. Hundreds of thousands of businesses were forced to close, with a $65 billion pricetag in economic loss in 13 States up and down the east coast. Unfortunately, emergency relief languished for weeks as some of my colleagues on the other side actually debated the value of helping others. The junior Senator from Louisiana wouldn't vote for Sandy funding because it wasn't paid for, but now it seems he has found Jesus and seeks funding for flooding in Louisiana--and I would say rightfully so. The fact is that we can't have a disaster policy that says blue States have to pay for disasters, purple States have to partially pay, and no pay is needed for red States. We shouldn't be playing politics with disaster funding. When we do, real people suffer. When it came to Sandy, a party that never had a second thought about giving billions of dollars in subsidies to Big Oil and never saw a tax break for millionaires they didn't like didn't step up to help families recover from one of the most devastating and ferocious coastal storms in history. The decision to turn the responsibility of government into a political calculation is not how this Nation responds to disasters. But, unfortunately, the unthinkable is becoming all too common. We saw it this summer in a fight over providing Zika funding, which should have been a no-brainer. Alarm bells had been ringing for months, but instead of being proactive in preparing an adequate and appropriate response, Republicans chose to poison our efforts with rightwing ideological policy riders that prevented us from appropriately addressing these issues. So thanks to the majority, we did nothing while 20,000 Americans in Puerto Rico contracted the virus. We did nothing while the virus spread to the mainland, forcing the CDC to take the virtually unprecedented step of issuing a travel advisory in the continental United States--not some third world country but one of our Nation's largest and most vibrant cities, Miami. Yet, even after all of this, once again we did nothing. Why? Once again three words come to mind as they have for the last 8 years, which is Republican political obstructionism. Now my friends on the other side seem to have moved past their state of suspended political animation and dropped their rigid ideological opposition to the Zika funding. But there are still serious issues that have a major impact on children's health that we have not acted on-- namely, the lead crisis confronting not only those in Flint but those in our schools in New Jersey. It took 3 full months for the victims of Sandy to get relief. It has taken months for this Congress to act against a clear threat of Zika. Here we are, 1 year after we learned about Flint, and yet the Republicans in Congress have done what they do best, which is absolutely nothing. I have even heard the lame counterargument: ``Well, Flint was a man- made disaster, not a natural disaster--so we don't have an obligation to help--others.'' Seriously? We don't have an obligation as a nation to help others? I reject that argument. The Federal Government always has an obligation to help a community facing a crisis, whether leading the initial response to the BP oil spill, responding to wildfires, superstorms, tornadoes, floods, or manmade disasters such as the failure of the levies in Hurricane Katrina. We were there as a nation. The question should not be manmade versus natural disaster. It should be the relief of human suffering in any event. Last week, one of my colleagues dismissed the crisis in Flint as ``other people's grief.'' Other people's grief? That is a pretty stunning statement, shocking in its blatant disregard in our fundamental mission to protect every American. In this Chamber there is no ``other people's grief.'' We are all Americans--one Nation, one community, indivisible--and in the community there is no room to brush off the crisis as ``other people's problems.'' In the case of Flint, the other people are 100,000 fellow Americans, the majority of whom are African Americans. Forty percent live in poverty, and 1 in 10 are unemployed. The so-called other people are children facing a lifetime of challenges, poisoned by a substance that we have known is toxic for decades. The other people are parents whose hearts are heavy with the thought that one of life's most basic needs--clean water to drink--is being denied to their children. The other people are community advocates who have spent the last year knocking on tens of thousands of doors trying to get the latest information to their neighbors about the ongoing health crisis. The other people were those whose health has been threatened by a local government that was more concerned about saving a buck than protecting their residents' lives. Now the Federal Government is failing them as well, by a callus dismissal that these are other people's problems--not ours, as Americans, but theirs--and they are on their own. That is not the America I know. The America I know is one that stands together in times of crisis. We saw it in the aftermath of a disaster, whether it was first responders running into the burning towers on the morning of September 11, whether it was neighbors offering a place to sleep and a home-cooked meal to those whose homes were destroyed in Hurricane Katrina, whether it was hundreds of people who lined up to donate blood in the Orlando shooting. In a time of crisis, Americans stand together. We don't dismiss cries of help as the problems of others. We heard talk of the urgency of providing aid to the people of Louisiana in the wake of the flooding, and I agree. But we cannot let the people of Flint be an afterthought. Now, some say the majority leader is thinking about removing the disaster aid that will help Louisiana just to prove a political point. Think about it. He would hang out communities to dry because some in his party don't want to look out for Flint. If the majority leader decides to withhold disaster assistance to both Flint and Louisiana, that would be a cynical stunt that would hurt real people and, frankly, we are better than that. We cannot turn what should be a question of the basic health and safety of our citizens into a political calculation. But, unfortunately, the Republican continuing resolution doesn't see it that way. It focuses on corporate giveaways at the expense of families, businesses, and communities trying to recover from a disaster. While our colleagues are fighting over which communities are more worthy of disaster relief--a calculation I do not understand--they are also shamelessly pushing policy riders that favor corporations over investors, constituents, and the American public at large. They pat themselves on the back for funding to address flooding in Louisiana while quietly working behind closed doors to shield the pathways of dark money in politics. Let me take a moment to tell our constituents what they won't see in their Republican Senators' press releases. They won't see any mention of a policy rider intended to block the Securities and Exchange Commission from requiring companies to disclose their political spending. Here is why that is so important. The Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United fundamentally changed our Nation's campaign finance laws by opening the floodgates for unlimited and unchecked corporate spending on campaign ads, Federal and State law advocacy efforts, and many other methods of political communication. In the 2012 elections, outside groups spent more than $1 billion, with much of it funneled through trade associations and nonprofits with minimal disclosure. In the 2016 cycle, which I don't need to remind my colleagues is far from over, outside groups have already spent $790 million. For 6 long years companies have had free rein to solidify their influence in politics and maximize their impact on elections. With no corresponding requirement to disclose how this money is being spent, there is simply no way to know if corporations are spending more money to defund Social Security or Medicare, dismantle environmental protections, undermine education programs, or eviscerate Wall Street reform, including taking down the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Think about