Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise today to be a voice for the 3\1/2\ million citizens living on the island of Puerto Rico. I rise so their concerns for themselves, their families, and their livelihoods will be heard--to ask that we improve House-passed legislation known as PROMESA. The word ``promesa'' in English would mean ``promise,'' but the only thing the House bill promises the people of Puerto Rico is years of subjugation at the hands of an anti-democratic control board. All of us in this Senate will soon be faced with an immediate and serious choice, one which will have profound consequences on the people of Puerto Rico for a generation. I have said from the beginning, in terms of the challenge Puerto Rico has--a $70 billion debt; pays one- third of every dollar it receives toward paying interest, which is unsustainable for them and unsustainable for any governmental entity that would face that challenge; made tough, horrible decisions--closed schools, closed hospitals, reduced public safety--and still cannot meet the challenge. They need a clear path to restructuring. That is not a bailout. A bailout is when somebody has a debt, you bring them the money and say, OK, we are going take care of your debt, but that is not the case. Restructuring is about taking the debt you have and giving the wherewithal for that debt to be restructured in a way that is both sustainable and can take care of the obligations therein. It needs an oversight board that represents the people, the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico, their needs and their concerns, and acknowledges and respects their Democratic rights as Americans, but, sadly, the legislation passed by the House last week falls far short of what we need on several fronts. Instead of offering a clear path to restructuring, it creates more obstacles. It creates a supermajority 5- to-2 vote by an unelected control board to get to the possibility of restructuring that 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\1/2\ million Americans and leave the future to wishful thinking and a prayer that the crisis will somehow be resolved. Even if the board did allow restructuring after a series of hurdles, it will come at a steep price, and that price is the right of self-governance. In return for being able to rework its debts, the people of Puerto Rico will be forced to relinquish their fundamental right to govern themselves and make their own decisions, the very same rights we fought to secure in a revolution 240 years ago. What I am saying shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who read the House Natural Resources Committee report, which was unequivocal when describing the vast powers this control board will exercise, which we will be voting on. In an analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, it states: ``The board would have broad sovereign powers to effectively overrule decisions by Puerto Rico's legislature, governor and other public authorities.'' Let me repeat that. They will have broad sovereign powers. Words have consequences and meaning in legislation and in law. They will have broad sovereign powers to effectively overrule decisions made by the elected government of the 3\1/2\ million U.S. citizens who call Puerto Rico their home. The Congressional Budget Office went on to say that the Board can ``effectively nullify''--cancel, goodbye, hasta la vista--``any new laws or policies adopted by Puerto Rico that did not conform to requirements specified in the bill.'' So not only can the control board set budgets and fiscal policy, it also has the power to veto other laws. Essentially, this means that the Board combines--think of this-- the legislative powers of Congress with the veto powers of the Executive to form an omnipotent entity, the powers which are virtually unprecedented. We talk about checks and balances in our government as one of the creations by the Founders which was essential to a modern democracy. Well, we obliterate the checks and balances and the rights of the people of Puerto Rico by having an omnipotent entity, the powers of which are virtually unprecedented. As the bill's own author noted in the markup memo, and I quote, ``[T]he Oversight 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, when there was a control board, when the District of Columbia found itself in Fiscal Challenge.'' The fact that the Puerto Rican people will have absolutely no say over who is appointed or what action this Board decides is blatant neocolonialism. Instead, their fate will be determined by seven unelected, unaccountable members of a so-called oversight board that will act as a virtual oligarchy and impose their unchecked will on the island. If the Board uses the superpowers in this bill to close schools, shutter more hospitals, cut senior citizens' pensions to the bone, if it decides to hold a fire sale and put Puerto Rico's natural wonders on the auction block to the highest bidder, if it puts balanced budgets ahead of the health, safety, and well-being of children and families similar to the control board travesty that unfolded in Flint, there will be nothing the people of Puerto Rico or their elected representatives can do to stop them. Of course the bill doesn't stop there. It also 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 working to increase workers' wages, the people in the country have said through this election process: My wages are stagnant, and I feel I can't meet the challenges of myself and my family, PROMESA goes in the opposite direction, and it actually cuts workers' wages. It amazes me that the solution to get Puerto Rico's economy growing again is to ensure that workers make even less money. The island consists of 3\1/2\ million U.S. citizens, 40 percent of which are below the Federal poverty level, and now we are going to cut their wages. Lowering people's wages is not a pro-growth strategy. What it is, is a pro- migration strategy. All it will do is intensify outmigration to the mainland, where people who are U.S. citizens and happen to live in Puerto Rico are eligible for a higher minimum wage here, where they would have commonsense overtime protections, are eligible for full Medicare, Medicaid reimbursement, are eligible for the child tax credit as they try to raise their child and realize their hopes and dreams and aspirations, are eligible for the earned-income tax credit--all they have to do is take one flight to the United States. Yet we somehow think that a policy that subjugates these 3\1/2\ million citizens and takes away essential rights they have as American citizens is going to be a good fiscal policy for us as well. Every time I talk about my brothers and sisters in Puerto Rico, I like to remind my colleagues in this Chamber and in the other that they have fought on behalf of America since World War I. They have fought in World War II, the Korean war, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Desert Shield, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the War on Terror. As a matter of fact, if you go and visit the Vietnam Memorial as it commemorates its 50th anniversary, you will find a disproportionately high number of Puerto Rican names etched in that solemn black stone as compared to the rest of the American population. I remember being in the Visitor Center when the Speaker of the House had a celebration of the 65th Infantry Division, an all-Puerto Rican division, one of the most highly decorated in U.S. history, known as the Borinqueneers. They received the Congressional Gold Medal, the highest honor Congress gives any citizen. We talked about their enormous contributions, their sacrifices on behalf of the Nation. These men and women--many of whom gave their lives--still serve so we can remain the land of the free. They will go back home to where their freedom and their right to self-governance will be stripped. These heroes deserve the same rights and respect as U.S. citizens in New Jersey, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, Utah, or any other State in the Nation, but what this bill tells the people of Puerto Rico is this: Though you may be good enough to wear the uniform of your country, you may be good enough to fight and die to defend the United States, you are not good enough to make your own decisions, govern yourself, and have a voice in your own future. 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 the path to economic growth and solvency. Despite its name, the oversight board envisioned by this bill doesn't simply oversee, it directs and commands. It doesn't assist. It absolutely controls potentially every significant public policy decision that affects those 3\1/2\ million U.S. citizens. The Senate has an opportunity to change that situation. We have a chance to improve this bill and strike the right balance. I want the opportunity to offer a number of targeted, commonsense amendments to restore a proper balance and ensure the people of Puerto Rico have a say in their future and to temper the powers of the control board and give the people of Puerto Rico more of a say as to who is on the Board that is going to determine their future for quite some time. I know, as all of us do, that success is never guaranteed, but at the very least, the people of Puerto Rico deserve a thorough and thoughtful debate on the Senate floor. I do not take lightly, nor should my colleagues, a decision to infringe upon the Democratic rights of the 3\1/2\ million U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico. Those 3\1/2\ million American citizens living in Puerto Rico and their 5 million family members living in our States and our districts deserve more than the Senate holding its nose to improve an inferior solution. I am pleased to say that this sentiment has some bipartisan support. I sent a letter, with Senator Wicker, to Senate leadership asking for a full and thorough debate. I hope we do not get jammed at the final moment as an attempt to push an undemocratic bill through the Senate by waiting until the very end of this session as a tactical maneuver to avoid a thoughtful debate and an opportunity for amendments. I took Majority Leader McConnell at his word when he said: ``We need to open up the legislative process in a way that allows more amendments from both sides.'' I am hopeful he will honor that commitment. Like some of my colleagues, I was once a Member of the House of Representatives, and I have enormous respect for that Chamber, but I didn't get elected to the Senate to abdicate my responsibility and simply rubberstamp whatever bills come over from the House of Representatives. I would hope we would immediately call up this bill for debate and do what we were elected to do--fix problems and make the lives of the American people better. Just because these 3\1/2\ million citizens are Puerto Rican, they are no less a citizen than you or the Presiding Officer or my colleagues who are on the floor or those who get to serve in this institution. They deserve better. They deserve better than to be jammed with an undemocratic process that will affect their lives in ways far beyond anybody in this Chamber would be willing to accept. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank my colleague for yielding for a question. I thank him and my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Booker, and also Senator Blumenthal for galvanizing the sentiment that has existed for some time among many of us that enough is enough. It is outrageous that it took another mass shooting to bring us to this moment in the U.S. Senate. On Sunday morning, I woke up, as did the Nation, heartbroken by the news that 49 human beings were killed in another senseless act of violence--49 people who were at a dance club, celebrating Pride Week. By the way, most of them overwhelmingly were Latino. Forty-nine Americans were celebrating in an environment that they felt was safe, and in an instant their lives were shattered, and families were broken. I believe this was an attack on all of us, and we need more than another moment of silence. Although we take a moment of silence to remember those lives that were lost, we need more than another moment of silence. We need more. I am tired of saying that our hearts and prayers go out to the families of those who lost a loved one or who were injured. We need more than a vigil and a bouquet. We need action. We need commonsense gun safety laws. We need to stand together with one voice. I hope that we can prick the conscience of the Senate to finally act. I deeply appreciate my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Booker, who has passionately described the ongoing threat of gun violence in our communities. We are galvanizing this moment because we had such a horrific act, but, in many ways, those horrific acts take place every day in the streets and neighborhoods of our communities across the country. While they may not add to so many lives lost at a single event, they add up to many lives lost, and they seem to go largely unreported. We have become desensitized to that reality. And he has seen the havoc that is wreaked by the Nation's lax gun laws when he was the mayor of Newark, and I have seen it in the streets of our communities in New Jersey. The threat of those who are prone to violence, those looking to vent their anger or their prejudices, those who would act on their own worst instincts toward others, for whatever reason, have easy access to weapons of war. It isn't limited to Orlando. It isn't limited to Aurora. It isn't limited to Newtown. It isn't limited to any State or any city. People travel. Guns are trafficked. The violence and the carnage they create in the wrong hands know no borders. We need to act and say: No more, no more. It is inexcusable in the midst of America's nonstop gun violence epidemic to not come together, hold commonsense center, and pass gun safety measures that we know are supported by a vast majority of the American people. How in God's Name can a person on the terrorist watch list, unable to board a plane--so dangerous that they cannot fly, so dangerous that they are known to the FBI--how can they walk into a gun store and walk out with a semi-automatic weapon and hundreds of rounds of ammunition, and nothing is flagged? What does it say when our Nation's laws are so wildly misguided that a potential terrorist doesn't even have to go to a gun store? They can simply open up their computer and click with a mouse on a Web site, or they can go to a gun show and buy a deadly weapon or two or three or four deadly weapons--military-style and designed for war--without even a cursory background check. That is unbelievable. It defies logic, and it is time to do something about it. I don't believe these are controversial proposals. A majority of Americans agree with universal background checks. If you have nothing to hide, you can still have access to a weapon if you can pass those background checks. Even a majority of NRA members agree with universal background checks. It makes sense. It is a position upon which we should all be able to agree. It is a position that holds the center and can be a starting point for a larger discussion. The fact that we haven't done this yet is, in my mind, a national disgrace. Frankly, it needed to have happened already. It should have happened after Aurora when a madman ruined movie theaters for the rest of us. It should have happened after Virginia Tech when gun violence invaded our colleges. It should have happened after Sandy Hook when gun violence came to our elementary schools. I am reminded of that old Chinese proverb that says: ``The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now.'' Let's at least have the will and resolve to do what is right now. Do you know how long it takes to get an AR-15, the weapon used in this horrific attack? Well, a Philadelphia Inquirer Daily News reporter decided to find out. The answer is 7 minutes. It took 7 minutes. That is all the time it took to get a weapon that has a frightening number of similarities to the M-16 rifle used by the military. It was pointed out in that article that it could take more time to read the names of the more than 100 people who were either killed or injured in Orlando than to buy the AR-15. Of course, that model was just the base model. If you go to a gun store, you can buy a variety of add-ons to make the weapon kill that much more--yes, kill. This isn't about hunting. If you need something that has hundreds of rounds in it to hunt a deer, my God, you are in trouble. The prime example is the bump fire stock, which increases the gun rate of fire up to 800 rounds per minute. That is more than 13 per second. Maybe the NRA will claim these are cosmetic. It insults intelligence--if it is not completely absurd--to claim that modification that allows a gun to fire 800 rounds per minute is merely cosmetic, but apparently to the NRA, 800 rounds a minute is normal and covered by the Founders' language in the Second Amendment, when no one could even imagine at the time the Second Amendment was being written that there could be an instrument that could fire 800 rounds a minute. We have seen how our Nation's laws have hurt our families and communities again and again. Every day, there are shootings that don't make front pages of the newspapers, but they ruin lives, tear families apart, and test the very fabric of our society. The Orlando shooting was 1 of 43 shootings on Sunday that resulted in 18 deaths, including 5 children. We can honor the Constitution, and we can honor the intent of our Founders, but I don't think I am alone in believing that we can enact commonsense, realistic gun safety laws that respect the Constitution and also protect the lives of Americans. I have heard my colleagues say many times that the government's No. 1 responsibility is the safety and security of its citizens. Well, you have abdicated that part in this regard. In the case of Orlando, those in the LGBT community have always had to live with the threat of violence hanging. And 90 percent of the victims were Hispanic. This is a horrible reminder that bigotry and hate are not dead and that the forces of evil have no compulsion about using our Nation's lax gun laws against us. Again, we need to come together and say: No more. We need to hold the commonsense center and pass realistic gun safety measures that can respect the Second Amendment and that can fully protect Americans from a Second Amendment that has no limits, no common sense, and no realistic restrictions. Mr. President, I ask my colleague from connect, through the Chair, as he has helped us galvanize in this moment, isn't it possible to preserve those constitutional rights as were originally envisioned by the Framers and protect our fellow Americans, which many of our colleagues have said is the No. 1 responsibility of the government?

