Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I come to the floor incredibly disappointed that we can't seem to move forward on what should be a noncontroversial, powerful, and bipartisan effort. I think we can all agree in the Senate that we must do more to combat human trafficking and help the victims of this heinous act, and I was looking forward to, I believe, Senator Corker offering an amendment on legislation that passed out of the Foreign Relations Committee that would establish a private, nonprofit grantmaking institution known as the End Slavery Initiative Foundation to reduce the worst forms of forced labor and sexual servitude around the world. I was looking forward to having a serious debate about this important issue, and it is truly unfortunate that the debate has been sidelined by matters that are not to the core of the trafficking issue. I rise to specifically address an amendment that I understand is pending to attempt to hijack our debate about human trafficking. This amendment is out of place and out of step with everything I believe we stand for in the Senate. It is an amendment to a bill that seeks to amend the Constitution of the United States. It is an amendment offered by a Republican colleague that grows the government and increases taxes. It is an amendment to a trafficking bill that could make people more likely to be trafficked. I am talking about the amendment to eliminate birthright citizenship and end the people's right to be citizens by being born on American soil. Birthright citizenship is a bedrock principle found not in law but in the Constitution. The 14th Amendment states clearly that ``all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.'' For 115 years the obvious and plain meaning that people born on American soil are American citizens has been affirmed before the Supreme Court and can only be changed by a constitutional amendment. My colleague from Louisiana instead presents a bill and tries to argue with the Supreme Court and the English language by claiming undocumented immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Is he suggesting, for example, that if an undocumented immigrant was brought to court, he or she wouldn't be subject to the court's jurisdiction? Clearly not. And the civil rights leaders who drafted the 14th Amendment didn't think so either. Instead, the 14th Amendment was adopted after the infamous Dred Scott decision to make sure the United States never has an unequal class system. This principle, that America isn't a country club, is a profound American value. If my friend from Louisiana wants to change the Constitution, he should abide by the framework our Founding Fathers set up. If a Senator wants to make a monumental change to how our Nation defines citizenship in the Constitution, he or she must go to the constitutional amending process our Founding Fathers set up to make sure we have widespread and overwhelming consensus. That is why the Founders created a process in which amending the Constitution needed a broad swath of the American population to say, yes, that is worthy of changing the Constitution that has worked so well for us for so many years. We are here to protect the Constitution, and the 14th Amendment is sacrosanct and too important to be defined by the political and discriminatory impulses of any Member of Congress. But beyond trying to change our Constitution with a piece of legislation, my friend from Louisiana's amendment to a human trafficking bill could make human trafficking worse. Eliminating birthright citizenship would create a perpetual class of undocumented immigrants, ironically growing the undocumented population by ensuring that undocumented children, and their children born here, would become undocumented, and their children and their children's children could never come out of the shadows and be equal under the law. This new permanent underclass would inevitably lead to some without any citizenship in any country; in other words, they would be stateless. This new underclass would be subject to the worst forms of exploitation, including, for some, becoming victims of human trafficking themselves. But the irony doesn't stop there. For the party of limited government and low taxes, my friend from Louisiana proposes an amendment that would put the Department of Homeland Security in every delivery room and require the creation of a brandnew, extensive bureaucracy with burdensome procedures. It would also create a de facto birth tax for people to have to go back and prove their citizenship. My friend from Louisiana tries to justify all this by saying it will prevent people from coming to the United States solely to give birth, but I don't even know if he truly believes that explanation. It ignores the plain fact that the practice he describes is already illegal under the law. If he wants to get into a discussion about enforcing the existing law, I am always willing to talk about the need for more resources for the men and women in law enforcement in order to be able to do that. This amendment wouldn't make the practice he describes one bit more illegal, but it would change the Constitution of the United States by a simple passage of the Senate, not as an amendment to the Constitution. This isn't the time and this isn't the place for an amendment attacking birthright citizenship. A bill isn't the place or the venue to change the Constitution. A bill on human trafficking isn't the time for a measure that might increase human trafficking. Frankly, for someone who wants limited government, they shouldn't put the Department of Homeland Security in the delivery room. This is just another attack on immigrants that is against American values and in this case against our Constitution. We can do far better than that. Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge Autism Speaks as they celebrate 10 years as a leading organization dedicated to serving people with autism and their families. Founded by Bob and Suzanne Wright--concerned grandparents of a child with autism--on February 25, 2005, Autism Speaks has grown to become not just a national leader in the conversation about autism, but a world leader. Ten years ago, Congress had yet to pass the landmark law now known after two reauthorizations as the Autism CARES Act. The estimated rate of autism in the United States--according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention--at that time was about 1 in 150. Today, the CDC estimates that the rate of autism is about 1 in 68. These same figures show that my home State of New Jersey has the highest rate of autism incidence in the Nation, at 1 in 45. It is because of the countless stories of people from my home State--from the parents seeking help for their children, to the teachers and counselors who help people on the autism spectrum to grow and develop, to the researchers seeking to understand the causes of autism--that I am so passionately committed to confronting the challenge of autism, and Autism Speaks has been a leading voice on this issue for a decade. Over the past 10 years, Autism Speaks has committed more than $525 million towards autism research, awareness, services, and advocacy. Most of these funds have gone to support science and medical research, including a new partnership with Google through the MSSNG program, which will sequence and store the world's largest database of genomic information on autism. Autism Speaks has raised awareness of autism worldwide, and has partnerships with organizations in 60 countries across the globe. Autism Speaks provides funds for services for people with autism through a number of grant programs and scholarships. It is also no secret that Autism Speaks has served as a leading advocate in seeking Federal legislation to address the challenges of autism. I am proud to have championed the passage of the Autism Coordination, Accountability, Research, Education and Support Act, also known as the Autism CARES Act, which passed this body by unanimous consent on July 31, 2014. President Obama signed the Autism CARES Act into law on August 8, 2014. This law ensures that we continue the critical programs established in 2006 that provide for autism research as well as support services to individuals on the autism spectrum and their families. The Autism CARES Act also makes a number of updates and improvements on the original law, starting with better organization and coordination of Federal autism programs, including new mechanisms to ensure that goals are being met and that Federal dollars are being spent efficiently. It also requires that a report be written that focuses on the needs of young adults on the autistic spectrum or with another developmental disability and the challenges they face when they transition from school-based services to those they need during adulthood, which is a critical need that often goes unspoken. Autism Speaks' advocacy on behalf of those with autism and their families was vital to securing overwhelming bipartisan support for this law and ensuring that it passed through Congress and into law. As they mark their 10th anniversary, I congratulate Autism Speaks for the decade of great work that they do and express my gratitude and support as they serve as a leading voice in our national discussion on autism for decades to come.