that. The Republican Party is trying to make it harder for the American people to know how much money is being poured into the efforts that hurt consumers. In the past weeks alone, Wells Fargo perpetuated a huge scam on their customers, costing account holders millions of dollars and creating over 2 million fraudulent accounts. It was the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that was instrumental in uncovering the scam and levying the largest fine in history. So here we are just 2 weeks later sticking in riders to hide dark money from shareholders. That is exactly the type of dark money that attacks the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the American people deserve to know who is funding those attacks. The significance of this should not be understated. Ultimately, this is about silencing the voice of hard-working American families in favor of amplifying the speech and magnifying the influence of corporations. Unfortunately, it is all too emblematic of my Republicans colleagues' approach to lawmaking. When corporations ask Republicans to jump, they say: How high? When big banks ask Republicans to roll back critical Wall Street reforms, they say: How far? When the oil industry asks Republicans for a tax subsidy, they say: How much? It is shameless. Clearly, my Republican colleagues are defiantly turning their backs on consumers. We cannot continue down this obstructionist path paved with the shattered remains of our long-held willingness to help each other in times of crisis. If we continue down this path when Republicans are in charge, no assistance would be provided if the east coast suffered another superstorm because those are blue States. It would mean that a slow-moving infrastructure crisis in an inner city would be ignored as ``other people's grief.'' It would mean that when Democrats are in charge, no relief would be provided for tornadoes in Oklahoma or floods in Kentucky because those are red States. That is not what we Democrats would do, and it is not, at the end of the day, the way to govern. We need to stop dividing our country into us versus them when it comes to fundamental human needs. In this election season, let's remember that, above all, we are all Americans with common votes and shared values. Let's focus on doing right by the American people, rather than telling them we can solve all of our problems if we just turn the clock back to a better time and blame someone else--those people, the others--for our problems. That is not good politics, it is not good government, and it is not who we are as a nation or as a people. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, today, on behalf of every child currently living with a growth disorder, I wish to recognize this week--September 19 through 23, 2016--as Growth Disorder Awareness Week. A child's growth is a strong indicator of that child's overall health status. According to the Pictures of Standard Syndromes and Undiagnosed Malformations, POSSUM, database, more than 600 serious diseases and health conditions can cause growth failure. These diseases range from nutritional disturbances and hormone imbalances, to far more serious conditions that affect the kidneys or even lead to brain tumors. While these conditions affect a child's growth progress, a stunning 48 percent of children with the most common growth disorders go undiagnosed. To make matters worse, the longer a child with growth failure goes undiagnosed, the greater the potential for long-term health issues and higher costs of treatment. Early detection and diagnosis are, therefore, critical to ensuring a healthy future for these children. This week, as we recognize Growth Disorder Awareness Week, I want to applaud the MAGIC Foundation for the tremendous work they do to further public awareness of growth failure and to improve the lives and health of the children whom they affect.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to take a stand against Russia's attempts to tamper with the American Presidential electoral process and to create chaos in our elections and, at the end of the day, to undermine the integrity of the results of our election to serve its own purposes. I remind my colleagues that in 2012, I was the victim of such election tampering attempts. The Washington Post reported that while I was running for reelection and preparing to become chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the CIA had credible evidence, including Internet protocol addresses, linking Cuban agents to planted stories in the United States and in Latin American publications. It was reported that those connections were laid out in intelligence reports provided to U.S. Government officials and sent by secure cables to the FBI's Counterintelligence Division. Despite all of our government's capabilities, they supposedly could not find who was behind the smear. Maybe our government didn't want to rock the boat as they were prepared to establish relations with Cuba, but you would think that our government would do everything possible against a foreign government that was trying to upset the election of a sitting Senator to affect U.S. policy. Let's be clear. In this new digital world of open and accessible personal information available to anyone who has the technical savvy to find it and use it for nefarious purposes, the election of anyone in this Chamber is at risk. We need to take a stand in this election cycle. We need the administration to come forward and tell us what they know about Vladimir Putin's efforts to influence our Presidential election. We need to know what Putin knows, and we must find out exactly who is behind it, what they have, and what their purpose is. It is certainly more than my experience and more than the Republican nominee's deplorable admiration for dictators and strongmen. It is about protecting the American political process from outside interference and influence. Let's be very clear. I know, from my experience that we cannot underestimate the tradecraft of seasoned operatives like Vladimir Putin. We certainly cannot be naive enough to praise them for perceived strength and conflate it with the ruthless abuse of power. There is a difference between thuggery and strength. Let's be clear. Neither the Cuban Government, which attempted to smear me, nor Putin is in any way a friend of the United States. In Putin's case, he is, as my colleague from Arizona--who, like me, was sanctioned by Putin--has publicly called him, ``a thug and a butcher.'' He is, in fact, a dictator who has been connected to the brutal deaths of his enemies and now has shown a willingness to use cyber warfare to undermine our democratic process. He clearly is attempting to shake the bedrock integrity of our political system, as Cuban intelligence tried to undermine the integrity of my last election in an effort to prevent me from becoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. From my perspective, the purpose is not only to undermine credibility and faith but to create a result that would benefit Russia. These actions are beyond the scope of any acceptable international norm and cannot be tolerated. With a laptop, a computer code, and a KGB penchant to rebuild the Russian Empire, wage Cold War 2.0, and use every technological tool to tip the geopolitical balance in Russia's favor, we cannot in any way praise Putin or anyone else who attempts to influence our election process for their leadership. We have seen the manifestation of Putin's methods in the latest cyber attack on the Democratic National Committee and in a long list of egregious conventional interventions, from the annexation of Crimea to the orchestrating of supposed-Russian separatists who shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over Ukraine, his invasion of eastern Ukraine through the use of irregular Russian forces, now his troops amassing along the Ukraine border, and his invasion of Georgia not long ago. You can see it in his efforts to undermine sovereign Baltic countries through broadcasting and cyber efforts against those governments. We have seen it in his military and political maneuverings to maintain control of his naval base in the port city of Tartus in Syria by