Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I want to express my outrage and horror at the out-of-control electoral situation in Venezuela--at the intimidation, violence, manipulation, and corruption by the Maduro government to manipulate election results in their favor. For weeks, President Maduro has said that his party will do whatever it takes to stay in power, and I have no doubt that he will do everything he can to stay in power. In recent days, Maduro said: ``If on December 6th the political-right wins, prepare to see a country in chaos, in violence. I will not turn over nor will I betray the revolution''--a clear statement of what's to come, but the world is watching. In October, he gave a public speech in which he said that if the opposition wins, the country would enter into one of its ``most turbulent periods'' because he will not turn over the revolution, and if necessary, he would rule through what he called ``a civic military union.'' Maduro's cronies have also made alarming, ominous statements in recent weeks warning the public that the ruling party will not lose control. The government has already denied international election observers, so, clearly, we know what is about to happen. Maduro's term is not yet up, but it is only a matter of time, and this election will be a demonstration of his complete failure. The fact is numbers don't lie, and the crushing poll numbers coming out are further proof the country is ready for fundamental change from a failed economic model that has run its course and needs to be done away with. All of this against a backdrop of continued deceit, repression, and violence. Last week, in broad daylight, armed supporters of the government assassinated Luiz Manuel Diaz, the state-level head of the Accion Democratica, or Democratic Action Party, at an open-air rally in the state of Guarico--clearly a politically targeted assassination designed to terrorize opposition parties and their supporters. Luiz Manuel Diaz was standing 6 feet away from Lilian Tintori, whom I have met several times, the wife of the high-profile political prisoner, Leopoldo Lopez. This level of unacceptable, blatant violence is appalling and has been condemned by OAS Secretary General Luis Almagro, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein, and by countless human rights organizations. Again, the world is clearly watching and demanding that the rule of law in Venezuela be reestablished. The fact is the government is engaged in clear election manipulation. The government-controlled National Electoral Council has disqualified seven leading opposition figures from participating in the elections-- disqualifications without justification and without a process to appeal. The disqualifications have targeted only members of the opposition: Maria Corina Machado, the diputada--assembly member--that received the single highest number of votes in the 2010 elections; Manuel Rosales, the former governor of Zulia state and a former Presidential candidate for the opposition; Leopoldo Lopez, currently being held in a military prison, the most high-profile political prisoner in the Americas. The government has also fabricated a border crisis with neighboring Colombia as a pretext to declare a state of emergency, in 23 municipalities in 3 states along the Colombian-Venezuelan border. This allows the government to arbitrarily suspend the fundamental rights of citizens in these municipalities to a right to assembly, right to peaceful demonstrations--and, guess what, it just so happens that these municipalities are either swing districts or ones where the opposition won handily in the 2010 legislative elections. In these same three states, the opposition won 18 of the 27 seats contested. The government is even resorting to political tricks. In one district, in the city of Maracay, the leading opposition candidate is named Ismael Garcia, a lifelong political veteran. The government managed to find a 28-year-old parking attendant named Ismael Garcia, who is running under a party name similar to the opposition candidate, with a logo nearly identical. In another area in the capital of Caracas, the National Statistics Institute and National Electoral Council have determined that, by the end of the year, 128,000 voters are scheduled to move out of a district largely supportive of the opposition to a district supportive of the government. This move is large enough to decrease by one the number of deputies that the opposition district will elect and enough to increase by one the number of deputies that the pro-government district will elect. The National Statistics Institute and National Electoral Council acknowledge that 134,000 votes will move back to the pro-opposition district by the middle of next year, which means 130,000 people are moving for a period of 6 to 9 months. The Maduro government can't believe they can hide from these obvious tactics of political tricks to rob the people of Venezuela of their right to a free and fair election. They can't be so naive to think that these ridiculous tactics are going unnoticed. We are not blind to it. We are watching. And I come to the floor of the Senate to send a clear message that makes it clear that the world is watching and waiting for the results of the election and the aftermath. Against this backdrop of violence, intimidation, corruption, and election fraud, the Venezuelan Government has routinely denied the presence of credible international election observers. If the Venezuelan Government was interested in guaranteeing the transparency, objectivity, and credibility of the elections, it would have invited the OAS--the region's preeminent multilateral body--to observe the elections. Since 1989, the OAS has conducted more than 160 election observation missions in 24 countries. The OAS Secretary General has repeatedly offered to observe, but Maduro has turned him down. The EU has also offered to observe--also rejected by the government. Instead, the Venezuelan Government has opted for a mission from Union de Naciones Suramericanas, UNASUR, which conducts ``electoral accompaniment'' rather than ``election observation.'' The technical rigor of the UNASUR mission has been called into question by many members of the international community. Brazil's Supreme Electoral Court banned Brazil's participation in the UNASUR mission. Chile and Uruguay also will not participate in the UNASUR mission. As a Washington Post headline put it this week, ``Venezuela [is heading] to a pivotal election; without a referee.'' As Venezuela heads into this election, nationwide polls are showing a strong and sustained trend in favor of the opposition. National polling shows opposition candidates leading by 28 points. This growing advantage is the result of an increasingly dire outlook that reflects the state of the nation. The people of Venezuela have and are suffering economic hardship. They are subjected to increased societal violence. They have seen more and more evidence that senior government officials are personally and deeply involved in drug trafficking, deeply involved in money laundering. In fact, his own family members have been arrested for drug trafficking. And, to make matters worse, as President Maduro, a former bus driver, has driven his country's economy off a cliff, there have been shortages of beef and milk, chicken and eggs, rice and pasta; there have been shortages of soap for bathing and diapers for small children. And this trend will likely get worse. This year, the IMF predicts that Venezuela's GDP will contract by 10 percent--the single largest economic contraction in the world this year. The country is also suffering from the highest levels of inflation in the entire world, more than 150 percent in 2015 according to the IMF, and expected to surpass 200 percent in 2016. As economic hardship grows, it shouldn't be a complete surprise that criminality in the country has worsened--the murder rate more than doubling over the past decade. According to the Venezuela Violence Observatory, the per capita murder rate in Venezuela was 37 per 100,000 in 2005, 54 per 100,000 in 2010, and 82 per 100,000 in 2014. And things are even worse in the capital Caracas, where the per capita murder rate is approaching 125 per 100,000 residents. This puts Caracas among the top five most violent cities in the world and on par with the carnage generally seen only in war zones. On top of this widespread societal violence, in 2014, the world bore witness to Venezuelan security forces violently deployed on the streets to suppress peaceful protests occurring throughout the country that has left 43 people dead on both sides of the political divide, more than 50 documented cases of torture of opposition activists, and thousands of arrests. Throughout this violence, respected international human rights organization Human Rights Watch found that human rights abuses were a ``systematic practice'' committed by Venezuelan security forces. To make matters worse, a darker and more sinister narrative has emerged from Venezuela in 2015. In March of this year, the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network--known as FinCEN-- announced the Private Bank of Andorra is a ``foreign financial institution of primary money laundering concern.'' Among other concerns, FinCEN found that the bank had been involved in a scheme that siphoned off roughly $2 billion from Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA, a scheme that surely included widespread involvement and knowledge of Venezuelan Government officials. The world is watching. In May of this year, in a Wall Street Journal exclusive, the world was informed that the Department of Justice, the Drug Enforcement Agency, and several Federal prosecutors' offices are investigating Diosdado Cabello for involvement in drug trafficking, a man who serves as the head of Venezuela's National Assembly and someone generally regarded as the second most powerful figure in the government's coalition. And now he is apparently wanted for turning Venezuela into a global cocaine hub. And in October, in another incredibly well-documented piece, the Wall Street Journal revealed how money laundering and embezzlement inside Venezuelan state oil giant Venezuela was directed from the highest levels, including by former PDVSA president Rafael Ramirez. These two incidents are part of a long and troubling series of disturbing revelations about how the highest levels of the power are directly responsible for the Venezuelan state becoming penetrated by drug trafficking and criminality. With such sinister trends becoming commonplace in Venezuela, it is important to recognize that a sea change of opinion is taking place in Latin America, and increasingly, key political leaders are speaking out forcefully against what they are seeing in Venezuela. In September of this year, 34 former Presidents and heads of state from across Latin America and the Caribbean met in Bogota and issued a declaration calling for international election observation, greater safeguards for Venezuelan voters, and the release of political prisoners in the country. Last month, the secretary general of the OAS Luis Almagro released a scathing letter to the head of Venezuela's National Electoral Council, laying out all of his concerns with the process running up to the December 6 elections and calling for an immediate course correction. Also, last month, I was proud to join with 17 of my colleagues here in the U.S. Senate, 32 Brazilian senators, 57 Colombian senators, 12 Chilean senators, 26 Costa Rica Assembly members, and 13 Peruvian members of Congress--more than 150 legislators from across the Americas--in an unprecedented showing of unity to call for election observation, speak out against the disqualification of opposition candidates, and call for the release of political prisoners. And just last week, it was important to see Argentina's President-elect Mauricio Macri calling for the South American trade block Mercosur to review whether Venezuela should be suspended from the block for violating its democracy clause and failing to uphold human rights. The question then remains, what can we do? What can the United States do? As elections are held in Venezuela this weekend, it is imperative that we all remain clear-eyed about the challenges at hand in the country. For 15 years, we have watched as President Maduro and former-President Chavez have systematically dismantled democracy in the country. They have removed checks on the executive. They have corrupted the judiciary and the rule of law. They have usurped the powers of the legislature. They have politicized the military. And they have suppressed freedom of the press. No one should be surprised that 15 years of democratic deterioration has led to economic ruin, to rampant criminality, and to an increasingly dangerous political polarization. But the first step to correct course and help Venezuelans back from the brink of being a failed state is the exercise this weekend of that most fundamental democratic right with a huge voter turnout that could help move the country back toward democracy and the rule of law. We should take note that Latin America is speaking out forcefully about the situation in Venezuela, but we in the United States should be preparing our own response. Last week, the Washington Post Editorial Board noted that should the vote be disrupted in Venezuela, the ``U.S. should be ready to respond with censure and sanctions.'' I couldn't agree more. In December of 2014, the U.S. Congress, with the unanimous consent of both Chambers, approved the Venezuela Defense of Human Rights and Civil Society Act--legislation which I authored and introduced with Senators Nelson, Rubio, Kirk, and McCain. This bipartisan bill called for mandatory sanctions against violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms and provided the administration with the authorities it needs. The administration has used these sanctions once, but we should be prepared, if necessary, to use them again. We know what is happening in Venezuela: subversion of democracy through state-sponsored violence; repression; hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans in the streets earlier this year protesting alarming levels of violence and crime; sky-high inflation rates; the scarcity of food and basic consumer goods. That is today's Venezuela. The question is: Can we make tomorrow better for the people of Venezuela? The world watched as President Maduro and his government responded to protests with a brutal display of force not seen in our hemisphere in over a decade. The results: more than 40 deaths, more than 50 documented cases of torture, and thousands of unlawful detentions. In May, Human Rights Watch released a devastating report that said Venezuelan human rights violations ``were part of a systematic practice by Venezuelan security forces'' and that these abuses were intended to ``punish people for their political views.'' As I have said repeatedly and as is the case today, not one Venezuelan Government official or member of the security forces has been held accountable for their role in beating, shooting, jailing, or torturing peaceful protesters--not one. Now they threaten to highjack the electoral process, and they must know that the world is watching and that there will be consequences to their actions.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise to talk about an issue that while we are riveted in our attention, yes, about a good education bill--which I intend to support--and about the challenge of ISIL and terrorism both abroad and at home, I am concerned that in the midst of all of those challenges, Iran is well on its way to once again defy the international community in a way that I think is incredibly dangerous. We are told that Iran is to be considered a trustworthy member of the international community and that we should be able to count on it to abide by the international commitments they have made and by U.N. Security Council resolutions. On October 11 of this year, Iran tested a precision-guided, long- range ballistic missile in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions, and now Iran has carried out a new medium-range ballistic missile test in breach of two U.N. Security Council resolutions. We are told by Western intelligence that test was held November 21. The first one was October 11; now a second one on November 21 near Chabahar, a port city in southeast Iran's Sistan and Baluchestan Province near the border with Pakistan. The launch took place from a known missile test site along the Gulf of Oman. The missile, which is known as a Ghadr- 110, has a range of anywhere between 1,800 and 2,000 kilometers or about 1,200 miles and is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. The missile fired in November is an improved version of the Shahab-3 and is similar to the precision-guided missile tested by Iran on October 10, which elicited strong condemnation by members of the U.N. Security Council, but those condemnations were in word but not in actions--because what has happened as a result of Iran violating the U.N. Security Council resolutions as it relates to missile testing? Absolutely nothing. At the Security Council we are still debating how to respond to Iran's last test in October, and I truly believe actions speak louder than words. American and U.N. actions demonstrate to me that with no activity that is visible to anyone as it relates to finding some consequence for Iran violating U.N. Security Council resolutions, Iran can support terror, Iran can develop its nuclear program, Iran can foment sectarian conflict across the Middle East, it can support Assad in its deadly regime against its people, it can test ballistic missiles, it can tell Iraq not to accept U.S. special forces in our fight against ISIL, and yet it will be rewarded with a multimillion- dollar sanctions relief this coming year. Something is wrong because the silence is so deafening. In October of this year after Iran launched its first missile test in violation of Security Council resolutions, I wrote to the Secretary of State. I wish to read excerpts of that letter because they are still more poignant today in view