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I appreciate my distinguished colleague yielding some time to me. I rise in anticipation of the speech of our ally and our partner, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, to the soon-to-be joint meeting of Congress. I agree with many of my colleagues that the political timing of the Prime Minister's speech to the Congress is a challenging one and one that didn't derive itself under the best of circumstances. But I also think very clearly that it is important to listen to what the elected leader of the people of Israel--the one true democracy in the Middle East, a major trading partner of the United States, a major security ally of the United States, and the one country most likely to be voting with us in common cause in international forums--has to say. There is a history here that I think drives the leader of the Jewish people to the circumstances in which he feels so passionately about the security of his country. If you traveled to Israel, as I have, and I think many Members here have as well, here is a country in which you can go from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem on a good day in 45 minutes. It is a country which--if you fly its width, it would take just a couple of minutes. It is a country which has its back to the sea and which is surrounded by neighbors who, generally speaking, are hostile. It is a country whose people have a history in which there are those who have sought to annihilate them. Maybe we cannot fathom those challenges, but those are the challenges of the people of Israel. So when you have an issue such as Iran's march toward nuclear weapons, you have an understanding of why the people of Israel have a concern for the existential threat that Iran, if it achieves nuclear weapons, is ultimately capable of creating. I have worked as hard as anyone else. As a matter of fact, I started my focus on Iran when I was in the House of Representatives and found out that the United States was sending voluntary contributions to the International Atomic Energy Administration beyond our membership dues to do what? To create operational capacity of the Bushehr nuclear facility--not in the national interest and security of the United States, not in the interest of our ally, the State of Israel, and I led a drive to stop those voluntary contributions. Since then--it has been almost 20 years now--I have been following Iran's march toward nuclear power, not for peaceful purposes--because, let's be honest, a country that has one of the world's largest oil and other reserves doesn't need nuclear power for domestic consumption, and because of what we clearly believe was the militarization of its efforts at Parchin that, in fact, there were purposes that were not benign. We all hope for a deal. Although today when Foreign Minister Zarif said in response to President Obama's comments that 10 years should be the minimum timeframe for a deal, he--Foreign Minister Zarif--said that is unacceptable, illogical, and excessive, that is a problem. So I look forward to listening to what the Prime Minister has to say about the challenge to all of us--our national security and to Israel's national security--and to understand all of the dimensions, historical and otherwise, so we can conclude and make our own judgments. If Prime Minister Cameron can come here and lobby the Congress on sanctions, which is fine with me, then I think it is also fair to listen to what the Prime Minister of Israel has to say, and I look forward to hearing what he has to say. 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 come to the floor to express my disappointment that the majority leader is asking to rule XIV the bipartisan Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act. I must ask the majority leader, what happened? Where is the bipartisanship part? Where is the bipartisanship that we have expressed and that I expressed this morning on the floor and last night at AIPAC? I ask again, what happened to putting aside political posturing and partisanship? What happened to the majority leader's pledge in January to ``decentralize power in the Senate'' and ``open up the legislative process''? "We need to return to regular order,'' he said. I agree with him. Let's do it. Let's return to regular order. Frankly, this is not what was intended, and it is certainly against my better judgment, against procedure, against any understanding we might have had to take the politics out of our effort to establish congressional oversight of any nuclear agreement with Iran. I am more than disappointed; I am pretty outraged. I said last night and again this morning that I join Chairman Corker and Senators Graham, Kaine, Donnelly, Heitkamp, King, Nelson, Ayotte, Rubio, McCain, and Risch in introducing bipartisan oversight legislation to ensure that Congress has a chance to review the deal before it goes into effect and to oversee its compliance after it goes into effect. And now, putting any bipartisanship aside, we are back to politics as usual. The only way to make this work is to work together. The provisions of the bill itself are good ones. It would require the President to submit an agreement to Congress within 5 days of reaching it. It would give Congress 60 days to consider the agreement before sanctions relief could be provided. It would outline consequences should Congress decide to disapprove the agreement. And in terms of oversight, it would require information on potential breaches to be promptly reported to Congress, along with a comprehensive report every 180 days of any Iranian action inconsistent with the agreement. It would require a report every 90 days from the President on Iran's compliance, informing us of any actions that might advance Iran's nuclear weapons program, that it has not supported or financed or carried out any acts of terrorism, and that any sanctions relief is both appropriate and proportionate to Iran's efforts under the agreement. Of course, it would have here in the Senate a 60-vote threshold, so that means it would have to be a bipartisan determination. We in good faith agreed to introduce this legislation and take it through the committee process and to the floor so that Congress--which was responsible for bringing Iran to the table in the first place to negotiate--would have a role in reviewing the agreement before it goes into effect, whether to provide sanctions relief, and overseeing implementation and Iranian compliance after it goes into effect because, as I said last night, a deal cannot be built on trust alone. Now, I was talking about Iran; I did not know that I was talking about our deal to pass a bipartisan review act. So let me conclude. I can't imagine why the majority leader would seek to short-circuit the process, unless the goals are political rather than substantive. And I regret to say these actions make clear an intention that isn't substantive, that it is political. On a day that has been defined by serious discourse about Iran's illicit nuclear weapons program, at a moment when legislators contemplate the most serious national security issue of our time, I am disappointed that the leader has chosen to proceed outside of regular order. By bringing the Corker-Menendez legislation directly to the floor for debate, the majority leader is singlehandedly undermining our bipartisan efforts. Nobody in Congress has worked harder on this issue, and I certainly don't take a backseat to anyone in pursuing Iran's nuclear weapons program and standing up for Israel, but I sincerely hope that we can restore regular order and that this bill can be fully considered by all the members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in due time. Finally, there is no emergency. This deal--if there is one--won't be concluded until the summer, so there is plenty of time to wait until March 24, find out whether we have a deal, and then act to be able to be in a posture to opine on that deal and to deal with it accordingly. There is no reason to accelerate this process in this way, to go outside of regular order, bypass the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and come directly to the floor. I know I cannot object to the rule XIV process under the rules, but I say to my colleagues, if this is the process, then I will have no choice but to use my voice and my vote against any motion to proceed. I hope that is not the case. I have worked too hard to get to this moment. But if that is the way we are going to proceed, then I will certainly have to vote against proceeding at that time. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I support S. 527, a bill to honor the foot soldiers of the historic civil rights march that led thousands from Selma to Montgomery in a peaceful protest for their right to vote. I am proud to cosponsor this bill, which would award the Congressional Gold Medal to those who gave their blood, sweat, and tears in the name of ending unfathomable injustices in our country. In honor of the 50th anniversary of the march, this award will recognize those whose groundbreaking efforts acted as a catalyst for the Voting Rights Act and made our Nation a more free and equitable place. Bloody Sunday, Turnaround Tuesday, and the final 54-mile march from Selma to the Alabama state capitol in Montgomery were defining moments in the never-ending struggle for equal treatment under the law. On Bloody Sunday, peaceful marchers at the Edmund Pettus Bridge by Selma were met by State troopers and locals, resulting in a brutal conflict. Seventeen members of the march were hospitalized, and shameful images of protesters being beaten with nightsticks focused national and worldwide attention on the event. Following Turnaround Tuesday, in which 2,500 marchers held a silent prayer at the same bridge, and a court battle to stop police interference with the march, a final march took place with over 25,000 people flooding the State capitol. The Bloody Sunday, Turnaround Tuesday, and Montgomery marches created undeniable momentum for change, and the events left an indelible mark on our national consciousness. President Johnson presented the Voting Rights Act to Congress shortly after Turnaround Tuesday, and by August of the same year, the bill passed Congress. This bill would provide the plainly warranted recognition to these brave men and women. It would provide a Congressional Gold Medal to be displayed at the Selma Interpretive Center near the Edmund Pettus Bridge, a fitting tribute to the Foot Soldiers who made that fateful march. Our country was founded on the precept that the power of government is derived from the people it governs. The primary form of expressing opinions in our democracy is through voting. The marchers who risked everything were committed to ensuring our democracy was truly representative, leaving a lasting and positive effect on our Nation. I salute these Foot Soldiers today, and I urge the Senate to swiftly pass this important legislation.