intervening, with Assad, in the Syrian civil war. In Syria, Putin has stepped up his support for his friend and dictator Bashar al-Assad. While its own citizens are suffering severe economic hardships, and while innocent Syrian civilians continue to suffer under the barrel bombs and military campaigns of Assad, Putin continues to provide military and tactical support to this murderous regime, attacking schools and hospitals with cluster munitions and incendiary attacks. Further ignoring the basic rights of all people, as Russia sells weapons system to Assad, it refuses to grant asylum or basic humanitarian support to Syrian refugees, who are directly suffering under Russia's continued involvement in their country. I remind my colleagues that Putin is no friend to the United States. His brand of leadership is to be condemned in no uncertain terms and should be denounced in this Chamber and by all responsible American Presidential candidates. He is not a strong leader. He is a ruthless dictator who clearly knows his tradecraft and has not only hacked into the Democratic National Committee's computer files but has capitalized on whatever business ties Paul Manafort has or had to Russia to woo--seemingly, in effect--an American Presidential candidate who respects strongmen and bravado and effectively recruit him. There is no room in this Chamber or in the American political landscape for the support of Putin's actions or leadership. This former KGB agent has a clear purpose in mind. He is engaged in a Soviet Cold War style brand of dictatorial actions, including state-sponsored surveillance, censorship, and repression. Just look at the record. Human rights groups continue to report that in 2015, the Kremlin's crackdown on civil society, media, and the Internet took a sinister turn as the government further intensified harassment and persecution of independent critics. Putin's thugs routinely harass anyone and everyone who dares to question Putin's authority. Earlier this year, a vocal critic was shot dead in front of the Kremlin. According to reports from rights groups, last week Russian police harassed, beat, and threatened environmental activists, and Russian state TV published a smear campaign against these environmentalists, calling them American spies. The real spying--the dangerous activity--comes from Russia itself. It was July when Russian hackers broke into the email servers of the Democratic National Committee--a clear and blatant attempt to interfere in our domestic political process. We know that Russian actors released tens of thousands of emails with the intention of undermining the Democratic nominee for President, while, amazingly, the Republican nominee seems to encourage it. He encouraged an international adversary--someone he clearly admires for his supposed strength--to hack into the emails in the account of a former American Secretary of State. This is not normal political campaign behavior. In my view, it is treasonous, and there are no excuses for it. There is no defending it. There is no reasonable explanation or defending it. Every one of my colleagues in this Chamber should condemn it. Encouraging hacking and government surveillance reeks of authoritarianism that has no place in our democratic society and threatens each and every one of us. It is outrageous that anyone would invite a foreign leader of an adversarial country to undermine or threaten any American, let alone a former Secretary of State and Presidential candidate. Putin clearly prefers a candidate who is willing to cozy up to dictators, who lavishes praise on the leadership styles of dictators like Saddam Hussein. Someone aspiring to be Commander in Chief, who praises the behavior of leaders who murder their own citizens, jail journalists who dare to question their activities, or consistently take actions to isolate themselves from the international community, in my view, has no business seeking higher office.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I ask unanimous consent for one additional minute.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Any praise of Putin for any reason, a Cold War warrior who continues to upend international stability and order, seeking to expand his rule and control, holds false Duma elections in Crimea, stages war games on Crimea's shores--simulating an invasion--clearly must raise a red flag to every American voter. We must respond to Russia's continued muscle flexing and provocation. I call on the administration for forceful and appropriate responses to Russia's nefarious and calculated involvement in our elections. It is attacking the U.S. political system in a Putin-led cold war 2.0, and it is clear this old KGB spy has no boundaries. Let's not let ourselves be recruited by him or confuse strength with ruthlessness, as some have. It is my hope that every one of my colleagues will in no uncertain terms condemn any attempt by any nation to influence any American election as well as Russian interventionism and Putin's actions around the world. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the remarkable accomplishments of the U.S. Chess Olympiad team. Widely considered to be the pinnacle of international chess, Chess Olympiad is a biennial competition organized by the World Chess Federation where teams from all over the world gather to compete. This year, over 175 nations and territories in attendance were represented at the Olympiad. For the first time since 1976, the U.S. team emerged from a talented and crowded field to claim victory and cement its spot at the top of the chess world. The team was led by U.S. champion Grandmaster Fabiano Caruana, who won a bronze medal in the individual competition, and boasted a strong lineup featuring 3 of the top 10 players in the world. Grandmaster Caruana, Grandmaster Hikaru Nakamura, Grandmaster Wesley So, Grandmaster Ray Robson, Grandmaster Samuel Shankland, team captain International Master John Donaldson, and coach Grandmaster Aleksandr Lenderman dedicating themselves to becoming the best in the world, and represented the United States with honor and pride at the 42nd Chess Olympiad. I am proud to say that Fabiano Caruana has partnered with the Liberty Science Center in my home State of New Jersey to bring chess to a new generation of students across the State. As the visiting grandmaster and ``Chess Rules!'' ambassador, Caruana works with the Liberty Science Center to improve children's concentration, critical thinking, memory, and analytic skills in a fun and engaging way through the game of chess. I am pleased that Grandmaster Caruana's first stop upon returning to the U.S. will be an event at Liberty Science Center to celebrate the U.S. victory and continue the important work that he has been doing. Let me conclude by again congratulating the U.S. Chess Olympiad team, and wishing all of its members continued success in the future. Thank you.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to voice my concern as an American and my outrage as a grandfather-to-be about the lack of action to fund our response to the Zika epidemic. Zika has come to Miami, FL, and Congress needs to step up and provide the necessary funds to fight this terrible virus. Zika is like any other national emergency, and we are a nation that always--always--responds to emergencies. While I am encouraged with the news that Republicans are seeing fit to do their job and drop some of the conditions in their Zika bill, which this body has voted down three times already, there is no excuse for any further delay--no excuse for doing nothing while Americans face a risk that we have the power to mitigate. The alarms have been ringing for months. We knew Zika wasn't coming, but instead of being proactive and prepared for what was about to hit our shores, Republicans in Congress chose to poison our response with rightwing ideological policy riders that prevented us from appropriately addressing this issue. To make matters worse, rather than removing these unacceptable provisions from the bill, they simply chose to ignore it entirely and send Congress on vacation without acting. Since that time, we have had at least 43 instances of locally acquired Zika in the Miami area and