Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. I ask unanimous consent to be able to continue for about 10 minutes.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, the fact is that as someone who has spoken out time and again on the brutal repression of the Cuban people under the Castro regime, someone whose family has suffered the consequences, I believe the agreement this administration has reached with the Castro regime is one-sided and misguided. It fails to understand the nature of the regime that has exerted its authoritarian control over the Cuban people for over 55 years. Now, no one wishes that the reality in Cuba were more different than the Cuban people and Cuban Americans that have fled the island in search of freedom. In December, the same month that the President announced changes to U.S. policies, the Cuban Commission for Human Rights and National Reconciliation, a group that works within Cuba, documented 489 political arrests, bringing the total number of political arrests during the first 11 months of 2014 to nearly 8,900. This is the regime that imprisoned an American citizen for 5 years for distributing communications equipment on the island. Releasing political prisoners today in Cuba is meaningless if tomorrow these individuals can be arrested again and denied the right to peacefully pursue change in their own country. It is a fallacy that Cuba will change just because an American President believes that if he extends his hand in peace, the Castro brothers will suddenly unclench their fists. As you see from the quotes I have read, a majority of democracy activists on the island, many whom I have met with in the past, have been explicit that they want the United States to become open to Cuba only when there is a reciprocal movement by the Castro brothers. They understand that the Castros will not accede to change in any other way. In my view and in theirs, the United States has thrown the Cuban regime an economic lifeline. With the collapse of the Venezuelan economy, Cuba is losing its main benefactor, but it will now receive the support of the United States, the greatest democracy in the world. This is a reward that a totalitarian regime does not deserve. It is a reward that at the end of the day perpetuates the Castro regime's decades of repression. The regulatory changes the regime has won, which are clearly intended to circumvent the intent and spirit of U.S. law and the U.S. Congress, present a false narrative about Cuba that suggests that the United States and not the regime is responsible for its economic failure. So let's be clear. Cuba's economic struggles are 100 percent attributable to a half century of failed political and economic experiments that have suffocated Cuban entrepreneurs. In Cuba private business is controlled by the Cuban government--most significantly the military--with the benefits flowing directly to the regime's political and military leaders. Cuba has the same political and economic relations with most of the world. But companies choose not to engage because of political, economic, and even criminal risks associated with investment on the island, as exhibited by the arbitrary arrests of several foreign investors from Canada, England, and Panama in just recent years. To also suggest that Cuba should be taken off the list of state sponsors of terrorism is alarming while Cuba harbors American fugitives such as Joanne Chesimard, a cop killer who is on the FBI's list of most wanted terrorists for murdering New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster. She is not the only one who is a cop killer inside of Cuba from the United States. There is also Cuba's colluding with North Korea, as I showed before, to smuggle jets, missile batteries, and arms through the Panama Canal in violation of the U.N. Security Council resolution, and for giving refuge to members of FARC from Colombia and members of ETA from Spain, groups that the State Departments has recognized as foreign terrorist organizations. Now, finally with respect to the President's decision to attend the Summit of the Americans, I am extraordinarily disappointed that we intend to violate our own principles laid down in the Inter-American Democratic Charter in 2001, on the Summit being a forum for the hemisphere's democratically elected leaders. This action disavows the charter, and it sends the global message about the low priority that we place on democracy and respect for human and civil rights. So in this new Congress I urge my distinguished colleague, the now chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Corker, to hold hearings on this dramatic and mistaken change in policy. I will keep coming to this floor to address at length all of the issues I have raised. I will come to this floor again and again to expose one of the most oppressive, repressive, and undemocratic regimes in the world. To those of my colleagues who herald this agreement and for those in the press who still live with the mistaken romanticism of the Castros' revolution and who speak out about human rights abuses and democratic movements all over the world, it is so hypocritical to be so silent--a deafening silence when it comes to the democratic and human rights movement inside of Cuba. I have listened to many eloquent speeches of my colleagues about human rights violations and democracy movements in many parts of the world. But on Cuba their silence is deafening. This does not end here. It does not end today with one speech. It surely will not end until the people of Cuba are truly free. 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 speak on two separate and distinct topics. The first is about Cyprus. This year marks the 40th anniversary of the Turkish invasion. We hoped it would have brought a fair settlement to the Cyprus question; that would have brought an end to a 40-year-long occupation and division of the island by Turkey. There is always cause for optimism and room for faith that the realization of a reunified Cyprus is in the near future. Global and regional dynamics have made the reunification of Cyprus a priority, driven in part by Cyprus's newly found energy resources. This is particularly true in light of Russia's Machiavellian-like power plays in Central Europe that have placed Cyprus and Israel at the forefront of the discussion of European energy security. The natural resources that have been discovered this year in the eastern Mediterranean offer both Greek and Turkish Cypriots alike a powerful incentive to reach an agreement. Cyprus can play a pivotal role in regional energy security. But the dynamics have again changed, which is why I rise today to express my grave concern over the Republic of Turkey's incursion into Cyprus's exclusive economic zone. On October 20, Turkey sent a Russian vessel--the Barbaros--into Cyprus's exclusive economic zone to stop the Government of Cyprus from exercising its lawful and sovereign right to explore the natural gas within the exclusive economic zone. In the days following, Turkey dispatched warships to support the Barbaros in its illegal activities, where they remain to this day. The incident is merely the latest in a long series of violations on the part of Turkey against Cyprus's sovereign right to explore and exploit its natural resources within its own exclusive economic zone. Turkey, of course, also illegally occupies, with 40,000 Turkish troops, the northern portion of the island and has for 40 years prevented any meaningful reconciliation efforts. This map, from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, shows the positions of the Turkish ships in red. They are sitting between the island of Cyprus and its own ships in its own exclusive economic zone. There is no doubt in my mind that Turkey's actions have endangered peace talks between the Greek and Turkish Cypriots that began in February with a joint communique issued by the two communities. That communique committed to finding a durable solution based on a bizonal, bicommunal federation with political equality. But because of Turkey's bullying practices, peace talks are now on hold. For peace talks to resume, Turkey must immediately withdraw its ships operating in and around Cyprus. The international community has been abundantly clear in supporting Cypriot President Nicos Anastasiades in recognizing Cyprus's right to explore the resources within its economic zone and in condemning Turkey for this blatant violation. On November 13, the European Parliament adopted a resolution strongly condemning Turkey's ``illegal and provocative actions'' in Cyprus, stressing that ``the Republic of Cyprus has the full and sovereign right to explore the natural resources within its exclusive economic zone.'' Turkey's recent actions in Cyprus are only one instance of its belligerent and bellicose rhetoric and backsliding on peace and democracy. In recent weeks, President Erdogan and his Cabinet have used unusually belligerent and anti-Western rhetoric to attack the West. He actually said--and I am amazed at the rhetoric: Americans look like friends but they want us dead--they like seeing our children die. He said: They like seeing our children die. This is the President of Turkey. He also said: Women are not equal to men. Our religion has defined a position for women: motherhood. Erdogan said this at a summit in Istanbul on justice for women. He went on to say: Some people can understand this, while others can't. You cannot explain this to feminists because they don't accept the concept of motherhood. He then went on so far as to say that Muslims discovered America, not Columbus. He has vowed to make lessons in the Arabic alphabet Ottoman language compulsory in high schools--a highly symbolic move which enraged secularists who proclaim he is assuming an increasingly extremist agenda. These statements, along with Turkey's illegal actions in Cyprus's exclusive economic zone, are a dramatic escalation of Turkey shifting away from democracy and its partners in the West, and in my view requires an immediate and forceful response. The Cypriot people need a strong voice on this issue. They need us to demand President Erdogan to immediately withdraw from Cyprus's exclusive economic zone so reunification talks can resume. Cyprus's leaders deserve credit for trying to change the dynamics and return to talks. They also deserve credit for being an ally and advocate of America's interests. Cyprus's active role in supporting counterterrorism efforts, terror financing, and the removal of chemical weapons from Syria have not gone unnoticed to this Senator. Cyprus is clearly positioning itself as part of the Western security architecture and is a resource, advocate, and an ally for our interests. These developments have led the White House to play an active role on behalf of Cyprus, and I was very pleased to see our former colleague and now Vice President--Vice President Biden--visit in