of the second test that has taken place against international will. I said: Dear Mr. Secretary, The recent test launch of a precision-guided, long-range ballistic missile by Iran was a violation of the United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1929. . . . As we discussed during your July 23 appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, [that resolution] stipulates that Iran cannot presently engage in activities related to ballistic missiles. But, with the October 11 launch, Iran has done so--on several levels--whether it is through research, development, planning, concealing or launching this reportedly new technology. And as some of my colleagues on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee have pointed out in separate correspondence to you, Iran's violations of UNSCR 1929 have become common. The Iranian regime is drawing a line in the sand that demonstrates [I believe] with malice that it will only selectively meet its obligations with respect to internationally sanctioned weapons programs. What meaningful steps will the Administration take to respond to the latest Iranian provocations? As Iran is prone to do, [I view] this is a test of American commitment and resolve, which, I believe, must be met with a decisive response in the language that Iran understands--for every action there is a consequence. I went on in that letter to say: I write to recommend to you that you use the Administration's discretionary authority to tighten the full range of sanctions available to you to penalize Iran for violating UNSCR 1929. From your responses at the July 23 [Senate Foreign Relations Committee] hearing, I understand that tightening sanctions for non-nuclear related infractions would not violate the terms of the Iran Nuclear Agreement, even if it were presently in its full implementation phase. Which it is not. The Administration should also encourage P5+1 partners to respond with similar measures. Does the Administration plan to use its current authority to tighten available sanctions against Iran? Iran is not only testing the Administration, it is also testing our international partners. The launch, coordinated on the same day that Iran's Parliament approved the general outline of the Iran Nuclear Agreement should send a clear signal to the United States, the P5+1, and the United Nations Security Council that Iran's nuclear program and its weapons programs are linked--and that the Iranian regime has every intention of maintaining this status quo. The Administration should lead the P5+1 and the UNSC to respond swiftly, decisively, and unapologetically. The series of test launches of Iranian ballistic missiles that have led us to this point are part of a larger weapons development program, that when taken together with Iran's history of deception, its opaque nuclear capabilities, past violations of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, its fiery rhetoric, destabilizing activities throughout the region, and well-documented malign intent, requires a strong international response. And particularly, I note: The time to act was then and now again-- certainly now--before Iran can exploit U.N. Security Council resolution 2231 because that particular resolution failed to incorporate the same mandatory language that U.N. Security Council resolution 1929 has. In 1929, the world said: You cannot conduct ballistic missile tests and work on the development of ballistic missiles. When we struck the deal with Iran, we went through a different language where we strongly called upon Iran not to do so for the next 8 years. But strongly calling upon a country--from the Security Council--not to do something is not prohibiting those threatening activities. We do have sanctions that are in place and a Security Council resolution that is in place, because the deal has not gone into full effect until implementation takes place, where Iran is already violating the international will as expressed by those Security Council resolutions. I would argue that in addition to the fact that they are defying the will of the international community as it relates to their missile weapons program--which can carry a nuclear warhead--I think they are testing the will of the international community when it comes to the question of how serious we will be about violations of the nuclear agreement. And the sooner that we are stronger in our response to their violations of the Security Council resolutions on missile technology and the missile weapons systems, the sooner they will understand we will not allow them to ultimately violate the agreement we struck with them as it relates to their nuclear program, and if they do, there are serious consequences. Iran has tested the world. I have followed Iran since I first was in the House of Representatives and it came to my knowledge that the United States was sending voluntary contributions to the International Atomic Energy Agency above and beyond our membership dues. When I inquired as to what it was for, it ended up that it was to help the IAEA, help Iran create operational capacity at the Bushehr nuclear facility. Well, that wasn't in the national interests of the United States and certainly not in the national and security interests of our ally the State of Israel. I led a successful drive to stop those voluntary contributions in the House. From that day, in the beginning of my House career, I followed Iran, because I said: Why does a country that has such huge--I think it is the fourth largest--oil reserves--and right up there as relates to gas reserves--need nuclear power for domestic energy consumption? It doesn't. I have followed Iran since then, and I have seen that by testing the international community's will at every step of the way, they advanced their nuclear program to where it came to the point-- almost like our too-big-to-fail banks--well, this was too big to stop, so we tried to manage it. Now they are testing the world as it relates to their missile technology and missile weapons program. Again, we see a lack of response. My letter to the Secretary of State on October 19--also, separate from that, there was a series of letters from other colleagues about the same issue--has not been responded to. We are going on 2 months since this action took place, and there is silence. As a matter of fact, the only things I have read are press reports about the latest violation, but I haven't seen the administration say a word about it. So as the Iranians get the sense that they can go ahead and violate the international will as expressed through Security Council resolutions and face no consequence as a result thereof, then based upon history we are going to face an Iran that is going to test the international community as it relates to its commitments in the Iran nuclear program. If we do not send a strong message now, we are only inviting attempts to violate that agreement. I am very much of the belief that once you violate international agreements, you have to have a consequence just on that basis. When we were having the great debate about the Iran deal, we were told that this is just about the nuclear program; that human rights violations, weapons violations, and violations in terms of their activities to destabilize the region and their hegemonic interests--that we are going to push back on all of those things. Well, I haven't seen that. I haven't seen that. And that, to me, invites a great risk. So I urge the administration to act decisively, to pursue both in the Security Council and apart from the Security Council, with our P5+1 allies, sanctionable items that can be outside of the nuclear portfolio, that can send a very strong message to Iran that ``Don't think you can get away with these types of actions and have no consequence.'' Secondly, I seriously believe this is another example of why the Iran sanctions act, which I helped author and which was passed overwhelmingly in the Senate and expires this coming year, needs to be reauthorized, because if there is a belief that there will be no sanctions in place as a result of any violations that take place, what are we snapping back to? What are we snapping back to? I believe there is nothing wrong with at least having those sanctions reauthorized and the Iranians having an understanding that if they violate the agreement, there are sanctions to snap back to. What they are doing in their violations of the Security Council resolutions as it relates to missile weapons programs is already a bellwether of what I believe their actions will be if we cannot ultimately meet the test of their challenge. And they are testing us. This is the same Iran that I saw for years test the international will, being told they cannot advance their nuclear program, to the point that it got to such an extent that we struck a deal. That is the risk we face here. So I look forward to pursuing a robust response to Iran. For all of my colleagues who supported the agreement, this is actually something we should be in chorus together on to ensure that Iran has a very clear message that ``We intend to push back on you. You cannot violate the international law.'' By doing so, hopefully we will see the performance of an agreement that is supposed to control their nuclear program in a way that does not risk the world security. That is what is at stake in this regard. I will close by simply saying that if you pass by the Archives Building, over its portal there is this statement: ``What is past is prologue.'' I hope that statement isn't a reality as we face the challenge of an Iran that feels strongly within the region, that creates greater instability through its support of Hezbollah, that supports Assad and continues a civil war in which thousands and thousands are dying, creating the rise of ISIS at the end of the day by a state that is virtually a failed state at this point in time and putting undue influence on its neighbor, Iraq, a country for which we have shed so many lives and national treasure. Something is wrong in that equation, and I hope my colleagues will wake up to it and will join us in an effort to try to make sure we push back in a way that is not only appropriate and within the international order but necessary if we truly do not want Iran to achieve nuclear power for nuclear weapons. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, Senator Sessions be recognized, and that following Senator Sessions, Senator Daines be recognized.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise on the third anniversary of Superstorm Sandy to reflect on where we have been, how far we have come, and what is still left to accomplish, and to praise the people of New Jersey who have remained New Jersey proud and New Jersey strong during this long, 3-year recovery process. But, most importantly, it is to remind everyone in this Chamber and all around the Nation that the job isn't done yet. Many people believe that this is over and that everyone just moved on, but I know that for many Sandy victims, that is not the case. In these last few years, we have made a lot of progress. Billions of dollars of Federal funds have flowed to the State and were used to rebuild bridges, roads, boardwalks, help businesses reopen, and keep people working. Those fortunate enough to navigate the maze of Federal and State programs have rebuilt their homes stronger and more resilient than before. The Jersey Shore has enjoyed a resurgence in tourism which fueled the local and State economy, creating jobs and supplementing the recovery. But while the beaches have been replenished and the boardwalks have been rebuilt, 3 years later, for far too many working-class New Jerseyans, the recovery not only is incomplete, in some cases it has still barely begun. There are still parts of the State that remain neglected. There are still families who haven't stepped foot in their homes for 3 years. They may not have a reality TV crew following them around, but they are the real New Jerseyans, the salt of the Earth, and the backbone of our great State. They are the unsung, hard-working New Jersey families who suffered loss and pulled themselves back up and kept going, one foot in front of the other, every day, not only because they wanted to but because they had no other choice. For these families, even after the storm passed, the clouds parted, and the Sun came out, a different kind of disaster--this time manmade-- was looming on the horizon. They went from filling up sandbags to fend off the Atlantic Ocean to filling out endless forms to fend off insurance companies and government officials. They had endured the fight against Mother Nature but were simply no match against Uncle Sam. Doug Quinn, a constituent of mine who served as a marine--and once you are a marine, you are always a marine, so I won't say former marine but who served as a marine--and who served his country with distinction, encapsulated this sentiment perfectly in a letter he wrote to me. In it he said: I was in my home the night the floodwaters rushed in. I waded out through waist deep water at midnight to escape while electrical transformers exploded and houses burned down. That was the easy part. It's the year-and-a-half since then that has been the tragedy. Let me repeat that. He says the flood was the easy part. This is a picture of him in that flood and the consequences to his home afterward. Doug had maximum coverage of $250,000 and received estimates of damages in excess of that--$254,000--but he received only $90,000, just over a third of what he needed to rebuild. And Doug was not alone. Chuck Appleby is another one of the thousands of New Jerseyans who has had to engage in this fight for the past 3 years to just get what he deserves. Like many others, Chuck, who joined us recently, was lowballed by FEMA and his insurance company, which somehow claimed it wasn't Sandy that severely cracked the foundation of his home. According to them, it was all a preexisting condition that just happened to magically appear the day after Sandy hit. Imagine that. He played by the rules, he faithfully paid for flood insurance for 10, 20, or 30 years, never had a claim until Sandy, came only to find out it wasn't enough. People assumed that since they have insurance, they would be made whole and that the resources necessary to rebuild would be there. But after surviving the wind, the rain, and the storm surge, he woke up to another nightmare: A flood insurance claim process that threatened to take what the storm had not. As much as I wish it were an aberration, Chuck's story is not unique. Thousands of New Jerseyans were lowballed by their insurance company, stunting the recovery and leaving families out of their homes. Fortunately, I, along with Senators Booker, Schumer, and Gillibrand, was able to convince FEMA to allow all Sandy survivors to have their claims reviewed, which will result in tens of millions of dollars going to the recovery. Chuck is one of those people who opted into the process, and FEMA recently admitted its mistake and acknowledged he was shorted at least $50,000. Dawn and Sonny Markosky are another example. They stood next to me in Belmar this week after having received a check for $56,000 from FEMA's claims review money that they should have received the first time around. Sonny served our country as a retired Army reservist and a police chief. He is now only receiving the justice he deserved and the chance to rebuild. And even Dawn's mom, who was lowballed $17,000 on her house, got an additional $17,000 from the claims review--money she had been owed all along. And it goes on and on. It shouldn't have taken this long, nor should the path have been this winding and difficult, but these successes illustrate the incredible resiliency of all the Sandy survivors who wouldn't give up no matter how dark things appeared on the morning of October 30, 2012, and throughout the 3 years that followed. I will continue to fight to help everyone recover. I will continue to be a voice for everyone in the Sandy community as we seek to repair what happened and make our communities more resilient in the future and more capable of dealing with storms like Sandy, which left incredible devastation in its wake. As we take a moment to think back on that day 3 years ago today, when the clouds finally parted and the ominous seas receded, the destruction Sandy left is almost unimaginable. We remember images like these of Seaside Heights. In fact, I actually took this photo while touring the damage with Vice President Biden. This is a photo of Hoboken, in northern New Jersey, where street after street looked like a series of canals. Thousands of families lost everything and suddenly found themselves homeless. Billions upon billions of dollars' worth of property, roads, bridges, trains, schools, fire stations, and hospitals were in ruins. Most tragically of all, dozens of people lost their lives. It was a dark time for our entire State, no doubt about it, but, as the proverb goes, the darkest hour is just before the dawn. Today, as we remember that dark hour, we commit ourselves to completing the job and entering the dawn of a new era in the long journey to rebuild and recover not just to where we were before the storm but to a place where we are stronger, more resilient, and more prepared. I have no doubt we will get there together, not just through our efforts here in Washington but because of the indefatigable, dogged character of the people of New Jersey. We showed that character in the immediate aftermath when, despite the level of devastation, New Jerseyans were true to their reputation of being New Jersey strong. Communities united, families took in neighbors who lost their homes, and we all came together and worked together. It was a testament to the fundamental nature of community action, community involvement, and to what real community service is all about. After seeing the impact of the damage that day, I came back to Washington with a heavy heart but a determined mind, solely focused on representing the countless victims of our State who had their lives turned upside down. They didn't ask for handouts; they asked for help and kept moving forward. I remember working closely with my late colleague