nearly 16,000 locally acquired cases in Puerto Rico. In the 50 United States, we now have 3,000 total cases, including those that were acquired outside of the country. Most frightening for families throughout our Nation is that we know of at least 1,751 cases of pregnant women infected with Zika--a truly devastating diagnosis for everyone involved. Today we have heard from the head of the National Institutes of Health's Infectious Disease Institute that without immediate funding, the current ongoing clinical trials into a Zika vaccine will be forced to shut down--putting a halt to any real chance we have of developing a preventive vaccine in the near term. We, as Democrats, have fought the opposition to pass the President's request for $1.9 billion to battle Zika. In May, the Senate, in a bipartisan compromise, agreed by a vote of 89 to 8 to fund $1.1 billion in response funding, but that bipartisan agreement was derailed in the House of Representatives, where Republicans insisted on adding a poison pill provision that had nothing to do with Zika and everything to do with seizing the opportunity to pursue an anti-family political social agenda that would prohibit family planning clinics from getting Zika funds--directly impacting the health of women in the most high-risk areas at a time that we know Zika can be contracted not only by a bite of a mosquito but by sexual intercourse. Every major health organization, from the Centers for Disease Control to the World Health Organization, to the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, has recommended that the best course of action is to increase access to contraception and family planning services to decrease transmission of the virus. Today I call, once again, on the majority leader and the Speaker of the House to address this crisis now. Let's do our jobs and help keep the American people safe, healthy, and secure by addressing this crisis with everything we have and all we can provide to women and families who face an emergency situation no less important and no less threatening than tornadoes, hurricanes, wildfires, or superstorms such as Sandy. We need to quickly and decisively respond. We are already behind. We have lost critical time and sacrificed the progress we should have already made to political obstructionism that has prevented us from providing what we need to ensure maximum protection. We need to act now, not tomorrow, not the next day, not next week--now. But here we are 7 months after the President's original call for an emergency response to Zika and 5 months--long before Miami had become ground zero for the virus in the continental United States--5 months before the first confirmed cases of locally acquired transmission occurred and began to spread. My Republican colleagues talk a lot about national security, about defending this Nation and its people and I agree with them, but there are many ways to defend America from the many threats we face, and Zika is one of them. If we believe what we say about keeping America and Americans safe, then quickly passing the necessary funding to defeat Zika is in the personal security interest of the United States. We are dealing with a virus that has tremendous costs. We do not yet know all the potential birth defects that Zika can cause, and we do not know all the potential effects of microcephaly to a newborn or the life expectancy of a Zika baby, but the health care costs for the 31-year- old mother in Hackensack, NJ, who gave birth to the first Zika baby born in the United States, will, no doubt, be staggering--in the millions of dollars. At the end of the day, protecting our people from an insidious virus that ultimately can affect the next generation that is being born is in fact protecting the public. In my mind, it is not acceptable to play politics with a national emergency. We can have all the debates in the world about family planning and access to women's health care, but we are delaying the possibilities of a vaccine being prepared, of mosquito abatement to limit the population of infected insects. We are denying care to those women who could be or are infected. We need to act now and pass the necessary funding just as we do in any national emergency, against any threat or any enemy, and Zika is a real and direct threat. I can talk from personal experience. It has affected my family and me. My daughter lives in Miami. She is now 6 months pregnant with her first child, and I am deeply concerned about her health, her well-being and the well-being of my first grandchild. While this moment is a moment of great joy, every young mother already has concerns about the normal course of events: Will my child be healthy? Will my child be safe and free from illness? These are normal concerns, but Zika adds a new dimension to those normal worries, and we could have done something to stop it if it were not for Republican obstructionism in the House. Shame on us that we have not done all we could to mitigate the fear that young mothers are feeling, and that fear is palpable. It cannot be ignored, not by me, not by any father, not by any grandfather, and it should not be ignored by Republicans in Congress. This isn't for me or my daughter. It is too late for her to take advantage of a vaccine or cure, but it is not too late for other mothers and their children across this country. How can we, in good conscience, not do all we can to attack this problem as best as we can? My daughter has taken precautions and is doing everything possible to protect herself, but this issue goes beyond the personal aspect of what is happening in my family, and while having a child is a moment of great joy, any woman who is pregnant in Miami--actually, in reality, this knows no limitations geographically. It will continue to spread across the country. It is an added risk that is very real and should be of deep concern to all of us. We want to protect our children. We talked about that in many different dimensions in different debates, whether it is about education or health care, and now we are doing something that every person who is a father or may be a grandfather understands very clearly. Every woman who serves in the Senate and has had a child understands very well the whole emotional process that goes on, like worrying about that child, taking care of themselves, having the right nutrition, and doing all the prenatal care they have to do so they can have a child who is born healthy. Women throughout the country are doing their best to protect themselves to the extent that they can, but not all of them have the ability to do something about it like those of us in this Chamber. It is our responsibility, obligation, and duty to act in the interest of every family who cannot do what we can by simply passing this legislation and doing it now. The alarms have been ringing for months. We knew Zika was coming, but instead of being proactive and prepared for what was about to hit our shores, Republican leaders in Congress chose to ignore the warning signs and adjourn Congress without acting. Now we are back and our Nation faces an emergency. We are here. There are no excuses. There is no political justification for inaction. At the end of the day, lives are at stake and we swore to protect every American. I call on my colleagues in both Chambers to put this nonsense aside, stop the pointless political posturing, and do your job. We are living in a political season that has devolved into a race to the bottom. Let's not participate in that race by letting the rigid, fundamentalist social agenda with the most extreme elements in our politics overrule common sense and shared values in the face of a crisis and danger to America. We know what is right. We know what we have to do, and now is the time to do it. It is with that hope that we break the shackles of this absurd political obstructionist chain that is holding us back from doing what is right and necessary. I look forward to next week--since it seems we will be out of session now--ultimately addressing the concerns that women and families have across this country. We hear a lot about the protection of the unborn. Well, this is the very essence of being able to protect the unborn from an insidious disease that can affect their lives forever. I hope the conscience of the Senate will ultimately move itself to its better judgment. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I am pleased to be joining my colleague from New Jersey Senator Booker in his recommendation to the President of Judge Martinotti and today on the floor in support of his confirmation. It was one of Senator Booker's first opportunities to recommend to the President an exemplary recommendation that again I was very pleased to support. I rise to express to all of my colleagues my wholehearted, enthusiastic support of Brian Martinotti's nomination and his confirmation by the Senate to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. In his life and in his career, he has shown himself to be a judge with the necessary wisdom, experience, and judicial temperament the district court requires. For well over a decade, he has been a superior court judge in Bergen County, NJ, which--for my colleagues who may not be familiar with the State--is a densely populated county, with all the inherent needs for someone such as Judge Martinotti, who has repeatedly shown the intellect, the judicial temperament, and the observance of precedent-- which I know is very important to many of my colleagues--that it takes to make a fair judgment based on the law. Beyond his glowing record in the family division and now in the civil division, where he is handling a diverse caseload from complex mass tort litigation to environmental lawsuits, housing issues, and countless other areas, the fact is, he is exceptionally well regarded by those who have appeared before him on both sides of the table, the defense and the prosecution tables. That says more about the man than any list of cases he has heard. He has a wealth of knowledge from private practice, and that will help him as he deals with the practitioners who will be before him. He has a wealth of experience in mediation before the Bergen County Superior Court, in the New Jersey State Board of Mediation, American Arbitration Association, National Arbitration and Mediation, and as a court-approved mediator. His experience is impeccable, going back to his time as a judicial law secretary for the Honorable Roger M. Kahn and when he was a student at Fordham University and Seton Hall University School of Law in Newark. He has been a leader in New Jersey, the very definition of a pillar of the community, serving as a member of the Bergen County Law and Public Safety Institute, Palisades Medical Center, the March of Dimes, the Bergen County Community College Foundation, the Italian American Police Society of New Jersey, not to mention the many honors and awards he has received from countless community organizations. Given his experience, his temperament, his proven abilities, and personally knowing the kind of man he is, it is no wonder his name is before the U.S. Senate today. Indeed, the American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated him ``well qualified'' to serve on the bench. That is the bar association's highest rating. As I have traveled the globe as a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I can tell you that when we talk about American exceptionalism, one of the elements of American exceptionalism is the rule of law. As part of that rule of law, it is the judicial functions that take place--where any citizen can expect to walk into a courtroom in the Nation, find themselves before a judge who is enormously well qualified, and who can have a fair day as it relates to the issues they are litigating before that court. That is an essential part of American exceptionalism. Judge Martinotti, upon confirmation, will only enhance that American exceptionalism, far beyond even where it is today. I urge my colleagues to join us and unanimously confirm this eminently qualified nominee to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask the Presiding Officer to advise me when I have used 25 minutes of my time.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I have come to the floor time and time again on this issue with a simple message: PROMESA, which is the Spanish word for promise, is not a promise; it is a power play leaving the people of Puerto Rico unable to manage their own government, make their own decisions, and do what they believe is necessary for their own future. In the case of Puerto Rico, we have decided not to help them make their own decisions but to take the powers of governing away from them. While I have filed many amendments, unfortunately my colleagues seem to have thrown up their hands and said this bill cannot get any better, we will not even try to do the people's work and have actual debate and votes in the Senate. I would note that calls for a thorough debate on the Senate floor were bipartisan in nature. I would remind my colleagues that each one of us was elected to this very Chamber to debate and enact legislation to improve the lives of Americans, and that includes the 3.5 million American citizens living in Puerto Rico. I know proponents of the bill have argued, supporting an amendment process would force Puerto Rico to default and have serious repercussions for its people, but they are simply mistaken. The truth is, the legislation we are considering will include a retroactive stay on litigation, meaning any lawsuit filed before July 1 will be halted and any judgments unenforceable. As a matter of fact, any lawsuits that take place or any judicial decisions that take place, once the legislation is passed and signed by the President--it will be retroactive to December of last year. That will be stopped. As the bill states, the stay bars ``the commencement or continuation'' of suits to recover ``claims'' against Puerto Rico. It also bars ``enforcement . . . of a judgment obtained before the enactment'' of the bill. In addition, section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code, which is incorporated by reference into this bill that we are considering, bars the ``enforcement . . . of a judgment obtained before'' filing for bankruptcy once the board files a bankruptcy petition on Puerto Rico's behalf to restructure their debt. Even if this apocalyptic scenario the proponents of the bill want to use to drive this bill through--if hedge funds win a judgment before the stay is enacted, that judgment cannot be enforced once the law is passed. Once the debt adjustment plan is confirmed, the judgment can actually be discharged. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over Puerto Rico, held in 2012: ``Even if [an] injunction is not a claim [for purpose of the bar against `commencement or continuation' of `claims'], any action to enforce [an injunction] is subject to the stay and cannot proceed without relief from the stay.'' What does that basically mean? Any action to enforce is subject to the stay and cannot proceed without relief from the stay. The stay is the legislation we are passing. So all of this suggesting that we have to drive into a set of circumstances with a bad bill is not the reality. Time is of the essence as it relates to Congress acting swiftly, but we shouldn't allow a somewhat arbitrary deadline to force through a fundamentally flawed bill, as the retroactive stay gives us the time to get it right. July 1 shouldn't be used as an excuse to abdicate our responsibilities as U.S. Senators. Adoption of the motion to table, which I will make later, can still find a reasonable middle ground to truly help solve the crisis and the humanitarian catastrophe that awaits the people of Puerto Rico rather than simply ignoring their sovereignty and choosing the road to colonialism. While hope is getting dim, we still have one last opportunity to do right by the people of Puerto Rico. I will attempt to table a pending amendment in order to have the opportunity to replace that amendment if we succeed in going ahead and tabling it to get a vote on one of my amendments. While that may seem a little bit confusing as a procedural vote, basically what I am saying is if you vote for my motion to table, you are giving me an opportunity to have an amendment I plan to offer in its place. If we succeed, the majority leader might