May and to hear of his commitment to resolving the Cyprus question. I share his support for the confidence-building measures in Famagusta that would benefit both sides and accelerate progress toward a final settlement where Cypriots control their destiny and their territory, and where at the end of the day any settlement is from the people of Cyprus, by the people of Cyprus, and for the people of Cyprus, and Cyprus alone. To that end, I recently sent a letter to President Obama urging his continued engagement on the issue of reunification of the island and the restoration of human rights for all its citizens. I also wrote to Ambassador Power urging her active involvement in the extension of the island's U.N. peacekeeping operation, and I was pleased when the extension was formalized at the end of July. I hope President Erdogan, now that his election is behind him, will use this opportunity to play a renewed role in finding a fair settlement. We all appreciate that any progress will depend on a true commitment by the Turks to the peace process. As the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, I believe the United States is committed to supporting Cyprus as a friend and ally. So as we mark the 40th year of a divided Cyprus, let us hope and pray that a fair and mutually beneficial settlement will be reached very soon and that, once again, the island will be reunited. Above all, let the warship and let the other ships that do not belong in Cyprus's waters be removed and removed now. Mr. President, at this time, I would like to switch the topic to the nomination of Sarah Saldana, and I want to reiterate my strong support for Sarah Saldana, a woman eminently qualified to serve our country and to lead ICE as our next Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security. The junior Senator from Texas began this long legislative weekend engaged in his own political battle, wholly dependent on a strategy of obstructionism, delay, and some quixotic fixation on preventing the Senate from exercising its constitutional responsibility to legislate and ensure that critical leadership positions for our Nation are filed in a timely manner. Unfortunately, some of my friends on the other side have joined in the politics of obstructionism. Now they want to prevent a duly elected President from filling a position they themselves feel is of paramount importance. They have railed about the need for strong Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and now, given the chance finally to confirm a Director of ICE to give them the strong enforcement they have demanded, they refuse, they obstruct, they delay, and they reverse their positions from when they voted for her to be a U.S. attorney. They now use her nomination to score political points with their base because they disagree with the President's politics--not with the qualifications of the nominee, but with the President's policies. Sarah Saldana is qualified, and Senators Cruz, Cornyn, Sessions, and everyone on the other side of the aisle know it. I think they have said so themselves. She currently serves as the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Texas. She is the first Latina U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Texas and would be the first Latina to head ICE. In 2011, she won bipartisan approval to serve as the U.S. Attorney in the Dallas-based Northern District of Texas. Senators John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison at that time of Texas backed her for that post. She has been endorsed by the law enforcement community, including the Major Cities Chiefs Association president and the Philadelphia Police Department Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey. She is an effective, qualified, competent, outstanding U.S. attorney. In fact, the senior Senator from Texas, my friend Senator Cornyn, has praised her as being ``tough, smart and fiercely independent.'' Now she is being denied confirmation for that same toughness, intelligence, and independence. Why? Because--surprise of all surprises--she happens to agree with the policies of the President who nominated her; just as Attorney General Herbert Brownell agreed with President Eisenhower in 1956 when he paroled foreign-born orphans into the United States for adoption; just as Attorney General Edward Levi agreed with President Gerald Ford in 1976 when he granted extended voluntary departure to Lebanese citizens; just as Ed Meese agreed with Ronald Reagan in July of 1987 when he shielded Nicaraguan refugees from deportation, and later when he shielded Polish nationals from deportation; and in October 1987 when President Reagan protected from deportation the minor children of parents legalized in the 1986 immigration law; just as Attorney General Richard Thornburgh agreed with George Herbert Walker Bush in November of 1989 when he protected Chinese nationals from deportation after Tiananmen Square, and in February of 1990 when President Bush extended President Reagan's family fairness policy to spouses and unmarried children, all undocumented at the time; and just as John Ashcroft agreed with President George W. Bush when he expedited nationalization for green-card holders who enlisted in the military in 2002. So this isn't a fundamental Republican policy issue backed by history or by the facts, it is a modern-day extreme conservative issue driven by politics, despite the facts contrary to their own history. The fact is they do not agree with the President on just about anything-- certainly not on immigration, as proven by the statements we have heard on this floor. I want to be very clear. We cannot judge the qualifications of Sarah Saldana to run Immigration and Customs Enforcement based solely on the fact she agrees with the policy decisions of the President who nominated her. That is an absurd and completely illogical standard. We judge nominees based on their qualifications, their integrity, their record, and their willingness to serve the Nation. The fact is we don't deny confirmation to score political points. We may disagree on the issues, but we cannot raise the political bar so high in this Chamber that we no longer are able to carry out our constitutional mandate of advice and consent. I don't believe that is what my colleagues will suggest, but that appears to be how they are judging this nominee and why they have chosen to hold up confirmation of so many nominees. They have raised the political bar so high as to deny any ability for this President to fill key positions in government and in our embassies abroad--all to score political points and diminish the ability of this President and this institution of government. Sarah Saldana is more than qualified to head Immigration and Customs Enforcement. She is more than qualified to oversee the agency my Republican colleagues fully support, which is responsible for enforcement of immigration laws, national security, drug smuggling, human trafficking, cyber security, and child exploitation. She will direct the agency that tracks down people without documentation--that is what my Republican friends want. Yet they have set the political bar so high that they have made it impossible for them to get what they claim to want most when it comes to immigration policy--that is immigration enforcement. The illogic of their position is just mind boggling. The Senator from Texas comes to this floor for one purpose, and one purpose only, in my view--to rail against the President, to castigate him for doing what his own party's iconic Ronald Reagan did when he was President, George H.W. Bush did when he was President, and what every President has done to defer deportations when keeping people's lives and families together were in the balance. My friend from Texas wants to join his House colleagues and score political points with the most extreme elements of his party. So be it. But I wish to remind everyone that this isn't a game. I would say to the junior Senator from Texas that instead of floor theatrics and playing politics, it is time to step up and govern. It is time to confirm Sarah Saldana and put her in charge of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Let's do the work we were sent here to do. I say to my friend from Texas what I have said before on this floor. There is a simple antidote to Executive action. It is to have our friends in the House of Representatives pass immigration reform. Pass it. Call it up for a vote. That is the end of it--not disinformation and misleading speeches about what the President's action does and does not do or blocking this nominee. Let's be clear. The President's Executive action will not grant anyone legal status or citizenship. It is not a free pass. But it will clear the way for many to come forth out of the shadows, register with the government, pass a criminal background check, get a work permit, pay taxes, and no longer live in fear of having their families ripped apart. As a result of the President's actions--which is replicated actions by 11 Presidents for the last 60 years on 39 different times--more Border Patrol will be sent to the southern border, more felons will be deported, more people will pay taxes like the rest of us, and more families will stay together. Those are all goals and values I think we would want to espouse. The fact is, the Senate is being prevented from conducting the people's business. For some Members that is the goal. For them it is all or nothing. For them it is an ideological war that can only be won or lost. For them it is not about governing; it is about winning. So I would say to my colleagues, there is a very important difference, and that difference is the basis of millions of Americans who expect us to work for them. They don't care if we win or lose political battles. They want us to help them with their battles in their lives for their families. That is what they want. It is what they deserve. I ask my friends to help us do the people's business. Our agencies have waited long enough. They need positions filled by qualified appointees, and Sarah Saldana is more than qualified. So I urge my colleagues to confirm this nominee and fill the position that is responsible for law enforcement activities that keep our country safe. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I come to the floor in favor of the confirmation of Tony Blinken, who is no stranger to this institution and no stranger to the most significant national security issues this Nation has faced in a generation. As the former staff director of the Foreign Relations Committee and a close confidant of then-Chairman Biden and now a member of the President's national security team, he has earned a reputation as hard- working, studious, and keenly analytical. He comes from a family of diplomats and has lived his life in and around the Foreign Service. His nomination as Deputy Secretary of State comes at a time when the United States is facing a range of critical challenges, from Ebola in west Africa, to Russian aggression in Ukraine, to the challenge of countering ISIL in Syria and Iraq, to Iran's continued request for a nuclear weapons program. At the same time, we are forging new global alliances and partnerships with India, in the Middle East and Asia, and looking for opportunities to expand American exports and business opportunities. There will be no shortage of critical issues he will face. Foremost on our national security agenda is countering the barbarity of ISIL, whose terrorist ambitions threaten our national security as well as the stability of an entire region. We also face a continued crisis in Ukraine, where the cease-fire has collapsed and Russian tanks, troops, and weapons continue cross-border incursions into eastern Ukraine. Clearly, the list of challenges is long and the diplomatic calculations are complicated, and all of these challenges will be part of the portfolio of the Deputy Secretary of State. There will be times where we will agree and times where we will disagree. I look forward to working closely with Mr. Blinken should he be confirmed, and I expect that he will be. I know there is opposition by some of my colleagues to Mr. Blinken. As we considered his nomination in the Foreign Relations Committee last week, several of my colleagues raised concerns which I would like to take a few minutes to address. First, there is an incredible notion that Mr. Blinken is somehow unqualified. Anyone who has served the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as staff director, two Presidents, a Vice President, as Deputy National Security Adviser to the President of the United States, and has chaired the National Security Council's Deputies Committee is more than qualified, and my colleagues know it. They simply disagree with the politics and the policies of the President which are the responsibility of the person who is serving that President to ultimately promote--anyone he chooses to appoint to a key position. But they cannot disagree that Mr. Blinken has served the Nation admirably, with dignity, diplomacy, and has honored every position he has held, that he has devoted his life serving this Nation's national security interests, and he has excelled at doing it. Frankly, if Mr. Blinken is unqualified, then the bar my colleagues have set is too high for any human being to reach. I ask those who would object to this nominee, what additional qualifications can there be? Outside of already occupying the position for which he is nominated, it is hard to understand what additional qualifications my colleagues would expect Mr. Blinken to have to demonstrate his worthiness. Perhaps they would prefer that he be nominated by a different President whose policies they agree with, but that is not how it works. This is an eminently qualified candidate who has the full trust and confidence of this President, my colleagues' policy concerns notwithstanding. They may disagree with specific policy decisions of this President dutifully carried out--I repeat, carried out--by Mr. Blinken. Even listening to my dear friend and colleague Senator McCain, a distinguished member of the committee whom I regret we are going to lose in the next Congress from the committee--when he made the comment that the President's personal decision--referring to Syria--when all his national security advisers recommended providing arms to the Free Syrian Army, Mr. Blinken is clearly one of those national security advisers, but the President is the one who ultimately makes the decision on what policy will be pursued. That leads us to the questions about Mr. Blinken's participation and decisions involving Iraq, Afghanistan, and other parts of the world, with which certain Members of this body have taken issue. Mr. Blinken has had to defend those decisions no matter his personal views or advice. That is his job. You can disagree with the President's policies, but you cannot blame this nominee for doing his sworn constitutional duty to carry them out. I want to be very clear. We cannot judge the qualifications of this nominee or, for that fact, any nominee based on the policy decisions of this President or any President. He has been part of this administration, to be sure, but if the Senate starts to hold every nominee to account for every decision made by every President they serve, I think we will find that there is no one who will pass muster and no one who will be confirmed. I happen to think President Bush's decision to evade Iraq was a geostrategic blunder of the highest order. I opposed it at the time, and history, tragically, has proven that judgment right. The brave sacrifice of our young men and women and the squandering of hundreds of billions of our children's and grandchildren's inheritance have compounded the magnitude of this error. Would my colleagues suggest that I should oppose all future Republican nominees who served in the Bush administration because no matter how qualified they are, somehow they must be held accountable for what I believe history will show in evaluating the Bush Presidency as a historic blunder that led to the civil and secular wars that are changing the shape of the Middle East? I don't believe that is what my colleagues would suggest, but that appears to be how they are judging Mr. Blinken. But none of that is reason to oppose Mr. Blinken or any nominee. I hear these references to Iraq. Well, Prime Minister Maliki at the time opposed signing a status of forces agreement, and without such an agreement it was impossible to have our forces continue to be in Iraq subject to the possibilities of any issues being pursued legally under Iraqi law versus our own law, or, in Afghanistan, the question of what the force size should be in 2014. The President has made the statement of what it is to be, and maybe we can even have disagreements with what the size of those forces should be in 2014 as we see things evolve, but it is not for someone in an appointed position who is supposed to carry out the President's policies to say: No, we are not going to have that size; we are going to have a bigger size. I fully expect that if confirmed, there will be a number of issues where Mr. Blinken and I probably won't see eye to eye--or, rather, the administration he will represent and I may not see eye to eye. When those issues arise, I fully intend to let Mr. Blinken know exactly how I feel and to engage him in debate to influence the policy, and I will avail myself of all the tools a Senator can use to do so. Frankly, given his experience working for this body and given his professionalism and experience with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I would rather it be Mr. Blinken who will be across the table from me rather than someone else who doesn't have any understanding of this institution and the prerogatives of Senators. I am confident he will understand where I am coming from even when we disagree, and I am confident that he willing approach these discussions with an open mind, that he will seek to persuade but he also will be open to persuasion. I don't think any of us here in this body would like to be held to a standard of perfection in our judgments, one that holds no space for loyal service to this Nation and no space for qualified nominees who have honorably and faithfully implemented the policies of their President. Let's be clear. We are not judging the President's policies; we are judging the qualifications of a man who has loyally and professionally carried out those policies. I do not doubt the sincerity of my colleagues in this body. Even when I may disagree, I do not doubt that they are seeking what they believe is the best for our Nation. At times I think they are right. At other times I think they are wrong. Today, as it relates to Mr. Blinken, they are wrong. Tony Blinken is a tireless and able public servant who serves the Nation well, and I urge my colleagues to confirm this nominee. He is a man of the Senate, a qualified public servant, and an accomplished national security and foreign policy expert. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I was unavoidably detained for rollcall vote No. 327, the motion to proceed to executive session to consider Executive Calendar No. 1084, Sarah Saldana to become the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the Department of Homeland Security. Had I been present, I would have voted yea. Mr. President, I was unavoidably detained for rollcall vote No. 328, the motion to proceed to legislative session. Had I been present, I would have voted yea.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise in strong support of the lands package. I wish to congratulate the Senator from Alaska as well as the Senator from Louisiana for their work, and particularly in support of adding Hinchliffe Stadium to Great Falls National Park in Paterson, NJ. It has a special place in the hearts of many New Jerseyans, and it has played a vital role in the story of America's fight against institutionalized segregation. Critics of this legislation are using a mixture of the stadium showing overgrown shrubs and graffiti on the walls--asking, What does a stadium such as this have to do with this and should it be in with our national park system? Unfortunately, the picture being circulated only shows a side of the story at a different time. What it fails to show is the dedicated work of the surrounding community to clean up Hinchliffe Stadium. So I brought three photographs that I think illustrate the work being done in Patterson and to put to rest this notion that the stadium is an abandoned place that the community doesn't care about. The first is a picture of dozens of local residents working together to clean up the stands, paint the walls, and begin the process of restoring this vital community center. The second is a closeup picture of just a handful of these volunteers. These are young people taking the time to improve their community and honor the history that was behind the stadium. The third shows the final product--much different than what my colleague showed--of their hard work. These pictures were taken earlier this year at an event where 700 volunteers worked to clean up Hinchliffe Stadium. The argument that we are dumping this land on the National Park Service is simply false. The legislation specifically prohibits the Park Service from directly purchasing this land, meaning that the community of Paterson will continue to be intricately involved in the management and preservation of the stadium. I think these photographs illustrate the dedication of the residents that Paterson and the surrounding area have to protecting Hinchliffe Stadium. There is a reason for this dedication. Hinchliffe Stadium has the designation of being one of the few remaining sites that hosted the Negro League Baseball. In the 1930s and 