and dear friend Senator Frank Lautenberg, and we made it our No. 1 priority to bring every available resource back to the victims of our State. I continued to work with Senator Booker, who jumped head first into the fight from the moment he entered the Senate to do the same. And to be clear, we had to fight from the very beginning. We had to fight a tea party- inspired opposition that was blocking the relief we so desperately needed. We had Senators and Congressmen who said no to disaster victims in New Jersey with one side of their mouths, while asking for Federal funds when a disaster struck their State on the other side. Ultimately, we overcame the calloused and ideological attacks and secured more than $50 billion for the entire region. These Federal funds have been absolutely critical to our recovery, but mistakes by government agencies at the Federal and State level hindered our progress. On this third anniversary of Sandy, I don't come to the floor to point fingers at FEMA or the State or to play a blame game. This is not about politics or scapegoating; it is about continuing to do all we can to deliver for the people in every disaster who still need help, and that requires cooperation and teamwork from all levels of government. One example of bipartisanship was our effort to stop the draconian flood insurance rate increases that Sandy survivors were facing after the storm. These families were being confronted with skyrocketing premiums which threatened to take what the storm had not. In response, I led a broad, bipartisan coalition from all parts of the country and passed legislation to stop these egregious hikes and restore fairness in the flood insurance program. A recovery requires more efforts like this. It requires the State to be transparent and open to correcting any inefficiency that causes delays and for every Federal Government agency to step up, step in, and make corrections when needed. It requires strong oversight and technical assistance from Federal agencies, such as Housing and Urban Development. As we have seen in the past, this cooperation can result in significant improvement. For example, when I discovered that homeowners were being needlessly delayed from rebuilding because the State chose to conduct historical and environmental reviews at the end of the application process--therefore, further delay--I worked with then- Secretary Donovan to clarify to the State that they could conduct these reviews at the front end of the application process, allowing victims to begin rebuilding sooner without jeopardizing their funding. This was a perfect example of eliminating unnecessary obstacles and inefficiencies, and I was proud to be in charge. We always need to find more opportunities like this. We need HUD to continue to work with the States to discover these inefficiencies and to get people fully restored. It is our responsibility to make the system and the process work for them. When I look at two of these families--a marine serving with distinction for his country and a former Army reservist and police chief--their country didn't ultimately respond to them the way it should have. It made life more difficult when, in fact, it should have been the other way around. We cannot allow partisan and geographical politics into our Nation's disaster response priorities. There is a reason we call our Nation the United States of America. I have cast my vote time and time again for flooding in Mississippi, wildfires out West, Hurricane Katrina--the list goes on and on--because I believe in this we are one. No matter where a disaster occurs, no matter if it is across the street or across the country, we come together as a nation ready to go. With that, Mr. President, I look forward to our continuing effort to get everyone in New Jersey back in their homes. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to speak out against a bill that is misguided, stands against everything that America represents, and suggests that it will protect Americans when, in fact, it will protect Americans less. From our founding, our principles have been guided by core values of equality, fairness, freedom, and tolerance, and in turn, we have honored the many ways that immigrants have contributed to this country since its inception. Yet the other side of the aisle is once again engaged in a stubborn, relentless, and shameful assault against immigrants. As the son of immigrants myself, I find it hard not to take offense at the anti-immigrant rhetoric we are hearing from their Presidential candidates. It is unacceptable, deplorable, and should be renounced by every American. We are witnessing the most overtly nativist, xenophobic campaign in modern U.S. history. We have hit a new low with the extraordinarily hateful rhetoric that diminishes immigrants' contributions to American history and particularly demonizes the Latino community by labeling Mexican immigrants as rapists and criminals. The Republican leading in the polls actually launched his Presidential candidacy by attacking immigrants, saying: They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. Please spare me. It is senseless and false. Yet some of my Senate colleagues have decided to jump on the GOP's fearmongering bandwagon, seeking to blindly stamp millions of hard-working, law-abiding immigrant families as criminals and rapists, and that is why we are here today. That anti-immigrant rhetoric has made its way to the Senate floor courtesy of Donald Trump and some Republicans eager to capitalize on this rhetoric for their own political gain. This is nothing more than another offensive anti-immigrant bill, another effort to demonize those who risk everything for a better life for themselves and their children, those who were left with no choice but to flee persecution and violence or else face a certain death. That is what we are debating here today. Those are the individuals this legislation seeks to brand as criminals. This bill does nothing more than instigate fear and divide our Nation. Supporters of this bill may say that it is in response to a tragedy such as what happened in San Francisco, and what happened in San Francisco was a tragedy. Such tragedies will not be prevented by this legislation but by real immigration reform. I am happy to have that debate--a real debate, an honest and compassionate debate, a debate the country deserves--but that is not what is happening in this bill. The title of the bill asserts that it will protect Americans. Well, to be clear, this bill will not protect Americans because it second guesses decisions made by local law enforcement around the country about how to best police their own communities and ensure public safety. What is worse, this bill mandates local law enforcement to take on Federal immigration enforcement duties by threatening to strip away funding from as many as 300 local jurisdictions, from programs such as the community development block grant, community-oriented policing services, and the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. These are programs that directly help our towns and communities. The CDBG Program grows local economies and improves the quality of life for families. It has assisted hundreds of millions of people with low and moderate incomes, stabilized neighborhoods, provided affordable housing, and improved the safety and quality of life of American citizens. The Cops on the Beat grant funds salaries and benefits for police officers who serve us every day by keeping our communities safe, and they deserve better than being dragged into partisan politics. My colleague from Louisiana seeks to strip funding from localities that undertake the balancing of public safety considerations and refuse to act as Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. But this bill goes even further than that. This bill isn't content with taking discretion away from local communities; it takes it away from the judicial branch. It adds new mandatory minimums when, as a nation, we are trying to move away from that approach. The new mandatory minimum sentences would have a crippling financial impact with no evidence that they would actually deter future violations of the law. They could cost American taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. I think that deserves a serious, thoughtful debate in the Judiciary Committee, with expert testimony on whether this really makes us safer or whether we are throwing away hard-earned taxpayer dollars. But we won't even get that debate because this bill was fast-tracked as a Republican priority, and it didn't even go through the regular committee process. The U.S. Senate cannot nurture an environment that demonizes and dehumanizes Latinos and the entire immigrant community. By threatening to strip CDBG funding from cities, Senate Republicans are saying that it is OK to withhold funding from economically vulnerable American citizens, senior citizens, veterans, and children to promote their anti-immigrant agenda and that it is OK to cut COPS funding, which has long promoted public safety through community policing. A one-size-fits-all approach that punishes State and local law enforcement agencies that engage in well-established community policing practices just doesn't make sense. Local communities and local law enforcement are better judges than Congress of what keeps their communities safe. Police need cooperation from the community to do their jobs. That is why over the past several years hundreds of localities across our Nation, with the support of some of the toughest police chiefs and sheriffs, have limited their involvement in Federal immigration enforcement out of concerns for community safety and violations of the Fourth Amendment. They need witnesses and victims to be able to come forward without fear of recrimination because of their immigrant status, and fear of deportation should never be a barrier to reporting crime or seeking help from the police. This fear undermines trust between law enforcement and the communities they protect and creates a chilling effect. These policies were put in place because local jurisdictions don't want to do ICE's job for them. Effective policing cannot be achieved by forcing an unwanted role upon the police by threat of sanctions or withholding assistance, especially at a time when law enforcement agencies are strengthening police-community relations. Furthermore, why do my Republican colleagues believe they know better than the local towns and citizens who live this day in and day out? They talk endlessly about decentralizing government, giving the power back to local communities, but not this time. It is no wonder that this bill is opposed by law enforcement, including the Fraternal Order of Police, the Law Enforcement Immigration Task Force, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, immigrant and Latino rights organizations, faith groups, and domestic violence groups, among others. This bill is not a real solution to our broken immigration system. The bottom line is that we need comprehensive immigration reform. We passed bipartisan legislation in 2013, but we haven't had a real discussion in Congress for over 2 years. A recent Pew poll found that 74 percent of Americans overall said that undocumented immigrants should be given a pathway to stay legally. That included 66 percent of Republicans, 74 percent of Independents, and 80 percent of Democrats who support a pathway to legal status for undocumented immigrants. This bipartisan support is not new. Comprehensive immigration reform, previously passed in the Senate, brought millions of people out of the shadows who had to prove their identity, pass a criminal background check, pay taxes, and provide an earned path to citizenship so ICE could focus on the people who were true public safety threats. The bill also increased penalties for repeat border crossers. It included $46 billion in new resources, including no fewer than 38,000 trained, full-time, active Border Patrol agents deployed and stationed along the southern border. It increased the real GDP of our country by more than 3 percent in 2023 and 5.4 percent in 2033--an increase of roughly $700 billion in the first 10 years and $1.4 trillion in the second 10. It would have reduced the Federal deficit by $197 billion over the next decade and by another $700 billion in the following. That is almost $1 trillion in deficit spending reductions by giving 11 million people a pathway to citizenship. That was a real solution. That is the type of reform we need. That, in fact, is the opportunity that existed. Unfortunately, the other body, the House of Representatives, did not even have a vote. To the extent that Americans are less safe, it is because of their inaction that we are less safe today. Tragedies should not be used to scapegoat immigrants. They should not be used to erode trust between law enforcement and our communities. We cannot let fear drive our policymaking. So let's actively and collectively resist the demagoguery that threatens to shape American policymaking for the worse. I believe a vote to proceed is a vote against the Latino and immigrant communities of our country, and I hope that on a bipartisan basis we can reject it. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today, as I have in the past, in defense of the Cuban people, who long for the day when they are free of the iron fist of the Castro regime, a day when we can honestly say ``Cuba es libre'' and mean it. I rise with great concern over the trajectory of the policy towards Cuba that President Obama announced on December 17 of last year. In executing this new policy, the Obama administration has spared no generosity towards the dictatorship in Cuba. It commuted the sentences of three convicted Cuban spies, including one serving a life sentence for murder conspiracy against Americans who died while flying a civilian aircraft in international airspace that was struck down by Cuban MIGs. It eased a host of travel and trade sanctions in spite of the purpose and intent of U.S. law. It removed Cuba from the state sponsors of terrorism list, while it continues harboring fugitives from the U.S. justice system and members of foreign terrorist organizations. Among those people who are in Cuba is Joanne Chesimard, who killed a New Jersey State trooper. She was convicted of doing so, escaped, and is on the FBI's top 10 most wanted terrorist list. Yet we took them off the list of state sponsors of terrorism. It negotiated an agreement to establish diplomatic relations with Cuba that falls far short of international legal norms in terms of what the people at our Embassy can and cannot do inside of Cuba. It upgraded Cuba in the trafficking in persons report, despite its continued slave labor and human trafficking practices. It even acquiesced to shunning dissidents from attending the U.S. Embassy's flag-raising ceremony in Havana. Yet Cuban dictator Raul Castro refuses to reciprocate any of these concessions. To the contrary, Castro has emphasized that he ``will not cede 1 millimeter.'' In his speech at last month's United Nations General Assembly gathering, he demanded even more, namely for President Obama to evade U.S. law as regards sanctions, to shut down Radio and TV Marti, which is, in essence, the equivalent of our Voice of Democracy so that the Cuban people can get free and unfettered information, to end democracy programs, to return the military base at Guantanamo, and to pay $1 trillion--not $1 million, not $1 billion, $1 trillion--in damages to his regime. So today, 10 months later, the metrics of this new policy show it is clearly headed in the wrong direction. The Castro family is poised for a generational transition in power. The Cuban regime's monopolies are being strengthened. Courageous democracy leaders are being relegated to obscurity, their voices muffled by the actions of the United States and foreign nations alike. Political repression has exponentially increased. The number of Cubans desperately fleeing the island is rising, and the purpose and intent of U.S. law is being circumvented. The trajectory of our policy is unacceptable, and I urge President Obama to correct its course. While speaking recently to a business gathering in Washington, President Obama argued how he believes this new policy is ``creating the environment in which a generational change in transition will take place in that country.'' But the key question is this: a generational change in transition towards what and by whom? Cuban democracy leader Antonio Rodiles has concisely expressed his concern. He said: ``Legitimizing the [Castro] regime is the path contrary to a transition.'' CNN 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, was 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, the first at April's Summit of the Americas in Panama City, a summit that is supposed to be a meeting of democracies within the Western Hemisphere--Cuba in no way can qualify under those set of circumstances--and just last month at the United Nations General Assembly in New York, Alejandro was seated next to his father with a wide grin. Now, Alejandro holds the rank--this is him standing next to Raul Castro--of colonel in Cuba's Ministry of the Interior. Now, Cuba's Ministry of the Interior is, in essence, the state security that oppresses its people, with its hand on the pulse and the trigger of the island's intelligence services and repressive organs. It is no secret that Raul 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 Korea. We know how well those have worked out. To give you an idea of how Colonel Alejandro Castro views the United States, he describes its leaders as ``those who seek to subjugate humanity to satisfy their interests and hegemonic goals.'' But, 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, the 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 night clubs, to TRD Caribe, S.A., which runs the island's retail stores. GAESA, this holding company of Cuba's Ministry of the Revolutionary Armed Forces, 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 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.'' Now, GAESA became this business powerhouse thanks to the millions of Canadian and European