try to slip in another amendment, but at the end of the day, we will know the whole purpose of tabling is to offer an amendment to improve this legislation. Why must we improve this legislation? Let me go through what is wrong with this law. This creates an oversight board. The board, according to the report by the House Natural Resources Committee--I did not say this; it is the official document of the House of Representatives, which passed this bill. It says: ``The board would have broad sovereign powers''-- sovereign powers means it has total authority on its own--``to effectively overrule decisions by Puerto Rico's legislature, governor and other public authorities.'' These are the people who were elected by the 3.5 million citizens of Puerto Rico, U.S. citizens, to determine their future, but, no, the board is going to overrule them and have the sovereign power to do so. Secondly, the oversight board ``can effectively nullify''--nullify means end--``any new laws or policies adopted by Puerto Rico that did not conform to requirements specified in the bill.'' The board can nullify a sovereign government's opportunity to pass laws as elected by the people. The consent of its government, the essence of democracy-- well, we are nullifying that. The control board, as I call it--and I will speak about why it is control and not oversight. These things speak to controls, not oversight. It says the control board ``may impose mandatory cuts on Puerto Rico's government and instrumentalities--a power far beyond that exercised by the Control Board established for the District of Columbia.'' Again, that is from the House Natural Resources Committee report--``a power far beyond that exercised by the Control Board established for the District of Columbia.'' They can say: Sorry, Puerto Rico, we know you put your budget together, we know the legislature passed it, and we know the Governor signed it, but we think you have to cut in these areas of education, you have to cut in these areas of health care, and you have to cut in these areas of public safety. They have the power to decide mandatorily that these cuts must take place. With respect to the government of Puerto Rico and its instrumentalities, which means subdivisions, it can make appropriate reductions in nondebt expenditures. That is very important. Anything that is considered as an expenditure to pay the debt is held sacrosanct and can't be touched, but as far as nondebt expenditures, this board can say: This is where you will make the cuts. What are those nondebt expenditures? They are education, health care, public safety, senior citizens, and all of the things we think about to protect the people in our society. It has sole discretion over the budget. ``The Oversight Board shall determine in its sole discretion''--a phrase used nearly 30 times throughout the bill, which means we are not defining what that means. Sole discretion, as commonsense, means they themselves can determine what is appropriate, whether each proposed budget is compliant with the applicable fiscal plan in their sole discretion even if that discretion is arbitrary and capricious. It has the sole discretion to grant or deny restructuring. Why are we even considering legislation? The whole purpose of our legislation is to give Puerto Rico a pathway to restructuring in the bankruptcy court, where the bankruptcy court and the Federal laws would take over, but we created a series of problems to that restructuring. The oversight board certifies a plan of adjustment only if it determines in its sole discretion that it is consistent with the applicable certified fiscal plan. Again, they could be arbitrary and capricious. This board, which has no representation from Puerto Rico that comes from the Puerto Rican people--it will have one person who either has their primary residence or their primary business in Puerto Rico, but they could have a primary business and not live there and make dictates about the people of Puerto Rico. And this person doesn't come from the Governor and legislature of Puerto Rico, representing the Puerto Rican people. This board that has control over their entire lives, which includes their budgets, fiscal plan, the ability to make mandatory cuts, and the ability to impose all types of things that a governing body, in essence, would do--guess who pays for this oversight board, which includes seven unelected and unaccountable people? Puerto Rico pays for it. ``Within 30 days after the date of enactment, the territorial government shall designate a dedicated funding source''--meaning a source only to pay for this--``not subject to legislative appropriations.'' Guess what the estimate of that is. This is the Congressional Budget Office. It says Puerto Rico will have to pay about $370 million for this control board. Here is an island that doesn't have the money to meet some of the basic necessities that we heard so eloquently talked about on both sides of the aisle, but we are going to impose at least another $370 million--as is estimated by the Congressional Budget Office--on them for a control board that they have no say over. They have no oversight over the control board. Neither the Governor, nor the legislature can exercise any control, supervision, or oversight, but they get to pay the $370 million, and they have to live with all the dictates of the control board even though they don't have representation. To further make sure the control board is even more omnipotent, they put in a no-liability clause. ``The Oversight Board, its members and its employees shall not be liable for any obligation of or any claim against the Oversight Board or its members or employees or the territorial government resulting from actions taken to carry out this act.'' They have absolute immunity. Wow. Wouldn't we all like to have that. My amendment is targeted at improving the most egregious flaws of this legislation. My amendment would ensure that the people of Puerto Rico have a voice in their future. The current legislation denies the Puerto Rican people any representation on a board that effectively replaces the decisionmaking powers of the legislative and executive branches of their democratically elected government. It imposes the board on Puerto Rico without ever consulting the people of Puerto Rico. My amendment makes two critical changes to protect Puerto Rico's sovereignty and democratic rights. Under my amendment, if we get to it through the motion to table, Puerto Rico will decide for itself whether it will access restructuring and accept the control board, thus preserving the people's voice in the process. Second, my amendment adds two additional voting members to the board chosen by the elected representatives of the people of Puerto Rico. These two additional members would be chosen by the President from a list of four candidates submitted by the Governor of Puerto Rico with the advice and consent of the Legislature of Puerto Rico. Republicans will still appoint the majority of members from an ideological perspective. I personally believe that all of the members of the board should be chosen by the people of Puerto Rico or their elected representatives, but I want to be reasonable and open to compromise, which is why my amendment only requires two members of a nine-member board to be chosen by Puerto Rico. Certainly we can all agree that the people who have to deal with all of the consequences of this board's decisions should have some say as to who is making those decisions. My amendment would also protect senior citizens and avoid an increase in elderly poverty. PROMESA currently includes a vague and undefined requirement to provide adequate funding for public pension systems. Our amendment would ensure that senior retirees and pensioners are protected from the whims of the control board. After all, the retirees in Puerto Rico, who spent 30 years serving the island as police officers, firefighters, teachers, and nurses, didn't have any choice but to participate in the pension plan; it was mandatory. Unlike hedge funds that were able to pick and choose what investments to make and often bought bonds at pennies on the dollar, public servants had to participate in the pension system. They had no