1940s, Hinchliffe was the home of the Black Yankees, and in 1933 the stadium hosted what was called the Colored Championship. In 1936, the field was home to the New York Cubans, a team made up of players from Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, and Puerto Rico. Some of baseball's greatest stars, including Satchel Paige, Josh Gibson, and Larry Doby all took the field at Hinchliffe Stadium. Doby went on to become the first African-American player joining the American League, helping Jackie Robinson break down the color barrier. Contrary to the negativism and misrepresentations we are hearing today, Hinchliffe Stadium should be part of the Paterson Great Falls National Park. I know it, everyone who knows about its history knows it, and America should know it as well. I am proud to be a sponsor of the legislation adding Hinchliffe boundaries to the national park. This bill has been championed by Congressman Pascrell in the House of Representatives, where it was passed by a House vote earlier this year. I want to read briefly from a guest columnist editorial Congressman Pascrell wrote with another individual. He said that Hinchliffe Stadium in Paterson is one of the last remaining stadiums associated with the Negro League Baseball. It is where sports and racial history coalesce. Hinchliffe Stadium is the only National Historic Landmark in baseball and only one of two professional Negro League venues considered nationally significant. Cal Ripken, 2007 Hall of Famer, when he talked about Hinchliffe, said: Not only does it deserve recognition for its place in history, but it deserves the opportunity to be restored into a place where tomorrow's youth will be able to walk in the footsteps of yesterday's legends and experience the history of this community firsthand. I am also pleased with this legislation that is cosponsored by Senator Booker and formerly by Senator Jeff Chiesa, a Republican who served in the Senate for a period of time after the passing of Senator Lautenberg. And speaking of Senator Lautenberg, he was one of Hinchliffe's greatest champions, and he was proud to count Paterson as his hometown. The version of the legislation that we consider today includes amendments suggested both by the Parks Service and by House Republicans. That is why it passed by voice. Some critics cited the previous National Park Service study opposing the inclusion of the stadium in the national park. The study was discredited by 25 distinguished scholars at the time. Since then, the Park Service has completed an additional study and designated the stadium as a national historic landmark. I believe strongly that the story of our fight against institutionalized segregation is a story worth telling. Critics of this legislation may look at Hinchliffe Stadium and see a rundown sports field. Not me. When I look at Hinchliffe Stadium, I see a field of dreams, an enduring reminder of how far we have come since the days of separate but equal, when institutional segregation marginalized the works, the dreams, and the achievements of African Americans. I see a community coming together decades after Hinchliffe first earned a place in the canon of American history to preserve the legacy it represents. I urge my colleagues to join me in standing up for this legacy and supporting the inclusion of Hinchliffe Stadium in the Great Falls National Park as part of the national lands package. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations I report favorably the following nomination list which was printed in the Record on the date indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that this nomination lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I am honored to recognize Ms. Katherine Grant-Davis on the occasion of her retirement from the New Jersey Primary Care Association, NJPCA, after many years of remarkable service to the Garden State. Kathy has admirably acted as the President and CEO of NJPCA, a non- profit organization that represents New Jersey's Federally-Qualified Health Centers, FQHC. Under her leadership, New Jersey's FQHC's have grown in both size and capability while modeling high standards of care for all ages and income levels. She represents the best of what NJPCA has accomplished in addressing the primary care needs of our friends and neighbors, and we owe her a debt of gratitude. While New Jersey is home to 20 community health centers operating 121 sites throughout the State, this robust network would not be possible without Kathy's tremendous contributions. Under her leadership, FQHCs in New Jersey have come to represent quality, comprehensive, and most importantly, accessible care for more than 495,000 patients. In addition to these and many more accomplishments during her tenure at the NJPCA, Kathy has also honorably served under two New Jersey Governors within the State's Department of Health and Senior Services. Throughout her career, Kathy has demonstrated an innate ability to get the job done without losing sight of the need to ensure the well-being of all. Whether working to develop new pharmaceutical funding initiatives, directing the New Jersey WIC Program, or helping to implement Title XX funding, her dedication and commitment has earned her the respect and admiration of her peers and colleagues. In 2012, I was honored to recognize Kathy's efforts with the Evangelina Menendez Trailblazer Award, an honor bestowed upon the strong women of New Jersey who distinguish themselves in our communities each and every day. I am not alone in recognizing and honoring Kathy for the work she had done, as she has received commendations from the National Association of Community Health Centers, the NJ Biz Power 50 in Health Care, and NJ Citizen Action, among others. While the Affordable Care Act brought the importance of access to high quality, accessible and affordable care to the forefront of the national conversation, it was an issue Kathy had already been working on for years. Her insight and counsel during the debate on health reform, as well as her constant vigilance on the law's implementation, has proven invaluable to me and of immeasurable benefit to FQHCs and their patients, not only in New Jersey but throughout the country. With our health care system evolving to focus on wellness, prevention and access to primary care, Kathy's work building New Jersey's network of community health centers into a nationally-recognized model ensures communities in New Jersey will flourish well into the future. I congratulate Kathy on her retirement and would like to once again recognize, commend and applaud her legacy of extraordinary dedication to the New Jersey Primary Care Association and her unwavering service to the people of New Jersey.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I wish to speak about a New Jersey company, Louis Berger, and to draw the Senate's attention to the 30th anniversary of CHELBI, Louis Berger's successful engineering, design and infrastructure partnership in the People's Republic of China. Louis Berger was established in 1953 and has in the years since developed into a multidisciplinary global consulting firm founded on its dedication to engineering excellence. Today it has partnerships in major infrastructure projects spanning the globe, including in North America, Asia, Africa, Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East. More than just undertaking projects, though, one of Louis Berger's founding principles is to transfer knowledge to people in the local countries and communities in which it operates to ensure the long-term sustainability of its projects. For example, in 1984, Louis Berger undertook a groundbreaking partnership known as CHELBI--a joint venture between Louis Berger International and China Highway Planning and Design Institute, HPDI, Consultants. This partnership created a new pathway for knowledge sharing in engineering design between the United States and China, and to millions of dollars for the U.S.--and New Jersey--economy. Over the past 30 years, CHELBI has provided international and domestic consulting services for more than 600 highways, bridges, and other projects in over 30 provinces and cities in China, totaling more than 10,000 kilometers, including the 36 kilometer long Hangzhou Bridge, one of the longest ocean-crossing bridges in the world. CHELBI also fosters international communications and cooperation between the Chinese consulting engineering field and counterparts in Western countries and projects beyond China. In fact, it is my understanding that the partners in CHELBI have agreed to extend their historic venture for another 10 years beginning in 2014. So today I would like to recognize the cooperation in engineering design between the United States and China since 1984, as encompassed by CHELBI's work, including its partners at Louis Berger and China Highway Planning and Design Institute, HPDI, Consultants. The continued exchange of knowledge and coordination of work in large scale infrastructure projects in China and around the globe help to better connect people within and between countries and is of tremendous benefit, both for the countries where these infrastructure projects take place but also for U.S. global leadership in engineering consultation and design. CHELBI is to be commended for 30 years of productive work--and I would like to express my continued support for initiatives undertaken by the venture and the benefits that such cooperation and coordination provides to both the United States and China.