tourists who have and continue to visit Cuba each year. But these tourists--going over a decade and a half, maybe two-- 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 made by Cuban workers paid in worthless pesos and having a Cuba Libre, which is an oxymoron, on the beaches of Varadero. Yet, despite the clear evidence, some want American tourists to now double GAESA's bonanza--and, through GAESA, double the regime's bonanza. An insightful report this week by Bloomberg Business also explained how: [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-- Castro's son-in-law-- who decides which investors get the best deals. Of course, it is those investors in the company that ultimately is the Cuban Revolutionary Armed Forces, Cuba's military. In other words, all the talking points about how lifting the embargo and tourism restrictions would somehow benefit the Cuban people are empty and misleading rhetoric. It would only serve as a money funnel for Castro, Inc. Now, here is what over a dozen of Cuba's most renowned prodemocracy leaders, including the head of the Ladies in White--the Ladies in White are a group of women, composed of mothers, wives, daughters, and other relatives of Cuban political prisoners. These are political prisoners who basically have languished in Castro's jail, not because they did anything violent, not because they broke the common law, as we would understand it here in the United States, but because they sought to create peaceful change. They march every Sunday, dressed in white, holding a gladiola, peacefully to church. They are beaten savagely and arrested. And yet they do this every Sunday. Berta Soler, shown in the middle, former prisoner of conscience Jorge Luis Garcia Perez ``Antunez,'' and Sakharov prize recipient Guillermo Farinas, who are all pictured here, warned in an open letter to the U.S. Congress, dated September 25, 2015: The lifting of the embargo, as proposed by the [Obama] Administration, will permit the old ruling elite to transfer their power to their political heirs and families, giving little recourse to the Cuban people in confronting this despotic power. . . . Totalitarianism communism will mutate into a totalitarian state adopting minimal market reforms that will serve only to accentuate the existing social inequality in the midst of an increasingly uncertain future. These are the people inside of Cuba languishing as they try to create change in their country toward peaceful moves toward democracy. It is very interesting, as you can see, that despite the talk about the Cuban regime creating greater equality, these pro-democracy movers in this picture who wrote this letter to Congress are all Afro-Cubans. So much for the equality that the regime created and this mysticism or romanticism that some have about the regime. From an economic perspective, the very concept of trade and investment in Cuba is grounded in a misconception about how business takes place on the island. Right now, the Commerce Secretary of the United States is there talking about business. With whom are you talking business? With the regime. In most of the world, trade and investment means dealing with privately owned or operated corporations. That is not the case in Cuba. In Cuba, foreign trade and investment is the exclusive domain of the state; for instance, the Castro family. There are no exceptions. In the last five decades, every single foreign trade transaction with Cuba has been with the Castro regime or an individual acting on behalf of the regime. The regime's exclusivity regarding trade and investment is enshrined in article 18 of Castro's 1976 Constitution. He changed the Constitution and gave exclusivity to the state as it relates to trade and investment. That has not changed. Moreover, there is no real private sector in Cuba. We often hear the Obama administration and the media refer to Cuba's small ``self- employment'' licenses as private enterprise, which implies private ownership. Yet Cuba's self-employed licensees have no ownership rights whatsoever--be it to their artistic or intellectual outputs, commodity that they produce or personal service that they offer. Licensees have no legal entity to transfer, sell or leverage. They don't even own the equipment essential to their self-employment. More to the point, licensees have no right to engage in foreign trade, seek or receive foreign investments. Effectually, licensees continue to work for the state. When the state decides such jobs are no longer needed--and we have seen this experiment before--licensees are shut down without recourse, which has happened several times in the past. Why? Because when you permit somebody to have a little barbershop and people congregate at the barbershop and begin to talk, that is a threat to the regime. When you permit people to assemble legally under the law, even if it is for the purposes of getting, for example, a haircut or eating at a restaurant-- although that is normally for foreigners, not for locals--the bottom line is that when that gets out of hand, the regime, as it has in the past, will stop it. So this suggestion that there is this private enterprise is such a huge false fact. The fact is, we already know what expanded U.S. trade with Cuba would look like. Since the passage of the 2000 Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act, over $5 billion in U.S. agricultural and medical products have been sold to Cuba. It is, however, an unpleasant fact--and facts are stubborn--that all those sales by more than 250 privately owned U.S. companies were made to only one Cuban buyer: the Castro regime. Don't believe me. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture itself: ``The key difference in exporting to Cuba, compared to other countries in the region, is that all U.S. agricultural exports must be channeled through one Cuban government agency, ALIMPORT.'' Exporting to Cuba is not about trading with small- or mid-sized farmers, private businesses and manufacturers around the island, as some of my colleagues would have Americans believe. So it should be no surprise that U.S. products end up on the shelves of regime-owned stores that accept only what? Hard currencies. Meaning what? The U.S. dollar or a euro--with huge price markups. Shoppers at these ``dollar stores'' are mainly tourists or those Cubans who happen to have U.S. families who will send them money, but at the end of the day, those stores have these huge markups. And where does the money go to? Not a private enterprise but the regime. Little imported food or medicine ever makes it into stores where Cubans shop. Neither is it available on ration cards. It requires a tremendous leap of faith or belief in some extreme and unprecedented economic model--call it dictator-down economics, from my perspective-- to argue or theorize that current or more U.S. sales to Castro's monopolies have or can ever benefit the Cuban people. The facts prove otherwise, as has been the case with sales of U.S. food and medicine. So what makes us believe expanded trade with the United States would be any different? As a matter of fact, since December 17 of this past year--when the agreements between the United States and Cuba were announced and despite the Obama administration's efforts to improve relations with the Castro regime, which have included an increase in travel and eased payment terms for agricultural sales--U.S. sales to ALIMPORT, that Cuban regime company which they control, during the same period have plummeted by over 50 percent. So the question is, Why would even more concessions make this manipulation by the Castro regime's monopolies any different? Let's stop talking about the embargo in vague terms. The embargo, as codified by the U.S. Congress into law, simply requires the fulfillment of some very basic conditions which are consistent with the democratic and human rights standards of 34 out of the 35 nations in the Western Hemisphere--Cuba remaining the sole exception and, of course, ironically Venezuela heading into a downward spiral with a lot of influence by the Castro regime. When President Obama or some of my colleagues call for lifting the embargo, they are asking Congress to unilaterally discard these conditions. So I want to ask them, which of these conditions--codified in U.S. law--do they disagree with or oppose that they are willing to unilaterally discard them? Which one are they willing to live without? Is it, for example, the condition that Cuba ``legalizes all political activity'' or the condition that Cuba ``releases all political prisoners and allows for investigations of Cuban prisons by appropriate international human rights organizations''? As I understood part of this agreement, the Red Cross--I think it was the International Red Cross--was going to be able to go into Cuban prisons. The regime said: Not interested in that. Is it the condition that Cuba ``dissolves the present Department of State Security in the Cuban Ministry of the Interior, including the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution. . . . ''? What is the Committee for the Defense of the Revolution? It is a block-watch entity in every neighborhood, in every village, in every hamlet inside of Cuba whose only job is to spy on their neighbors, and when their neighbor says something critical of the regime, they get ratted out. Is it the rapid response brigades? What are those? Those are state security dressed as civilians who go take people such as the Ladies in White--people like these three pro-democracy individuals--and arrest them so it seems as if the populace is the one doing it when it is state security. Is it the condition that Cuba ``makes a public commitment to organizing free and fair elections for a new government'' or the condition that Cuba ``makes public commitments to and is making demonstrable progress in establishing an independent judiciary; respecting internationally recognized human rights and basic freedoms as set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which Cuba is a signatory nation; allows the establishment of independent trade unions as set forth in conventions 87 and 98 of the International Labor Organization'' among others. Is it the condition that Cuba give ``adequate assurances that it will allow the speedy and efficient distribution of assistance to the Cuban people'' or the condition that Cuba is ``effectively guaranteeing the rights of free speech and freedom of the press, including granting permits to privately owned media and telecommunications companies to operate in Cuba''? Is it the condition that Cuba is ``assuring the right to private property'' or ``taking appropriate steps to return to United States citizens (and entities which are 50 percent or more beneficially owned by United States citizens) property taken by the Cuban Government from such citizens and entities on or after January 1, 1959, or to provide equitable compensation to such citizens and entities for such property''? Is it the condition that Cuba has ``extradited or otherwise rendered to the United States all persons sought by the United States Department of Justice for crimes committed in the United States''? Which one of these conditions do they not agree with? Are they all willing to just throw them all out, require nothing? If President Obama, as media reports indicate, takes the unprecedented step of abstaining from voting against a Cuban resolution in the United Nations General Assembly criticizing our own Nation's law--which is what the Cuban embargo is--he would be disavowing these basic conditions because these basic conditions are what is written into the law. I know. At the time, I was one of the authors who wrote the law in the House of Representatives. Think about the horrible message that turning a blind eye to these basic conditions in U.S. law would send to the Cuban people about the priorities of the United States. Think of the horrible message it would send to Cuba's courageous democracy leaders. Since December 17, scores of foreign dignitaries, businessmen, and Members of the U.S. Congress have descended upon Havana to meet with Raoul Castro and his cronies, while sidelining Cuba's courageous dissenters. As independent journalist and blogger Yoani Sanchez lamented, ``A true shower of presidents, foreign ministers and deputies has intensified over Cuba without daily life feeling any kind of relief from such illustrious presences.'' Sadly, as the AP reported, ``more than 20 U.S. lawmakers have come to Cuba since February without meeting with opposition groups that once were an obligatory stop for congressional delegations.'' The reason U.S. lawmakers don't meet with human rights activists and political dissidents is because if they do, then they don't get a meeting with Raoul Castro. So I guess the photo op with Raoul Castro is more important than meeting with human rights activists and political dissidents. Perhaps the biggest affront was during the flag-raising ceremony during the opening ceremony of the U.S. Embassy in Havana--to which no Cuban dissidents were invited. The Secretary of State said publically this was due to ``a lack of space'' and that it was a ``government-to- government'' function. Yet images clearly showed there was plenty of space and lots of nongovernmental figures on the invitee list. Can you imagine what the world would be like today if this had been the attitude of the United States toward Sakharov, Solzhenitsyn, Vaclav Havel, Lech Walesa, and Nelson Mandela? Meanwhile, adding insult to injury, Cuba's courageous dissident leaders--now neglected by the administration and congressional supporters of the new policy and even further neglected by foreign dignitaries and unscrupulous businessmen searching for a profit at whatever cost--are facing a dramatic increase in repression. Since December 17, when President Obama announced his new policy, Raoul Castro's dictatorship has exponentially increased the number of political arrests, beatings, and detentions. Just between January and March of this year, politically motivated arrests increased nearly 70 percent, from 178 arrests in the former month to 610 in the latter. According to the Cuban Commission for Human Rights and National Reconciliation--an internationally recognized human rights watchdog-- the total number of political arrests during the first 9 months of this year were 5,146. In just 9 months, these 5,146 political arrests surpassed the year-long tallies recorded for 2010, which was 2,074; 2011, which was 4,123; and 2015 is tragically on pace to become one of the most repressive years in recent history. The official number of September arrests alone--the month just passed--was 822, the most in 15 months. They include Danilo Maldonado, a 31-year-old artist known as El Sexto who was imprisoned on December 25 of this past year, one week after the new policy was announced. El Sexto was arrested for painting the names Fidel and Raul on two pigs, which was considered an act of ``contempt.'' He remains imprisoned without trial or sentence or any justice. Amnesty International has recognized him as a prisoner of conscience. They also include Zaqueo Baez Guerrero, Ismael Bonet Rene and Maria Josefa Acon Sardinas, a member of The Ladies in White. These three dissidents sought to approach Pope Francis during his recent mass in Havana to ask for his solidarity with Cuba's political prisoners and democracy movement. They were dragged away and arrested under the eyes of the international media. They have been on a hunger and thirst strike since September 20 and are being held at the infamous secret police center for ``investigations'' at Aldabo and 100th Street in Havana. I am very concerned about their well-being. They also include the case of Digna Rodriguez Ibanez, an Afro-Cuban member of The Ladies in White in Santa Clara, who was attacked by Castro regime agents and pelted with tar. That is right, with tar. Also included is Eralisis Frometa Polanco, another member of The Ladies in White, who was pregnant and forcefully aborted due to the violent blows to the stomach she received during a beating for her peaceful activism, and Daisy Cuello Basulto, also a member of The Ladies in White, whose daughter was arrested, stripped naked, and forced to urinate in front of male state security officers as a means of tormenting her mother. For 24 straight Sundays in a row, Cuban dissidents have tried to peacefully demonstrate after Mass under the slogan ``Todos Marchamos''--we all march. And for 24 Sundays in a row they have been intercepted, violently beaten, and arrested. This image is of Cuban dissident leader Antonio Rodiles, a 43-year- old intellectual, after having his face literally shattered during one of those peaceful Sunday marches. Yet, despite the tremendous indignities at the hands of the Castro regime, they remain undeterred in their struggle for freedom and democracy for all Cubans. Rather than shunning these courageous individuals, the United States should be embracing them. On the same day the news hit that 882 political arrests were made in September alone by the Castro regime, Secretary Kerry was in Chile talking about some marine life agreement with Cuba. What about the human lives in Cuba suffering under this oppression? The Obama administration's policy seems to be bringing little comfort to the Cuban people generally, as they continue to flee by land, by air, and the perilous journey by sea across the Florida straits, where countless Cubans have lost their lives in search of freedom. Nearly 32,000 Cubans entered the United States in the first 9 months of the fiscal year that ended on September 30, up from about 26,000 migrants who entered last fiscal year, according to the Department of Homeland Security. Fewer than 7,500 Cubans came in 2010. Finally, Mr. President, as one of the authors of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996, known as the Libertad Act, and having served as a manager in the conference committee, I am concerned that the recent regulations and actions being taken by the Treasury and Commerce Departments contravene the purpose and intent of the law. As the final conference committee report of the Libertad Act made clear, ``It is the intent of the committee