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 once again in support of the people of Ukraine in their struggle against Russian aggression. The most recent diplomatic efforts seem to have only emboldened President Putin. Since Minsk II, which is the last time they came to an agreement with reference to a ceasefire, there have been hundreds of ceasefire violations and the city of Debaltseve has fallen under rebel control. Putin's forces now threaten Mariupol, which would provide a key land bridge to Crimea, and his intentions are clear. In my view, we need to urgently increase the cost to Putin with tougher sanctions and by providing more security assistance to the Ukrainian military. At a press conference on February 9 with Chancellor Merkel, the President said that his team was considering options including the provision of defensive military equipment if the diplomatic effort with respect to Russia has failed. As recent events have shown, Minsk II is clearly dead, and we need to take a different approach. At so many points in history, there have been opportunities for the international community to deter rogue actors from violating the sovereignty of other countries. Unless bullies such as Putin are confronted, they will always bully, they will always force a response, and they will always be an even greater problem for their neighbors and the broader international community. Putin took Crimea, then he took Donetsk, then he took Luhansk, and last week he took Debaltseve. While he has paid a price because of the sanctions regime, that price has not changed his behavior. So now is the time to increase the cost to Putin. Now is the time to increase sanctions on Russia and work with Europe to consider additional sanctions in other sectors of the economy. Now is the time for the President to abide by his words on February 9--to provide badly needed defensive weapons to the Ukrainian Government and to rethink our strategic response to Russia's encroachment in Ukraine and across the former Soviet territories. The international community simply cannot remain passive in the face of such unbridled aggression that will only invite further aggression. So I call upon the administration to fully implement measures this body authorized when it passed the Ukraine Freedom Support Act, which the President signed into law on December 18. Last month I wrote to Secretary Kerry in the wake of the bloodiest period since the start of this crisis. I urged the administration to fully implement the authorities provided in the law and to comply with the clear reporting deadlines. The legislation passed with unanimous consent in both Houses of Congress. It authorizes the President to provide much needed military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine, and it imposes additional sanctions against Russia in this time of crisis. The legislation was necessary in December, and it is even more necessary today. We know the sanctions implemented by the United States and the European Union have had a tangible effect on the Russian economy. Combined with the decrease in global energy markets, they have put unprecedented pressure on President Putin. But he is undeterred. He continues to provide illegitimate and illegal support to separatists in eastern Ukraine, evidenced by OSCE and NATO reports cataloging the growing number of Russian troops and artillery that remain in the region and as evidenced by the spiking violence by so-called Russian- backed separatists against both military troops and civilians. Russian troops and these so-called Russian-backed rebels have carried out deadly attacks on civilians in eastern Ukraine. They have killed scores--they have killed women, they have killed children. They have ignored Minsk I. They have ignored Minsk II. And now they have gained control of Debaltseve and have made moves towards Mariupol. This must end. The violence must end and the killing must stop. We must renew our commitment to the people of Ukraine and stand against Putin's blatant aggression. I appreciate the administration's comprehensive efforts to counter Russian aggression, but I also believe it is not enough. We must act immediately to influence the course of events on the ground and urge the President to fully implement the Ukraine Freedom Support Act. The violence threatening Ukraine's territorial integrity is threatening the region. The international community has an obligation to respond to Putin's clear signals that his intention is to escalate tensions in Ukraine and across the region. Since Senator Corker and I, along with other committee members, introduced the Ukraine Freedom Support Act, Putin has escalated his belligerent and aggressive tactics. NATO has deployed more than 400 times last year to intercept Russian military flights near members' European airspace. In July of 2014, Ukrainian pilot Nadiya Savchenko was captured by Russian forces and is being illegally detained in Russia despite Russia's commitment to Minsk to free her. In September of last year, Russians abducted the Estonian security service officer Eston Kohver from Estonian territory. He was taken from Estonian territory to Moscow where he has been languishing in prison without due process. In October, Sweden's military discovered what it believed was a Russian submarine outside of Stockholm. In December, about a dozen Russian aircraft, including bombers, flew into the Baltic Sea region. In January, attacks on civilian buses took the lives of 20 Ukrainians. It is time for the international community to say enough is enough. Fully implementing the sanctions and assistance in the Ukraine Freedom Support Act will help restore its sovereignty, it will help restore its territorial integrity, and it will help deter Russia from further destabilizing the region. I urge the President to implement these measures immediately, without delay. That said, I understand there are individuals on the European Union and Canadian targeted sanctions list who do not appear on the American list of sanctions. Now why is this the case? Perhaps the most egregious example is Alexander Bortnikov, the head of the Russian FSB. Mr. Bortnikov is not on the U.S. lists in relation to either Ukraine or the Magnitsky act, but he is on the European Union and Canadian lists. To make matters worse, Mr. Bortnikov was here in the United States last week for President Obama's CVE conference. To say that I am puzzled would be an understatement. The fact is there are almost 150 individuals and entities on the Canadian and EU sanctions lists that are not on the U.S. lists. If there is no justifiable reason for excluding these individuals, then they should be added. Yesterday before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary Kerry indicated that these lists will be synced, harmonized, in the coming days, and I will keep a close eye on this process. Clearly, for the international effort to be effective, we need to be in lockstep with our Canadian and European allies. When we passed this legislation last December, it coincided with a Wall Street Journal report about the fortune that Russians were spending to lobby Washington against passing that very bill. They claimed the sanctions would affect the West's willingness to invest in Russia, and I say that is exactly what these sanctions should do. Putin is using his military power to impose his will in Ukraine, but he is also using every economic tool at his disposal, and we must do the same. We must make it clear to Mr. Putin that there will be consequences for his actions. This is not only obviously important in the context of Ukraine, which it certainly is in the first instance, but it is also about sending a very clear global message that if you violate and upend the international order, there will be consequences for doing so. Because in the absence of real consequences to doing so, there are other actors in the world who are looking at what is happening in Ukraine who will say, well, what did the United States, what did the West do to stop the aggression of Russia? And if the answer is not very much, at the end of the day--certainly not enough to stop that aggression--then other actors in the world who may be more powerful than their neighbors, who may have nuclear weapons in their possession, such as North Korea, will think about what they want to do. And whether that is China in the South China Sea which has had territorial disputes with our allies South Korea and Japan, or whether it is the challenge we have in North Korea of a nuclear armed North Korea, whether it is Maduro in Venezuela oppressing his people--I can go through a list of global actors who will wonder that if, at the end of the day, there isn't much consequence for violating the international order, then I will do what I wish to do because I have the power to do it without consequences. That is an incredibly risky world to live in. So I urge the President to implement our bill now. The military situation on the ground is clear. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, NATO, the Ukrainian National Security Defense Council, have all reported on the presence of Russian military convoys and troops in eastern Ukraine. As a matter of fact, I was there last year in the midst of the invasion--and I call it an invasion, because last time I checked, where I come from, if you have Russian troops crossing from Russia into another sovereign country, if you have surface-to-surface missiles, if you have armored vehicles and tanks and all of them are crossing without provocation, then you clearly have an invasion--and that has only mounted. You can take a soldier and take his Russian insignia off and put something else on, but they are still Russian soldiers coming into Ukraine from Russia. Fear is mounting in Mariupol that pro-Russian rebels with Russian support will conduct further attacks to ease land access to Crimea from Russia. If Russia gets its land access to Crimea, despite all of our talk that we will not forget that Crimea was taken by force illegally in violation of international law, Crimea is gone. If Russia continues down this path, its illegal occupation will be solidified and Putin clearly intends to continue to play his game. Prior to Minsk II, Oleksandr Zakharchenko, the head of the separatists in Donetsk, said ``there will be no ceasefires'' and that the separatists will not stop their attacks until they have ``reached the borders of the former Donetsk region.'' He has stayed true to his word. There are no more ceasefires. He issued an order to ``take no prisoners,'' claiming that the separatists were no longer interested in prisoner swaps. So I say to my colleagues, the situation is dire and it is becoming increasingly clear we are not doing enough to change it. We must raise the costs to Putin and his cronies by providing Ukraine with the assistance it needs to defend itself. The world is watching and waiting and the time is now. The Ukraine Freedom Support Act explicitly authorizes the provision of defensive military assistance. Let's provide it. We have sent over night vision goggles, and I guess those are great to see the enemy, but if they can't stop the enemy, what good is that? What good is that? Let's provide anti-tank and anti-armor weapons, crew weapons, and ammunition. Let's provide counterartillery radar to identify and target artillery batteries, fire control, range finder, and optical and guidance control equipment. Let's provide tactical troop-operated surveillance drones and secure command and communications equipment. The administration was required to report to Congress on February 15 regarding its plan for increasing military assistance to the Government of Ukraine. Ten days later, we are still waiting on this report. I urge the President to impose the more stringent sanctions on Russia's defense and energy sectors that we outlined in the law. I urge him to enact further sanctions on Rosoboronexport and other Russian defense firms that we know contribute to the instability in Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, and Syria. These firms outfit pro-Russian rebels and Russian troops who have invaded eastern Ukraine and established illegitimate republics recognized by no one but President Putin. It is time to enact those sanctions. It is time that we put an end to the chaos and violence these firms spread around the world. It is time to impose additional targeted sanctions on the Russian energy sector to add to existing sanctions that are already costing the Russian economy about $140 billion a year, or about 7 percent of its economy. By imposing the energy sanctions called for in the act, the administration will tighten restrictions on shale deposits, arctic drilling, and offshore drilling. The Ukraine Freedom Support Act calls for the administration to impose sanctions on other defense industry targets as well as on special Russian crude oil projects by January 31. We are still waiting to see the administration's response. On September 18, Petro Poroshenko, the President of Ukraine, addressed a joint session of Congress. We applauded his message of solidarity. Now it is time to move past the applause. Now is the time to stand together in solidarity with the people of Ukraine. President Poroshenko asked for defensive arms, he asked us for aid, and he asked us for tougher sanctions on Russia. We all want a diplomatic solution to this problem, but I believe this can only come about when Putin believes the cost of continuing to ravage Ukraine is simply too high. We have a responsibility to increase that cost. I ask the President to heed our call and to fully exercise the authority granted by the Ukraine Freedom Support Act and to do it now. If we do that, not only do we save a key country that is presently bleeding--the eastern part of Ukraine is one of the most productive parts of the country. It is tough to keep providing financial support to it when it cannot openly stabilize itself because of the violence and the economic bleeding that goes on by virtue of the war in the East. This is about a country that is looking westward toward democracy, toward the European Union. We should be helping countries that want to make that decision and have made that decision by themselves be able to achieve their sovereign right to do so. We should be sending a clear international message about not violating the international order, and we should be sending a clear and powerful message that when you do, there are repercussions. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I wish to extend my most sincere condolences on the passing of Domingo Enrique Morel Senior. Domingo was a pillar of the community during his time in my hometown of Union City, NJ, and he will be deeply missed. As the saying goes, all politics is local. The foundations of our democratic system do not lie in the Halls of the Capitol but in the neighborhoods and cities spread across our great country. The critical progress we must make as a nation only occurs when groups of dedicated citizens selflessly contribute their time and efforts toward improving the lives of their families and communities. Domingo was one of these committed citizens. As a resident of Union City, Domingo chose to give back to his neighbors through the political process. He spent many hours organizing neighborhoods and people in support of issues he believed would make his city and State a better place for people to live and work. Domingo did the hard, behind-the-scenes job of organizing communities at the grassroots level. I am eternally grateful for the effort Domingo gave on my behalf; it is because of his loyal public service that I am able to do my work on behalf of the citizens of New Jersey today. My thoughts and prayers are with Domingo's family at this difficult time. I am proud to have called Domingo a friend. Though he may have passed, the goodness he brought to the world remains and will never be forgotten.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I wish to honor Rutgers University for winning the 2014 Senator Paul Simon Award for Comprehensive Internationalization from NAFSA: The Association of International Educators. The award is named for the late Senator Paul Simon and is among the most prestigious awards for systemwide comprehensive internationalization. The award recognizes Rutgers' significant strides in providing a global education to its students, tackling global challenges through research, and working with diverse communities at home and abroad. The award honors the university's significant achievements in enhancing its global reputation over the course of its nearly 250-year history. One hundred and fifty years ago, the university first began this process when it welcomed to campus a handful of students from Japan. Today, Rutgers hosts nearly 1,500 international undergraduate students from over 125 countries each year. Through the Rutgers' Centers for Global Advancement and International Affairs, GAIA Centers, the university has established hundreds of strong research and education partnerships with key institutions on six continents. The centers' advising services, cross-cultural social events, and immigration processing have streamlined the arrival and cultural adjustment of nearly 7,000 talented international students and scholars. The centers have grown service-learning abroad and study abroad opportunities from just a couple of programs in the 1960s to over 160 semester and year-long courses. The centers also foster unique and strong relationships with the United Nations, one of only a handful of universities around the globe to do so. Rutgers actively participates in flagship international programs. Since January 2012, the university has hosted 73 Brazilian students for year-long, non-degree educational programs under the Brazilian Scientific Mobility Program. Rutgers was also one of only 20 universities nationwide selected to host talented young African leaders for a 6-week civic leadership program under President Obama's Mandela Washington Fellowship for Young African Leaders. Rutgers students and alumni received 26 Fulbright grants this year, a record number for the university. The Fulbright U.S. Student Program reported that this ties Rutgers for third place among research universities nationwide. The university's worldwide reception is higher than ever before. In 2013, the Center for World University Rankings, CWUR, ranked Rutgers 33rd out of hundreds of international institutions. I congratulate Rutgers University for winning the 2014 Senator Paul Simon Award for Comprehensive Internationalization, and I look forward to their continued success.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I am here today to speak to the troubling situation in Nigeria, one of our strongest allies in Africa since its transition from military dictatorship to civilian rule over a decade ago. Nigeria is currently facing two grave threats to its stability. First, the country is preparing to vote next month in the most closely contested presidential election in recent history, but there is a very real danger of prolonged violence across Nigeria and mass casualties if the election results are not deemed credible. Second, in the last 2 months, Boko Haram, infamous for kidnapping over 200 schoolgirls in Chibok in 2014, has stepped up its murderous scorched-earth campaign, killing thousands of innocent civilians, gaining control over an increasing amount of territory in the northeastern portion of the country, and threatening to disrupt elections. It is in the face of these dual challenges, that I, along with Senators Isakson, Shaheen, Boozman and Coons, have submitted a resolution which calls on Nigerian leaders to step-up to the plate and show real leadership in prioritizing the safety and security of Nigerians in the elections and doing everything possible to combat Boko Haram. For over 5 years, Boko Haram has shocked the conscience of the world and terrorized Nigerian citizens of all religions and ethnic groups. It has targeted schools, mosques, churches, markets, villages and agricultural centers with a wave of kidnappings, killings and suicide bombs. Boko Haram terrorists have abducted hundreds, including the Chibok girls, who to this day remain missing; and has killed thousands--by some accounts over 6,000 last year alone and, since 2009, more than a million have been displaced. In January, Boko Haram staged a 4 day assault on the northeastern town of Baga, abducting civilians, and forcing thousands to flee. Eyewitnesses claim as many as 2000 dead, though the government disputes this number. Satellite photographs show disturbing images of towns burned and razed. What began as a localized insurgency that targeted the military and government has grown into a sub-regional menace. Boko Haram has metastasized, effectively denying the government control over a significant swathe of territory in the three most affected states of northeast Nigeria, and undertaking bold incursions into neighboring countries. The Nigerian government's response has been ineffective at best. At worst, the actions of the security forces, who have been accused of alarming excesses, may have exacerbated the problem. These are things the Nigerian government must acknowledge and address if they want to end the reign of Boko Haram in communities most affected by the terrorist group. The international community, the African Union, European Union, the Lake Chad Basin Commission, and United Nations Security Council--have all recognized that there must be a regional response to Boko Haram. On January 26, AU Commission Chairwoman Dlamini Zuma said that Boko Haram is a threat to the whole continent. Just days ago, the AU Peace and Security Council approved a 7500 strong regional force to combat the group. Recent U.S. efforts to provide assistance have been unilaterally rebuffed. Clearly, the international community is concerned and engaged. What is not so clear is the commitment of the Nigerian government to a thoughtful strategy of engagement. During my meeting with President Jonathan at last year's African Leaders' Summit, I urged him to implement a comprehensive approach to address the Boko Haram insurgency--one that addresses both the security threat as well as the legitimate grievances of local communities. At the end of the day, Nigerian officials must come to terms with the fact that a military solution alone will not solve the problem. To date, the government does not appear to have formulated a comprehensive strategy, and as a result, the insurgency continues to gain momentum. Against this backdrop of government inaction and Boko Haram's unspeakable terrorism raging in the north, presidential elections are scheduled for February 14. For the first time since Nigeria transitioned from military rule to democracy in 1999, a unified opposition party will challenge the ruling People's Democratic Party, PDP. This election will test the strength of an electoral process that has been marred by violence. In 2011, more than 800 people were killed in clashes that followed what international observers deemed to be the most free, fair, and best-administered elections to date. Despite the history of electoral violence, the Nigerian Government has yet to implement reforms recommended by the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC. INEC itself has taken a number of steps to improve the legitimacy of the voting process, including conducting widespread voter registration programs and introducing biometric voter identification cards. INEC is engaged in a valiant effort to distribute permanent voter cards in time for next month's elections, and we should continue to support such efforts until the job is done to protect the legitimacy and integrity of the elections. National Security Advisor Sambo Dasuki has said the voter card distribution is too slow, and recently suggested that the elections be postponed. I think this suggestion has understandably raised suspicion and skepticism as to his motives and those of the PDP given that the race between President Jonathan and his challenger, Muhammadu Buhari, is by all accounts close to a dead heat. It is true, however, that increasing violence in three northern states threatens to disenfranchise a significant number of voters. And it is unclear how those who have been internally displaced will be given the opportunity to vote. In my view, there must be an effort to develop a consensus about how these twin challenges should be addressed or Nigerians may well dispute the results. The two leading presidential candidates have made a public commitment to non-violence during the elections. They should be commended for their verbal assurances, and they should be held responsible if they renege. As Secretary Kerry said in Lagos at the end of last month, ``the international community is paying very close attention to this election.'' Nigeria has the largest economy and is the most populous country in Africa. So goes, Nigeria, so goes West Africa. We cannot, from a strategic standpoint, afford for it to fail. That is why the international community must continue to urge Nigerian political leaders to listen to all voices, regardless of ethnic, religious, or regional affiliation, and to safeguard the right of the Nigerian people to shape their own destiny.