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 speak about the President's Executive order on immigration. I have been listening to my colleagues, both here and on the other side of the Capitol, and I rise in amazement. It is almost incredulous that our Republican friends are against the President taking the same action Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush took to defer deportation to solve a critical problem that we all know exists in the country--a problem that impacts millions. When President Obama exercises the same Executive authority-- the same--they are on the air, on television, on talk shows, on Twitter, fear-mongering, calling it illegal, calling it amnesty, a constitutional crisis. Where was all of that when Presidents Reagan and Bush did it? They hold hearings in the House titled ``Open Border: The Impact of Presidential Amnesty on Border Security,'' which is a little ridiculous because we have more border security under this administration than we have had in the history of the United States. As a matter of fact, we spend more on border enforcement and immigration enforcement than we do in all of the other Federal law enforcement entities combined-- combined. The Republicans threaten to sue the government or even shut it down. The irony of that is laughable because a shutdown over conducting background checks and collecting taxes from undocumented immigrants would only cost current taxpayers billions of dollars. Certainly it would cost them billions of dollars if it is anything like the last shutdown that Republicans forced. So double standard? Absolutely. It is the very definition of ``double standard.'' On immigration reform, our Republican friends--particularly on the other side of the Capitol--have become the poster children for double standards. On the one hand, they know the political ramifications of the demographic reality. On the other, they refuse to catch up with history and fix our broken immigration system. They are sailing against the headwinds of history, and now they want to prevent the President from pulling them to shore, saving them from their own immobility, their own inaction. They are also sailing against the headwinds of what the American people want. In poll after poll we have seen that the American people want to fix our broken immigration system, and that which the Senate passed--and I was honored to be one of the Group of 8 who put it together 1\1/2\ years ago--and passed with an overwhelming bipartisan vote, still has the highest rating among the American people. It has been sitting in the House of Representatives for the last 1\1/2\ years. A new Gallup poll shows that the President's approval rating among all voters has not gone down since the Executive action announcement was made, as some predicted it would, but, rather, it has increased 5 percentage points among all voters since early November. In my view, any action--Executive or otherwise--is movement in the right direction and it is what America expects of its leaders. Americans are expecting someone to act, someone to tackle the difficult issues, and immigration, particularly for our House colleagues, seems to be a very difficult issue they can't tackle. It is not difficult for me, and it is not really difficult for most Americans who believe in the power of common sense, not for those who believe in the need to secure our borders, to secure the country, to promote economic opportunity, and preserve our history as a nation of immigrants and that core value of family values. I cannot recall anyone coming to this floor and praising inaction, praising the President for not having done enough on a matter of consequence, but that is exactly what our Republican colleagues are doing, once again standing squarely on the wrong side of history--in fact, on the wrong side of their own history--invoking the double standard and claiming what is right for their party's Presidents is wrong for this President. History, however, is a funny thing. You can choose to ignore it, but eventually it catches up with you, and it has finally caught up with my Republican colleagues. I repeat what I have said all along: The antidote to Executive action is passing immigration reform. Let's be clear. Regardless of how big or how bold the President's announcement may be, a permanent legislative solution continues to be our ultimate objective. Administrative relief will not grant anyone legal status or citizenship, but it will clear the way for many to come out of the shadows, register with the government, pass a criminal background check, get a work permit, and pay taxes as the rest of us do. Because of the President's Executive action, the nature of who is eligible is really people who have U.S. citizen families here. It will prevent needless deportations and give a chance at a better life to those who want nothing more than to keep their families together. We are talking about millions of hard-working people who--right now many are exploited, creating downward pressure on the salaries and wages of all Americans by virtue of that exploitation. We have an opportunity to change that. I would rather know who is here to pursue the American dream versus who is here to do us harm, but I can't know that unless I get people to come forward and go through a criminal background check. If our Republican colleagues are so concerned about getting immigration policy right, if they are so concerned about the President overstepping his authority, which is the same authority Republican Presidents have used, they can exert their own authority and push our bipartisan bill over the finish line with one vote--one vote in the House of Representatives. The President himself has said he acted because there is a cost to waiting--a cost measured in the thousands of parents of U.S. citizen children who are deported, husband and wives who are separated from their U.S. citizen spouses, and the economic consequences. I know there are some who suggest: Let's wait until the next Congress. Let's wait and see. Give them a little time. If not, we will act. This is the same Republican Party--particularly in the House of Representatives--that blocked immigration reform in 2006, 2007, 2010, 2013, and 2014 despite a strong bipartisan bill here. So if they wish, they can join us at the negotiating table with their own proposals and their own solutions because doing nothing and maintaining the status quo is no longer an option. That is precisely why they didn't want the President to follow through on what he told them. He waited on Executive action. He gave them advance notice. He said: I want you to act, but if you don't act, eventually I will have to act. Now let's look at what my Republican friends find so objectionable. To put it simply, the administration is creating a new deferred action for parental accountability, a program that provides deferred action on a case-by-case basis to undocumented parents of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents--those who were present in the United States on November 20 of this year, those who have continuously lived in the United States for 5 years, since January 2010, and are not an enforcement priority--and also is expanding the program that already exists for DREAMers by expanding the age content. This isn't amnesty because amnesty means you did something wrong and you are forgiven and get whatever you want. Amnesty means you get something for nothing. First of all, these people have no pathway to becoming a permanent resident or citizen under the President's Executive order. Secondly, their only opportunity is not to be deported, assuming they can pass a background check and pay their taxes. As a result of the President's order, more people will go to the southern border to protect it, more people will pay taxes who may not be paying them now, more families will stay reunited, and more people who are in the shadows will come forward and go through a criminal background check. I would like to know who those people are, and I would like to make sure they don't have a criminal background. More criminals and felons will be deported because now it will be a priority to deport those individuals. What is wrong with that set of circumstances? So this is temporary relief as the Congress hopefully comes together on a more permanent basis. In my State of New Jersey, approximately 137,000 parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents will benefit from the new action. About 67,000 will benefit from the new program on children. That is an estimated 204,000 people in New Jersey who can come out of the shadows and contribute to the community and the economy. These are moms and dads, good people, hardworking people who can register with the government, pass a background check, get a work permit, pay taxes, take care of their families, and no longer fear deportation. The fact is, because of the President's Executive action, more felons will be deported, more resources will go to our border, more families will stay together, and more people will pay taxes. These are all good things. The Council of Economic Advisers has found that over the next decade the range of Executive actions announced by the President will increase our gross domestic product by up to 0.9 percent, it will reduce the Federal deficit by $25 billion through increased economic growth, and it will raise the average wages for U.S. workers by 0.3 percent. The Executive action the President has taken and the Republicans have criticized will increase the productivity of our workforce. How? By allowing those--from undocumented immigrants to spouses of highly skilled H-1B visa holders--to be part of the formal economy and match the skills they have with the skills needed by entrepreneurial startups that they often create. By the way, that is a fraction of the economic benefits of what we did here on a bipartisan basis that has been sitting in the House of Representatives for the last 1\1/2\ years. The Senate bill we passed, according to the Congressional Budget Office--the nonpartisan scoring division of everything we do here--will increase the gross domestic product of the United States by over 3 percent in 2023--less than 9 years--and 5.4 percent in 2033, which is an increase of roughly $700 billion in 2023 and $1.4 trillion in 2033. It will reduce the Federal deficit by $197 billion over the next decade and another $700 billion between 2024 and 2033. That is almost $1 trillion in deficit spending which can be lifted from the backs of the next generation of Americans by giving 11 million people a pathway to citizenship. What do we ever do that we pass that grows the economy, reduces the deficit, and creates more jobs for all Americans? Very little. The immigration bill which the Senate passed and which has been pending in the House does all of that in addition to securing our border. So let's be clear. The President's Executive actions are only temporary steps. Only Congress can finish the job. Deferred action is an act of prosecutorial discretion, but it is not a path to citizenship or a permanent solution. The fact is that we have waited and waited. In the absence of any Republican action in the House on immigration reform, the President has used the power he has available, which other Presidents have used as well. If the Republicans are concerned about an Executive action, they should use their own power to pass immigration reform--either the Senate bill or their own vision of what comprehensive reform is. For those who question the legality of this, I would simply say there are three letters--one before the Executive action and two after--from law professors and former general counsels of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and chief counsels of USCIS. They say the President has the authority. He is on sound legal footing. So we are tired of waiting for Republicans to say yes to something-- yes to taking action that is in the interest of millions in this country who expect leadership, expect action, expect progress, expect cooperation, not confrontation and obstruction. Millions of families are tired of waiting. The Nation is tired of waiting for Republicans to catch up with history--in this case, with the lessons of their own history. Let's invite our Republican friends to invoke the memory of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and for once commend this President for following their lead in this, doing what is right by the Nation and doing what is right by our taxpayers, doing what is right for our security and doing what is right by our families. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. I yield back all time on the nominations.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, very briefly, I appreciate working on both sides to be able to have what is a distinguished set of career ambassadors go to their posts and represent our country abroad, and I hope we can continue on this march as we move toward the end of the session. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. I yield back all time.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations I report favorably the following nomination list which was printed in the Record on the date indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that this nomination lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I come first to support the distinguished chair of the Appropriations Committee in her endeavor to pass a continuing resolution. I, specifically, want to speak to support the President's request for authorization to stand up a title 10 overt, train and equip mission for vetted moderate Syrian opposition. The hearing I held yesterday in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee laid out specifics of how the President is moving forward in building the anti-ISIL coalition. We will undertake targeted airstrikes against ISIL in Iraq and Syria. We will train and equip a Syrian opposition force committed to a pluralistic, free Syria. This is a multifaceted plan, and we heard both from Secretary Kerry and a second panel of regional experts that coalition partners are ready to contribute in real terms and not just empty words. The ISIL threat is grave and it is urgent. We must stand with our partners in the region to confront this barbarism in the interests of all of the individuals being brutalized by ISIL but also because regional stability and U.S. Security demand it. Training and equipping a fighting Syrian force is one urgent element in the broader plan. We in the Senate must provide this authority, as our colleagues in the House did yesterday. In Iraq we have the Iraqi security forces and Kurdish Peshmerga forces committed to combating ISIL and partnering with us to do so. At this point in time we do not have such a force to partner with inside of Syria. Let's be clear-eyed about what this challenge is. It is messy and complicated and not at all easy. There is no silver bullet. But without a trained, equipped, and capable moderate opposition force to fill the void, as we conduct airstrikes against ISIL, we would essentially be opening the door to Assad and his Russian- and Iranian-backed regime forces to regain lost territory. Imagine how our adversaries will celebrate if we fail to build a force that is equipped, trained, and committed to defeating the barbarism of ISIL and Assad. The administration was posed with the question yesterday: Why now? Why train these forces now, 4 years into this civil war? There are several answers: First, we have been working with these moderate armed groups for over 2 years now. We know them. Second, there is no real alternative to building a local opposition force to take the fight on in Syria unless you are talking about American boots on the ground. That is not in play here. Third, the region is standing with us in training and creating the ability to assist these Syrian rebels. It is truly a remarkable development that Saudi Arabia, for example, is willing to publicly discuss its support and publicly disclose that it will host and contribute to our train-and-equip mission. Other gulf countries are willing to fund this mission and help with recruiting efforts. No longer are our partners willing to quietly support from the shadows. They view the threat coming from Iraq and Syria with ISIL with such urgency that they are going public loudly and assertively. I am clear-eyed about the enormity of the challenge. There is risk. But at this point, given the rapidity of ISIL's advance and the savagery of its actions, we must be willing to take some risk to degrade this brutal, barbaric organization. The fact is that Sunni neighbors across the region are lining up to join this mission. The moderate Syrian forces we will train can pressure ISIL in Syria, the Iraqis from Iraq, and we pressure ISIL from the air. The question is, Why now? The response to the question is this: Yesterday I held--as the Presiding Officer knows, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed legislation last year to increase lethal assistance to the moderate rebels battling Assad in a bipartisan way. We do not get do- overs, so we cannot change what was not done. We cannot change what has already happened. But we can change what exists on the ground in Syria today. We can influence what happens going forward and work together to set conditions for how it ends. Yesterday Robert Ford--our exceptional former U.S. Ambassador to Syria, probably our greatest expert on Syria and the rebels particularly, and until recently our senior State Department official working with the moderate opposition--could not have had more compelling testimony. In response to questions I posed to him about whether a moderate armed opposition still exists for us to train and arm, he said: Yes, they exist. Yes, they are already fighting ISIL. Yes, they share our view that a radical, extremist Islamic State should not be imposed on Syria. That conflict will only end with a political deal or negotiated settlement. In response to questions about whether there is recruitment potential, whether we can find enough fighters who are moderate who will pass our vetting standards to receive our training, he said: Yes. We know them. We have provided them with nonlethal assistance, which they have used responsibly. By the way, he described them as being pretty resilient in the face of being outgunned, that they are still engaged and fighting for their own future. He also said: We have talked politics with them, meaning understanding where their mindset is as it relates to the future. In fact, Mr. Ford said that the problem has always been that there were more willing fighters than there were guns and ammunition. In response to whether the moderate armed Syrian opposition shares our goal of degrading ISIL, the answer was also affirmatively yes. The force we train and arm will fight ISIL because ISIL is threatening their supply lines and has butchered hundreds of members of the moderate Syrian opposition. In Syria, the moderate opposition has been mired in a two-front war--one against ISIL and the other against Assad and his regime backers--for years. The language in the amendment to the CR reflects this reality. We are training and arming a force that will defend the Syrian people from ISIL attacks and also promote conditions for a negotiated settlement to end the conflict in Syria--in other words, going after Assad's security forces. Finally, Ambassador Ford lamented that if we do not go forward with this proposal to train and equip the moderate armed opposition, Assad will likely become even more convinced that his strategy all along has worked. His strategy is to convince the world that he is the only viable alternative to ISIL and radical extremists and that we will eventually resolve ourselves to working with him. Let me conclude by saying that the only course of action at this point in time is for us to commit to the grinding work of building a viable alternative, which is the moderate armed Syrian opposition. Again, this is not going to happen overnight, but it certainly will not happen if there is not a moderate, capable alternative to Assad, a group that is neither radical nor has the barbarism of ISIL, nor the nihilistic, barrel bomb-dropping of Assad. We must be realistic if we are going to degrade and destroy ISIL. Frankly, I still have many questions about the way forward beyond this issue. I intend to work with the administration to ensure that the plan is sound and the strategy is effective. We will continue to vet that through a series of both hearings and intelligence briefings. But I have no question that this particular action is needed now. I fully intend for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to explore, vet, and ultimately craft what a possible authorization for use of military force should look like. In that regard, we need to get it right, not just do it fast. I do not want an AUMF that ultimately--as of September 2001--finds us 13 years later in a host of different countries that were never envisioned as being the authorization for it, to send the sons and daughters of America without the authorization of the Congress. We will work on all of that in a determined, studious, and detailed way to make sure that we understand the strategy and all of its dimensions, that we can provide for that, and at the end of the day that we can defeat ISIL, but without an open-ended check. With that, I urge support for the CR. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, next week, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi will travel to the United States for the first time since his historic election victory. The U.S. and India are natural partners with shared values and common interests, yet we are far from realizing the full potential of our relationship to the mutual benefit of both of our countries. On behalf of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and thousands of Indian-American constituents across New Jersey, I welcome the Prime Minister to the United States and am confident that his visit will re-invigorate and refocus our partnership so that concrete progress can be made in a host of sectors. India's new government has won a historic mandate to deliver change and reform, and we should be ready to support India's efforts to meet challenges--through concrete measures to bolster trade and investment, strengthen defense cooperation, and deepen our security partnership. The U.S. and India are engaged in a comprehensive set of diplomatic dialogue and working groups--currently there are dozens such groups covering a wide range of issues in the areas of economics, security, climate change, and education. This is a relationship that does not suffer from a lack of dialogue. It has, however, unfortunately suffered from a lack of results, especially since the civilian nuclear framework was agreed to in 2005. With a strong push from the Prime Minister, President Obama and the U.S. Congress, the time is right for these dialogues to translate into action. There is broad support in the U.S. for a more robust economic and trade relationship with India. Investment should be at the top of this agenda. I welcome India's move to raise foreign