of conference that all economic sanctions in force are March 1, 1996, shall remain in effect until they are either suspended or terminated pursuant to the authorities provided in section 204 of this (requiring a Presidential determination that a Democratic transition is under way in Cuba).'' Those are the conditions I had previously addressed. The report also states that ``the explicit mandates in this legislation make clear congressional intent that U.S. law be enforced fully and, thereby, provide a basis for strict congressional oversights of executive branch enforcement measures henceforth.'' In furtherance of this intent, the prohibition on U.S. assistance and financing of agricultural sales to Cuba, the prohibition on additional imports from Cuba, and the prohibition of travel relating to tourist activities in the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 are explicit, clear and leave no room for exceptions. These provisions were precisely written to deny U.S. funds to the Castro regime's repressive machinery and prohibiting them from being funneled through Castro's monopolies. Yet that is the direction-- perhaps unintended--the new regulations are headed in, with the tragic, repressive consequences on full display. Any hope that President Obama's goodwill would elicit a different tone from Raul Castro was further diminished by the Cuban dictator's speech to the U.N. General Assembly last month. Castro dedicated his 17-minute speech almost entirely to bashing the policies of the United States from Latin America to Eastern Europe to the Middle East. He praised Latin American autocrats in the mold of Hugo Chavez, sided with Putin and Assad, criticized representative democracy, and dismissed human rights as a ``utopia.'' While President Obama referred to the concessions he has already made in his remarks to the U.N. General Assembly, Raul Castro audaciously demanded even more. So let me close by saying we all remember the message President Obama sent to the foes of freedom in his first inaugural speech. He said, ``[W]e will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.'' I urge the President to follow his own doctrine and reconsider some of the unmerited and unreciprocated generosity in this new policy, for Raul Castro's fist clearly remains clenched, yet the President's hand is still fully extended. The President claims those who don't agree with his Cuba policy are stuck in the past, but it is the Castro regime that is stuck in the past, still living their misguided Cold War dreams in a world that hasn't insisted they move forward. And when you own everything in the country--which the regime does--why would you be willing to give it up after 50-some-odd years? Instead, we are rewarding them for their intransigence. Unless we challenge them, we will not see change. The fact is that hope and change do not come easily. They do not just happen. Like any parent with a child, they won't change unless you challenge them and give them a reason. Like Congress, it needs to be challenged to change. And so with Cuba the world needs to challenge the regime or change will never come--not give in and give everything. To do so only strengthens their resolve to hold on to their dictatorship and prolong the day when we can truly say to the world that ``Cuba es Libre''--Cuba is free. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to hopefully prick the conscience of the Senate to ask the Senate to honor the memory of James Zadroga and all of those first responders who on September 11 responded to a national tragedy. I come to the floor to achieve a goal that I and others did in 2010, which was then to pass the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, and today it is to speak to reauthorize it before it expires. Now, Jim Zadroga was a New Jerseyan, but he was also a hero who after September 11, 2001, ran towards the World Trade Center--not away--to help us recover. But while working on the site, breathing in the smoke, dust, and debris, unknown to him, he was developing an illness from which he would never recover. Jim was the first emergency responder to die directly because of health effects from working at Ground Zero. For years we had pieces of legislation in Congress to right the wrong created when hundreds of emergency workers were left out of the World Trade Center emergency worker settlements. It took us 9 years to pass the original bill. Let's not let it expire tomorrow. Let's send a clear message to our first responders, those who responded on that fateful day and those who may be called upon to respond on some future fateful day, that we will never forget what they did for their fellow citizens, for this Nation, on the day that changed the world--for Jim Zadroga, who passed away, and for every other first responder sick because of their response to duty, some of whom have died and left loved ones behind. If you told any American 14 years ago that we would let expire our commitment to provide for those who helped in the 9/11 recovery effort, that their government would be slow to respond to their illnesses, their suffering, and their sacrifices, no American would believe it. But that is what we are on the verge of doing. That is exactly what we are on the verge of doing. We just had the September 11 commemoration. We all faithfully and responsibly went to remember the lives of those fellow Americans who were lost. We all paid tribute to them and to those who sacrificed in response. Yet here we are, just a few weeks after, on the verge of allowing to expire the very law that helps those who did their duty-- some who did beyond their duty, because they were first responders not even from New York City but who came from across the country to help in the aftermath. No American would believe that we are about to let this expire. That is where we are, and it must change. This law is set to expire at midnight tomorrow. Now, there is still enough funding to pay out claims for months to follow, but the reauthorization bill that I and other colleagues have cosponsored is needed now for a number of reasons. First and foremost, to provide the security, the peace of mind, and reassurances to those first responders that these critical programs will last longer than just what the next couple of months' funding would provide. It also permanently lifts the statute of limitations on the Victims Compensation Fund to provide for those first responders who need access beyond next year because we don't know what latent illness may befall them as a result of their sacrifice at Ground Zero. Very importantly, it exempts the key programs from the budget sequestration cuts that would hollow out the critical safety net that this program provides for those September 11 first responders. The sequestration, which I voted against, imposes arbitrary and capricious cuts to funding that will continue to provide care and support for those 9/11 heroes, who sacrificed everything to help those in need on that tragic day. The fact is, Congress must act, and this time, let's not wait for a public outcry before we ensure that these heroes receive the care and support they deserve. Last week I stood with colleagues and first responders to call on all of us to do what is right and honor these heroic men and women. Let's reauthorize the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Reauthorization Act before it expires tomorrow. It is the least we can do to say thank you for the risks they took and the sacrifices they made. Fourteen years after the attack, we still have a profound and moral obligation to take care of these brave men and women, the first responders who risked their lives and are now suffering health effects as a result of their efforts. All of us remember that day. We remember where we were on the day that changed the world. We remember that it brought us closer together as family, as a community, one Nation indivisible. This is not a New York or a New Jersey issue. Nearly every State in the Nation has a first responder or more who ultimately will benefit from the fund because of an illness they have contracted or a loved one they left behind. There is a reason we call this great country the United States of America, because, in fact, whether there are wildfires in the West, flooding in the Mississippi or any other great consequence to our country, we take care of our own collectively. In fact, this is the moment to take care of those whom we have heralded as heroes. It is not simply enough to say so in words, but we have to do so in deeds. We should remember that feeling that we had on that day and subsequently the days afterwards and honor the heroic men and women, such as James Zadroga, and reauthorize the bill. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today deeply concerned about the growing economic crisis in Puerto Rico, which threatens to destabilize the island, and that we must step in and help our fellow American citizens--but sometimes we forget that the 3.5 million people who live in Puerto Rico are American citizens--before a financial crisis becomes a calamity. I again urge, as I recently did in a letter to Secretary Lew, along with seven Members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, that the Department of the Treasury move beyond simply providing technical assistance and take a full-throated leadership role to resolve this crisis immediately as we have done in previous financial crises. If we do not act, the result could be a financial disorder that will, at the end of the day, be much more expensive, much more chaotic, and will, in both the long and short term, cost Puerto Rico and the United States. The fact is that a potential solution rests in the hands of the administration, with Treasury and with HHS. As we said in the letter to Secretary Lew, the world is watching Puerto Rico, and we must ensure that the United States does everything in its power to take strong, bold, and substantive action that stabilizes the situation and protects the 3.5 million American citizens on the island and their families. Technical assistance and advice from Treasury is all well and good, but, in my view, it is just not enough. Treasury needs to take an active role, and Congress needs to approve the pending debt restructuring legislation I introduced with Senators Blumenthal, Schumer, and other Senate colleagues that would allow the government of Puerto Rico to authorize its public utilities to rework their debts under chapter 9. That is in the best interests of both Puerto Rico and the mainland. The fact of the matter is Puerto Rico would actually be running a surplus--a surplus--if it did not have to make debt payments. Allowing government-owned corporations to restructure their debts using a sound legal process would give the island breathing room to make necessary reforms and would not cost U.S. taxpayers a dime. This could go a long way to promote the fairest and most efficient outcome. The idea has been endorsed by the editorial boards of the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, Bloomberg View, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe, and others. The bill is also supported by the nonpartisan National Bankruptcy Conference and numerous bankruptcy lawyers and judges. Additionally, it is clear that the island's health care system is adding additional pressure to the overall financial situation, accounting for 20 percent of the island's economy and responsible for a third of its overall debt burden. Sixty percent of Puerto Ricans living on the island are enrolled in Medicare or Medicaid. And because of the disparity in how these two health programs are funded relative to the 50 States, the financial crisis is only exacerbated. To help alleviate some of this pressure on the health care system, I have introduced the Improving the Treatment of U.S. Territories Under Federal Health Programs Act of 2015 with Senators Schumer, Nelson, Gillibrand, and Blumenthal. This legislation provides several policies that will ensure Puerto Rico providers, both hospitals and physicians, are treated more equally to the States under the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Just as importantly, this legislation ensures that beneficiaries on the island are treated equally too. As citizens of the United States, it is imperative that Puerto Ricans be afforded the same access to care, coverage, and health benefits as everyone else. While I believe this legislation will go a long way toward addressing the island's systemic health care issues, there are several steps that HHS can take immediately and without the need for congressional action. They can change payment calculations under Medicare Advantage and Medicare's in-patient hospital rules to more accurately reflect the costs and demographics on the island. By making necessary adjustments to certain key payment formulas, HHS could make the practice of medicine a financially viable option in Puerto Rico and stem the tide of physicians leaving the island for the U.S. mainland and ensure that our fellow Americans living on the island are able to receive the care they need and deserve. I urge not only Treasury Secretary Lew but HHS Secretary Burwell to do all they can to provide financial and health care-related relief to Puerto Rico to help curb the island's financial crisis. Now, Governor Garcia Padilla's Working Group for the Fiscal and Economic Recovery of Puerto Rico has also recently released a 5-year plan earlier this month. While I don't agree with everything included in the plan, it shows a determined and legitimate effort to confront the economic crisis facing the island. Unfortunately, the current debt structure and legal restraints threaten the effectiveness of these proposed reforms. Without providing some flexibility and room to maneuver, all the difficult choices in the world won't be able to resolve the crisis. I wish to make it, however, absolutely clear: I am not--I am not-- calling for a Federal bailout of Puerto Rico. But there is still much we can and should do to restore solvency to the island that is home to 3.5 million Americans. Our bond with these Americans who live on the island has always been strong. Our relationship with Puerto Rico is long and deep and extensive. With more than 5 million Puerto Ricans residing in the United States--more than in Puerto Rico itself--we are inextricably tied. Now, I should not need to remind this body that from the infancy of our Nation, the people of Puerto Rico have been there for us. 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 Act, granting American citizenship to residents of the island. But even long before they were granted U.S. citizenship, Puerto Ricans have had a long and proud 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 Washington, DC, from attack and 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 that played a prominent and crucial role in World War I, World War II, and the Korean war, one of the most highly decorated regiments known in military history. I am proud to say I have 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 last year awarding these courageous patriots with the Congressional Gold Medal-- the highest expression of national appreciation for distinguished achievements and contributions to the United States. It is very easy to point our fingers at our brothers and sisters on the island and fault Puerto Rico for carrying more than $70 billion in debt. But I challenge my Senate colleagues to work with me on finding solutions, to step up to our responsibility at the Federal level by seeking opportunities for Congress and the administration to correct some of the inequities that have contributed to this crisis. I am talking about the unequal Medicare and Medicaid funding that I referenced earlier, the exclusion of Puerto Rico from the Supplemental Security Income program that aids the most vulnerable Americans, the exclusion of Puerto Rico from the child tax credit and earned income tax credit, which encourages low-income individuals to seek employment, and, as previously mentioned, the exclusion of Puerto Rico from chapter 9 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Now, more than ever, we need to be asking in Washington what steps can be taken to manage this crisis. Unequal treatment at the Federal level is, whether we want to own up to it or not, a contributing factor to the current economic crisis. The lack of Federal support has encouraged heavy borrowing by the Puerto Rican government of many, many administrations going back. We must do our part, both in Congress and the administration, to address this crisis, and we must act now, with urgency. I think the point is clear. As I said, we have a special, historic, unshakeable bond with Puerto Rico, and now is the time to strengthen that bond. The time has come to prevent the worsening fiscal crisis in Puerto Rico. The time has come to help Puerto Rico, and we can do so simply by giving them the wherewithal to help themselves through the Bankruptcy Code, as we would any other similar entity, to have the wherewithal to have an orderly restructuring and to get their economic future back in shape. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that David McFarland, a fellow detailed to my office from the Department of State, be granted privileges of the floor for the remainder of the Congress.