way of knowing that their nest egg, for which they worked their entire lives, was at risk of being taken away. They didn't contribute to the fiscal problems facing Puerto Rico, and they didn't borrow too much or fail to make annual contributions to the fund, so why should they lose their retirement funds? Besides the fundamental flaws with the control board and the failure to provide critical protections for seniors and retirees, this bill also fails to provide a clear pathway to restructuring, which is the whole purpose of this legislation and this debate to begin with. The unelected control board created in this bill will have the ultimate authority to decide whether Puerto Rico's debts are even worthy of restructure. Let's not fool ourselves into believing that is a sure thing, that this bill guarantees the island the ability to restructure its debts. Indeed, section 206 of the bill lists four gatekeeping requirements before any restructuring can occur. It must have engaged in good-faith efforts to reach a consensual agreement with creditors, it must establish a system to develop and make public timely audited financial reports, and it must adopt a fiscal plan approved by the board. But even if Puerto Rico meets and fulfills these requirements, there is still an additional, even higher hurdle it must meet to access restructuring. Instead, the fourth gatekeeping requirement in the PROMESA legislation requires a supermajority of a 5-to-2 vote by the control board in order for any of the island's debts to be restructured. When you call for a supermajority, it means that a minority of that seven--three people--may be ideologically opposed to the concept of restructuring or allowing Puerto Rico to get access to the bankruptcy court and could derail the island's attempts to achieve sustainable debt payments. Without any authority to restructure its debt, all this legislation will do is take away the democratic rights of 3.5 million Americans and leave the future to wishful thinking and a prayer that the crisis will somehow be resolved. Instead of leaving this critical decision up to the whims of a minority of the board, my amendment would provide a clear path to restructuring by removing this arbitrary vote requirement. Instead, under my amendment, the government or instrumentality would be able to restructure its debts once it completed the first three gatekeeping requirements. Since the main purpose of this bill is to give Puerto Rico the tools to restructure all of its debts, why would we leave this authority to chance? In addition to the undemocratic control board and an obfuscated path to restructuring, I have serious concerns that the bill would actually increase poverty and out-migration rather than stem both. That is because it provides an exception to the Federal minimum wage for younger workers, and it exempts the island from recently finalized overtime protections. At a time when we are seeking to increase workers' wages, PROMESA goes in the opposite direction and actually cuts them. It amazes me that the solution to getting Puerto Rico's economy growing again is to ensure that workers make even less money. Lowering people's wages is not a pro-growth strategy; it is a pro-migration strategy because anyone who lives on the island of Puerto Rico and is a U.S. citizen can take a JetBlue flight to the United States and will then have overtime and minimum wage protections. It they are a senior, they will have full Medicare protection. If they are indigent, they will have Medicaid protections. They would have just about everything every other U.S. citizen would have. All these provisions would do is intensify out-migration to the mainland, where Puerto Ricans are eligible for everything I just discussed. That is why my amendment strips these offensive and unrelated riders out of this bill. I urge my colleagues to support these commonsense improvements to the bill by voting for my motion to table. I have known for the past several weeks--well, maybe months since I started coming to the floor in September of last year and then urgently several times in December of last year to say now is the time to act so we are not up against an emergent situation--but, no, I guess the 3.5 million citizens of Puerto Rico did not deserve the type of attention and urgency we, as Members of Congress, should have given to them. I understood that for that period of time, the deck was stacked against the people of Puerto Rico, but I am not ready to give up just yet. Put simply, PROMESA exacts a price far too high for relief that is far too uncertain. If we throw our hands up in the air and refuse to make changes to this wholly inferior bill, which we can protect by the retroactive nature that we have already put in the legislation to stay any judgments, we will cast a dark shadow on the future of Puerto Rico. A vote against tabling my motion, against tabling the pending amendment, is a vote to disenfranchise 3.5 million Americans. It is a vote to authorize an unelected and all-powerful control board that could close schools, shutter hospitals, and cut senior citizens' pensions to the bone. It is a vote to force Puerto Rico, without their say, to go $370 million further in debt to pay for this omnipotent control board which they don't even want. It is a vote to cut the minimum wage down to $4.25 per hour for younger workers in Puerto Rico. It is a vote to make Puerto Ricans work long overtime hours without fair compensation or protection. It is a vote to jeopardize collective bargaining agreements. It is a vote to cut worker benefits and privatize inherent government functions. It is a vote to place well- heeled hedge funds and creditors ahead of the people. It is a vote to give the board the power to sell off and commercialize natural treasures that belong to the people of Puerto Rico. And at its worst, it is a vote to authorize an unelected, unchecked, and all-powerful control board that determines Puerto Rico's destiny for a generation or more. Let's be clear. The people of Puerto Rico find this board to be offensive and disrespectful. In fact, according to a recent poll commissioned by Puerto Rico's largest newspaper, El Nuevo Dia, 69 percent of all respondents opposed--69 percent--opposed the PROMESA bill--the bill we are voting on today--while 54 percent opposed the very idea of having an oversight board. Their concerns are validated by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office which, as I said earlier, says: The board would have broad sovereign powers to effectively overrule decisions by Puerto Rico's legislature, governor, and other public authorities. [It can] effectively nullify any new laws or policies adopted by Puerto Rico that did not conform to requirements specified in the bill. Even the bill's own author noted in the committee report: ``[T]he Oversight Board may impose mandatory cuts on Puerto Rico's government and instrumentalities.'' If the board, in its sole discretion, as the bill cites 29 times, uses the superpowers in this bill to make mandatory budget cuts that harm the people of Puerto Rico, there is nothing anybody from Puerto Rico can do about it. And these powers aren't limited to just budget and fiscal policy. As the bill states in section 205, the control board can submit recommendations to the Governor on a wide range of issues, including how Puerto Rico organizes its government agencies, how they meet the pension obligations, what services the government delivers, how they determine wage performance standards, and, perhaps most egregiously, the control board can submit recommendations on ``the privatization and commercialization of entities within the territorial government.'' While this section calls these comments recommendations, another section allows the board to ``adopt appropriate recommendations'' submitted by the Oversight Board under section 205. So, in essence, they can adopt the very essence of what they are saying is a recommendation. The board can decide to hold a fire sale and put Puerto Rican natural wonders on the auction block to the highest bidder. Is that what the people of Puerto Rico want? Is that what we want? The fact is, this legislation puts balanced budgets and untested