investment ceilings in several sectors of the Indian economy, including defense, railways, e- commerce and insurance. These are important steps that have helped to ease some of the concerns American companies have had about barriers to entering the Indian market. However more must be done and I hope that the U.S. and India will work together to address these remaining barriers. Vice President Biden laid out an ambitious trade target last summer in India, calling for a five-fold increase from $100 billion to $500 billion a year in annual bilateral trade. Prime Minister Modi and President Obama should reconvene the Trade Policy Forum this year, which will provide a platform to identify steps to improve our economic and trade relationship. The Prime Minister's visit will also present an opportunity to reengage on World Trade Organization negotiations, where India's concerns are the last remaining barrier to the important Trade Facilitation Agreement. I also hope we can smooth the way forward for continued discussions to complete a Bilateral Investment Treaty. U.S. companies seek to invest in India, but need transparent governance, a fair regulatory environment, and strong legal mechanisms to protect those investments. If the Indian government can deliver on its plans for greater openness for capital flows and stronger intellectual property rights, I am confident our companies are ready to invest. We want to work together with India to help foster the best conditions for this kind of economic growth and partnership. I welcome recent reports that India plans to develop a new comprehensive intellectual property rights, IPR, policy. We need to see real reforms on this key issue, which significantly impacts the ability of U.S. companies to do business in an important market. In particular, the life sciences industry faces continuing challenges on IPR protections. I appreciate that this is a complex issue. Policymakers in both the United States and India want to ensure access to medications for those who need them, especially for low-income and other vulnerable populations. International life sciences companies in my State and from other nations are concerned that India's lack of protection of IPR will threaten innovation and affect access for those very people. I look forward to the renewed dialogue with the Indian government on this issue. India has a central role in contributing to prosperity in South Asia, a central foreign policy interest of the U.S. As the U.S. seeks to bolster Afghanistan's economic links in the region, within the framework of the New Silk Road initiative, we look to India to play a critical role in promoting trade with Afghanistan and the other countries of Central Asia. Regional economic connectivity should also extend to India's trade relationship with Pakistan. I urge both India and Pakistan to continue to work toward strengthening their bilateral relationship. Improved trade relations between India and Pakistan have the potential to unlock opportunities for over 1.5 billion people. The U.S. stands ready and willing to support efforts that enhance the cross-border trade relationship. India is a strong partner in U.S. counterterrorism efforts in the region, and we have a shared national interest to confront terrorism, prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and maintain regional stability. In Afghanistan, India has been a key provider of development assistance and supporter of the Afghan National Security Forces. As the international community draws down forces in Afghanistan, the U.S. and India should be prepared to increase counterterrorism and intelligence cooperation and coordination, and both sides should commit to a robust set of military exercises. Last year India significantly increased its purchases of American arms and now conducts more exercises and personnel exchanges with the U.S. than any other country--I welcome and encourage expanding this important collaboration. Defense cooperation remains the most promising area of U.S.-India cooperation, and I am pleased that Secretary Hagel's recent visit to India further deepened our defense ties. We should expand initiatives to strengthen our defense cooperation, including military exercises, as well as co-production and co-development of defense products. The Defense Technology and Trade Initiative should continue to advance efforts to reform India's defense procurement and management systems, and encourage both sides to explore the possibility of a revamped and expanded formal framework for a bilateral defense agreement. I believe we should be expanding educational ties in all sectors--the best and the brightest from both sides should be exchanging ideas and building on the innovative and entrepreneurial spirit that exists in both countries. I encourage the U.S.-India Education Dialogue to continue to explore areas of collaboration, including student and faculty exchange, research cooperation, and implementation of technology-enabled education strategies, such as e-learning, and cooperation between community colleges. Rutgers University has formed strong relationships with Indian educational and research institutions, and has increased the profile of India with businesses, communities, and nonprofit organizations in New Jersey. Rutgers was one of five recipients of the 21st Century Knowledge Initiative, which unifies many of the university's efforts with Indian institutions through faculty exchanges, and research and innovation collaboration in the priority areas of food security, climate change, sustainable health and public health. I strongly support these collaborations, and encourage the expansion of efforts to strengthen exchanges in technical and vocational education. India has a long and rich history of religious, ethnic, and linguistic pluralism with a vibrant civil society. We should also continue to work together to ensure greater respect for human rights, and encourage a legal framework that protects the civil rights and liberties of the most vulnerable Indian populations, particularly women and children. India is critical to international efforts to address climate change. There are huge opportunities for India to act on climate change while boosting development at the same time, and I urge the Indian government to continue to explore ways to make clean power more accessible and more affordable. We should also expand our partnership with India on energy, which would help them reduce dependence on unstable energy suppliers. Finally, we must continue to work toward cutting emissions from hydrofluorocarbons and coal--both of which contribute to climate change. I applaud Secretary Kerry and Minister Swaraj's efforts to establish a new joint working group on climate change, and am hopeful that we can continue to explore ways to expand R&D collaboration to bolster renewable energy sources, such as solar energy, to meet India's growing energy demands, while ensuring there are environmental protections. Our agenda is extensive and the potential to accomplish our mutually beneficial goals is limitless. There is so much room for growth. With sustained attention and leadership, as well as active engagement by the Indian-American diaspora, I am confident in our ability to achieve results and work toward a more prosperous and secure future. I am proud to welcome Prime Minister Modi to the United States and I wish him a successful visit.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I will first respond to the unanimous consent request made by the Senator from Texas, the son of immigrants himself, to prohibit certain actions with respect to deferred action for students in the United States whom we call DREAMers. For these young people, as Senator Durbin said, the only flag they have ever pledged allegiance to is that of the United States. The only national anthem they have every sung is the ``Star-Spangled Banner.'' They came to this country not because they made a decision to do so but because their parents came here, just as Senator Cruz's parents came here. He now ultimately enjoys the benefit of being an American, even though it was a different time and under a different set of circumstances. Nonetheless, he didn't have a choice in that decision and neither did these children. We have learned and we have often heard in this Chamber that you never subscribe to the child whatever errors exist of the parent, but that is exactly what the Senator from Texas would do. My friend from Texas is entitled to his views and his opinions, but he is not entitled to his own set of facts. The reality is that he continuously refers to the deferred action on deportation for these young people as amnesty. Amnesty suggests that someone is forgiven for something they did wrong and they have a clear pathway to permanent residency and ultimately to U.S. citizenship. That is not what the President did for these young people who know no other country than the United States. Any action that would be taken on these young people will be deferred until after Congress has acted on the pressing question of immigration reform. The Senator from Texas suggested that the Senate has failed in leadership. I wish to say to the Senator from Texas that the Senate exerted leadership over 1 year ago, when in broad bipartisan votes-- notwithstanding the Senator from Texas--a group of eight Senators, four Republicans and four Democrats, joined together and got two-thirds of the Senate to send comprehensive immigration reform to the House of Representatives. We sent over commonsense immigration reform that was the toughest on border protection that has existed in the history of the country, that was in the national security interests of the United States, that provided for the economic imperative as described by the Congressional Budget Office of the opportunities that immigration reform would provide for the country by raising the gross domestic product of the United States, raising the wages of all Americans, and reducing the national debt, all by virtue of immigration reform. Two-thirds of the Senate voted on that at a time when it was rare to see two-thirds of the Senate come together on controversial or significant issues of the day. It was sent to the House of Representatives over 1 year ago, and they did not once cast a vote on that legislation or their own vision of what immigration reform should be.