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I wish to speak on this fourth anniversary of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, DACA, for all of the young men and young women it has helped bring out of the shadows--young men and woman who came to this country as children and, because of DACA, have had the security of temporary deportation relief and work authorization so they could achieve their full potential as young Americans. I celebrate DACA's anniversary with great pride and tremendous hope. For years, I pushed hard to make this program a reality. I have spoken directly--and frankly--to the President many times about granting long-overdue administrative relief to DREAMers, who are Americans in every way except for a piece of paper. And 4 years ago, with the tireless advocacy of DREAMers and the power of their individual stories, with the help of the immigrant community, community leaders in cities and towns across America, and countless Members of Congress, the President took action and changed the lives of thousands of young men and women, allowing them to fully contribute to the country they call home--the only country they have ever known. DACA recipients are part of our communities in all 50 States. New Jersey ranks ninth in the Nation, with over 34,000 approved DACA applications. These young people have been granted the most important thing they could have: the peace of mind that comes with temporary protection from deportation and the ability to work and contribute. Since its inception, DACA has harnessed their talents in measurable ways and is a success today because of the President's bold Executive actions in June of 2012. In an immigration system as flawed as ours, DACA has been a beacon of hope, one shining light leading the way toward fairness, justice, and a better life for so many immigrants looking for a chance to succeed in America as Americans. The numbers tell the story. DACA has been granted to approximately 728,000 young immigrants. It has strengthened our economy. A survey by the National Immigration Law Center and the Center for American Progress found that after obtaining DACA, more than two-thirds of recipients were able to secure a job with higher pay and their wages rose by an average of 45 percent. Higher wages are not just good for DACA recipients, but for all Americans; it stimulates economic growth and translates into more tax revenue. DACA has allowed young Americans to open bank accounts, get a driver's license, go to college, and prepare for a stable, economically secure, and financially solvent future for themselves and their families. There is no question in my mind--and the numbers prove it--that DACA has been a model of success, and that success has been shaped by the courageous young men and women who decided to come forward, register with the government, subject themselves to a background check, work hard, and take advantage of every single opportunity that DACA provides. These young men and women and their families represent who we are as a nation. They embody the spirit of American life, which has always been shaped by the hopes, dreams, and courage of those who have made this country their home. In the absence of comprehensive immigration reform, DACA allows these young people to live with dignity and without the fear of deportation-- the fear of being separated from their families. Now, they are our newest college students, teachers, and small business owners. So here we are--with the perspective of 4 years of DACA success, 4 years of dreams fulfilled, potential reached--and proof that all of America benefits when an undocumented individual steps out of the shadows--proof that, when we give people a chance, they can make it on their own ingenuity, skill, and hard work, and they will not only contribute to the economy, but to the strength of America. With the lessons of 4 years of DACA, it should be clear that we need to build upon DACA's success, not turn our backs on extending fair opportunities to those who are willing to work hard for them. For many, the dream began with DACA. For others, the dream remains only a dream, delayed because of the politically motivated lawsuit of U.S. v. Texas. A case which has blocked the President's more recent Executive actions, Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Legal Permanent Residents, DAPA, and expanded DACA from being implemented. These new programs provide temporary relief from deportation and a work permit to parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent resident children and a larger group of DREAMers. The case is currently before the Supreme Court, and we expect the Court to issue a decision this month. I attended oral arguments on April 18 and remain hopeful that the Justices will see through the hate and the political theater, and that it will be clear that our Nation governs by its values, that we favor building bridges instead of walls. And I am not alone in that hope. I was joined by 224 Members of Congress in filing an amicus brief outlining the legality and importance of implementing the President's DAPA and expanded DACA programs. We felt the need to show our support for the President's actions while pushing back against the jingoism, isolationism, and xenophobia of those who insist on leaving millions of families, millions of parents of U.S. children stuck in the shadows. With this case, the Supreme Court has an opportunity to do something positive: to provide temporary relief from deportation and a work permit to almost 4 million parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. It would allow the current DACA program to be expanded to benefit almost 300,000 more DREAMers. Combined, these programs would help almost 5 million immigrants waiting for a chance to come out of the shadows. And we know, at the end of the day, when all is said and done, DAPA and expanded DACA have one dramatic impact that cannot be denied: They give young people and their parents the peace of mind every family deserves--to be able to build their lives together. It is my sincere hope that the politics of what is happening in this lawsuit and with the immigration rhetoric in general will be abundantly clear to the Supreme Court and we will have a positive ruling that allows expanded DACA and DAPA to move forward, bring some order, and keep hard-working families together. I believe the Supreme Court will agree that the President's Executive actions are within his legal authority, that they represent the very best of American values and a fundamental respect for family unity. This is a pivotal legal battle over what amounts to the basic humanity of American immigration policy. I am not exaggerating when I say that people's lives and families are at stake. It is personal. I have spoken to police chiefs, teachers, religious leaders, moms and dads, and U.S. citizen children, and it is clear that these policies are just and humane to keep these families together. Ultimately, the only way to fix our broken immigration system is for Congress to pass comprehensive immigration legislation. I will continue to fight for comprehensive immigration reform that will fix our Nation's broken immigration system once and for all, not just because it makes good economic sense, but because it is the right thing to do-- because we are a nation of immigrants. DACA's success should further encourage Congress to move forward, fortified by the conviction that comprehensive immigration reform is a fight worth fighting for. But today I join my colleagues in commemorating DACA's anniversary as a day that marks 4 years of smart and successful policy, as a step in the right direction, and as a foundation upon which we can continue to build. The foundation that the Supreme Court should look to when ruling on DAPA and expanded DACA. Let's work to extend the American Dream to all.

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I thought long and hard about giving this speech, and I don't come to the floor lightly, but as the senior Latino in this Chamber, I felt I had to speak, for those who do not recall the past are destined to repeat it, and I don't want to let this opportunity pass without speaking out. The remarks of the presumptive Republican nominee for President about Judge Gonzalo Curiel are taking this Nation and the Republican Party down a dark and slippery slope. The road to some of the darkest moments of history have been paved with the rants of petty demagogues against ethnic minorities for centuries. And now, again in this century, Donald Trump is echoing those same racist rants and by doing so threatening to take this Nation to a dangerous place. While Donald Trump's racist themes throughout his campaign are a new low for one of America's major political parties, they are not unique in history. This is page one on the dark chapters of history: Separate us from them. Tyrants and dictators have incited hatred against ethnic and religious minorities for centuries in order to consolidate power for themselves. Increasingly radical-thinking Republicans are not blameless in creating the environment that has led to this disaster, that has led to a new McCarthyism that calls out people not for their beliefs but for their ethnicity. We have governed from crisis to crisis over the past 8 years, not because we cannot find solutions to our problems but because of political decisions to delegitimize the process and the President. They have fed into the ranks of a petty demagogue and now struggle to find safe ground. They have given quarter to snake oil salesmen and conspiracy theorists. Now we have the head of a major U.S. political party attacking a Federal judge because of his parentage. This isn't a reality TV show or real estate deal; this is an attack on our independent judiciary. We are talking about a Presidential candidate tearing the fabric with which we enforce our laws and help citizens protect themselves from injustice. In every aspect of her life, my mother believed in being treated fairly. What she did not believe is that being treated fairly meant she would always get what she wanted and that if she did not get it, it would be proof that the process of the system was corrupt, unfair, and out to get her. To my mother and to me, lashing out when we don't get what we want-- as Donald Trump seems to do so often--can be described only as remarkably childish, thin-skinned, surprisingly egocentric, and frankly, for someone who aspires to lead this Nation, dangerously undemocratic, if not outright demagogic, threatening the very safeguards our Founders put in place to protect us from those, like Mr. Trump, whose only view of the world seems to be in a mirror. His only response to adversity is to blame someone else and turn people against each other. The fact is, leaders don't turn people against each other; they bring them together in common cause. Mr. Trump needs to learn that there is not always someone else to blame for defeat. The fact that you lost doesn't imply unfairness, it only indicates that you lost, and he should get used to it, although it is a difficult concept for someone raised to believe there would be no losing and if there were, it must be a mistake that can be rectified with power, money, or a lawsuit. Apparently, in Mr. Trump's mind, if he loses, it must be someone else's fault: It is he. It is they. It is those people. He isn't American. He doesn't have a birth certificate. He is a Muslim. It is all of them. He is a Mexican judge, and I want to build a wall, so he is being unfair to me. That attitude may be childish and pathetic in a schoolyard bully, but in an American President and Commander in Chief, it is downright dangerous. I have traveled my State and this Nation and listened to people who wonder, as many of us do, how our political dialogue has become so dangerously coarse and brash and blatantly racist and how we seem to have reduced the greatness of this country to its lowest common denominator. We are talking about electing a President--a man or woman who will hold the nuclear code and will decide matters of war and peace and whether to send our sons and daughters into harm's way. The stakes are too high to allow a megalomaniac to pound his chest over a legitimate decision ordered by a judge who was confirmed unanimously by this Senate. Many of my colleagues have tried to distance themselves from the comments of the nominee, but in many cases they have not gone far enough. They have not called him out as they should, politics aside, for the threat he poses to this Nation if he is elected. Many of my colleagues must recognize, as I do, that a Federal judge born in Indiana, which is part of these great United States, with a Mexican family background whose parents became U.S. citizens is not a Mexican judge but is an American judge, just as a U.S. Senator like this one--born in New York, raised in New Jersey, from a Cuban family background--is a U.S. Senator. To imply otherwise and ask Judge Curiel to recuse himself from a case because of where his parents were born is on its face racist. They need to come to the floor and denounce the comments of their nominee. In fact, all Americans should denounce this kind of blatant racism. The tone of the Trump campaign and his statements, actions, and demeanor threaten to send us down a slippery slope. He doesn't seem to be able to stop himself. He has doubled down and said that it is impossible, for example--that a judge of Muslim descent might not be able to render a favorable decision in a Trump v. Whomever case because of the candidate's policy to ban Muslims from entering this country. Anyone who won't stand up and call this blatant racism has decided to put partisan politics ahead of our country. This is how a new McCarthyism comes to America, sold by a reality TV show host, aided and abetted by a political party without the courage to stand up to racism in its most cynical form. I have watched this campaign, like most of my colleagues, incredulous at what I heard, shocked, in disbelief, and with a deep concern at the level of discourse that has degenerated into name calling and out-and- out racism. Many of my Republican colleagues and friends are pulling their punches, not going far enough to denounce the racist rants of their nominee. This is not the American political system that I know or grew up with, it is not how we run campaigns, and it should make us all feel uncomfortable. But it is not good enough to simply be uncomfortable with what the presumptive Republican nominee says. We can't just turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to someone like Donald Trump and where he threatens to take this Nation should he be elected. We cannot wait until it is too late, and I believe my colleagues know it but have not yet found a way to articulate it. We as a nation have to face the ugliness of what he has said and what he has no doubt yet to say. We as a people must immediately and unconditionally condemn and reject the type of blatant racism we heard over the last few days. Those who do not stand up to intolerance and hatred only encourage it and sow the seeds of bigotry that will ultimately divide us as a nation and a people. I urge all of my Republican colleagues and all Americans to reject the politics of settling scores and grudges and work toward changing the hateful rhetoric we continue to hear. We are a nation of immigrants--all of us. We all know the reality of what it means to work hard, get an education, build a career, and find our way to this Chamber or the Federal bench. Many of us grew up in immigrant neighborhoods, like Judge Curiel, having to navigate many obstacles, the veiled or not-so-veiled insults, the derogatory comments, the finger-pointing and racial stereotypes, while always remaining rational and logical enough to take the long view and see beyond the mirror and beyond ourselves so we can make the best decisions we can and take what comes and in doing so become part of the larger whole, no longer a stranger but members of something larger than ourselves. When Donald Trump says ``There's my African American'' at a political rally, we see only a fellow American, a citizen, one of us, not one of them. Today we are all Judge Gonzalo Curiel, and today we stand together as one Nation, indivisible, no matter how hard someone tries to divide us. I repeat: The road to some of the darkest moments in history have been paved with the rants of petty demagogues against ethnic minorities for centuries, and Donald Trump is echoing those same racist rants, threatening to take this Nation to a dangerous place. Let's all of us speak out before it is too late. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the ongoing crisis affecting the 3.5 million citizens who call Puerto Rico their home and to comment on the legislation that is pending in the House of Representatives. We are facing a critical moment in the history of Puerto Rico. The island is sinking under a mountain of debt. I said it before, but it bears repeating. Just servicing the government's $72 billion debt swallows 36 percent of all of the island's revenue. That means that for every dollar Puerto Rico takes in, they immediately send over one-third to bondholders. This is not sustainable for any government, especially one that has been mired in a decade-long recession. Congress is faced with an immediate and serious choice. Indeed, the decisions we make in the next month will have profound consequences on the people of Puerto Rico for over a generation, and the stakes are high. We simply have to get it right. I said from the beginning that any fix needs to provide a clear path to restructuring with an oversight board that represents the people of Puerto Rico and their democratic rights. If we truly want to help the economic situation on the island, we also need to provide parity for health care funds and worker tax credits that all 3.5 million American citizens living in Puerto Rico have access to once they move to the American mainland. I must say I have been encouraged by Speaker Ryan and Chairman Bishop's acknowledgement that Congress needs to act to prevent this fiscal crisis from becoming a full-blown humanitarian catastrophe, but, unfortunately, the legislation that is being marked up tomorrow falls far short on several fronts. Instead of offering a clear path to restructuring, the legislation creates a number of obstacles that could derail the island's attempt to achieve sustainable debt payments. Most strikingly, it requires a 5-to-2 supermajority vote by the control board to access this necessary restructuring authority--an authority that Puerto Rico had years ago and somehow--in the dark of night, in some legislation several years ago--was eliminated. Nobody seems to understand why. But it had the authority to restructure its debt. Now, restructuring its debt isn't a bailout because no one gives them money. They ultimately have to restructure the debt they have. While most reasonable people agree it is absolutely vital for Puerto Rico to be able to restructure its debt, this authority can be blocked by a simple minority on the board. That is right. A simple minority on the board could block the pathway to restructure. Without the authority to restructure its debt, this legislation does virtually nothing to help Puerto Rico dig out of the hole they are in. Exacerbating this concern is the composition and scope of power endowed to the control board. The fact that the people of Puerto Rico will have absolutely no say over who is appointed or what action they decide to take is blatant neocolonialism. It is OK to say to Puerto Ricans: Yes, please, wear the uniform of the United States, as they have done in World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. If you went with me to the Mall, you would see a disproportionate number of names of Puerto Ricans who gave their lives on behalf of the United States. Recently, the Speaker awarded the Congressional Gold Medal to the Borinqueneers, the 65th Infantry Division, which was one of the most decorated in U.S. military history. Yes, it is OK. Please put on the uniform of the United States and go fight for your country. Die for America. But it is not OK for you to have a voice in your future. It is not OK for you to have self-governance. If that control board--with no Puerto Rican representation--uses its superpowers under the bill as drafted and decides to close more schools and hospitals than have been closed, cut pensions to the bone, sell Puerto Rico's natural assets without any say by the elected representatives of the 3.5 million U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico, I am sure some would suggest we look the other way and say Puerto Ricans are worth less than any other U.S. citizen. While there is some fancy language to pretend that the President will get to pick the board members, this is all a figleaf to hide the real levers of power. The board will be composed of four Republican appointees and three Democratic appointees, and in addition to being the gatekeeper to restructuring, it will have the power to veto laws and regulations, override budgets, determine the level of debt payments, and make in essence what is the governing body of any State, any municipality, or of the people Puerto Rico totally obsolete. They will decide--unelected, they will decide. To me, it is simply wrong and un-American to take away the basic democratic rights of the people of Puerto Rico. The bill even puts speculating hedge funds above pensioners, including language to ensure that in any restructuring deal, the people who worked their entire lives--their entire lives--to help the island are put at the back of the line behind Wall Street. I remind my colleagues that each and every Puerto Rican is an American citizen, many of whom have fought and died, as I said, for our country in every war over the past century. They deserve the same rights and respect as citizens in New Jersey or Wisconsin or Utah or any other State in the Nation. If they can do this in Puerto Rico, why not see any other State that sees a crisis have it become a reality as well. Finally, the proposed legislation sensibly cuts minimum wage rules and new overtime protections that would apply to workers in Puerto Rico. At a time when cities and States across the Nation are moving toward increasing the minimum wage, I cannot fathom why anyone would support decreasing it for Puerto Rico. With the poverty rate of approximately 45 percent, lowering people's wages is not a pro-growth strategy, as some have called it. It is a pro-migration strategy. We already see an incredible migration from Puerto Rico to places in the United States--most particularly Florida, New Jersey, New York, and other places in the country. Why? Because as an American citizen they have every right to reside anywhere in the United States. They also have a right to receive any right or privilege that any citizen has in the United States. So there is a brain drain leaving Puerto Rico coming to the mainland, which only exacerbates the problem in Puerto Rico. These unrelated riders are counterproductive and will only drive more Puerto Ricans to migrate to the mainland, where they will not have to work for subminimum wages. I am afraid this bill provides little more than a bandaid on a bullet hole with regard to Puerto Rico's unsustainable debt. Mark my words, if we don't seize this opportunity to address the crisis in a meaningful way and in the right way, we will be back here a year from now, but we will be picking up the pieces because there will not be much left. So while it is absolutely clear that we need to act and act decisively and expediently to help our fellow citizens in Puerto Rico, just as important, we also 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, I don't ask how many of 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. That is why we call this country the United States of America. Let's continue to honor that timeless American tradition. Let's honor our country's motto of ``e pluribus unum,'' out of many, one. Let us provide our fellow Americans in Puerto Rico with the tools they need to help themselves. It is not a bailout. We are not going to give them any money. They are going to have to restructure and figure out themselves how they will get out of the mess, without taking away their self- governance. You can't preach democracy and human rights and then deny it to the American citizens of Puerto Rico. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I was unavoidably detained for rollcall vote No. 83 on passage of S. 2613. Had I been present, I would have voted yea.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, today I wish to honor 61 high school seniors in Camden County, NJ, for their commendable decision to enlist in the U.S. Armed Forces. Of these 61, 20 have elected to join the U.S. Army: Dalton Bretz, Freddy Guzman, Alliyah Rowe, Joseph Davis, James Helsel, Siobhan Reheuser, Joseph Stone, Natalie Reyes, William Landsaw, Marcon Quinagon, Joshua Roque, Pasquale Joseph Liveecchi, Jalen Reginald Tompkins, Erik Santos, Quiyara Alexis Miller, Anthony Eugen Evans, Raymundo Ricco, Luis Francisco Mansilla, Maxwell Flaherty, and Michael Felix. Six have elected to join the U.S. Navy: Keelei Galloway, James Hyland, Domenic Miraglia, Delaney Carr, Ryan Moore, and Vincent Dinicolas. Five have elected to join the U.S. Air Force: Madison Shields, Noah Forsman, Samuel Lugo, Dustin McGunnigle, and Krystal Ford. Eighteen have elected to join the U.S. Marine Corps: Jonathon Brunick, Bilal Gibson, Jacob Rivera, Keith Mennig, Michael Andrescavage, Anthony Shaffer, Vincent Bulgarino, Sarah Astor, Austin Cole, Antoniel Rivera-Santos, Christopher Morales, Andrew Jago, David Foulks, Joseph Esguerra, Jacob Jelesiewicz, Andre Lopez, Lineilys Ramos Sanchez, and Joseph Rios. And 12 have elected to join the New Jersey National Guard: Shersy Batista, Sherly Batista, Joselyn Chevere, Anthony Crispaldi, Allison Johnson, Nicholas Lombardo, Mary Grace Oinal, Nicholas Oliver-Simons, Jasmine Perez, Angel Rivera, Savanna Sanchez, and John Scullan. These 61 individuals will also be honored on May 17, 2016, at the Our Community Salutes of South Jersey recognition ceremony in Voorhees Township, NJ. The future of our Nation remains strong because of young men and women like these 61 individuals who have decided to step forward and commit themselves to the defense of our Nation and to upholding the ideals upon which it was founded. Indeed, these New Jerseyans represent the very best of America, and they should rest assured that the full support of the Senate as well as that of the American people are with them in whatever challenges may lie ahead. It is thanks to the dedication of untold numbers of patriots, like these 61 whom we are able to meet here today in the Senate and openly debate the best solutions to the many and diverse problems that confront our country. It is thanks to their sacrifices that the United States of America remains a beacon of hope and freedom throughout the world. We owe them, along with all those who serve our country, a deep debt of gratitude.

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, as the President prepares to go to Cuba, I rise in memory of all of those Cuban dissidents who have given their lives in the hope that Cuba one day would be free from the yoke of the Castro regime. It is that freedom I had hoped President Obama was referencing when he said: What I've said to the Cuban government is--if we're seeing more progress in the liberty and freedom and possibilities of ordinary Cubans, I'd love to use a visit as a way of highlighting that progress. . . . If we're going backwards, then there's not much reason for me to be there. But that is obviously not the case, which is why the Boston Globe's headline on February 25 says it all: ``Obama Breaks Pledge, Will Visit Cuba Despite Worsening Human Rights.'' Instead of having the free world's leader honor Latin America's only dictatorship with a visit, he could have visited one of 150 countries that he has not visited, including several in Latin America that are democracies. The President has negotiated a deal with the Castros--and I understand his desire to make this his legacy issue--but there is still a fundamental issue of freedom and democracy at stake that goes to the underlying atmosphere in Cuba and whether or not the Cuban people will still be repressed and still be imprisoned or will they benefit from the President's legacy or will it be the Castro regime that reaps those benefits? Unless the Castros are compelled to change their dictatorship--the way they govern the island and the way they exploit its people--the answer to this won't be much different than the last 50-some-odd years. The Castro regime will be the beneficiary. At the very least, the President's first stops should be meetings with internationally recognized dissidents: U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom winner Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet and the European Union's Sakharov prize recipients Guillermo Farinas and Rosa Maria Paya, in respect for her murdered father, Oswaldo Paya, who was leading the Varela Project, advocating for civil liberties, and collecting thousands of signatures petitioning the Castro regime for democratic change--as permitted, by the way, under the Cuban Constitution. So threatening was his peaceful petition drive that he was assassinated by Castro security agents. The President should meet with Berta Soler at her home, in her neighborhood, with the Ladies in White, and with dissidents and democracy advocates in Havana. That should be the front-page photograph we see next week. Only then will the message that the United States will not give in or give up on our commitment to a free and democratic Cuba be clear to the world and to the Cuban people. To leave a truly honorable mark in history would mean the President leaving Castro's cordoned-off tourist zone and seeking Berta Soler and her Ladies in White at their headquarters in the Lawton neighborhood of Havana, where poverty, Castro-style--not opportunity, not freedom, not democracy but poverty created by a Stalinist state--is the umbrella under which they live. The President should witness their bravery, listen to their stories, feel their despair, see the fear under which they live, and stand up with them and for them. If he did, he could learn of the story of Aliuska Gomez, one of the Ladies in White, who was arrested this past Sunday for marching peacefully. Basically, the Ladies in White dress in white as a form of a symbol. They march with a gladiolus to church every Sunday in protest for their sons and husbands who are arrested simply for their political dissent, and they are beaten savagely--savagely. The President could learn of the story of Aliuska Gomez, one of the Ladies in White, who was arrested this past Sunday for marching peacefully. I am reading from an article in Diario de Cuba where she told her story: ``We were subjected to a lot of violence today,'' said Aliuska Gomez. ``Many of us were dragged and beaten,'' she added, pointing out that this has taken place only one week before President Obama's visit. Aliuska related how she was taken to a police station in Marianao where she was forcibly undressed by several uniformed officers in plain view of some males. . . . ''After they had taken away all of my belongings,'' she said, ``they told me to strip naked, and I refused, so they threw me down on the floor and took off all of my clothing, right in front of two men, and they dragged me completely naked into a jail cell.'' Aliuska was then handcuffed and thrown on the cell's floor naked and left alone. Or how about the young Cuban dissident who met with Ben Rhodes and was arrested in Havana. This is from a report dated March 14: Yesterday the Castro regime arrested Carlos Amel Oliva, head of the youth wing of the Cuban Patriotic Union, a major dissident organization. He is being accused of antisocial behavior. On Friday, Amel Oliva had participated in a meeting in Miami with Ben Rhodes, President Obama's Deputy National Security Advisor. He returned to Havana on Sunday. I guess that is what Raul Castro thinks and does to those who meet with the President's Deputy National Security Advisor. Notwithstanding their true stories and the stories of thousands like them, the President first announced sweeping changes to America's strategic approach to the Castro regime in December 2014. In broad strokes, we learned of the forthcoming reestablishment of diplomatic relations--an exchange of symbols, with the American flag flying over a U.S. Embassy in Havana and the Cuban flag flying over a Cuban Embassy in Washington. We learned about the process by which Cuba's designation as a state sponsor of terrorism would be lifted. We learned about the forthcoming transformative effects of a unilateral easing of sanctions to increase travel, commerce, and currency. But for those of us who understand this regime, we cautioned for nuance and urged against those broad strokes. We asked that the administration at least require the Castros to reciprocate with certain concessions of their own, which would be as good for U.S. national interests as for the Cuban people and for U.S.