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, as we approach the near end--I think--of the votes and legislation on the Keystone Pipeline--I know we are having a series of votes later today--I know what is likely to be next up is the question of Department of Homeland Security funding. I hope we can come collectively together to fund the Department of Homeland Security, the Department that keeps us safe in an unsafe world, the Department we created after September 11 to bring together disparate government agencies, all charged with keeping our cities, our ports, our airports, our railways, highways, bridges, and neighborhoods safe from the threat of global terrorism. I particularly understand that as a Member of this body who represents, according to the FBI, the most dangerous 2 miles in America, the chemical coastway, airports, seaports along the Hudson waterfront. This is the Department that funds emergency management in our communities. It protects the President. It is engaged in all domestic counterterrorism efforts. But what are we doing instead? We are being asked, as one of the new Republican majority's first acts of this Congress, to shut down the Department of Homeland Security. Why? Because some of our friends on the other side are willing to take a gamble and put politics ahead of national security, a thinly veiled political stunt in response to the lawful actions of the President of the United States to do something to fix our broken immigration system. Their message is pretty simple: repeal the President's lawful Executive actions on immigration or shut down the Department of Homeland Security. Make no mistake, that is the textbook definition of pure politics: not caring what its impact might be, not caring whom it might hurt, not caring about the families whom it will tear apart, and the fact that it will put our Nation's security at risk. I have been in this Chamber and in the other Chamber for over 20 years, and I don't think I have ever seen such a cavalier political recklessness played with our national security. Why? To prevent the President from taking lawful action to help DREAMers and immigrant families to come out of the shadows after they pass a criminal background check, register with the government, and get right with the law in exchange for being allowed to temporarily stay in the country and obtain a work permit. The bottom line is clear: Republicans are doing all of this just to prevent a clean Department of Homeland Security funding bill from being sent to the President, a critical funding bill that the President has rightfully promised to veto should it include their anti-immigration amendments, a veto which Congress will not override. It is a fool's political errand that is neither good policy nor particularly humane. Our friends on the other side have accepted these anti-immigrant poison pill amendments, knowing full well they will sink the Department of Homeland Security funding bill because they have allowed extremists, such as Steve King, to dictate the party's strategy on immigration. Let's not continuously go down this dark path of partisanship instead of funding national security programs to keep our families and our communities safe. In my view it is shamefully and woefully irresponsible for Republicans to hold up funding for operations that protect every American against terrorism in the wake of what happened in France and against cyber attacks at a time when North Korea just carried out a dramatic attack against a major American corporation. This is not a time to hold up funding to help the Department of Homeland Security investigate cyber crime that could cripple America's electronic infrastructure or when the world is a tinderbox of jihadists and would-be homegrown terrorists willing to die for a perceived version of Islam. If Republican colleagues want to seriously consider this ill- conceived approach, they will be forcing a shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security--a shutdown of our national security infrastructure to pursue their agenda of mass deportations that will tear families apart, an agenda that embraces a system that doesn't distinguish between deporting a working mother with U.S. citizen children and a convicted felon. Instead, I urge my friends on the other side to join us and pass a balanced and comprehensive bill. Let's talk. Let's sit down again and find common ground, as we did in the last Congress where this Senate came together on a bipartisan basis with over 67 votes to send a bill to the House of Representatives that dealt with our broken immigration system, provided for our national security, promoted our national economy, and at the same time made sure our legacy and history as a nation of immigrants was preserved. The answer is not holding up national security funding at a critical time, not turning our backs on the hard-working men and women at the Department of Homeland Security in law enforcement who are protecting our borders, our airports, and our coastlines. It is not about trying to score political points by conflating national security and immigration reform, which will only make it harder to address security issues at home and almost impossible to move forward on comprehensive immigration reform. Let's look at what my Republican colleagues are so opposed to. They are opposed to new DHS directives that include a rigorous application process that will ironically help eliminate national security threats. They seem to be opposed to the fact that applicants will have to come forward and register with the government. They will have to pass criminal background checks before they can receive a temporary reprieve from deportation and a work permit. No violent criminals, gang members, or terrorists will be able to take advantage of the program. They seem to be opposed to allowing immigrants who are not a public safety or national security threat to come forward and request deferred action, meaning there will be fewer people living in the shadows, beyond the reach of law enforcement. These directives identify moms and dads who have a U.S. citizen or a legal permanent resident son or daughter and take them out of the deportation queue. They also take DREAMers out of the deportation queue. The House amendment to the Department of Homeland Security funding bill would effectively end the new Deferred Action for Parental Accountability Program and the expanded DACA Program for DREAMers. They would also defund every other aspect of the President's November 20 Executive action that would promote border security, public safety, military service, legal immigration, citizenship, immigration integration, entrepreneurship, civil immigration enforcement priorities, including the prioritization of individuals with convicted felonies and gang activity and terrorist ties for deportation. I will repeat that. It includes a prioritization. I would think the Senate would want to support a prioritization of individuals who are here illegally and are convicted felons and part of gang activities or who have terrorist ties for deportation and any future similar Executive actions. The only directive our Republican colleagues found acceptable, which is interesting--in my mind, you say: Well, none of it can happen by Executive action. But it seems that the only thing that did happen by Executive action that our colleagues found acceptable pertains to pay increases for Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, which I believe they certainly deserve. These amendments would break apart more families and destroy communities by ensuring that we continue to deport the parents of U.S. citizen and lawful permanent resident children. One of the most mean- spirited amendments would prohibit the use of Federal funds or resources to consider or adjudicate any new, renewed, or previously denied application for deferred action for childhood arrivals. Let's call this amendment what it is: It is an amendment to deport DREAMers and targets all of those young people who came forward and signed up in good faith. I will give an example of whom these amendments attack. I wish to remind my colleagues of who the DREAMers are. DREAMers are young people who came to this country through no choice of their own. The only flag they have ever pledged allegiance to is that of the United States of America. The only national anthem they know is the ``Star-Spangled Banner.'' Their country is this country. I was fortunate to speak with people like the Morales-Cano family 2 weeks ago in New Jersey. They are a family of six, including 13-year- old, U.S.-born Rebecca Morales. Their lives have drastically improved thanks to the program Republicans are hoping to dismantle. If the Republicans are successful, Rebecca would be left alone in the United States without her parents or sisters--an American citizen left alone, perhaps in foster care, because Republicans don't care about prioritizing the deportation of convicted criminals over her mom, dad, and sisters. The story of the Morales-Cano family is a clear example of thousands of deep-rooted families who have waited too long in the shadows for immigration reform. Three years ago, after attending a deferred action for childhood arrivals workshop that my office organized in New Jersey, all three of Rebecca's older sisters--Ingrid, Evelyn, and Lesly--were given an opportunity to begin a new chapter of their lives after qualifying for the President's 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, joining thousands of others who had been granted relief. Today, look at what this family is doing Ingrid cares for New Jerseyans' health at her job at the Ocean Medical Center. Evelyn moved to Illinois to attend the West Coast Bible College and Seminary. Lesly was able to enroll in Brookdale Community College to pursue her dream of becoming a nurse. Ingrid, Evelyn, and Lesly represent the hundreds of thousands of young individuals who, because of the deferred action for childhood arrivals, can actively contribute to our economy without fear of losing everything they have worked to gain. Romeo Morales and Mrs. Magda Cano de Morales did not qualify for deportation deferrals under DACA and have continued to live with the constant fear of having their family abruptly separated. But thanks to the deferred action for parents program, recently announced by President Obama, both parents will likely qualify to come out of the shadows, register with the government, pass a background check, and join their daughters in their pursuit of the American dream--unless, of course, the Republicans get their way. We cannot let that happen, and I will do everything to ensure that we will not let that happen. These are the real faces of our broken immigration system. There are many families like the Morales-Cano family who have been and remain an economic resource we cannot afford to waste. They are hard-working families who simply want to be full participants in American life, full contributors to the American family, and they want to remain united as a family. We should want them to remain united. I have listened to so many speeches here about family values. Well, the core of a family value is a family being able to stay together, integrated and helping each other and driving each other to success and supporting each other. Ripping families apart is not a family value. We must see through the smoke and mirrors and do what is right for America. Let's stop playing political games. Let's defeat these poison- pill amendments and pass a clean Department of Homeland Security funding bill. Let's not play politics with national security. Let's remember the people behind the policies. Let's remember the Morales- Cano family and the fate of Rebecca if we allow these amendments to pass. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished ranking member of the energy committee for yielding me some time this evening. I am not here for the purposes of legislation we have been debating; I am here to take time on the Senate floor on an occasion that I think is incredibly important to recollect, to commemorate, and to talk about. Seventy years ago today a Soviet soldier, Ivan Martynushkin, arrived with his unit at the death camp at Auschwitz, and he said in an interview that he was instantly struck by the silence, the smell of ashes, and the emptiness. But as they entered the gates, Ivan and his unit were unaware of the atrocities, the war crimes that were to come to light over time. Today I rise in memory of the 1.1 million persons who perished there, 90 percent of them Jews. I rise in recognition of 1.1 million lost dreams, lost hopes, the lost wisdom of 1.1 million that will never be shared, never be known, and the lost potential of a generation that perished in that camp between 1940 and 1945. Ivan Martynushkin and his unit entered the camp thinking there would be a Nazi ambush, and then they noticed people behind barbed wire. ``It was hard to watch them,'' he said. ``I remember their faces, especially their eyes, which betrayed their ordeal.'' Ivan didn't know that the Nazis had evacuated another 58,000 prisoners 10 days earlier or the 6 million who were killed in camps across Europe. He stood witness that day to the ultimate manifestation of man's inhumanity to their fellow man--7,000 prisoners left behind, 600 corpses born of hatred, intolerance, prejudice, bigotry, and a seething anti-Semitism that is again rearing its ugly head in Europe, the Middle East, and around the world. There has been an alarming increase in anti-Semitic attacks and incidents in Europe that remain a challenge not only to stability and to security but to our shared morality, our mutually ethical core as human beings. Just two weeks ago, on January 9, 2015, four members of France's Jewish community were murdered during a hostage crisis at Hyper Cacher--a kosher supermarket--following the deadly terrorist attack on the Paris offices of the newspaper Charlie Hebdo. The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights issued a 2013 report on anti-Semitism in France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Belgium, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, where 90 percent of Europe's Jews reside, in which three-quarters of respondents said that anti-Semitism had worsened over the past 5 years where they lived. In France, home to Europe's largest Jewish population, it has been reported that the number of French Jews immigrating to Israel in 2014 had doubled compared to 2013. And for the first time ever, more Jews moved to Israel from France than any other country in the world. Anti-Semitic acts in European countries in 2014 included violent attacks, death threats, and the desecration of Jewish homes, commercial property, cemeteries, and places of worship. On May 24, 2014, a gunman opened fire at the Jewish Museum of Belgium in Brussels, Belgium, and killed four people. On July 29, Molotov cocktails were thrown at the synagogue in Wuppertal, Germany, which had been burned to the ground by the Nazis during the 1938 Kristallnacht and had only been rebuilt in 2002. We have all been shocked by the recent disturbingly stereotypical anti-Semitic utterances of President Erdogan of Turkey and those around him. He said in February of 2013, ``Today the image of the Jews is no different from that of the Nazis.'' Speaking at a campaign rally in the Black Sea province of Ordu, he said the ``terrorist State Israel has attacked Gaza once again, hitting innocent children who were playing on a beach,'' and the crowd chanted ``Down the Israel.'' Erdogan said, ``The world's media is under the influence of Israel.'' He said, ``Wherever Jews settle, they make money.'' He claimed during the 2013 Gezi Park protests that the Europeans and what he stereotypically referred to as the ``interest-rate lobby'' were backing the antigovernment campaign, with the ultimate goal of dividing Turkey from within. A Turkish writer aligned with President Erdogan called for Turkish Jews to be taxed to pay for Gaza reconstruction. He said: The reconstruction of Gaza will be paid for by Jewish businessmen. He went on to say: The penalty for failing to pay the tax should be the revocation of the Jew's business license and the seizure of his property. This is the kind of anti-Semitism we hear in Turkey today. Around the world, the numbers are shocking. Based on the global survey, the ADL concluded that 1.09 billion people harbor anti-Semitic attitudes. Thirty-five percent never heard of the Holocaust. If the world does not stand together in never forgetting and if our schools, teachers, parents, and communities do not join together in the fundamental principle of never forgetting, how can we prevent this from ever happening again? How can we work together to confront the anti- Semitism that enables hatred, violence, murder, and genocide around the world? We can only ask what tomorrow might bring. We cannot know what the future will hold, but we have learned from the past. What we remember today--70 years after the liberation of Auschwitz--is that the United States and the American people will always stand shoulder to shoulder with the Israeli people and Jewish communities across the world in ensuring never again. This means confronting modern-day anti-Semitism, whether from the world's leaders, from ivory tower academics, or from economic belligerence pushing the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement. We must fight back against any and all efforts to delegitimize the Israeli State, the Jewish people, and the Jewish religion. As I have said many times, on many occasions, the Holocaust was the most sinister possible reminder that the Jewish population in exile has lived under constant threat. It is the definitive reminder that anti- Semitism can appear anywhere, and its horrors galvanized international support for the State of Israel. But let's be very clear. While the Shoah has a central role in Israel's identity, it is not and never has been the reason behind Israel's founding, and it is not the main justification for its existence. The extreme characterization of this mistaken view is that Western powers established Israel in 1948 based on their own guilt, at the expense of the peoples who already lived there, and therefore the current state is illegitimate and, according to religious clerics such as Supreme Leader Khamenei, who retains his own aspirations for regional hegemony, should be wiped off the face of the map. This flawed argument is not only in defiance of basic human dignity but in plain defiance of history, in defiance of what we remember today. It is in defiance of ancient history, as told in biblical texts and through archeological evidence. It ignores the history of the last several centuries, and it stands in stark contrast to what we remember today. Several thousand years of history lead to an undeniable conclusion: The reestablishment of the State of Israel in modern times is a political reality with roots going back to the time of Abraham and Sarah. At the end of the day, the argument for Israel's legitimacy does not depend on what we say in speeches and what we say on an occasion like this. It has been made by the hard reality of history. It has been made by the men and women who made the desert green, by Nobel Prizes earned, by groundbreaking innovations and enviable institutions, by lives saved, democracy defended, peace made, and battles won. There can be no denying the Jewish people's legitimate right to live in peace and security in a homeland to which they have had a connection for thousands of years. And there can be no denying the suffering, the senseless slaughter of a generation, and all that the world realized we had lost when Ivan Martynushkin and his unit walked through those gates and liberated Auschwitz-Birkenau, a reminder for all times of the racism and hatred from the most devastating genocide in human history. As we commemorate the victims of the Holocaust, let us never forget. But let us be very clear as we look around the world today that the struggle is not over. Combating anti-Semitism is not only a Jewish issue of the past, it is a matter of basic civil and human rights today, now, in the present. Like those Russian soldiers 70 years ago, I have personally stood at the gates of Auschwitz-Birkenau. I felt the impact, the horror, the silence, the emptiness, and I felt the lives lost. It is a moving experience that should compel all of us to collectively reflect on how we must transform the lessons we should have learned into concrete acts to prevent history from repeating itself. Now is the time to renew the vow ``never again'' with even greater resolve. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, what I am not a fan of is a foreign company coming to the United States and taking the property of U.S. citizens. This amendment seems innocuous, but it embraces the seizure of private property for private gain to the full extent of the Constitution. Ten years ago my dear friend from Texas decried the Kelo decision and advocated for severely restricting the use of eminent domain for private gain. Now, with this amendment, he endorses it. The Founders of our country and its Constitution never envisioned having a company from another country come to the United States and use eminent domain to take the property of U.S. citizens for private purposes. That is what we are trying to avoid with the Menendez amendment. If you vote for the amendment by the Senator from Texas, you in essence will continue to allow the opportunity for any foreign company to come into the United States and take private property of U.S. citizens for private purposes. That is not what we want to see. Vote no on the Cornyn amendment.