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I will be happy to do so a little later. At the end of the day, the Senator from Texas argues that this measure is necessary to deal with the humanitarian crisis at the border. I will say that has gone dramatically in a downward slope. He may argue that immigration policy is driving these children to make a dangerous and deadly journey. While I agree we need a long-term solution to the humanitarian crisis on the southern border, saying that this opportunity for DREAMers to stay in the United States is the cause is simply not true. DACA, which is the law we refer to that the President did by administrative order, was announced in June of 2012. The influx of unaccompanied minors was reported months before that announcement. As a matter of fact, we can ask Senator Cruz's own Governor, Rick Perry, who sent a letter warning about the influx of children months before the President's DACA announcement. The fact is that all of this talk about ending deferred action for children who have been here sometimes well over a decade or more ignores the elephant in the room; that is, that DACA does not cover these children. It only covers children who were brought here before the announcement was made. Eliminating DACA, as the Senator from Texas wishes to do, would not make any of these children less likely to come here. These children are fleeing extreme violence in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras, which have some of the highest murder rates per capita in the world. If I saw my father killed and my sister raped, it is likely I would think about trying to flee that set of circumstances regardless of what the promise might or might not be, and that is in fact what drove this humanitarian crisis. We should solve the roots of the crisis and not try to create some connection to something that has absolutely nothing to do with it. I know we are in the season in which--even if 10 angels came swearing from above that DACA is not the cause of the unaccompanied minor circumstances or that it is not amnesty, there will be those who will say, no, those angels are wrong. The reality is that one is entitled to their own views but not their facts. Finally, the undeniable consequence of the Senator's attempt to dismantle these deferred actions for DREAMers would serve only to further separate families. I have listened time and time again to my Republican colleagues say they are the heart of family values. Well, tearing apart families is not my sense of a family value. Tearing children away from their mothers and fathers is not my sense of family values. Destroying any hope of a better life and a chance at success is not the doctrine of family values. There is a reason the Senate hasn't voted on this bill--and it won't. I think the Senate Democratic leadership understands it would be a disservice to our country, a disservice to hundreds of thousands of these young people who we have already invested in through our public schools. Now is the time to take advantage of their service, whether in the military of the United States or whether through their intellect. Some of them are the valedictorians and salutatorians of our schools and colleges and universities. It is an opportunity to ensure they can be productive members of our society, with no guarantee--with no guarantee--as it relates to their ultimate status. I hope the immigrant community in this country--I hope the Hispanic community in this country, I hope the Asian and Indian communities in this country, I hope the Eastern European community in this country, all who are rightly concerned about comprehensive immigration reform-- are listening to this debate, because as disappointed as some may be about the President saying: Well, we cannot move forward at this time until we get it right because of the politics that have been generated by the undocumented children along the border--as disappointed as some may be with the President--listen to what we will get if, in fact, this November there is a change of who ultimately has the majority in this Chamber. This is what we will get: We will get what we got in the House of Representatives, which is over a year of not casting one vote for their own vision of immigration reform. And every vote they have cast has been anti-immigrant at the end of the day. For all of those reasons, I have to object to the unanimous consent request.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, first of all, I would say to my friend from Texas that he totally mischaracterizes the comprehensive, bipartisan immigration reform that was passed in the Senate. Do we know who voted for that? A whole host of Senators on the Republican side of the aisle who represent border States and who said: This is the most significant border protection and security effort we have had in a long time. They believed the national security of the United States was better preserved by virtue of that legislation. Our colleague John McCain worked assiduously on that question, as well as others. So the bottom line is, that reform was going to end the process of those coming in an undocumented fashion; it controlled the border, moved the economy, and would bring out of the darkness those who are here to pursue the American dream, which is the only way we can secure America, to differentiate from those who might be here to do harm to the United States. I can't know that if people who are in the dark don't come and register with the government, pay their taxes, go for a criminal background check, and earn their way over the course of a decade to the possibility of becoming a permanent resident. That is what the Senate did. So failure in this regard rests in the House of Representatives-- failure on the border, failure on national security, failure on the economy, and failure to reunite millions of people with their families. Now, with reference to the second part of the question, the President acted. It is the President who brought the Central American presidents here and said: You have to work with us to stop your young children from coming to our country and you have to create better conditions in your country, and we want to work with you to do that. We want to work with Mexico to ensure that what they call the Beast--the train of death--ultimately Mexican authorities interceded to stop immigrants from getting on that train to the United States. It is the President who ultimately took the resources that existed in the Department of Homeland Security and reauthorized them to send them to the border and deal with the challenge. All of that, among other efforts, ultimately has found us with a dramatic reduction. So I understand the politics of this. I appreciate everybody in this Chamber has the right to pursue that. But the bottom line is the President acted and the reality is we have dramatically reduced it, and the core challenge here is to have comprehensive immigration reform. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, today I wish to honor the eighteen young athletes of the Brooklawn Brookers Baseball Team of the American Legion Post 72 from Brooklawn, NJ for their commendable victory at the 2014 American Legion Senior World Series on August 19, 2014. Led by the unwavering leadership of coach Dennis Barth, the Brooklawn Brookers won the 2014 New Jersey State American Legion Championship, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Championship, and their second consecutive American Legion World Series Championship. The 18 players of the Brooklawn Brookers Team that won the World Series are: Eric Becker, Joe Bobiak, Sean Breen, Austin Darrow, Phil Dickinson, Pete Farlow, Eric Grafton, John Malatesta, Anthony Harrold, Rocco Mazzeo, Steven Mondile, Tyler Mondile, Eric Schorr, Ray Taylor, Kevin Terifay, Fran Kinsey, Tre Todd, and Matt Parr. These wonderful young athletes have displayed the hard work and dedication that make goals and dreams attainable. Throughout their victorious season, the Brooklawn Brookers played with the passion and determination that made it possible to collectively win a championship despite the passing of their longtime Manager, Joe Barth, Sr. Upon their arrival at the World Series in Shelby, NC, the Brookers won all five of their games, including the American Legion Senior World Series Championship Game against a very talented team from Midland, MI. While every member of the Brookers played exceptionally well, Sean Breen was named the 2014 World Series Tournament Most Valuable Player while also receiving the 2014 George W. Rulon Player of the Year Award, the 2014 Louisville Slugger Batting Championship, and sharing the 2014 Rawlings Big Stick Award with teammate Anthony Harrold. I would also like to applaud the parents, coaches, and volunteers that work tirelessly to ensure athletes like the 18 members of the Brooklawn Brookers have a place to grow and achieve in sports and in life. It is through the commitment of the entire community that our youth will develop into champions, both on and off the field. I commend the Brooklawn Brookers American Legion Post 72 Baseball Team, as well as the people of the State of New Jersey who supported them throughout the season, for winning the 2014 American Legion Senior World Series.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I wish to honor the 12 young athletes of the Marlton Reds 10-and-Under Baseball Team from Evesham Township, NJ for their commendable victory at the 2014 Cal Ripken 10- Year-Old World Series on August 16, 2014. Led by the unwavering leadership of Manager Robert Reynolds, Coach Mark Bergstrom, and Coach Joe Morgan, the Marlton Reds won the 2014 10-and-Under Babe Ruth/Cal Ripken Baseball New Jersey District 5 Championship, the New Jersey State Championship, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Championship, and the 10- Year-Old Cal Ripken World Series. The twelve players of the Marlton Reds 10-and-Under Baseball Team that won the World Series are: Colby Reynolds, Jackson Edelman, Zach Weiner, Blake Weinstein, Chris Bonafiglia, Adrian Hernandez, Aaron Bergstrom, Blake Morgan, Raymond Stutzer, Josh Free, Ryan Furman, and Ethan Stith. These wonderful young athletes have displayed the hard work and dedication that make goals and dreams attainable. Throughout their victorious season, the Marlton Reds garnered the support of their community, receiving countless donations to help them travel to Winchester, VA for the World Series tournament. Upon arrival, the Marlton Reds won all 6 of their games, including the Cal Ripken 10-and- Under Championship Game against a very talented team from Southeastern Lexington, KY by a score of 9 to 1. While every member of the Marlton Reds played exceptionally well, Blake Morgan made the All World Series Team while winning the World Series Batting Title and Most Outstanding Player award, while Jackson Edelman made the All World Series Team and the All Defensive Team. I would also like to applaud the parents, coaches, and volunteers that work tirelessly to ensure athletes like the 12 members of the Marlton Reds have a place to grow and achieve in sports and in life. It is through the commitment of the entire community that our youth will develop into champions, both on and off the field. I commend the Marlton Reds 10-and-Under Baseball Team, as well as the people of Evesham Township who supported them throughout the season, for winning the Cal Ripken 10-Year-Old World Series.