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, today I am honored to recognize Mr. Pinky Kravitz on the occasion of his retirement from the WOND-AM 1400 after many years of remarkable broadcasting throughout the Garden State. Mr. Kravitz could be heard over the airways for more than 59 years as a radio broadcaster. He started his illustrious career first in 1956 as the host of a live call-in show on WLDB-AM, now known as 1490 WBSS. Since 1958, he has continuously hosted numerous radio programs with WOND-AM 1400, including Pinky's Corner, a live call-in program, and WMGM Presents Pinky, a weekly television program. Additionally, his written word could be heard across numerous publications and newspapers, most recently for the Press of Atlantic City. His radio show was one of the longest-running shows in the country, proof of his wide appeal and heartfelt reporting. Known widely as ``Mr. Atlantic City'' due to his promotion of the area, Mr. Kravitz was the unshakable spokesman of Southern New Jersey. A fierce advocate for the region, his voice was unmistakable, as he consistently sought to highlight the very best of what makes New Jersey great. His in-depth programming spoke to many, as he resonated with the hearts and minds of our friends and neighbors. Mr. Kravitz represented the very best of engaging, informative, entertaining, and responsible broadcasting. In addition to these and many more accomplishments, Mr. Kravitz was the first inductee into the New Jersey Broadcasters Hall of Fame in 2012, a testament to his impact on the industry. He was also the first recipient of the New Jersey Broadcasters Association, NJBA, Lifetime Achievement Award. I was honored to appear on Mr. Kravitz's radio show on several occasions. He was always the utmost professional while embracing the nature of substantive, meaningful journalism. For many years, his radio and television shows consistently sought to provide the region with a unique and fair perspective while maintaining a sense of familiarity and comfort, an accomplishment in and of itself. I recognize, commend, and applaud Mr. Pinky Kravitz in light of his extraordinary service to WOND-AM 1400 and his unwavering dedication to the airways of New Jersey.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise as an opponent of the Iran nuclear agreement, and I have set forth at length--both on the Senate floor and in a speech at Seton Hall University School of Diplomacy and International Relations--my reasons why, but I am also an opponent to the McConnell amendment that would support the deal if Iran recognizes Israel and releases American hostages. I have said on this floor--and will say again--that I have a problem with the underlying nuclear agreement. As much as I wish to see the hostages released--and have voted in a resolution that the Senate passed calling for Iran to do so--and have them come home to their families, and as much as I would like Israel to be recognized by Iran as a sovereign, independent nation, I am not certain I would want to give my imprimatur to the agreement even under those conditions, which this amendment would do. This, in essence, makes--if adopted--a conditional agreement. We in the Senate would be voting to say the agreement can move forward if the hostages are released and if Iran recognizes the State of Israel as a sovereign and independent state. I must say I want the hostages back, as does everyone in this Chamber. I want Israel to be recognized as a sovereign and independent state, although I believe that any such recognition by Iran at this point in time would be temporal, at best, and can only be meaningful by actions, not just simply by such a declaration. So at the end of the day, for all the reasons I have heard my colleagues on this floor talk about the consequences of the nuclear deal, surely you cannot be of the thought that as desirous as the releasing of the hostages is or the desire to have Israel recognized by Iran as a sovereign state, that that would then give you a clear sailing for the underlying nuclear agreement. That, in essence, is what this amendment would provide for. We have many concerns as we move forward with Iran. We already see that. Even as this agreement is being moved forward, Iran has given its OK to Russia to overfly Iran and then Iraq, where we have spent so many lives and national treasure, to send military hardware into Syria to prop up the Assad regime--which Iran has also been a patron of--and at same time to maybe very well establish a military base for Russia. So there are going to be a lot of concerns, notwithstanding this agreement that we have with Iran, but I, for one, do not want to give any idea that we would support this agreement--as someone who opposes it--simply because the hostages would be released and Iran would recognize Israel. Some might believe that will never happen, so therefore the agreement wouldn't move forward, but if the agreement is as good as so many of my colleagues have said it is for Iran, then it might not be a price they would find too high to pay in order to have the agreement move forward. In any event, whether Iran thinks it is a good agreement for them and would do so, I simply do not want to support the underlying agreement by virtue of a sleight of hand on something that is desirable and, independently, this body would be united on--getting all of the hostages back and doing everything necessary to achieve that and at the same time making sure Israel is truly, truly recognized, not only in words but in deed. That is why I will be voting against the amendment. There are far more serious things, such as renewing the Iran Sanctions Act, in the days ahead that I think are critical. Many of the things Senator Cardin has been talking about in his proposed legislation will be critical to having the type of response we want in Iran against its hegemonic interests in the region as well as its nuclear ambitions. For that, I will be voting against the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, earlier this week I introduced two bipartisan resolutions that were adopted by unanimous consent: S. Res. 254, recognizing September 15 to October 15 as Hispanic Heritage Month, and S. Res. 255, designating the week of September 14, 2015 as National Hispanic-Serving Institutions Week. These resolutions celebrate the immense contributions of Hispanic Americans to our great Nation and honor the critical work of more than 400 non-profit Hispanic-Serving Institutions for their important role in educating and empowering Hispanic youth. Latinos have a long and decorated history in the United States, full of extraordinary contributions to America's past, present, and future. Latinos have proudly served, helped build, and defended our country for hundreds of years, honorably serving in every action since before the founding of the Nation. Hispanics fought alongside patriots in the American Revolution and rallied in the Civil War, serving bravely in both the Union and Confederate armies. Latinos rode in Teddy Roosevelt's Rough Riders during the Spanish-American War, received Congressional Medals of Honor in both World Wars, and made the ultimate sacrifice for our country in Korea and Vietnam. As of July 31, 2015, more than 164,000 Hispanic Americans are actively serving with distinction in the United States Armed Forces. Just as Latinos have defended our Nation, we have also helped shape and build it. That is why I also wish to recognize the exemplary institutions that are making vital investments in the next generation of Latino leaders. Hispanic-Serving Institutions are colleges or universities where total Hispanic enrollment constitutes a minimum of 25 percent of the student body, and they serve more than half of all Latino students in the United States. As a product of a Hispanic-Serving Institution in my home State of New Jersey, my experience is a living testimony of the important role that HSIs play in expanding opportunities for Latino students in 21 States across the U.S. and in Puerto Rico. With these resolutions, we celebrate the contributions of all Latinos and the institutions that serve and enrich the Latino community in the United States. I look forward to celebrating the heritage and culture of Hispanic Americans who have and will continue to positively influence and enrich our Nation--not only during this special month and week, but throughout the year.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, on behalf of every child currently living with a growth disorder I wish to recognize this week--September 13-19, 2015--as Growth Disorder Awareness Week. A child's growth is a strong indicator of that child's overall health status. According to the Pictures of Standard Syndromes and Undiagnosed Malformations, POSSUM, database, more than 600 serious diseases and health conditions can cause growth failure. These diseases range from nutritional disturbances and hormone imbalances to far more serious conditions that affect the kidneys or even lead to brain tumors. While these conditions affect a child's growth progress, a stunning 48 percent of children with the most common growth disorders go undiagnosed. To make matters worse, the longer a child with growth failure goes undiagnosed, the greater the potential for long-term health issues and higher costs of treatment. Early detection and diagnosis are, therefore, critical to ensuring a healthy future for these children. This week, as we recognize Growth Awareness Week, I applaud the MAGIC Foundation for the tremendous work they do to further public awareness of growth failure and to improve the lives and health of the children whom they affect.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, for 23 years as a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I have had the privilege of dealing with major foreign policy and national security issues. Many of those have been of a momentous nature. This is one of those moments. I come to the issue of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran as someone who has followed Iran's nuclear ambition for the better part of two decades. Unlike President Obama's characterization of those who have raised serious questions about the agreement or who have opposed it, I did not vote for the war in Iraq, I opposed it--unlike the Vice President and the Secretary of State who both supported it. My vote against the Iraq war was unpopular at the time, but it was one of the best decisions I have ever made. I have not hesitated to diplomatically negotiate with our adversaries or enemies, as is evidenced, for example, by my vote for the New START treaty with Russia. I also don't come to the question as someone--unlike some of my Republican colleagues--who reflexively opposes everything the President proposes. In fact, I have supported President Obama--according to Congressional Quarterly--98 percent of the time in 2013 and 2014. On key policies-- ranging from voting for the Affordable Care Act to Wall Street reform, to supporting the President's Supreme Court nominees, defending the administration's actions in the Benghazi tragedy, shepherding within 1 vote for the authorization for use of military force to stop President Assad's use of chemical weapons when I was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to so much more--I have been a reliable supporter of the President, but my support is not and has not been driven by party loyalty but rather by principled agreement, not political expediency. When I have disagreed, it is based on principled disagreement. The issue before the Senate now is whether to vote to approve or disapprove the agreement struck by the President and our P5+1 partners with Iran. This is one of the most serious national security, nuclear nonproliferation arms control issues of our time. It is not an issue of supporting or opposing the President. This issue is much greater and graver than that, and it deserves a vote. With this agreement, I believe we have now abandoned our long-held policy of preventing nuclear proliferation, and we are now embarked not upon preventing it but on managing it or containing it, which leaves us with a far less desirable, less secure, and less certain world order. So I am deeply concerned that this is a significant shift in our nonproliferation policy and about what it will mean in terms of a potential arms race in an already dangerous region. Why does Iran, which has the world's fourth largest proven oil reserves, with 157 billion barrels of crude oil, and the world's second largest proven natural gas reserves, with 1,193 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, need nuclear power for domestic energy? We know that despite the fact that Iran claims their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, they have violated the international will, as expressed by various U.N. Security Council resolutions, and by deceit, deception, and delay advanced their program to the point of being a threshold nuclear State. It is because of these facts and the fact that the world believes Iran was weaponizing its nuclear program at the Parchin military base-- as well as developing a covert uranium enrichment facility in Fordow, built deep inside a mountain, raising serious doubts about the peaceful nature of their civilian program--and their sponsorship of state terrorism that the world united against Iran's nuclear program. So in that context let's remind ourselves of the stated purpose of our negotiations with Iran. Simply put, it was to dismantle significant parts of Iran's illicit nuclear infrastructure to ensure that it would not have nuclear weapons capability at any time. We said we would accommodate Iran's practical national needs but not leave the region and the world facing the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran at a time of its choosing. In essence, we thought the agreement would be rollback for rollback. You roll back your infrastructure, we roll back our sanctions. At the end of the day, what we appear to have is a roll back of sanctions and Iran only limiting its capability but not dismantling it or rolling back. What did we get? We get an alarm bell should they decide to violate their commitments and a system for inspections to verify their compliance. That, in my view, is a far cry from dismantling. Now, while I have many specific concerns about the agreement, my overarching concern is that it requires no dismantling of Iran's nuclear infrastructure and only mothballs that infrastructure for 10 years. Not even one centrifuge will be destroyed under this agreement. Fordow will be repurposed, Arak redesigned. The fact is everyone needs to understand what this agreement does and does not do so they can determine whether providing Iran permanent relief in exchange for short-term promises is a fair trade. This deal does not require Iran to destroy or fully decommission a single uranium enrichment centrifuge. In fact, over half of Iran's currently operating centrifuges will continue to spin at its Natanz facility. The remainder, including more than 5,000 operating centrifuges and 10,000 not yet functioning, will merely be disconnected and transferred to another hall at Natanz, where they could be quickly reinstalled to enrich uranium. Yet we, along with our allies, have agreed to lift the sanctions and allow billions of dollars to flow back into Iran's economy. We lift sanctions, but even during the first 10 years of the agreement Iran will be allowed to continue R&D activity on a range of centrifuges, allowing them to improve their effectiveness over the course of the agreement. Clearly, the question is: What did we get from this agreement in terms of what we originally sought? We lift sanctions, and at year 8 Iran can actually start manufacturing and testing advanced IR-6 and IR- 8 centrifuges that enrich up to 15 times the speed of its current models. At year 15, Iran can start enriching uranium beyond 3.67 percent, the level at which we become concerned about fissile material for a bomb. At year 15, Iran will have no limits on its uranium stockpile. This deal grants Iran permanent sanctions relief in exchange for only temporary--temporary--limitations on its nuclear program. Not a rolling back, not dismantlement, but temporary limits. In fact, at year 10, the U.N. Security Council resolution will disappear, along with the dispute resolution mechanism needed to snap back U.N. sanctions and the 24-day mandatory access provision for suspicious sites in Iran. The deal enshrines for Iran and, in fact, commits the international community to assisting Iran in developing an industrial-scale nuclear program, complete with industrial-scale enrichment. Now, while I understand this program will be subject to Iran's obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, I think it fails to appreciate Iran's history of deception in its nuclear program and its violations of the NPT. It will, in the long run, if we believe there is a violation, make it much harder to demonstrate that Iran's program is not in fact being used for peaceful purposes because Iran will have legitimate reasons to have advanced centrifuges and a robust enrichment program. We will then have to demonstrate its intention is dual use and not justified by its industrial nuclear power program. Within about a year of Iran meeting its initial obligations, Iran will receive sanctions relief to the tune of $100 billion to $150 billion, not just in the release of frozen assets that don't amount to that amount, but also in renewed oil sales of another million barrels a day as well as relief from sectoral sanctions in the petrochemical, shipbuilding, shipping, port sectors, gold and other precious metals, and software and automotive sectors. Iran will also benefit from the removal of designated entities, including major banks, shipping companies, oil and gas firms from the U.S. Treasury list of sanctioned entities. ``Of the nearly 650 entities that have been designated by the U.S. Treasury for their role in Iran's nuclear and missile program or for being controlled by the government of Iran, more than 67 percent will be delisted within 6 to 12 months,'' according to testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. For Iran, all this relief comes likely within a year, even though its obligations stretch out for a decade or more. Considering the fact it was President Rouhani who, after conducting its fiscal audit after his election, likely convinced the Ayatollah that Iran's regime could not sustain itself under the sanctions and knew that only a negotiated agreement would get Iran the relief it critically needed to sustain the regime and the revolution, the negotiating leverage was and still is greatly on our side. However, the JCPOA, in paragraph 26 of the sanctions heading of the agreement, says, ``The U.S. Administration, acting consistently with the respective roles of the President and the Congress, will refrain from reintroducing or reimposing sanctions specified in Annex II, that it has ceased applying under this JCPOA.'' I repeat: The United States will have to refrain from reintroducing or reimposing the Iran sanctions act that we passed unanimously, which expires next year and was critical in bringing Iran to the table in the first place. In two hearings I asked Treasury Secretary Lew and Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman whether the United States has the right to reauthorize sanctions to have something to snap back to, and neither would answer the question, saying only it was too early to discuss reauthorization. But I did get my answer from the Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations who, in a letter dated July 25 of this year, said: It is clearly spelled out in the JCPOA that both the European Union and the United States will refrain from reintroducing or reimposing the sanctions and restrictive measures lifted under the JCPOA. It is understood that the reintroduction or reimposition, including through extension of the sanctions and restrictive measures will constitute significant nonperformance which would relieve Iran from its commitments in part or in whole. The administration cannot argue sanctions policy both ways. Either they were effective in getting Iran to the negotiating table or they were not. Sanctions are either a deterrent to breakout or a violation of the agreement or they are not. Frankly, in my view, the overall sanctions relief being provided, given the Iranians' understanding of restrictions on the reauthorization of sanctions, along with the lifting of the arms and missile embargo well before Iranian compliance over years is established, leaves us in a weaker position and, to me, is unacceptable. If anything is a fantasy, it is the belief that snapback without congressionally mandated sanctions, with EU sanctions gone and companies from around the world doing permissible business in Iran, will have any real effect. As the largest state sponsor of terrorism, Iran--which has exported its revolution to Assad in Syria, the Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon, directed and supported attacks against American troops in Iraq--will be flush with money not only to invest in their domestic economy but to further pursue their destabilizing hegemonic goals in the region. If Iran can afford to destabilize the region with an economy staggering under sanctions and rocked by falling oil prices, what will Iran and the Quds Force do when they have a cash infusion of more than 20 percent of their GDP--the equivalent of an infusion of $3.4 trillion into our economy? And if there is a fear of war in the region, it will be one fueled by Iran and its proxies, exacerbated by an agreement that allows Iran to possess an industrial-sized nuclear program and enough money in sanctions relief to significantly continue to fund its hegemonic intentions throughout the region. This brings me to another major concern with the JCPOA, namely the issue of Iran coming clean about the possible military dimension of its program. For well over a decade, the world has been concerned about the secret weaponization efforts conducted at the military base called Parchin. The goal we in the international community have long sought is to know what Iran accomplished at Parchin, not necessarily to get Iran to declare culpability but to determine how far along they were in their nuclear weaponization program so that we know what signatures to look for in the future. David Albright, a physicist and former nuclear weapons inspector and founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, has said, ``Addressing the IAEA's concerns about the military dimensions of Iran's nuclear programs is fundamental to any long-term agreement . . . an agreement that sidesteps the military issue would risk being unverifiable.'' The reason he says an agreement that sidesteps the military issues would be unverifiable is because it makes a difference if you are 90 percent down the road in your weaponization efforts or only 10 percent advanced. How far advanced Iran's weaponizing abilities are has a significant impact on what Iran's breakout time to an actual deliverable weapon will be. The list of scientists the P5+1 wanted the IAEA to interview were rejected outright by Iran. After waiting over 10 years to inspect Parchin, they are now given 3 months to do all of their review and analysis before they must deliver a report in December of this year. How the inspections and soil and other samples are to be collected are outlined in two secret agreements the U.S. Congress is not privy to. The answer as to why we cannot see those documents is because they have a confidentiality agreement between the IAEA and Iran which, they say, is customary, but this issue is anything but customary. Let me quote from an AP story of August 14: They say the agency will be able to report in December. But that assessment is unlikely to be unequivocal because chances are slim that Iran will present all the evidence the agency wants, or give it the total freedom of movement it needs to follow up the allegations. Still, the report is expected to be approved by the IAEA's board, which includes the United States and other powerful nations that negotiated the July 14 agreement. They do not want to upend their July 14 deal, and will see the December report as closing the books on the issue. It would seem to me what we are doing is sweeping this critical issue under the rug. Our willingness to accept this process in Parchin is only exacerbated by the inability to achieve anytime, anywhere inspections, which the administration always held out as one of those essential elements we would insist on and could rely on in any deal. Instead, we have a dispute resolution mechanism that shifts the burden of proof to the United States and its partners to provide sensitive intelligence, possibly revealing our sources and methods by which we collected the information, and allow the Iranians to delay access for nearly a month--a delay that would allow them to remove evidence of a violation, particularly when it comes to centrifuge research and development and weaponization efforts that can be easily hidden and would leave little or no signatures. The administration suggests that other than Iraq, no country was subjected to anytime, anywhere inspections. But Iran's defiance of the world's position, as recognized in a series of U.N. Security Council resolutions, does not make it any other country. It is their violations of the NPT and the Security Council resolutions that created the necessity for a unique regime and for anytime, anywhere inspections. The willingness to accept these limitations are a dangerous bellwether of our willingness to enforce violations of the agreement as we move forward. If what President Obama said in his NPR interview of April 7, 2015-- ``a more relevant fear would be that in year 13, 14, 15 they have advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that point breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero''--is true, it seems to me, in essence, this deal, at best, does nothing more than that kick today's problem down the road for 10 to 15 years. At the same time it undermines the arguments and evidence of suspected violations we will need because of the dual-use nature of their program to convince the Security Council and the international community to take action. It is erroneous to say this agreement permanently stops Iran from having a nuclear bomb. Let us be clear. What the agreement does is to recommit Iran not to pursue a nuclear bomb--a promise they have already violated in the past. It recommits them to the NPT treaty--an agreement they have already violated in the past. It commits them to a new Security Council resolution outlining their obligations, but they have violated those in the past as well. So the suggestion of permanence in this case is only possible for so long as Iran complies and performs according to the agreement because the bottom line is, this agreement leaves Iran with the core elements of its robust nuclear infrastructure. The fact is, success is not a question of Iran's conforming and performing according to the agreement. If that was all that was needed, if Iran had abided by its commitments all along, we wouldn't be faced with this challenge now. The test of success must be, if Iran violates the agreement and attempts to break out, how well will we be positioned to deal with Iran at that point? Trying to reassemble the sanctions regime, including the time to give countries and companies notice of sanctionable activity, which had been permissible up to then, would take up most of the breakout time, assuming we could even get compliance after significant national and private investments had taken place. That, indeed, would be a fantasy. It would likely leave the next President, upon an Iranian decision to break out, with one of two choices: Accept Iran as a nuclear weapons state or take military action. Neither is desired, especially when Iran will be stronger, economically resurgent, a more consequential actor in the region, and with greater defensive capabilities, such as the S-300 missile defense system being sold to them by Russia. So the suggestion of permanency in stopping Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon depends on performance. Based on the long history of Iran's broken promises, defiance, and violations, that is hopeful. Significant dismantlement, however, would establish performance up front, and therefore the threat of the capability to develop a nuclear weapon would truly be permanent, and any attempt to rebuild that infrastructure would give the world far more than 1 year's time. The President and Secretary Kerry have repeatedly said the choice is between this agreement or war. I reject that proposition, as have most witnesses--including past and present administration members involved in this issue--who have testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and who support the deal but reject the binary choice between the agreement or war. If the P5 had not actually achieved an agreement with Iran, would we be at war with Iran today? I don't believe so. I believe we can still get a better deal, and here is how: We can disapprove this agreement without rejecting the entire agreement. We should direct the administration to renegotiate by authorizing the continuation of negotiations and the joint plan of action--including Iran's $700 million-a-month lifeline, which to date has accrued to Iran's benefit to the tune of $10 billion--and pausing further reductions of purchases of Iranian oil and other sanctions pursuant to the original JPOA. Iran will continue to want such relief as well as avoid a possible military attack, so they are incentivized to come back to the negotiating table. We can provide specific parameters for the administration to guide their continued negotiations and ensure that a new agreement does not run afoul of Congress. A continuation of talks would allow the reconsideration of just a few but a critical few issues, including the following: First, the immediate ratification by Iran of the Additional Protocol to ensure that we have a permanent international agreement with Iran for access to suspect sites. Second, a ban on centrifuge R&D for the duration of the agreement to ensure that Iran won't have the capacity to quickly break out just as the U.N. Security Council resolution and snapback sanctions are off the table. Third, close the Fordow enrichment facility. The sole purpose of Fordow was to harden Iran's nuclear program to a military attack. We need to close the facility and foreclose Iran's future ability to use this facility. If Iran has nothing to hide, they shouldn't need to put it deep under a mountain. Fourth, the full resolution of the ``possible military dimensions'' of Iran's program. We need an arrangement that isn't set to whitewash this issue. Iran and the IAEA must resolve the issue before permanent sanctions relief, and failure of Iran to cooperate with a comprehensive review should result in automatic sanctions snapback. Fifth, extend the duration of the agreement. One of the single most concerning elements of the deal is its 10- to 15-year sunset of restrictions on Iran's program, with off-ramps starting after year 8. We were promised an agreement of significant duration, and we got less than half of what we are looking for. Iran should have to comply for as long as they deceived the world's position, so at least 20 years. Sixth, we need agreement now about what penalties will be collectively imposed by P5+1 for Iranian violations, both small and midsized, as well as a clear statement as to the so-called grandfather clause in paragraph 37 of the JCPOA, to ensure that the U.S. position about not shielding contracts entered into legally upon reimposition of sanctions is shared by our allies. Separately from the agreement but at the same time, we should extend the authorization of the Iran Sanctions Act, which expires in 2016, to ensure that we have an effective snapback option. We should immediately implement the security measures offered to our partners in the gulf summit at Camp David, while preserving Israel's qualitative military edge. The President should unequivocally affirm and Congress should endorse a declaration of U.S. policy that we will use all means necessary to prevent Iran from producing enough enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb, as well as building or buying one, both during and after any agreement. After all, that is what Iran is committing to. We should authorize now the means for Israel to address the Iranian threat on their own in the event Iran accelerates its program. We must send a message to Iran that neither their regional behavior nor nuclear ambitions are permissible. If we push back regionally, they will be less likely to test the limits of our tolerance toward any violation of a nuclear agreement. The agreement that has been reached failed to achieve the one thing it set out to achieve--it failed to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state at a time of its choosing. In fact, in my view, it authorizes and supports the very roadmap Iran will need to achieve its target. I know the administration will say that our partners will not follow us, that the sanctions regime will collapse and that they will allow Iran to proceed--as if our allies weren't worried about Iran crossing the nuclear weapons capability threshold anymore. I heard similar arguments from Secretary Kerry when he was chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, as well as from Wendy Sherman, David Cohen, and others, when I was leading the charge to impose new sanctions on Iran. That didn't happen then, and I don't believe it will happen now. Despite what some of our P5+1 Ambassadors have said in trying to rally support for the agreement--clearly, since they want this deal, they are not going to tell us they are willing to pursue another deal, echoing the administration's admonition that it is a ``take it or leave it'' proposition--our P5+1 partners will still be worried about Iran's nuclear weapons desire and the capability to achieve it, and the United States is the indispensable partner to ultimately ensure that doesn't happen. They and the businesses from their countries and elsewhere will truly care more about their ability to do business in a U.S. economy of $17 trillion than an Iranian economy of $415 billion. And the importance of that economic relationship is palpable as we negotiate T-TIP, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership agreement. At this point, it is important to note that, over history, Congress has rejected outright or demanded changes to more than 200 treaties and international agreements, including 80 that were multilateral. Whether or not the supporters admit it, this deal is based on hope-- hope that when the nuclear sunset clause expires, Iran will have succumbed to the benefits of commerce and global integration; hope that the hardliners will have lost their power and the revolution will end its hegemonic goals; and hope that the regime will allow the Iranian people to decide their fate, unlike the green revolution of 2009. Hope is part of human nature, but unfortunately it is not a national security strategy. The Iranian regime, led by the Ayatollah, wants above all to preserve the regime and its revolution, so it stretches incredulity to believe they signed on to a deal that would in any way weaken the regime or threaten the goals of the revolution. I understand this deal represents a tradeoff, a hope that things may be different in Iran in 10 to 15 years. Maybe Iran will desist from its nuclear ambitions. Maybe they will stop exporting and supporting terrorism. Maybe they will stop holding innocent Americans hostage. Maybe they will stop burning American flags. Maybe their leadership will stop chanting ``Death to America'' in the streets of Tehran. Or maybe they won't. I know that in many respects it would be far easier to support this deal, as it would have been to vote for the war in Iraq at the time. But I didn't choose the easier path then, and I am not going to now. My devotion to principle may once again lead me to an unpopular course, but if Iran is to acquire a nuclear bomb, it will not have my name on it. It is for these reasons that I will vote for cloture and to disapprove the agreement. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, today I am honored to recognize the John R. Elliott HERO Campaign for Designated Drivers on the occasion of their 15th anniversary. The John R. Elliott HERO Campaign for Designated Drivers was created in 2000 following the tragic death of Navy ENS John R. Elliott in a drunk-driving related crash. The campaign's mission is to prevent drunk driving-related crashes and deaths through the use of designated drivers. That mission has been a significant success across New Jersey, with many drivers citing the John R. Elliott HERO Campaign as a reason why they choose to serve as designated drivers. Over the last 15 years, the organization has grown from a small group from Southern New Jersey, to an organization nationally recognized by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the National Commission Against Drunk Driving for its efforts. The effects of the John R. Elliott HERO Campaign have gone beyond the Southern New Jersey region. Seven States across our Nation have adopted the HERO Campaign as their designated driver model in an effort to decrease drunk driving fatalities. The HERO Campaign has also partnered with the New York Giants, the Philadelphia Phillies, and other professional sports franchises in their mission to promote the use of designated drivers. These partnerships do not include the thousands of individuals across our Nation who have also registered as designated drivers at concerts and sporting events as a pledge to the HERO campaign. The John R. Elliott HERO Campaign for Designated Drivers was instrumental in the passage of John's Law, enacted in 2005, which gave States $145 million in highway grant incentives for establishing car impoundment laws for drivers suspected of drunk driving. The tragic circumstances surrounding Navy ENS John R. Elliott's crash have turned into a long history of meaningful accomplishments across not only New Jersey, but across our Nation. It is my hope that the legacy of John R. Elliott will live on and expand across our country. I applaud the efforts of the John R. Elliott HERO Campaign for Designated Drivers and thank them for their efforts in making our roads safer across our country by promoting the use of designated drivers.