-Cuba relations. For example, before the President ever traveled to Burma--a country with notorious human rights abuses and with which this administration began to engage--the United States first demanded and received action by the Burmese to address their human rights record. To be sure, the Burmese Government agreed to meet nearly a dozen benchmarks--a dozen benchmarks--as a part of this action-for-action engagement, including granting the Red Cross access to prisons, establishing a U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights office, release of political prisoners, conclusion of a cease-fire in Kachin State, and ensuring international access to conflict areas. We asked, as the President's Cuban policy unfolded, that they push for changes that put Cubans in control of their own future, their political process, economic opportunities, civil society, and governance. We didn't get a single one. We asked for changes that would honor America's legacy as a champion for human rights. We didn't get those either. We suggested changes that would ultimately bring Cuba into the community of nations, contributing to, rather than detracting from, the overall prosperity of the hemisphere. And there were none. Most importantly, we asked that they remember that it is a lack of resources, not a change of heart, that slowed the Castros' adventurism and instability-inducing support for those who would pose threats to our national interests within the Western Hemisphere. In essence, we were thinking strategically. Instead, we traded strategy for tactics. Leading Cuban human rights and democracy activists have criticized U.S. policies--those languishing inside of Cuba who risk their lives and their liberty every day. The simple truth is that deals with the Devil require the Devil to deal. Opening channels of communications controlled by the regime means nothing unless we are going to communicate our values. It means nothing if we do not champion the material changes the Cuban people seek. It means nothing if we do not speak the language the Castros understand-- that the Communist revolution has failed miserably and it is time to let the Cuban people decide their future. The Castros know it, but it is the antiquated hallmark of the revolution and the iron-fisted rule that came from it that keeps them in power. We talk about being in the past. Well, that is in the past, but no one challenges that past. Until that power is truly challenged, we can expect to witness the further weakening of our leverage on behalf of democracy and human rights. In the meantime, the regime is already moving forward, already breathing new life into its existing repressive state systems. Cubans are being beaten, arrested, and otherwise muzzled at higher rates-- higher rates--than ever before. The Cuban Commission for Human Rights, which is within Cuba, has documented 1,141 political arrests by the Castro regime in Cuba during the short month of February 2016. In January 2016 the commission documented 1,447 political arrests. As such, these 2,588 political arrests in the first 2\1/2\ months of this year represent the highest tally to begin a year in decades. This is what happens when President Obama first announces he will not visit Cuba until there are tangible improvements in the respect for human rights, and then he crosses his own red lines--nearly 2,600 arrests in 2\1/2\ months, and these are only political arrests that have been thoroughly documented. Many more are suspected. U.S. fugitives and members of foreign terrorist organizations, such as Joanne Chesimard, the convicted killer of New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster, or Charlie Hill, who killed New Mexico State Trooper Robert Rosenbloom, still enjoy safe harbor on the island. Not a penny of the $6 billion in outstanding claims by American citizens and businesses for properties confiscated by the Castros has been repaid. Unrelenting censorship and oppression of Cuban journalists continues unscathed, and the Cuban path to liberty doesn't even include the U.S. Embassy. So what do we learn? We learn that, despite the Obama administration's engagement with the Castro dictatorship and increased travel to the island, repression on the island is rising exponentially. Why? Because the Castro regime, one of the most astute observers of the American political system, is rushing to take advantage of the permissive environment created by the President's hunger for legacy and the relaxation of restrictions. But legacy is not more important than lives. For years we have heard how an improvement in U.S.-Cuba relations, an easing of sanctions, and an increase in travel to the island would benefit the Cuban people--a benefit not realized despite the visits and investments of millions of Europeans, Canadians, Mexicans, and South Americans. There is not one iota of better life or greater democracy for the Cuban people. These assumptions are wrong. And since December 17, 2014, the President has engaged the regime, offering unilateral concessions that the Castros are more than happy to accept. If that is not enough for us to at least question our Cuba policy, we are now facing an unfolding Cuban migration crisis. The United States is faced with the largest migration of Cuban immigrants since the rafters of 1994. The number of Cubans entering the United States in 2015 was nearly twice that of 2014--some 51,000--and tens of thousands more are desperately trying to make the journey via South and Central America. I ask: Why would Cubans flee if the promise of a better life in Cuba is just on the horizon? When President Obama took office, those numbers were less than 7,000 annually--51,000. We hear that ``self-employment,'' such as it is in Cuba, is growing. But the number of ``self-employed'' workers in Cuba has actually decreased. The Cuban government today is licensing 10,000 fewer ``self- employed'' workers than it did in 2014. In contrast, Castro's military monopolies are expanding at record pace. Even the limited spaces in which ``self-employed'' workers previously operated are being squeezed as the Cuban military expands its control of the island's travel, retail, and financial sectors of the economy. While speaking recently to a business gathering in Washington, here in the Nation's Capital, President Obama argued how he believes this new policy is ``creating the environment in which a generational change and transition will take place in [Cuba].'' But the key question is, A ``generational change and transition'' toward what and by whom? Cuban democracy leader, Antonio Rodiles, has concisely expressed this concern. He said ``legitimizing the [Castro] regime is the path contrary to a transition.'' CNN has revealed that the Cuban delegation in the secret talks that began in mid-2013 with U.S. officials in Ottawa, Toronto, and Rome, and which led to the December 17 policy announcement, were headed by Colonel Alejandro Castro Espin. Colonel Castro Espin is the 49-year-old son of Cuban dictator Raul Castro. In both face-to-face meetings between President Obama and Raul Castro this year--first at April's Summit of the Americas in Panama City and just recently at the United Nation's General Assembly in New York-- Alejandro was seated, with a wide grin, next to his father. Alejandro holds the rank of colonel in Cuba's Ministry of the Interior, with his hand on the pulse and trigger of the island's intelligence services and repressive ordinances. It is no secret that Raul Castro is grooming Alejandro for a position of power. Sadly, his role as interlocutor with the Obama administration seeks to further their goal of an intrafamily generational transition within the Castro clan, similar to the Assads in Syria and the Kims in North Korea. And we know how well those have worked out. To give an idea of how Colonel Alejandro Castro views the United States, he has described its leaders as ``those who seek to subjugate humanity to satisfy their interests and hegemonic goals.'' This is who is being readied to be the next leader of Cuba, with whom we have been negotiating. Of course, it also takes money to run a totalitarian dictatorship, which is why Raul Castro named his son-in-law, General Luis Alberto Rodriguez Lopez Callejas, as head of GAESA, which stands for Grupo de Administracion Empresarial S.A., or translated, Business Administrative Group. GAESA is the holding company of Cuba's Ministry of the Revolutionary Armed Forces, Cuba's military. It is the dominant driving force of the island's economy. Established in the 1990s by Raul Castro, it controls tourism companies, ranging from the very profitable Gaviota S.A., which runs Cuba's hotels, restaurants, car rentals, and nightclubs, to TRD Caribe S.A., which runs the island's retail stores. GAESA controls virtually all economic transactions in Cuba. According to Hotels Magazine, a leading industry publication, GAESA-- through its subsidiaries--is by far the largest regional hotel conglomerate in Latin America. It controls more hotel rooms than the Walt Disney Company. As McClatchy News explained a few years back: Tourists who sleep in some of Cuba's hotels, drive rental cars, fill up their gas tanks, and even those riding in taxis have something in common: They are contributing to the [Cuban] Revolutionary Armed Forces' bottom line. In essence, Cuba's military and its repressive system. GAESA became this business powerhouse, thanks to the millions of Canadians and European tourists that have and continue to visit Cuba each year. The Cuban military-owned tourism company, Gaviota Tourism Group S.A., averaged 12 percent growth in 2015 and expects to double its hotel business this year. These tourists have done absolutely nothing to promote freedom and democracy in Cuba. To the contrary, they have directly financed a system of control and repression over the Cuban people, all while enjoying cigars by Cuban workers paid in worthless pesos and having a Cuba Libre, which is an oxymoron, on the beaches Varadero. Yet, despite the clear evidence, President Obama wants American tourists to now double GAESA's bonanza and, through GAESA, strengthen the regime. An insightful report by Bloomberg Business also explained: [Raul's son-in-law, General Rodriguez] is the gatekeeper for most foreign investors, requiring them to do business with his organization if they wish to set up shop on the island. If and when the U.S. finally removes its half-century embargo on Cuba, it will be this man who decides which investors get the best deals. Again, he is part of the Cuban military. So this is not about people to people. This is about us helping the very entities that help fund the Cuban military and security agencies. In other words, all of the talking points about how lifting the embargo and tourism restrictions would somehow benefit the Cuban people are empty and misleading rhetoric. In addition, Internet ``connectivity ranking'' has dropped in Cuba. The International Telecommunication Union's ``Measuring the Information Society Report'' for 2015, the most reliable source of data and analysis on global access to information and communication, dropped Cuba's ranking to 129, down from 119. Cuba fares much worse than some of the world's most infamous suppressors, including Syria, Iran, China, and Venezuela--worse. In Cuba, religious freedom violations have also increased. According to the London-based NGO, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, last year, 2,000 churches in Cuba were declared illegal and 100 were designated for demolition by the Castro regime. Altogether, they documented 2,300 separate violations of religious freedom in 2015, compared to 220 in 2014--2,300 versus 220. So religious oppression is on the rise. And if that is not enough, Castro reneged on the release of political prisoners and visits by international monitors. Most of the 53 political prisoners released in the months prior and after the President's December 2014 announcement have since been rearrested on multiple occasions. Five have been handed new long-term prison sentences. Meanwhile, Human Rights Watch noted in its new 2016 report that ``Cuba has yet to allow visits to the island by the International Committee of the Red Cross or by the United Nations human rights monitors, as stipulated in the December 2014 agreement with the United States.'' These were the conditions that prompted Congress, over the course of our long history with Cuba, to pass successive laws to build on--not detract from--Executive orders that created the embargo. So I stand with thousands of Cuba's civil society leaders, dissidents, journalists and everyday men and women who long for the day when the freedom we enjoy in our great country extends to theirs. As long as I have a voice, they will have an ally to speak truth to power against this dictatorship and against any effort to legitimize it or reward it. We must realize the nature of the Castro regime will not be altered by capitulating on our demands for basic human and civil rights. If the United States is to give away its leverage, it should be in exchange for one thing, and one thing only: a true transition in Cuba. Finally, as for the latest announcements from the administration, I stand against any rollback of the statutory provisions that codify Cuba sanctions. We learned this week that the administration has cleared the way for individual travel to Cuba outside the auspices of a group or organization, and that is tourism, plain and simple. We learned this week that the administration has cleared the way for Cubans--athletes, artists, performers, and others--to earn salaries in the United States, which, in and of itself would be a good thing, except that, unfortunately, much if not all of those salaries will go back to the regime, as they must pay the regime most of what they make abroad. We learned that Americans may purchase Cuban-origin products and services in third countries--cigars, alcohol, and basic products produced by a system of slave labor that funnels proceeds to one place: the regime's pockets. When it comes to banking and financial services, we will now permit the U.S. financial system to facilitate the flow of these and other proceeds directly to the regime. The administration will allow the Cuban Government, which profits from the sale of intelligence--as when they had our Hellfire missile--to export Cuban-origin software to the United States. Never mind that the Cuban Government aggressively monitors the Internet activity of Cuban dissidents and sensors users on the island. And then we are going to permit direct shipping by Cuban vessels. These ``significant amendments'' to the Cuban Assets Control Regulations and the Export Administration Regulations, cornerstones of implementation of United States sanctions against the Castro regime announced on Tuesday, create new opportunities for abuse of permitted travel. They authorize trade and commerce with Castro monopolies and permit the regime to use U.S. dollars to conduct its business. They are unilateral concessions, requiring no changes from the Castro regime to the political and economic system under which the Castros exploit lives and labor of Cuban nationals. In a meeting late last week, I warned officials at the Department of Treasury that these changes ``come up to the line and in some cases cross it,'' with respect to statutory authority. Their actions are inconsistent with existing statutes and incompatible with the intent of Congress as expressed through those statutes. I should know, as I was one of the authors of the Libertad Act when I served in the House of Representatives. In my view, at the end of the day, this is a unilateral transfer of the little remaining leverage that the administration hadn't given away prior to this week's announcement. With these steps, I believe Commerce and Treasury have set the stage for legal action against the administration. Congress has authorized categories of travel to Cuba, but none of these categories were tourism or commerce for commerce's sake with the regime. The President has said his Cuba policy ``helps promote the people's independence from Cuban authorities,'' but it is clear that it does not. Yet, this week, in what would seem to contravene not only the letter but the spirit of the law, the administration will reportedly allow the regime to use U.S. dollars in international financial transactions and a U.S. hotel company to partner with a Cuban military conglomerate run by the Castro family. Let's be clear. It is not the Cuban people who are eager and willing to shuffle dollars through BNP Paribas, INB Group, or HSBC Bank; only the regime is willing and eager to do so. As for the reports that Starwood-Marriott is looking for an arrangement with the regime, with the blessing of the administration, it would be an agreement with a subsidiary of GAESA, the Cuban military conglomerate run by Raul Castro's son-in-law, General Luis Alberto Rodriguez Lopez-Callejas. So how does that help the Cuban people when you are working and helping the regime? It would be an agreement to manage a hotel for the Cuban military. Among those considered is Havana's swanky hotel Saratoga, which has been confiscated twice by the Castro regime--an agreement by which employees are also hired by the regime's state employment agency instead of directly by a company, in violation of international labor laws. So I ask, how does allowing U.S. companies to do business with the regime, let alone the Castro family itself, ``promote the Cuban people's independence from the authorities,'' as the President has said? This breathes new life into the Castro's repressive state systems, and that new life means one thing: The repressive system will continue without changes. Next week, when we anticipate we will see a photograph of the President of the United States laughing and shaking hands with the only dictator in the Western Hemisphere, I will be thinking of Berta Soler of the Ladies in White and her fellow human rights and democracy advocates. She testified before Congress last year and said: ``Our demands are quite concrete; freedom for political prisoners, recognition of civil society, the elimination of criminal dispositions that penalize freedom of expression and association and the right of the Cuban people to choose their future through free, multiparty elections.'' It is not an overwhelming ask. What American would be willing to not have those basic fundamental freedoms? What are we willing to do to impose on another country--to say: We will deal with you even though you repress your people and deny them those freedoms. Those are the words of freedom Berta Soler spoke on her behalf and all of those who risk their lives and liberty every day inside of Cuba to create that possibility. That is the legacy we should work toward until the Cuban people are finally freed. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to be a voice for the 3.5 million American citizens living in Puerto Rico, the 200,000 Puerto Ricans who have served in our Armed Forces in every conflict since World War I, and the 20,000 who currently wear the uniform and put their lives on the line for our country. I rise to introduce a comprehensive stability and recovery package that restores fairness, ensures accountability, and gives Puerto Rico the tools it needs to dig itself out of this hole. And I rise to implore this Congress to act before it is too late. Let me thank Senators Schumer, Brown, Warren, Cantwell, Blumenthal, and Booker for supporting these efforts and working so hard on behalf of the people of Puerto Rico. I also want to thank Congressman Pierluisi, who coauthored the tax sections of this bill along with parts of the healthcare titles. Finally, I want to thank Governor Padilla for his incredible leadership on the island and for strongly endorsing our legislation. The people of Puerto Rico are fortunate to have a Governor who cares deeply about their lives and is so dedicated to putting them first and above politics. Let me put it this bluntly: Puerto Rico is on the brink of default and staring into the abyss. For the better part of the past year, the government has been compelled to take drastic and unprecedented actions just to avoid a total default of the central government. They have closed schools and hospitals, they have laid off police officers and firefighters, and they have raised taxes on businesses and individuals. But all the spending cuts and tax hikes in the world will not make a dent in this crisis unless Puerto Rico has the ability to restructure its debts. That is because servicing the government's $72 billion debt is swallowing a massive 36 percent of the island's revenue. That is 36 cents of every dollar the government takes in going not to roads or bridges and schools but to bondholders instead. This percentage is six times the U.S. State average and simply unsustainable by any measure. In fact, despite all we hear about Puerto Rico's significant annual budget deficits, the island would actually be running a surplus--a surplus--if it didn't have to make debt payments. Let me repeat that: It would have a surplus. These debt service payments act like an albatross and handcuff the people of Puerto Rico, preventing them from investing in their economy. Fewer resources for education, infrastructure, and essential services cause a death spiral as talented workers opt to leave the island, businesses are shuttered, and revenue drops even further. That is why the first and most important step we must take is to give Puerto Rico the ability to restructure its debt in an orderly fashion--a right that they had at one time and that was surreptitiously stripped out. There is no legislative history as to why it was stripped out, but they had this right. This is not novel. Our legislation would in essence do just that, providing a fair and reasonable way for Puerto Rico to restructure all of its debts while avoiding a costly race to the courthouse that would result in years--years--of costly litigation. But before Puerto Rico can even access this authority, it needs to affirmatively opt in and accept the establishment of an independent fiscal stability and reform board and create a chief financial officer. This both ensures that any restructuring plan is based on objective and independent analysis of the island's situation and provides assurances to creditors that future governments will adhere to a prudent long-term fiscal plan, while affirming and respecting Puerto Rico's sovereignty. Once Puerto Rico opts in, it receives an automatic 12-month stay to give government officials the necessary breathing room to organize their finances and develop a sustainable 5-year fiscal plan upon which annual budgets and their restructuring proposal will be based. Once the Governor submits a restructuring proposal, a judge selected by the First Circuit Court of Appeals would have to confirm that it complies with the fiscal plan, protects the rights of pensioners, and, if feasible, does not unduly impair general obligation bonds. Our process follows precedent by giving creditors a voice and the ability to object in court, and it ultimately gives an independent judge the authority to ensure that any plan is fair and reasonable. In order to ensure the long-term fiscal plan is followed--not just now, but in the future--our legislation gives the independent board the power to review annual budgets and future debt issuances and to exercise strong oversight and transparency powers. If future budgets do not comply with the fiscal plan, the board has the authority to issue a vote of no confidence, which will send a strong and unequivocal message to the legislature, to capital markets, and to the Puerto Rican people that the proposed path is unsustainable, which, in turn, will provide much needed transparency and accountability to the budgeting process. At the same time, we are careful to affirm the fundamental pillars of democracy by making the board of, by, and for the people of Puerto Rico. The board will consist of nine members chosen by the Governor of Puerto Rico, its legislature, both parties, the Supreme Court, and the President of the United States. At least six of the board members must be full-time residents of Puerto Rico, at least six must have knowledge of its history, culture, and socioeconomics, and all members--all members--must have financial and management expertise. This structure strikes the proper balance by providing strong and independent oversight and accountability while still respecting the sovereignty and democratic rights of the people of Puerto Rico. It is not a bailout--far from it, in fact. This proposal wouldn't cost the U.S. Treasury a penny--not a dime--and, because it is limited to the territories, wouldn't have a contagion effect on the broader municipal market. As I have said before, giving Puerto Rico the flexibility to restructure its debt is the top priority and a prerequisite for any legitimate recovery plan. But it is also clear that the lack of health care funding parity is adding pressure to the overall financial situation as the island's health care system accounts for 20 percent of the island's economy, and it is responsible for a third of its overall debt burden. Currently, Puerto Rico's Medicaid Program, rather than being reimbursed for necessary costs, is capped. Not only is it capped, it is set to hit a funding cliff as soon as mid-2017. When this happens, the island will instead receive funding to cover only a very small portion of its Medicaid costs, a burden no State could handle. The second piece of our legislation fixes this by moving Puerto Rico toward a Medicaid system that provides stable funding for the long term. Additionally, there are several policies in Medicare that treat the island differently from the rest of the Nation, leaving providers and seniors to face unfair penalties and low reimbursements. This bill eliminates many of these discrepancies to more accurately align Medicare policies in Puerto Rico with the rest of the country. As citizens of the United States--and I emphasize that because sometimes Members of Congress have asked me whether they need an American passport to go to Puerto Rico. I thought they were joking, but they were serious. As citizens of the United States, it is only fair that Puerto Ricans be afforded the same access to care, coverage, and health benefits as everyone else. Finally, our legislation would incentivize Puerto Rican workers to enter the formal economy and give families the help they need to raise their children by providing parity to the island for the earned-income tax credit and child tax credit. Praised by both Republicans and Democrats as one of the most effective tools to combat poverty and encourage workers to enter the labor market, the earned-income tax credit is currently unavailable to the people of Puerto Rico. However, as American citizens, all it takes for a resident of Puerto Rico to become eligible for a credit is a short plane ride to Miami. This is just another reason why so many Puerto Ricans have fled the island and taken up residence on the mainland. It makes no sense to prohibit American citizens living in Puerto Rico from taking advantage of this important credit, especially with such a stubbornly lower labor participation rate. Our legislation corrects this inequity, providing equal treatment for all American citizens, regardless of whether they reside in Puerto Rico or in the States. I shouldn't need to remind this body that from the infancy of our Nation, the people of Puerto Rico have been there for us and with us, and now we need to be there for them. Puerto Rico was ceded to the United States in 1898 after the Spanish-American War. Less than two decades later, in 1917, Congress passed the Jones-Shafroth Act, granting American citizenship to the residents of the island. But even long before they were granted U.S. citizenship, Puerto Ricans have had a long and profound history of fighting on the side of America. As far back as 1777, Puerto Rican ports were used by U.S. ships, enabling them to run British blockades and keep commerce flowing, which was so crucial to the war effort. It was Puerto Rican soldiers who took up arms in the U.S. Civil War, defending this Nation's Capital, Washington, DC, from attack, and they fought in the Battle of Fredericksburg. In World War I, almost 20,000 Puerto Ricans were drafted into the U.S. Armed Forces. Let's not forget about the 65th Infantry Regiment, known as the Borinqueneers, the segregated military unit composed almost entirely of soldiers from Puerto Rico, who played a crucial and prominent role in World War I, World War II, and the Korean war. I am proud to say that I worked with Senator Blumenthal and others to make sure that the heroic Borinqueneers--the only Active-Duty segregated Latino military unit in the history of the United States and the last segregated unit to be deactivated--received well deserved and long overdue national recognition when we passed a bill awarding these courageous patriots with the Congressional Gold Medal, the highest expression of national appreciation for distinguished achievements and contributions to the United States. While some might be tempted to point their finger at our brothers and sisters on the island and fault Puerto Rico for carrying more than $70 billion in debt, I challenge my Senate colleagues to work with us on finding solutions because this problem isn't going away. Mark my words. If we don't act now, this crisis will explode into a full-blown humanitarian catastrophe, not in a matter of decades or even years but in months. In just a couple of months, they have a major payment they do not have the wherewithal to make. We may think we will kick the ball down the road. But, no, that human catastrophe is going take place in months, and we will be right back here next year with the same set of problems, only far, far worse. Delaying action is akin to letting an infection reach the bloodstream before seeking treatment. The longer you wait, the more painful and challenging the treatment is. Puerto Rico isn't asking us to pull them out of this, just to give them the wherewithal to help them help themselves be able to achieve the goal. Let's not stand aside and do nothing while the island burns. Let's not turn our backs on our friends and fellow citizens when they need us the most. Let's instead come together as a nation and support our fellow citizens like we always do when things get tough. The people of Puerto Rico have always been there for us and with us. Let's make sure that we are there for them.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to be a voice for the 3.5 million American citizens living in Puerto Rico, the 200,000 Puerto Ricans who have served in our Armed Forces in every conflict since World War I, and the 20,000 who currently wear the uniform and put their lives on the line for our country. I rise to introduce a comprehensive stability and recovery package that restores fairness, ensures accountability, and gives Puerto Rico the tools it needs to dig itself out of this hole. And I rise to implore this Congress to act before it is too late. Let me thank Senators Schumer, Brown, Warren, Cantwell, Blumenthal, and Booker for supporting these efforts and working so hard on behalf of the people of Puerto Rico. I also want to thank Congressman Pierluisi, who coauthored the tax sections of this bill along with parts of the healthcare titles. Finally, I want to thank Governor Padilla for his incredible leadership on the island and for strongly endorsing our legislation. The people of Puerto Rico are fortunate to have a Governor who cares deeply about their lives and is so dedicated to putting them first and above politics. Let me put it this bluntly: Puerto Rico is on the brink of default and staring into the abyss. For the better part of the past year, the government has been compelled to take drastic and unprecedented actions just to avoid a total default of the central government. They have closed schools and hospitals, they have laid off police officers and firefighters, and they have raised taxes on businesses and individuals. But all the spending cuts and tax hikes in the world will not make a dent in this crisis unless Puerto Rico has the ability to restructure its debts. That is because servicing the government's $72 billion debt is swallowing a massive 36 percent of the island's revenue. That is 36 cents of every dollar the government takes in going not to roads or bridges and schools but to bondholders instead. This percentage is six times the U.S. State average and simply unsustainable by any measure. In fact, despite all we hear about Puerto Rico's significant annual budget deficits, the island would actually be running a surplus--a surplus--if it didn't have to make debt payments. Let me repeat that: It would have a surplus. These debt service payments act like an albatross and handcuff the people of Puerto Rico, preventing them from investing in their economy. Fewer resources for education, infrastructure, and essential services cause a death spiral as talented workers opt to leave the island, businesses are shuttered, and revenue drops even further. That is why the first and most important step we must take is to give Puerto Rico the ability to restructure its debt in an orderly fashion--a right that they had at one time and that was surreptitiously stripped out. There is no legislative history as to why it was stripped out, but they had this right. This is not novel. Our legislation would in essence do just that, providing a fair and reasonable way for Puerto Rico to restructure all of its debts while avoiding a costly race to the courthouse that would result in years--years--of costly litigation. But before Puerto Rico can even access this authority, it needs to affirmatively opt in and accept the establishment of an independent fiscal stability and reform board and create a chief financial officer. This both ensures that any restructuring plan is based on objective and independent analysis of the island's situation and provides assurances to creditors that future governments will adhere to a prudent long-term fiscal plan, while affirming and respecting Puerto Rico's sovereignty. Once Puerto Rico opts in, it receives an automatic 12-month stay to give government officials the necessary breathing room to organize their finances and develop a sustainable 5-year fiscal plan upon which annual budgets and their restructuring proposal will be based. Once the Governor submits a restructuring proposal, a judge selected by the First Circuit Court of Appeals would have to confirm that it complies with the fiscal plan, protects the rights of pensioners, and, if feasible, does not unduly impair general obligation bonds. Our process follows precedent by giving creditors a voice and the ability to object in court, and it ultimately gives an independent judge the authority to ensure that any plan is fair and reasonable. In order to ensure the long-term fiscal plan is followed--not just now, but in the future--our legislation gives the independent board the power to review annual budgets and future debt issuances and to exercise strong oversight and transparency powers. If future budgets do not comply with the fiscal plan, the board has the authority to issue a vote of no confidence, which will send a strong and unequivocal message to the legislature, to capital markets, and to the Puerto Rican people that the proposed path is unsustainable, which, in turn, will provide much needed transparency and accountability to the budgeting process. At the same time, we are careful to affirm the fundamental pillars of democracy by making the board of, by, and for the people of Puerto Rico. The board will consist of nine members chosen by the Governor of Puerto Rico, its legislature, both parties, the Supreme Court, and the President of the United States. At least six of the board members must be full-time residents of Puerto Rico, at least six must have knowledge of its history, culture, and socioeconomics, and all members--all members--must have financial and management expertise. This structure strikes the proper balance by providing strong and independent oversight and accountability while still respecting the sovereignty and democratic rights of the people of Puerto Rico. It is not a bailout--far from it, in fact. This proposal wouldn't cost the U.S. Treasury a penny--not a dime--and, because it is limited to the territories, wouldn't have a contagion effect on the broader municipal market. As I have said before, giving Puerto Rico the flexibility to restructure its debt is the top priority and a prerequisite for any legitimate recovery plan. But it is also clear that the lack of health care funding parity is adding pressure to the overall financial situation as the island's health care system accounts for 20 percent of the island's economy, and it is responsible for a third of its overall debt burden. Currently, Puerto Rico's Medicaid Program, rather than being reimbursed for necessary costs, is capped. Not only is it capped, it is set to hit a funding cliff as soon as mid-2017. When this happens, the island will instead receive funding to cover only a very small portion of its Medicaid costs, a burden no State could handle. The second piece of our legislation fixes this by moving Puerto Rico toward a Medicaid system that provides stable funding for the long term. Additionally, there are several policies in Medicare that treat the island differently from the rest of the Nation, leaving providers and seniors to face unfair penalties and low reimbursements. This bill eliminates many of these discrepancies to more accurately align Medicare policies in Puerto Rico with the rest of the country. As citizens of the United States--and I emphasize that because sometimes Members of Congress have asked me whether they need an American passport to go to Puerto Rico. I thought they were joking, but they were serious. As citizens of the United States, it is only fair that Puerto Ricans be afforded the