Mr. MENENDEZ. This amendment protects private property from unjust seizure by foreign corporations using eminent domain proceedings against the will of those who are not willing sellers. Let me read a letter from the Nebraska landowners to the majority leader. Dear Senator McConnell, our farms and ranches are definitely at risk of tar sands and benzene spills. We ask, even knowing that you support the Keystone Pipeline, that you vote for Senator Menendez's amendment that makes it clear TransCanada cannot take land from unwilling sellers. We ask you to stand up for our property rights and not permit eminent domain be used for private gain. I wish to yield the remainder of my time to Senator Tester.

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

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment. It prohibits TransCanada from using eminent domain proceedings to seize private property in order to build the Keystone XL Pipeline. As we all know, eminent domain is the power of a governmental entity to take private property and convert it into public use subject to reasonable compensation. Traditionally, property could only be seized for public use, such as a public park or a public road, but increasingly the exercise of eminent domain has been used for private gain. Many, including some of my most conservative friends on the other side of the aisle, are outraged by the idea that eminent domain proceedings could be used to seize private property for private gain. President Bush issued an Executive order restricting the use of eminent domain by the Federal Government for ``the purpose of benefitting the general public and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties.'' The senior Senator from Texas introduced the Protections of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005, which would have prohibited the use of eminent domain by Federal, State, or local government entities for private economic development. I have been working very closely with Senator Cantwell on this amendment, and we agree with our conservative colleagues that using eminent domain proceedings for private gain is outrageous. On the issue of Keystone, a foreign-owned company is using eminent domain to seize private property so it can better export Canadian oil. The project is not in the public interest, but it is clearly in the special interest. I do not begrudge the fact that a Canadian company wants its subsidiary to build this pipeline so it can export foreign oil to distant shores through American infrastructure. They want to make a profit, and I understand that. But I do not think we should allow our sovereignty to be compromised in order to do it. Right now the U.S. Federal Government is trying to build a ferry terminal in Canada to serve Alaska, but Canadians are protecting their sovereignty and objecting to U.S. steel and other U.S. content from being the sole source for the ferry terminal. I disagree with Canada on that point, but I understand they want to protect their sovereignty. Similarly, we need to protect American sovereignty and American landowners from a Canadian-owned company that wants to seize our private lands for private gain and force Americans to take a risk of Canadian pollution. Over the weekend landowners along the route of the Keystone XL Pipeline were seeing a pipeline spill on the Yellowstone River in Montana. It is happening now. If we were to see pictures of it, we would see that the efforts to clean up the spill are being hindered by a sheet of ice. Who knows what damage is being done by 50,000 gallons of oil in this river. We might not know until spring. Landowners are wondering if their family farm will be the victim of a similar spill, wondering if property that has been in their family for generations can still be passed on to the next generation. One landowner who has seen firsthand what can happen when a pipeline is put on your property is Lori Collins. In October of 2012 Lori Collins walked outside her home to find construction workers for a TransCanada contractor trying to clear the way for the southern leg of the Keystone Pipeline. They had dug up the lines to her septic system, completely destroying it. When she asked the workers to repair the damage, they did not. Instead, they piled dirt over the damage and clogged the system. The result was raw sewage flooding back into the Collins' home, staining walls and carpets, leaving a black mold throughout their house, and leaving Lori Collins with severe respiratory problems. The Collins family was eventually forced to move out of their home. While they were able to get a settlement after suing TransCanada, the family says they can never repair the damage to their lives. Jim Tarnick, a farmer in Nebraska, has heard of TransCanada's track record and fears that he might have to suffer similar damage or, worse, face an oilspill. TransCanada wants to put the pipeline right through his front yard on his property that has been in his family for over 100 years. Mr. Tarnick's farm sits near the Ogallala Aquifer, which provides critical freshwater for farmers and ranchers in the heart of U.S. farm country. A pipeline spill such as the one on the Yellowstone River over the last few days could damage the aquifer and therefore jeopardize a resource relied on by Nebraskan farms and ranches. Mr. Tarnick fears he will be served with papers invoking eminent domain on his property any day now. TransCanada is asking that he and other Nebraskans trust that they will protect the Ogallala Aquifer and the livelihoods it supports. Instead of forcing Mr. Tarnick to host the Keystone Pipeline against his will, let's instead let TransCanada work with landowners who are willing to take the risk and will be paid what they feel is fair rather than what TransCanada's lawyers can convince a judge is fair. Senator Cantwell and I believe this amendment is one of simple fairness and should be a no-brainer, an easy amendment every Senator can support. In recent years Republicans have insisted on similar language prohibiting the use of eminent domain when we establish national parks. If eminent domain cannot be used to establish a national park in the public interest to conserve our national treasures and preserve America's beauty for future generations, then surely it should not be used to benefit private interests--in this case, in the interest of a foreign-owned oil company seeking to ship its product around the world. I call on my colleagues to be consistent, stand on principle and logic, protect landowners, and support my amendment to protect private property from seizure by foreign corporations, preserve our sovereignty, and preserve the rights of U.S. citizens along the way. With that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment to call up my amendment No. 72 to protect private property from unjust seizure by a foreign corporation.

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

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: I understand we are on the bill.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the Presiding Officer. Mr. President, let me say that I rise in general opposition to the Keystone Pipeline, and I rise in favor of Senator Markey's amendment. After long and careful deliberation--and after having had the benefit of a hearing on the pipeline in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee--I have decided to oppose this bill for four basic reasons. First, on the bill, I am deeply concerned that if approved this pipeline will be the first of many pipelines opening one of the largest sources of carbon on Earth to exploitation. Second, contrary to what many believe, I am convinced this pipeline will simply not enhance, help or--in any positive way--improve our energy profile. Third, in my view, it is completely absurd for Congress to take the role of permitting pipelines. It is a role we have never assumed and should not assume now. Fourth, I believe it is ridiculous that our Republican colleagues insist on language banning eminent domain for national parks legislation but oppose it when it comes to foreign or private projects such as Keystone. Furthermore, we cannot underestimate the environmental impacts of this pipeline. The facts are clear. The resource in Alberta is enormous; the tar sands formation is the size of Iowa; tar sands oil is 17 percent more greenhouse gas intensive than other forms of oil because it takes an enormous industrial process to extract it. It has been estimated that if this resource were fully exploited, it would release more carbon dioxide in the air than the United States has emitted in its entire history. As James Hansen, one of the foremost climate scientists in the world, has said, building the Keystone pipeline would be ``game over for the planet.'' There are also more local risks. Over the weekend, landowners are seeing the pipeline spill in the Yellowstone River in Montana. It is happening right now, and landowners are wondering if their family farm will be the victim of a similar spill, wondering if property that has been in their family for generations can still be farmed and passed on to the next generation. While some jobs will be created by the pipeline, the fact is--after 2 years of construction--it will create only 35 permanent jobs--35. That is not a lot of jobs. If we want to create millions of permanent infrastructure jobs, I urge the supporters of the pipeline to support our efforts to increase transportation funding. I urge them to continue incentives for clean energy. I ask them to do all they can to help local governments rebuild local infrastructure systems. That is how we create permanent jobs that build our economy and help us keep our competitive advantage. By comparison, the number of jobs created by Keystone is hardly an argument for passage of this legislation. As you all know, we also have the issue of eminent domain--the power of any governmental entity to take private property and convert it to public use subject to reasonable compensation. Many, including some of my most conservative friends on the other side, were outraged by the idea that eminent domain proceedings could be used to seize private property for private gain. I have been working very closely with Senator Cantwell on an amendment, and we agree with our conservative colleagues that using eminent domain proceedings for private gain is pretty outrageous. Here, on the issue of Keystone, a foreign-owned company is using eminent domain to seize private property so it can better export Canadian oil--a foreign-owned company using eminent domain to seize private property so it can better export Canadian oil. The project is not in the public interest but clearly in the private interest. Senator Cantwell and I feel this amendment should be a no-brainer--an easy amendment every Senator can support. In recent years Republicans have insisted on similar language prohibiting the use of eminent domain when we establish national parks. If eminent domain cannot be used to establish a national park in the public interest to conserve our national treasures and preserve America's beauty for future generations, then surely--surely--it should not be used to benefit private interests; in this case, in the interest of a foreign-owned oil company seeking to ship its product around the world, which brings me to the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts. Amendment No. 13 We know the oil that will flow through this pipeline will flow directly to foreign markets. That is why I support the amendment from the Senator from Massachusetts. Foreign oil is not subject to America's crude oil export ban, but whether it is shipped as crude or refined here and then exported, we all know this oil is not going to help the American consumers. The intent of the Markey amendment can be summed up very simply, using an old adage that President Reagan was fond of: ``Trust but verify.'' For months now supporters of the Keystone XL Pipeline have been telling us the tar sands that will travel through the United States will help advance our energy security. They have been telling us the pipeline will bring a reliable source of fuel from a close ally and that it will reduce prices at the pump, helping U.S. consumers and businesses. The Markey amendment does nothing more than confirm the promises made--time and time again--by supporters of the pipeline. It would require the tar sands that travel through the United States stay in the United States. It says that if Americans are to accept all of the downsides of the pipeline, if U.S. property owners are to have their lands taken away for TransCanada's benefit, if Americans are forced to live with the risk of an oilspill of dirty tar sands that we do not even know how to clean up properly, then the very least we can do is get a guarantee in law that the United States will reap the benefits that come with all of these risks. So all this amendment does is put into writing the promises we have heard over and over again from supporters of the pipeline. It codifies in law what we previously had to take on faith. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for offering the amendment, and I would note he has a long history of working to improve America's energy security. He and I have worked closely since he came to the Senate to protect the longstanding requirement that U.S.-produced crude oil stay here at home to benefit the U.S. consumer rather than being shipped across the globe. This amendment is another commonsense protection to make sure our Nation's energy policy is aimed at helping consumers rather than helping oil companies' bottom line, and I encourage my colleagues to support it. For the last several Congresses I have introduced the American Oil for American Families Act, a bill to ensure that oil or petroleum products that originate within America's public lands or waters are not exported as crude or in refined form. That bill would increase our energy supply at home, lowering prices for consumers and businesses, and I intend to reintroduce that legislation in this Congress. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the Markey amendment. I intend to vote against the bill, which in my view is nothing more than an earmark for Big Oil. The pipeline will have enormous environmental impacts, it will not significantly help the American economy, it will not benefit American consumers, and it will needlessly harm landowners for generations. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to say that nothing has changed in Cuba since Cuban arms were captured on this North Korean ship going through the Panama Canal a year and a half ago, just after the Obama administration started its secret negotiations with the Cuban Government--not the regime, not its mindset, nor its oppression of its people. This is the essence of the regime. They put this missile system and MiGs in a container ship going through the Panama Canal, hid them under tons of sugar in violation of U.S. Security Council resolutions. It was the most significant violation of security council resolutions as its relates to North Korea in quite some time, and certainly the biggest violator in all of the Western Hemisphere. We could not trust the Castro regime then, and we cannot trust it now. What we can trust are the voices of those who promote human rights and democracy who have been arrested and rearrested time and time again, year after year, for demanding nothing more than their ability to speak their minds freely, openly, and without fear. Voices such as Berta Soler, the leader of the Ladies in White--the Ladies in White are a group of women who each Sunday travel to mass dressed in white, normally holding a gladiola--peacefully. These are women whose husbands or sons languish in Castro's jail simply because of their political views. And as they march to church, they are savagely beaten by state security. Berta Soler, the leader of the Ladies in White, said: Sadly, President Obama made the wrong decision. The freedom and democracy of the Cuban people will not be achieved through these benefits that he's giving--not to the Cuban people--but to the Cuban government. The Cuban government will only take advantage to strengthen its repressive machinery, to repress civil society, its people and remain in power. Or the voice of Yoani Sanchez, a prominent Cuban blogger and independent journalist, who said, ``Alan Gross was not arrested for what he did but for what could be gained for his arrest. He was simply bait and they were aware of it from the beginning. Castroism has won, though the positive result is that Alan Gross has left alive the prison that threatened to become his tomb.'' Or the voice of Rosa Maria Paya, the daughter of Oswaldo Paya, the island's most prominent and respected human rights advocate, who was killed in what the regime calls an automobile accident, what many of us call an assassination. His whole effort was under the existing Cuban Constitution to petition his government under that constitution for changes in the government, of which he amassed thousands of signatures of average Cubans across the island, and the regime saw that as such a threat that he was run off the road and, sadly, killed. His daughter Rosa Maria Paya said: The Cuban people are being ignored in this secret conversation, in this secret agreement that we learned today. The reality of my country is there is just one party with all the control and with the state security controlling the whole society. If this doesn't change, there's no real change in Cuba. Not even with access to Internet. Not even when Cuban people can travel more than two years ago. Not even that is a sign of the end of the totalitarianism in my country. Or another voice, the voice of Sakharov prize winner Guillermo Farinas, who spoke for many Cuban dissidents when he said this: Alan Gross was used as a tool by the Castro regime to coerce the United States. Obama was not considerate of Cuban citizens and of the civil society that is facing this tyrannical regime. In Miami, Obama promised he would consult Cuba measures with civil society and the non-violent opposition. Obviously, this didn't happen. That is a fact, a reality. He didn't consider Cuba's democrats. The betrayal of Cuba's democrats has been consummated. As you can see, Farinas is in the midst of being arrested by state security simply for a peaceful protest. Or the powerful voice of the husband of Berta Soler, Angel Moya, a former political prisoner of the Black Spring in 2003 when Fidel Castro imprisoned 75, including 29 journalists along with librarians and democracy activists. He said this: The Obama Administration has ceded before Castro's dictatorship. Nothing has changed. The jails remain filled, the government represents only one family, repression continues, civil society is not recognized and we have no right to assemble or protest. The measures that the government of the United States has implemented today, to ease the embargo and establish diplomatic relations with Cuba, will in no way benefit the Cuban people. The steps taken will strengthen the Castro regime's repression against human rights activists and increase its resources, so the security forces can keep harassing and repressing civil society. These are the voices of those who languished inside the belly of the beast. These are the voices not of this romantic image that some have of Castro's Cuba but of the reality, the harsh reality--people who, simply to be able to promote the basic freedoms that we enjoy here in the United States and most people in the Western world, are constantly thrown into jail for long periods of time, beaten and oppressed. Those are the voices of freedom inside of Cuba. These are the men and women who have been arrested and suffered under the oppressive hand of the Cuban regime for the belief in the right of all Cubans to be free. These are the people who know that nothing--nothing--has changed. The regime, after reaping the benefits of what in my view is a bad deal, is still arresting peaceful protesters, including more than 50 at the end of December. As a matter of fact, on New Year's Eve when most of us were celebrating the advent of the new year, there was an effort inside of Cuba. Tania Bruguera and a series of other human rights activists and political democracy activists were going to hold in Revolution Square a 1-minute opportunity for any Cuban who wanted to come forth and talk about what they aspired to for their freedom, what they aspired to for the Cuba of tomorrow to be. It was going to be a peaceful demonstration and an exposition of the hopes and dreams and aspirations of Cuba's political dissidents and human rights activists inside their country. In that peaceful effort, dozens of human rights activists and political dissidents, including the organizers, were arrested before they ever got to the event. The event was totally suppressed. Weeks after the administration's deal with the Castro regime--even then--the simple act of speaking for 1 minute about what your views would be of the future were repressed. So let me say that while I welcome the news that Cuba has released 53 political prisoners and that the administration has finally shared the list of names it negotiated with the Castro regime, this entire process has been shrouded in secrecy. Reuters reports that the administration officials said the list was created in June or July. But some of the 53 were released well before June, before the list was supposedly put together. As a matter of fact, 14, to be exact, were released 6 to 8 months before the December 17 announcement. One was released over a year ago. So, clearly, the list that supposedly was put together by the administration with the regime could not have envisioned or could not take credit for those who were released well before the list was put together. Many had simply finished their unjust prison terms. Clearly, keeping the list secret provided the regime the flexibility to define ``mission accomplished.'' The fact is, the release of 53 political prisoners does not mean there are no longer political prisoners inside of Cuba. Human rights groups had stated, prior to the President's speech in December, that there were over 100 long-term political prisoners in the country, and there were 8,900--to be exact, 8,889--political detentions in Cuba last year--an appalling number--8,889. In short, while 53 political prisoners have been let out of jail, the same corrupt jailer is still ruling the country. The Castros have a long history. I have followed this not only for all of my career of 23 years in the Congress, but even before that. They have a long history of rearresting these political and human rights activists whom they previously released. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?