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise because I am deeply and profoundly disappointed in this year's ``Trafficking in Persons Report'' that was released today. By upgrading Malaysia and Cuba, which were at tier 3--the worst tier at which any country could be considered--the administration has turned its back on the victims of trafficking and turned a blind eye to the facts and politicized the report, and they completely ignored the calls from Congress, from leading human rights advocates, from the realities on the ground in Cuba, and from Malaysian Government officials themselves to preserve the integrity of this exceedingly important report. They have succeeded in elevating political considerations and political goals above the most fundamental principles of basic human rights. I heard Secretary Kerry, in his presentation of the report, say something to the extent that we should not put a price on our fellow human beings' freedom. Well, it seems we have in this case. In arbitrarily upgrading Malaysia and Cuba, they are clearly politicizing the report, giving an undeserved stamp of approval to countries that have failed to take the basic actions that would merit this upgrade. This flies in the face of what Malaysians themselves want. In Malaysia, members of the Parliament, the legal profession, and human rights activists have urged the United States to support their efforts to maintain the tier 3 ranking they tell us Malaysia deserves. Today we have failed them. In Cuba, adults and children are subjected to sex trafficking, and the government continues perpetrating abusive practices of forced labor. The administration's decision to upgrade Cuba defies common sense. In the State Department's own words, Cuba is a source country where adults and children--children--are subjected to sex trafficking and forced labor. In the case of forced labor, the Castro regime itself is the single greatest perpetrator of forced labor in Cuba. Every year the Cuban Government coerces tens of thousands of its own doctors and medical professionals to serve in foreign missions under conditions that violate international norm. The Castro regime restricts the movement of its doctors while they are overseas, takes their passports from them, and often prevents family visits. Additionally, the Cuban Government garnishes its doctors' wages by more than 70 percent, using what should be a humanitarian mission as a means to fill its own coffers. This gross violation of international standards is so bad that the United States has a specific parole program for Cuban doctors who have been subjected to forced labor conditions by the Castro regime. We have our own special parole program for Cuban doctors who have been subjected to forced labor conditions by the Castro regime. Thousands of Cuban doctors have come to the United States as a result. So at a time when these doctors are being received into the United States on humanitarian parole, we are going to turn a blind eye to the fact that the Castro regime is the sole responsible actor. This raises one question. Is this yet another emerging detail of something that the administration and the Cuban Government have been discussing in recent months, another demand of the Castro regime that the United States had to agree to in the name of normalizing the relations? They are willing to look the other way on human rights in order to normalize relations? As the State Department's own report recognizes, there has been no progress--no progress--on forced labor in Cuba. Given that reality, any upgrade of the country's ranking challenges common sense. So I intend to use all the tools at my disposal--from hearings, to a call for investigations, to legislation--to challenge these upgrades. The credibility and commitment of the United States to fighting the scourge of modern-day slavery is on the line. We spent an enormous amount of time in this Senate on the legislation Senator Cornyn had, along with others, on modern-day slavery, spent a lot of time on it in the Foreign Relations Committee on which I am privileged to serve under Senator Corker, who had his own legislation about how we deal with human trafficking in the world--modern-day slavery, as he calls it. So we need to make clear that the ``Trafficking in Persons Report'' must not be subjected to political manipulation. I am utterly dismayed at the administration's decision to upgrade Malaysia and Cuba under these circumstances. It represents a bastardization of the trafficking-in-persons ranking process and calls into question the credibility of the ``Trafficking in Persons Report,'' and it takes away the power to incentivize real progress. The administration's upgrade of Malaysia as well as Cuba compromises American values in the interest of promoting a trade agenda with a country that has consistently failed to uphold human rights. One can only characterize this action as a cynical maneuver to get around the clear intent of Congress with no regard for the effect on a key measurement tool of a country's human trafficking record. This not only represents the latest release of the ``Trafficking in Persons Report'' in the history of its publication--nearly a full 2 months' overdue--but calls into question this administration's commitment to uphold human rights. We all know that the Malaysian Government has not undertaken a consistent, serious effort that would warrant an upgrade. As I have noted before on other occasions, on April 17 of this year, the U.S. Ambassador to Malaysia--our Ambassador to Malaysia--said that the Malaysian Government needs to show greater political will in prosecuting human traffickers and protecting their victims if the country hopes to improve on its current lowest ranking in the ``Trafficking In Persons Report.'' This is the person on the ground in Malaysia representing the U.S. Government who has eyes on what is happening, and he said on April 17 that, in fact, the Malaysian Government needs to show greater political will in prosecuting human traffickers and protecting their victims if the country wanted to rise from tier 3 to a better tier 2 standard. On June 1, the Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Migration and Refugees, Anne Richard, reaffirmed that ``this year's report covers up to March 2015, which means Malaysia's handling of the Rohingya refugee crisis will only be reflected in the 2016 report.'' According to the Assistant Secretary, then, actions taken after March of this year, good or bad, should certainly not be reflected in this year's evaluation. Well, if you are not going to reflect the mass graves of Rohingya Muslims and what the Government of Malaysia did or did not do--the holding pens of humans--because it came after the reporting period, then you can't claim that the government's action to pass a law that has no teeth, no enforcement, and that hasn't even been put into effect after the date--the same date that you say you cannot consider the plight of hundreds who lost their lives--then you can't consider the passage of a hollow bill. It doesn't work both ways. Even the Malaysian Bar, the Malaysian association of legal professionals, stated in a letter last week: ``If there is any lesson to be learnt from recent experience, it must be that the government has an excellent record of drafting written plans, but a less than satisfactory record of implementing them. As such, the upgrade of Malaysia, if it were to occur, would be premature and undeserved.'' The fact is, by the admission of the ``Trafficking in Persons Report,'' the Malaysian Government had only three human rights convictions in 2014--a two-thirds decrease from the last report. So compared to the last ``Trafficking in Persons Report,'' they had a two- thirds decrease in their convictions of human rights abuses. Yet they get an upgrade. Wow. That is a surefire way to send a message across the world that we are serious about human trafficking. Frankly, that is beyond comprehension and common sense. There can be no clearer statement nor a more compelling statement that we have lowered the bar on human trafficking and lessened the value of the one report the world relies on to evaluate the behavior of nations. The events of recent months have clearly shown that the Malaysian Government has not even begun to adequately address its human trafficking problem. Thousands of victims continue to be exploited through sex trafficking and forced labor. And it was unnecessary to do this, having passed an amendment that said tier 3 countries in the ``Trafficking in Persons Report'' of the State Department would not be allowed preferential access to the U.S. market unless they cleaned up their record, which had strong bipartisan support of the members of the Senate Finance Committee and ultimately was incorporated in the TPA, the trade promotion authority legislation that passed the Senate and was sent to the House. In good faith, because of concerns that maybe that would undermine the Trans-Pacific Partnership, in good faith I negotiated an amendment--a provision to change it in the amendment that would have said you could still negotiate with Malaysia, but they had to clean up their act if you concluded that negotiation and they were part of TPP. They had to clean up their act on human trafficking before they got the preferential access to U.S. markets. I thought it was a significant give on my part, considering the vote of the Senate, but it was a good-faith effort. So this wasn't even necessary to do unless you just want to give Malaysia a pass. The goal was to take the full weight of the TPP deal off of the ``Trafficking in Persons Report'' process. Instead of choosing the route we worked out together, requiring the President to testify in writing that Malaysia has taken concrete steps to deal with its very serious human trafficking problem, the administration backed out. I therefore see no reason why the comprehensive ban on fast-track for tier 3 human traffickers should now be amended. I see no reason why my willingness to accommodate should be amended. This underscores the need for further oversight of the trafficking in persons process, both legislatively and through the noble work of human rights groups here in Washington and out in the field. I plan to work with my colleagues to advance my amendment to the State authorization bill passed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last month which requires the State Department to notify Congress of all trafficking in persons upgrades and downgrades 30 days prior to the release of the report. I am looking forward to speaking to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to see if he, within a very busy schedule because we have all of the Iran nuclear review--but it seems to me this merits a congressional hearing to determine what went on here. If I, for some reason, cannot achieve that, then I may very well turn to the inspector general of the Department to seek a report as to what went on. Despite the clear will of Congress, this administration has made a mistake and will now have to answer questions as to its ability to objectively evaluate global human trafficking. The hard-working, committed NGOs that labor in the field to fight human trafficking and the countless victims who continue to suffer deserve an honest reflection of American values, not an arbitrary determination based upon expediency in achieving a limited political objective rather than a real solution. I look forward to working with all of the groups that have been instrumental in shining a light on the continued human rights abuses that take place in Malaysia, in Cuba, and elsewhere, to ensure that the integrity of the ``Trafficking in Persons Report'' is restored. Thousands and thousands of men, women, and children around the world who are the victims of human trafficking--it is on their behalf that I come to the floor. It is in their interest and in the interest of responsible trade policy that recognizes there can be no reward to nations that ignore those types of trafficking in persons and do nothing to end the scourge of what amounts to modern-day slavery, one of the great moral challenges of our time. It is for the world's 50 million refugees and displaced people--the largest number since World War II, many of whom are targets of traffickers. Because they are displaced, have nowhere to go, they are preyed upon. We have the largest number since World War II of refugees in the world. It is for the 36 million women and 5 million children around the world subjected to involuntary labor or sexual exploitation. For the victims of these crimes, the term ``modern slavery'' more starkly describes what is happening around the world. I will continue to fight against human trafficking in all its forms. I intend to fight for the integrity of a report that is a critical tool for us to be able to not only cast the light upon human trafficking in the world but to get countries to understand they must meet this great moral challenge and change the course of events in their country. That is why I come so incredibly upset to the Senate floor on something I never thought would have happened, but it has. We need to change it and change the course of events. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I was unavoidably detained for rollcall vote No. 252 on the motion to proceed to H.R. 22. Had I been present, I would have voted nay.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, it is fitting and appropriate, although it was not coordinated, that I follow on to the comments of the distinguished Senator from Washington State, the ranking member of the committee, as she was talking about the importance of the amendment about young women and athletic opportunities for them on an equal basis. (The further remarks of Mr. Menendez are printed in today's Record under Morning Business.)

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

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise as the coauthor, with Senator Collins, of this Senate resolution to honor and congratulate an extraordinary team on an extraordinary accomplishment. The U.S. women's national soccer team and their triumphant 5-to-2 victory over Japan at the 2015 FIFA World Cup final was an extraordinary accomplishment and a great victory for them, for the United States, for women's soccer, and women's sports. These inspiring athletes have spent the past months captivating audiences around the globe with their determination, tenacity, and sheer grit. It started with our national team winning the so-called group of death against Australia, Sweden, and Nigeria. They went on to beat powerhouse teams Colombia, China, and Germany on the way to the final. All along the way, they tied a World Cup record by playing 540 consecutive minutes without conceding a single goal. In the final, our national team came up strong, scoring four goals in the first 16 minutes, including three goals from New Jersey's own Carli Lloyd. Fellow New Jerseyan Tobin Heath would add another goal, and the team cruised to a resounding 5-to-2 victory. All in all, in the entire tournament, our women's national team never lost a game. We are all proud of them. I am especially proud of fellow New Jerseyans Christie Rampone, Heather O'Reilly, Tobin Heath, and Golden Ball winner Carli Lloyd. But more than pride, we look to this team for inspiration. The women's World Cup final was the most watched soccer game in American history. The final game had my stepchildren Jana, who is an avid player and a big women's soccer fan, and her brother Sonny, who was rooting the team on--they were both riveted at what these women players were accomplishing. This game showed them what hard work and determination can do. For Jana and every young girl who aspires to be the best, this victory makes her dreams seem within reach. Just as the 1999 U.S. World Cup team motivated an entire generation to pursue their dreams, I am certain the performance of this team will do the same and push this generation to dream bigger, work harder, and achieve even more than they have ever imagined. I congratulate our champions. I look forward to the adoption of the resolution.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 218, the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2146, trade promotion authority. Had I been present, I would have voted nay.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 217 and the voice vote that followed. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: rollcall vote No. 217, the confirmation of Peter V. Neffenger to be an Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security, I would have voted yea; on the voice vote, the confirmation of Daniel R. Elliott III to be a member of the Surface Transportation Board, I would have voted yea.