same access to care, coverage, and health benefits as everyone else. Finally, our legislation would incentivize Puerto Rican workers to enter the formal economy and give families the help they need to raise their children by providing parity to the island for the earned-income tax credit and child tax credit. Praised by both Republicans and Democrats as one of the most effective tools to combat poverty and encourage workers to enter the labor market, the earned-income tax credit is currently unavailable to the people of Puerto Rico. However, as American citizens, all it takes for a resident of Puerto Rico to become eligible for a credit is a short plane ride to Miami. This is just another reason why so many Puerto Ricans have fled the island and taken up residence on the mainland. It makes no sense to prohibit American citizens living in Puerto Rico from taking advantage of this important credit, especially with such a stubbornly lower labor participation rate. Our legislation corrects this inequity, providing equal treatment for all American citizens, regardless of whether they reside in Puerto Rico or in the States. I shouldn't need to remind this body that from the infancy of our Nation, the people of Puerto Rico have been there for us and with us, and now we need to be there for them. Puerto Rico was ceded to the United States in 1898 after the Spanish-American War. Less than two decades later, in 1917, Congress passed the Jones-Shafroth Act, granting American citizenship to the residents of the island. But even long before they were granted U.S. citizenship, Puerto Ricans have had a long and profound history of fighting on the side of America. As far back as 1777, Puerto Rican ports were used by U.S. ships, enabling them to run British blockades and keep commerce flowing, which was so crucial to the war effort. It was Puerto Rican soldiers who took up arms in the U.S. Civil War, defending this Nation's Capital, Washington, DC, from attack, and they fought in the Battle of Fredericksburg. In World War I, almost 20,000 Puerto Ricans were drafted into the U.S. Armed Forces. Let's not forget about the 65th Infantry Regiment, known as the Borinqueneers, the segregated military unit composed almost entirely of soldiers from Puerto Rico, who played a crucial and prominent role in World War I, World War II, and the Korean war. I am proud to say that I worked with Senator Blumenthal and others to make sure that the heroic Borinqueneers--the only Active-Duty segregated Latino military unit in the history of the United States and the last segregated unit to be deactivated--received well deserved and long overdue national recognition when we passed a bill awarding these courageous patriots with the Congressional Gold Medal, the highest expression of national appreciation for distinguished achievements and contributions to the United States. While some might be tempted to point their finger at our brothers and sisters on the island and fault Puerto Rico for carrying more than $70 billion in debt, I challenge my Senate colleagues to work with us on finding solutions because this problem isn't going away. Mark my words. If we don't act now, this crisis will explode into a full-blown humanitarian catastrophe, not in a matter of decades or even years but in months. In just a couple of months, they have a major payment they do not have the wherewithal to make. We may think we will kick the ball down the road. But, no, that human catastrophe is going take place in months, and we will be right back here next year with the same set of problems, only far, far worse. Delaying action is akin to letting an infection reach the bloodstream before seeking treatment. The longer you wait, the more painful and challenging the treatment is. Puerto Rico isn't asking us to pull them out of this, just to give them the wherewithal to help them help themselves be able to achieve the goal. Let's not stand aside and do nothing while the island burns. Let's not turn our backs on our friends and fellow citizens when they need us the most. Let's instead come together as a nation and support our fellow citizens like we always do when things get tough. The people of Puerto Rico have always been there for us and with us. Let's make sure that we are there for them.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I appreciate the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee for yielding at this time. I agree with him on the issue of the legislation before us, but I felt compelled to come to the floor to speak about the vacancy in the U.S. Supreme Court. I rise to support this President's obligation--any President's obligation--to name a Supreme Court nominee to fill a vacancy, no matter when that vacancy occurs--election year or not. We should rightfully expect any President to fulfill his or her constitutional duty and send an eminently qualified nominee to the Senate. All logic, all reason, and the Constitution itself dictates that every President has the duty to do so, under any interpretation of constitutional law. Likewise, we should rightfully expect the Senate to do its job and send that name to the Judiciary Committee, hold a hearing, debate the nomination on the floor, and take a vote. We are not talking about a vague clause that invites interpretation. We are talking about a very clear and concise clause--article II, section 2, clause 2--that states: ``The President. . . . shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the Supreme Court. . . . '' It does not say: except in an election year. It does not say: except when it does not suit the political agenda of the majority party in the Senate. It does not say: No appointments can be made in the final year of a President's term. And it does not say: The Senate can arbitrarily and preemptively choose to obstruct the President's responsibility to make appointments. The point is, the Constitution is clear. In fact, in the last 100 years, the Senate has taken action on every Supreme Court nominee, regardless of whether the nomination was made in a Presidential election year. But this goes far beyond the filling of a Supreme Court vacancy. This goes to the very heart of the constant and continuous attacks this President has had to endure. For more than 7 years, some Republicans have, time and again, questioned the legitimacy of this President. From his election, beginning with the legitimacy of his birth certificate to accusing the President of lawlessness, having a Republican Member of Congress shout ``liar'' during the State of the Union to questioning his legitimate authority in his final year in office to fill the vacancy left by the death of Justice Scalia. It begs the question of why this President is being denied the opportunity to fulfill his constitutional obligation. Why are constitutional standards, backed by history and precedent, being questioned for this President's Supreme Court nominee? If we were to rely on pure logic and simple consistency, the question to ask is, Would our friends on the other side deny a President of their own party the right to make that appointment? I think not. The only conclusion we can draw is that this is yet another validation of their strategic decision 7 years ago at a Republican retreat to make Barack Obama a one-term President and obstruct this President at every turn, and then claim political victory for their own misguided inaction and refusal to govern. What is most astonishing is that they claim, like Justice Scalia, that the Constitution is carved in stone, that it is undeniable and impervious to interpretation. Yet, somehow, they can completely ignore what it clearly states in yet another effort to obstruct this President's ability to govern. So I say to my friends on the other side: This President was elected twice to serve two full terms. It has only been 7 years. It is time to accept it and move away from obstructionism and on to governing. The President and I may have differences on certain policies, but we are in complete agreement that he should not be denied the ability to fill this vacancy on the Court. Democrats did not deny President Reagan the ability to confirm Justice Kennedy in an election year, and the Republicans should not deny this President the same ability under the same circumstances. We should have the decency and respect for the Constitution to let the unambiguous wisdom of article II, section 2, clause 2 to determine our actions today, as we did then. So let's stop the political posturing. Let the President fulfill his constitutional responsibility and the Senate fulfill its advice and consent role. Let's fulfill one of the most basic and solemn duties we have. Let's have a hearing and take a vote. The American people deserve a fully functioning Supreme Court. There is a bipartisan tradition of giving full and fair consideration to Supreme Court nominees. Even when a majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee has not supported the nominee, the committee has still sent the nominee to the full Senate for a floor vote. And it should be noted that at no time since World War II has the Court operated with fewer than nine Justices because of the Senate simply refusing to consider a nominee. Now, every day when I come to work, I pass the Supreme Court, and the words over the portal of the Supreme Court say: ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' Equal justice under law demands that the judicial branch be fully functional. When we have a Supreme Court deadlocked in a decision, the decision in the lower court stands and the highest court in the land has no precedential value. Let's be clear. When there is a difference between different Federal courts in our country in different jurisdictions, it is the Supreme Court that determines what is the law of the land so that Federal law is not different in New Jersey than it is in Texas. But if the Court is deadlocked in two similar cases and the decision reverts to the finding of the lower court, there could be differences in how a person in New Jersey is treated than a person is in Texas under the same Federal statute. It is not equal justice under the law. To have equal justice under the law, the Nation needs the Supreme Court to be fully functioning. Justice Scalia himself spoke of the problems with an eight-Justice Court. In 2004, in explaining why he would not recuse himself in a case involving former Vice President Dick Cheney, he said: With eight Justices, [it raises] the possibility that, by reason of a tie vote, the Court will find itself unable to resolve the significant legal issue presented by the case. Even one unnecessary recusal impairs the functioning of the Court. So I believe that in life, Justice Scalia, as a textualist, would say the President has an obligation to nominate a Supreme Court Justice. In 1987, before the Democratic Senate confirmed Justice Kennedy, it was President Reagan who said: ``Every day that passes with the Supreme Court below full strength impairs the people's business in that crucially important body.'' I ask my Republican colleagues: How long are you willing to impair the people's business? How long are you willing to stick to a strategy of obstructionism over good governance? How long are you willing to deny this President his constitutional authority and obligation to appoint a nominee to satisfy your political agenda? How long are you willing to deny equal justice under the law? It was John Adams who reminded us that this is ``a government of laws, not of men.'' It was Justice Felix Frankfurter who said: ``If one man can be allowed to determine for himself what is law, every man can. That means first chaos then tyranny. Legal process is the essential part of the democratic process.'' Let's not in this Chamber be the ``one man.'' Let's respect the Constitution and do our jobs. In this case, the Constitution is settled law. Let's not unsettle it through a misguided determination to score political points to undermine the legitimacy of this President. The American people understand that our obligation in this process is to advise and consent, not neglect and obstruct. The American people will see the harm to our country and our courts if the majority continues these political tactics. Let's do the right thing. Let's do our jobs and respect this institution and the Constitution by holding hearings and voting on a Supreme Court nominee. Let's provide for equal justice under the law. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, as we are winding down this debate that has been extraordinary not only because of its unanimity, which I think is incredibly important when we are facing a challenge in the national security interests of the United States, but also because of the tone it set and the seriousness of the issue with which Members on both sides have taken to it--that is incredibly important. I know my colleagues--the distinguished chairman and the distinguished ranking member--have spoken to this, but it is important to note that when the Senate on a bipartisan basis perceives a real threat to the potential national security of the United States and of significant allies, it can come together and send not just a powerful message but a powerful strategy to try to deal with that challenge. So I salute all of my colleagues for having engaged in this debate, and I thank the leadership of the committee, as well as Senator Gardner, for working with me. When I introduced this legislation last year, I felt that the time for strategic patience--which had been a hallmark of our policy--had run its course. We had hoped that patience would have had a unique regime in North Korea moving in a different direction. But it came to a point where multiple tests of nuclear explosions, each increasing in the size of its effectiveness; the attempts to miniaturize those efforts; the missile launches they were going through; the terrible labor camps and other human rights violations inside of North Korea and what is happening to the North Korean people--that strategic patience in and of itself was not getting us to the goal. If anything, while we were being patient, the North Koreans continued to move in a direction for which we needed what I think is a strategic resolve. And that is what we have come to here today--a bipartisan effort to have a strategic resolve to not only focus on North Korea but also the secondary sanctions to say: Those who want to deal with North Korea and to help North Korea achieve its goals in violation of international norms will have a consequence. Right now we have all been focused on North Korea as a government, as an entity, but this legislation now broadens that to say to those who want to help the North Koreans provide the material wherewithal for their nuclear missile and other programs that there is a consequence to you. I believe that is an appropriate use of sanctions. So I want to close on this question of sanctions. For 24 years between the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the last 10 in the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, I have viewed U.S. foreign policy in that peaceful diplomacy has an arsenal. That arsenal is in part how one can direct international opinion to a country that is violating international norms, to the extent that country can really be affected by international opinion. North Korea is an example of a country that is difficult to affect by international opinion. There is the use of aid and the use of trade as inducements to a country to act in a certain way and join the international community and follow the norms and international will and then the denial of aid or trade and other sanctions as a way to get them to move away from the direction in which they are violating international norms. Outside of that universe--international opinion, use of aid, use of trade, denial of aid, denial of trade, and sanctions, particularly that we have begun to perfect in the financial sector--which can be a very powerful tool. It shouldn't be used bluntly but nonetheless is an important tool in an arsenal of peaceful diplomacy in the world. Looking aside from the military universe of what is available to us, which should be our last resort, when we are talking about peaceful diplomacy, there are moments in which sanctions are the last use of our peaceful diplomacy and a way to get countries to move in the direction we want. This moment, which I think is about strategic resolve, does exactly that. It uses sanctions not just against the regime in North Korea but against those who would give it the wherewithal to follow its illicit pursuits. I think that is what is incredibly powerful about this legislation and the appropriate use of our arsenal of peaceful diplomacy in the hopes that we can deter the North Koreans from where they are and move in a different direction and in the hope that we can get other countries in the world--and it will have to be more than hope; it will have to be a strategic resolve to get those other countries to join us, as we did in the case of Iran. We did not start with the world wanting to come together with us because of their economic interests and other strategic interests. Through American leadership, we ultimately drove the moment in which we had a multilateral international effort that brought the Iranians to the negotiating table. It is my hope that what happens here in the Senate today begins a process that can proselytize others in the world to join us so that the nuclear nightmare that is potentially North Korea never ever materializes. With that, I hope we have an overwhelming unanimous vote on this legislation. I again thank the leadership for working with us. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, let me first start off by thanking the leadership of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Chairman Corker and Ranking Member Cardin, for creating the environment to have strong bipartisan legislation on a critical issue that affects the national interests and security of the United States and beyond that, in general, creating a strong bipartisan environment that I think is critical to U.S. foreign policy. It is a tone I tried to set when I had the privilege of being the chairman and Senator Corker was the ranking member, and I appreciate his leadership in continuing in the same spirit, and, of course, Senator Cardin, who worked very hard on maintaining that environment. I appreciate that they created the wherewithal to bring us here today. I also thank Senator Gardner, the East Asia Subcommittee chairman, for working with me to bring legislation in which we can come together in a strong bipartisan voice because when the Nation speaks with one voice, it speaks most powerfully to both friends and foes across the world. It has been a privilege to work with Senator Gardner and to see his vision of how we deal with this and merge my vision of how we deal with it, and together I think we have come up with the most comprehensive strategic effort to deal with North Korea. I want to salute him, and I thank him for working with me. Given the North Korean regime's recent test of what most agree is a ballistic missile--what U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon characterized as ``deeply deplorable'' and in violation of Security Council resolutions--one thing is abundantly clear when you look at this photograph: It is time to take North Korea seriously. For too many years, the standard response of Republican and Democratic administrations alike whenever North Korea stages a provocation has been to dismiss the seriousness of the threat. We tend to see it as a strange regime seemingly disconnected from geopolitical reality, something of a parallel universe that doesn't function in the same way as the rest of the international community, a strange regime run by crazy leaders and certain to collapse any day, that there is no need to worry, it will not and it can't survive. Well, four nuclear tests, three Kims, two violations of U.N. Security Council resolutions, and one attempt by North Korea to transfer nuclear technology to Syria later, it is clearly time for the United States to start taking the North Korea challenge seriously. In fact, today it is estimated that North Korea has accumulated enough fissile material for more than a dozen nuclear weapons. It has now conducted four nuclear explosive tests, as you can see from this chart, starting in October of 2006, and with it, the quake magnitude has risen with virtually every test. It has developed a modern gas centrifuge uranium enrichment program to go along with its plutonium stockpile. It has tested ballistic missiles. It is seeking to develop the capability to match a nuclear warhead to an intercontinental ballistic missile. Kim Jong Un has consolidated his grip on power, and he seems determined to proceed on a course of ``byungjin,'' Kim Jong Un's policy that strengthens both his military and his economy as opposed to strengthening one or the other. Taken together, these developments present a growing danger that could set North Korea on a path to becoming a small nuclear power. It is a scenario which could lead other nations in the region to reconsider their own commitments to nonproliferation, and it could embolden North Korea in its relations with other bad actors such as Syria and Iran. I know it has been referenced, but I think it is worthy that when the Director of National Intelligence--the person in charge of amassing all of our intelligence as a country--James Clapper, in testimony before the Armed Services Committee, says the following, it is worth repeating: North Korea's export of ballistic missiles and associated materials to several countries, including Iran and Syria, and its assistance to Syria's construction of a nuclear reactor, destroyed in 2007, illustrates its willingness to proliferate dangerous technologies. Director Clapper went on to say that following North Korea's third nuclear test, Pyongyang said it would ``refurbish and restart'' its nuclear facilities, to include the uranium enrichment facility at Yongbyon--shut down in 2007--and that it has followed through by expanding its Yongbyon enrichment facility and restarting the plutonium production reactor which has been online long enough to begin recovering plutonium from spent fuels within weeks or maybe months. He told the committee: Pyongyang is also committed to developing a long-range, nuclear-armed missile that is capable of posing a direct threat to the United States; it has publicly displayed its KN08 road-mobile ICBM on multiple occasions. We assess that North Korea has already taken initial steps toward fielding this system. Finally, according to the Director of National Intelligence: North Korea probably remains capable and willing to launch disruptive or destructive cyberattacks to support its political objectives. Although it hasn't received the attention it deserved during today's debate, the Gardner-Menendez substitute addresses the cyber security threat with robust sanctions against those who control North Korea's cyber warfare apparatus. The adoption of the Gardner-Menendez legislation creates a new policy framework that combines effective sanctions and effective military countermeasures that can stop North Korea's nuclear ambitions, address cyber security issues, and bring some sanity back to the political calculus--a new policy framework that leaves no doubt about our determination to neutralize any threat North Korea may present, with robust, realistic diplomacy toward the clear goal of a denuclearized Korean Peninsula. This bipartisan bill, approved unanimously by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January, expands and tightens enforcement of sanctions from North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile development and other destructive activities of the Kim regime. It requires the President to investigate sanctionable conduct, including proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, arms-related materials, luxury goods, human rights abuses, activities undermining cyber security, and the provision of industrial materials, such as precious metals or coal, for use in a tailored set of activities, including weapons of mass destruction proliferation activities or for use in prison and labor camps. Under our substitute, the President is mandated to sanction any person found to have materially contributed to, engaged in, or facilitated any of those above activities. Penalties would include the seizure of assets, visa bans, and denial of government contracts. To provide some flexibility, we have ensured that this and future administrations retain the discretionary authority to sanction any entity or person transferring or facilitating the transfer of financial assets and property of the North Korean regime. The bill also requires the Secretary of the Treasury to determine whether North Korea is a primary money laundering concern, and if such a determination is made, assets may be blocked and special measures applied against those involved. From a strategic perspective, the bill would promote a strategy to improve implementation and enforcement of multilateral sanctions, a strategy to combat North Korean cyber activities, and a strategy to promote and encourage international engagement on North Korean human rights-related issues. There are reporting requirements relating to these strategies as well as a report on political prison camps and a feasibility study on providing communications equipment to the people of North Korea so we can permeate the opportunity for information to flow to the people of North Korea. Last but not least, under the Gardner-Menendez substitute, the State Department is required to expand the scope and frequency of travel warnings for North Korea. That is what we think about most of the time when we think about North Korea, but there is another dimension beyond nuclear challenges, missile challenges, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and that is the concern that there remain serious, unanswered questions about human rights and the lot of the North Korean people. We need only read headlines like the ones on this chart: ``Life in a North Korean Labor Camp: `No Thinking . . . Just Fear' ''; ``Kim's former bodyguard tells of beatings, starvation in North Korean prison camp''; ``North Korean prison camp is one of the most evil places on earth--home to 20,000.'' Under the rule of Kim Jong Un, North Korea is one of the most harshly repressive countries in the world. All basic freedoms have been severely restricted under the Kim family's political dynasty. A 2014 U.N. Commission of Inquiry found that abuses in North Korea were without parallel in any other country. Extermination, murder, enslavement, torture, imprisonment, rape, forced abortions, and unspeakable sexual violence are part of the ongoing story of this bizarre regime. We know that North Korea operates a series of secretive prison camps where opponents of the government are sent and are tortured and abused, starved on insufficient rations, and forced into hard labor. Collective punishment is used to silence dissent and instill fear in the North Korean people that they could be next. The country has no independent media. It has no functioning civil society, and there is, of course, not even a hint of religious freedom except for the bizarre worship of the line from which Kim Jong Un hails. That is the reality, making it abundantly clear that, though security concerns may be our most important priority on the Peninsula, they are not and should not be our only priority. The legislation we are proposing creates for the first time the basis in law to designate and sanction North Korea for its human rights violations. Such sanctions would elevate human rights and the fundamental issue of human dignity to be as important as nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. At the end of the day, there is no basis for successfully dealing with the North, absent a solid foundation for a policy that is rooted in the U.S.-South Korea alliance. In President Park we have an important partner. I have visited South Korea and met with President Park. He is someone we can easily consult with and work closely with to chart out a future course in dealing with North Korea. Our partnership with Japan presents new opportunities for building a more effective approach to dealing with Pyongyang. Whatever one's views on the various U.S. policy efforts of the past 2 decades--what has worked, what has not worked, and why--there can be little question that these efforts have failed to end North Korea's nuclear ambitions or end its missile programs. They have failed to reduce the threat posed by North Korea to our allies, failed to alleviate the suffering of North Korea's people, and failed to lead to greater security in the region. Let me be clear. I have no illusions that there are easy answers when it comes to dealing with a regime like North Korea. With the passage of this legislation, we have acted in concert not only in a bipartisan effort but with our values, and we will have established a policy for dealing with an unpredictable, rogue regime equal to the challenge. I urge this body to have a unanimous vote. It is not enough to condemn North Korea's provocation, which is, by all accounts, a violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions and international will. It is not enough to convene the United Nations Security Council for another round of hollow rhetoric that does nothing to the Kim regime but signal a lack of international commitment to enforcing international will. It is not enough to do what we have always done and minimize the obvious threat from a rogue state living in its own false reality. As the coauthor of the sanctions that brought Iran to the negotiating table, I know that the sanctions regime we are structuring here can have a real effect. Those who want to deal with North Korea and North Korea's pursuit of missile technology and nuclear weapons will see a consequence to them far beyond North Korea. With this bipartisan legislation, we have before us a series of meaningful steps that speak the only language North Korea's regime can understand: aggressive, material consequences for aggressive, reckless provocations. This legislation is the most comprehensive strategy to deal with the challenge that North Korea presents. The launch over the weekend and recent nuclear tests makes it clear that when I introduced this bill last year, it was timely then. We didn't get to act on it then, but we can do so now. I urge the Senate, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, to unanimously pass the North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act. I urge my colleagues in the other Chamber to concur, and I look forward to the President quickly signing this legislation into law. If the international community is serious about meeting the threat that North Korea poses, we should see measures like this act adopted by the United Nations and implemented by all of its member states. The international community should stand together with a single voice and one clear message: Any provocation will be met with consequences that will shake the Kim regime to its foundation. That is the opportunity we have to set the course here today in the Senate. I think one of the most powerful moments is when the Senate acts in a strong, bipartisan fashion that sends a message that will create a ripple effect not only here but across the world. I look forward to what I hope will be an incredibly robust, if not unanimous, vote on this legislation. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I thank the chairman. Earlier when the chairman couldn't be on the floor, I thanked him for his leadership in the committee, for creating an environment that is bipartisan. At a time in which bipartisanship in the Senate is a continuing challenge, it is particularly important in foreign relations--something that I tried to set out when I was a chairman. I appreciate the way his leadership has led the committee so that we could have moments like this and of course Senator Gardner, who has very graciously worked together with me to bring a moment of what I hope will be an overwhelmingly, maybe unanimous vote in the Senate, because when we do that we send an incredibly strong message throughout the world. We generate leadership, where we may not see the will at the United Nations, particularly because of the Security Council's structure and the vetoes that exist on things like sanctions. Inevitably, when we have led as a country, we often get the world to join us and follow it, but sometimes it needs you to lead. That is what I believe the Senate is doing today with an incredibly strong piece of legislation that, as I said earlier, was the most comprehensive strategy set to try to deal with the challenge that is North Korea itself. I appreciate the chairman's words and his leadership. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I come before the Senate to express my enthusiastic recommendation for John Michael Vazquez's nomination and confirmation to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, which the Senate will be voting upon shortly. Mr. Vazquez's credentials are impressive. He is a New Jerseyan who is eminently qualified and highly experienced, and I am confident that he will be an outstanding jurist whose judicial temperament, observance of precedent, and personal integrity will be beyond reproach. There is an inscription over the 10th Street entrance to the Justice Department that I often am reminded of, and it can't be quoted too often when we are looking to perform one of our most vital duties, selecting those best qualified judicial nominees. It reads: ``Justice in the life and conduct of the State is possible only as it first resides in the hearts and souls of its citizens.'' I believe that justice does, in fact, reside in the heart and soul of John Vazquez and that he will bring that judicial heart and soul to the task, as well as the benefit of a long and distinguished legal career in private and public service. Mr. Vazquez began his legal career at the law offices of Michael Critchley & Associates after completing a clerkship with the Honorable Herman D. Michels of the New Jersey Appellate Division. He graduated summa cum laude from Seton Hall University School of Law and from Rutgers College. His intellect is of the highest order. He would bring a long and distinguished career to the District of New Jersey bench if and when he is confirmed. He is currently a partner at Critchley, Kinum & Vazquez, practicing commercial, securities, and civil litigation, as well as white collar criminal defense. Before his time in private practice, he served the people of New Jersey in the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General as the first assistant attorney general. As the second highest ranking law enforcement official in the State, Mr. Vazquez conducted the day-to-day operations of the 9,500-person department and various divisions within the department, including criminal justice, consumer affairs, civil rights, elections, and gaming enforcement divisions, to mention a few. He previously served in that particular office as a special assistant to the attorney general. Before that he was an Assistant U.S. Attorney, where he focused on health care fraud, securities fraud, and terrorism investigations. These experiences have given him a clear appreciation of the separation of powers, the importance of checks and balances, and I believe he will bring that view to the bench. The American Bar Association rated him unanimously ``well qualified'' for the nomination, and I agree. He was voted out of the Judiciary Committee unanimously. When I think about the breadth and scope of what comes before a Federal district court judge, I can only think about the breadth and scope of his experience. He understands both sides of the legal equation--the prosecution and defense of the accused. He is a member of the Hispanic Bar Association of New Jersey, the