ideology ahead of the health, safety, and well-being of children and families similar to how the control board travesty unfolded in Flint. Without their voices represented on the control board, there is nothing the people of Puerto Rico will be able to do. The fact that the Puerto Rican people will have absolutely no say over who is appointed or what action they decide to take is clearly blatant neocolonialism. I am afraid we are opening the floodgates for Puerto Rico to become a laboratory for rightwing economic policies. Puerto Rico deserves much more than to be the unwilling host of untested experiments in austerity. I am not advocating to completely remove all oversight powers. To the contrary, I support helping Puerto Rico make informed, prudent decisions that put it on a path to economic growth and solvency. But despite its name, the oversight board envisioned by this bill doesn't simply oversee; it directs, it commands, it controls. The control board has final say on the fiscal plan, final say on the budget. It can veto laws, contracts, rules, regulations, executive orders. It can even mandate across-the-board budget cuts with no regard to the impact on the people. So mark my words. If we don't seize this opportunity to address this crisis in a meaningful way, we will be right back here in a year, picking up the pieces. So while it is absolutely clear that we need to act and act decisively and expediently----

Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the Chair. So while it is absolutely clear that we need to act and act decisively and expediently to help our fellow citizens--U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico--just as importantly, we need to get it right. Working together and helping each other in a time of need is what this country is all about. When a hurricane hits the Gulf Coast or a tornado ravages the Midwest or when we see wildfires in the West, or we see what happened in West Virginia, I don't stand here and ask how my constituents in New Jersey were affected. Rather, I stand with my fellow Americans and fight to provide relief, regardless of what State or territory they are from. So it seems to me there is a reason we call this country the United States of America, and U.S. citizens enjoy the privilege of calling America home. The 3.5 million U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico are also part of that great American people. As I have outlined, I have an amendment to make reasonable and targeted improvements to this legislation so that workers get the retirement they deserve, the people of Puerto Rico are protected from egregious attacks on their pay, the island has unimpeded access to restructure its debt, and, most importantly, the people of Puerto Rico have a say in their future--the consent of the governed, the very essence of what democracy is all about. Motion to Concur With Amendment No. 4865 So, Mr. President, I move to table the motion to concur with amendment No. 4865, and I ask for the yeas and nays on my motion.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, with that, I reserve the remainder of my time. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time do I have?

Mr. MENENDEZ. Is that the time that was reserved? I understand there was a 5-minute time reserved.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I ask unanimous consent to have up to 5 minutes.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise again this morning to urge my colleagues to vote no on cloture. As drafted, PROMESA exacts a price far too high for relief that is far too uncertain. I came to this Chamber in September and December of last year to raise the alarm bells about what was happening in Puerto Rico. The majority held the ball and ran out the shot clock, attempting to silence the voice of 3.5 million U.S. citizens living in Puerto Rico in this debate. So let's be clear about what this vote to end debate means. Despite what the proponents of the bill will argue, opposing this cloture vote is not a vote to allow Puerto Rico to default. Any legislation we pass includes a retroactive stay on litigation, meaning that any lawsuit filed after July 1 will be halted and any judgment unenforceable. As the bill states, the stay bars ``the commencement or continuation'' of suits to recover claims against Puerto Rico. It also bars ``enforcement . . . of a judgment obtained before the enactment'' of the bill. In addition, section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code, which is incorporated by reference into the bill, bars the ``enforcement . . . of a judgment obtained before'' filing for bankruptcy, once the board files a bankruptcy petition on Puerto Rico's behalf. So even if the hedge funds win a judgment before the stay is enacted, that judgment cannot be enforced, and once the debt adjustment plan is confirmed, the judgment can be discharged. As the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held in 2012--the circuit that has jurisdiction over Puerto Rico--``Even if [an] injunction is not a claim [for the purpose of the bar against ``commencement or continuation'' of ``claims''], any action to enforce [an injunction] is subject to the stay and cannot proceed without relief from the stay.'' I repeat, ``Any action to enforce [an injunction] is subject to the stay and cannot proceed without relief from the stay.'' There is no doubt that time is of the essence and Congress must act swiftly. However, we shouldn't allow a somewhat arbitrary deadline to force through a fundamentally flawed bill as the retroactive stay gives us time to get this right. July 1 shouldn't be used as an excuse to abdicate our responsibilities as U.S. Senators. With this in mind, I remind my colleagues that a vote for cloture is a vote against even attempting to improve any piece of this bill. I know many have serious concerns over a lot of provisions in the bill, from the control board to the anti-worker riders, and many are even filing amendments to improve these aspects. A vote for cloture is a vote to disenfranchise 3.5 million Americans. It is a vote to authorize an unelected, unchecked, and all-powerful control board to determine Puerto Rico's destiny for a generation or more. It is a vote to force Puerto Rico, without their say, to go $370 million further in debt to pay for this omnipotent control board, which they don't even want. It is a vote to cut the minimum wage down to $4.25 per hour for young workers in Puerto Rico. It is a vote to make Puerto Ricans work long overtime hours, without fair compensation. It is a vote to jeopardize collective bargaining agreements. It is a vote to cut worker benefits and privatize inherently government functions. It is a vote to shut schools, shutter hospitals, and cut senior citizen pensions to the bone. It is a vote to put hedge funds ahead of the people. It is a vote to sell off and commercialize natural treasures that belong to the people of Puerto Rico, a vote to fast-track projects without a careful consideration of the environmental and health impacts, and, most of all, it is a vote against even attempting to fix these serious flaws. Is our memory so short that we have already forgotten the tragedy of Flint and the emergency board failures that caused it? Are we comfortable allowing this unelected, unaccountable control board to choose budgets over people? Are we content to allow them to veto regulations ensuring clean water because they don't fit the board's imposed fiscal plan? I certainly hope not. I have heard multiple times in my career that it is this bill or nothing, but I have and continue to reject that false dichotomy. Every issue before the Senate deserves and usually receives a full and open debate, but for far too long we have made Puerto Rico the exception-- the ``other'' that is somehow outside of the United States--treating our fellow Americans like subjects, not citizens: subjects not citizens. Let's break that cycle today. Let's have an honest debate and treat the 3.5 million citizens living in Puerto Rico as we would treat the citizens in any one of our States. I urge my colleagues to oppose cloture. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. If the Senator has a question.