Essex County Bar Association, the New Jersey State Bar Association, the Association of the Federal Bar of New Jersey, and the Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey. Mr. President, I can say without equivocation that justice does indeed reside in the heart and soul of John Vazquez. He is an eminently qualified nominee with impressive credentials and experience who will fill a judicial emergency vacancy in the District of New Jersey. In addition to intellect, judgment, temperament, observance of the rule of law, and separation of powers, he diversifies our judiciary as a Hispanic American, which is something I think is also very important-- to be able to have any American walk into any court in the land and believe the possibility that someone like them may very well be sitting in judgment of them. When you have all the elements of what we want in the Federal judiciary and we are able to achieve that element of diversity as well, I think it is the highest moment. I urge the Senate to unanimously support him, and I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, first, I thank the distinguished senior Democrat on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which has jurisdiction over the territories, including Puerto Rico, for her advocacy, for her strength of passion in this effort, and for her work. I also thank my colleague from Florida who has always joined me on issues on Puerto Rico and who has always been a strong voice for the island. I would hope to prick the conscience of the Senate about the 3.5 million U.S. citizens who just happen to live on the island of Puerto Rico and to do something before this crisis transforms into a full- blown human catastrophe. These 3.5 million Americans who call Puerto Rico home have a long history with the United States. Over 200,000 of them have served in every conflict since World War I and worn the uniform of the United States. Over 20,000 of them currently wear the uniform of the United States and put their lives at risk for the safety and security of all of us here at home. They are stationed across the globe. If you went with me--and I invite any colleague who wants to go to the Vietnam Memorial--you would see a disproportionate number of Puerto Ricans who served in the Vietnam war and gave their lives on behalf of the country. Puerto Rico is an integral part of America and its people are as American as you and I. They have full citizenship rights. The status of where they live does not alter their rights under the Constitution, and the fiscal timebomb that is waiting to explode in Puerto Rico is an American problem. In my time in the House of Representatives, I could never believe it when I would have colleagues who asked me if they needed a passport to visit Puerto Rico. I thought they were joking, but they were serious. This is an American problem. We not only have an opportunity, but more importantly I think we have a responsibility to take immediate action to stabilize the island and give our fellow citizens the opportunity to fix the current crisis, but instead of deescalating the crisis, we are demagoguing those who are facing it. Instead of providing the tools Puerto Rico needs to get on the path to solvency, we are tying our hands behind our backs. So let me put this plainly and simply: Puerto Rico is getting a raw deal. While we dither here, the island is economically in flames. We are about to spend over $600 billion in tax breaks but denied the earned-income tax credit and child tax credit equity for American citizens living in Puerto Rico. We are about to pass a $1.1 trillion budget but ignored pleas on the island to receive the same chapter 9 treatment in bankruptcy to reorganize and restructure their debt that any State has and that they had at one time and was surreptitiously taken out. That right that they had was taken out. As has been said by the distinguished ranking member, giving Puerto Rico back the right they had will not cost the American taxpayer one single dime. Those bottom feeders who ultimately went and tried to buy enough bonds dirt cheap and now want to get paid at maximum amount, that should not be where the focus of the Senate is when it comes to these 3.5 million Americans. I am wondering if it was some other group of people, whether we would feel the same way. I really have to wonder. We are about to increase Big Oil's profits by about $170 billion over the next decade, but we can't do anything for the 3.5 million people who call Puerto Rico home, who are U.S. citizens, and who wear the uniform of the United States. I am pleased to see that the legislation will include a little piece of my high-tech legislation to help the hospitals in Puerto Rico, but that is not going to do anything as it relates to the crisis we are facing. This crisis didn't develop overnight--it was over several administrations--nor will it be fixed in a day. Governor Padilla and the Government of Puerto Rico have done everything they can to right the ship and restore a path to solvency. They have closed schools and hospitals. They have laid off police and firefighters. They have raised taxes on businesses and individuals. They have gone beyond what any sovereign nation would consider doing to right the economic status, but they are out of options. All the cuts and tax hikes will not make a dent in this crisis without the breathing room that restructuring authority provides. That is all we are asking for, not a single cost to the American paper. This problem is not going away. Mark my words, if we don't act now, this crisis will explode into a full-blown humanitarian catastrophe that isn't going to take a year or months. It is going to be right around the corner. It is pretty amazing that instead of dealing with this issue in a way in which we can solve it, we are basically--it is the equivalent of waiting for a malignant tumor to metastasize before we actually act on it. That is what we are doing. The sooner you act, the higher your chances of success are, and that is no different in the case of Puerto Rico. They are not asking us to pull them out of this hole. They are simply saying give us the tools so we can do it on our own. It is the same can-do spirit of the Borinqueneers, who served our country during the Korean war--an all-Puerto Rican division, the most highly decorated in U.S. military history who said: Just give us the tools and we will fight for our Nation--or NASA engineer and Exceptional Achievement Medal winner Dr. Carlos Ortiz Longo or the baseball great and philanthropist, Roberto Clemente. I could go on and on about the contributions of Americans of Puerto Rican descent to this country. Just give them the tools. Instead, this Congress is going to go home for the holidays and say to Puerto Rico: You get coal in your stocking, instead of giving them the tools to help them be able to face a better day. At the end of the day, believe me, if we do not act, more will come to Senator Nelson's State of Florida, more of them will come to New Jersey, more of them will come to New York, more of them will come to Ohio, and more of them will come to Pennsylvania--which are some of the largest concentrations in the Nation--because they are U.S. citizens. When they come, they will have the rights to everything that every other citizen has. That is the reality, and I cannot imagine why our friends on the Republican side cannot get to the point of understanding that these 3.5 million residents of Puerto Rico are U.S. citizens. They fought for their country, died for their country, shed blood for the country, have been maimed for the country, and yet we just can't give them the tools to get themselves into fiscal order again. It is pretty amazing. It is pretty amazing that we will leave for the holidays and actually have for some--not for those of us on the floor-- but for some no regret that we are leaving those 3.5 million U.S. citizens without any options. I don't believe in leaving any American behind. That is why I have voted on this floor for flood damage in the Mississippi. That is why I voted for wildfires in the West, to help them be dealt with. That is why I voted for crop damage. I have been there because I believe there is a reason we call this the United States of America. Puerto Ricans, in terms of their citizenship, they are U.S. citizens. They deserve the same rights as anyone else. With that, I see my distinguished friend and colleague from Connecticut, who I know feels very passionately--the way I do--about this issue, and I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, as we are all awaiting those who are negotiating a multibillion-dollar omnibus package and tax extender package, I wanted to come to the floor at this time of the year, as we approach the holidays, and say that it would be unconscionable that we would go home to celebrate with our families without doing everything we can to make sure we send a clear and unambiguous message to our first responders-- in the name of Jim Zadroga from New Jersey, for whom the 9/11 bill, the Zadroga bill, is named, and all those who responded on that fateful day--that we will never forget what they did for our fellow citizens, for this Nation on September 11, the day that changed the world. We shouldn't have had to wait this long for the law to expire. At the same time, we are being told that we can't pass the legislation because we have to offset it. Yet we are talking about passing an $800 billion tax package, much of which goes to large corporations. I haven't heard any of my colleagues speak about the need to pay for this nearly trillion-dollar package which will deprive the Federal Treasury of anywhere between $800 billion and $1 trillion. Only the men and women who put their lives on the line on September 11 and the days that followed are waiting for Congress to act because we supposedly have to pay for the way in which we take care of their health care or the way in which we take care of the families, for those who lose a loved one as a result of the toxins and other circumstances that have led to their illnesses, that have led to their deaths. And unfortunately, we have seen a rising number of those individuals who responded on that fateful day who have died, including one very recently. I don't understand how the rules don't apply to large corporations that will reap billions of dollars, but somehow those rules are asserted when we are trying to take care of the men and women who responded on that fateful day of September 11. I don't understand how there is any moral equivalency between them. There is none, and no one can claim there is any. None of us can leave Washington for the holidays without passing this bill. I would remind my colleagues of the immortal words of Charles Dickens in ``A Christmas Carol'': I have always thought of Christmas time, when it has come round as a good time: a kind, forgiving, charitable, pleasant time: the only time I know of, in the long calendar of the year, when men and women seem by one consent to open their shut-up hearts freely, and to think of people below them as if they really were fellow-passengers to the grave, and not another race of creatures bound on their journeys. We should keep those words in mind as we approach the holidays. Beyond that, this isn't about the holiday spirit, it is about obligation. We should accept our profound, collective responsibility-- not charity but responsibility--to act on this legislation. If we do not, and if we continue to insist on pay-for provisions when we don't insist on the same provisions that would provide benefits to America's largest corporations to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, we should be ashamed of ourselves. I don't know which one of my colleagues can go to a September 11 commemoration and look those first responders in the eye. I don't know how you do that. The reauthorization bill I have cosponsored is necessary to provide the security and reassurances to those first responders that these critical programs will last longer than just what the next couple of months' funding will provide. It also permanently lists the statute of limitations on the Victim Compensation Fund to provide for those first responders and their families who need access beyond next year and, very importantly, it exempts these key programs from the budget sequestration cuts. The sequestration, which I voted against, imposes arbitrary and capricious cuts to funding that will continue to provide care and support for those September 11 heroes who sacrificed everything to help those in need on that tragic day. The fact is, Congress must act. I don't think we should wait for a public outcry before we ensure that these heroes receive the care and support they deserve. I don't think we should wait for a future tragedy to observe what we should have done. The brave men and women who rushed into the towers to save others did not wait or hesitate to respond. They did not think about themselves. They did not think about the risk. They valiantly responded, and we--we--should not hesitate or wait to respond to their needs. To do so would be absolutely shameful. With that, I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I have a lot of respect for Chairman Hatch. I am privileged to sit with him and the ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee. He does try to work in ways that are bipartisan, so I appreciate his willingness to acknowledge that this is a problem. But I am disappointed that this rather modest measure to help Puerto Rico address its challenges in an orderly and legal way seems to be in a vortex in which we can't get it out. There are four things I think we need to be clear about. Every single municipality in the United States already has access to chapter 9. Puerto Rico had access to it until 1984, when a provision was stuck into a larger bill with no explanation or debate. Restoring chapter 9 to the island doesn't cost the U.S. Treasury a single penny, nor will it raise the deficit. Perhaps most importantly, all other measures both the mainland and the island can take are virtually meaningless without this restructuring authority. I appreciate the chairman's remarks about being open to negotiate, but we have been negotiating this issue for several months now. We have heard from stakeholders representing every interest on the island. We have had three congressional hearings. And while there may be some differences on the exact prescription, virtually everyone agrees that some restructuring authority must be part of the cure. Again, this is something we can do right now. This is something that doesn't cost anything or need an offset, and it is something tangible that will give--and I want to focus on this--the 3.5 million American citizens who live in Puerto Rico a fighting chance. This is not about some foreign country. The citizens of Puerto Rico are citizens of the United States. If all 3.5 million came to the mainland, they would have the rights and privileges as any other U.S. citizen. They would be fully eligible for any benefit that any citizen of the United States has. Sometimes we look at the people of Puerto Rico--and I have had Members in the past when I served in the House of Representatives who have asked me: Do I need a passport to go to Puerto Rico? Pretty amazing. This is not some foreign country, this is the United States of America. They are U.S. citizens. They deserve to be treated as U.S. citizens. The people of Puerto Rico have fought in virtually every war the United States has ultimately had. If you go to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial with me, you will see a disproportionate number of names from the island of Puerto Rico who served in that war or the 65th Infantry Regiment Division in the Korean War, which was an all-Puerto Rican division and the most highly decorated in the history of U.S. military actions, and on and on. It is shameful that we treat 3.5 million U.S. citizens this way. This crisis didn't develop overnight, nor will it be fixed in a day, but the present Governor, Governor Padilla, and the Government of Puerto Rico have done everything they can to right the ship of insolvency. Governor Alejandro Padilla didn't create this crisis, which has gone on through various administrations in Puerto Rico, but he has made the tough choices. He has closed schools and hospitals. He has laid off police and firefighters. He has raised taxes on businesses and individuals. They have gone beyond what a sovereign nation such as Greece, for example, would ever have imagined doing, but they have run out of options. All the cuts and tax hikes will not make a dent in this crisis without the breathing room that restructuring authority provides. This problem isn't going to go away, but I do say that as Congress fiddles, Puerto Rico burns. It would be outrageous if the Congress goes home for a holiday and leaves a brewing catastrophe for the 3.5 million citizens of Puerto Rico who have fought for and died for this country. So I hope these negotiations, which, as the distinguished ranking member has said, should be focused on the issue of Puerto Rico and the 3.5 million U.S. citizens who live there, who wear the uniform of the United States, who have fought for it proudly and who have died for it, ultimately are not linked to something that has nothing to do with those 3.5 million U.S. citizens. Puerto Rico isn't asking us to pull them out of this hole; they are just asking us to give them the tools with which they can help themselves. For over a century, we have had an inextricable bond with the island of Puerto Rico and its people, and we should not turn our backs on their great commitment to our country. I am going to come to the floor again and again, and I am going to remind my fellow Americans of Puerto Rican descent in Pennsylvania, in Ohio, in Florida, in New York, in New Jersey, and elsewhere around this country about their need to raise their voices on behalf of their fellow citizens. This is pretty outrageous to me. With that, I yield the floor.