Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I came to the floor in the first instance to support Senator Boxer's unanimous consent request on the U.S.-Israel strategic partnership, which, as she has pointed out, has-- in this institution we do not very often get 81 Members to agree that there is a course of action we want to take. She and Senator Blunt have acquired 81 cosponsors--including me and a majority of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee--to do exactly that. Given the current situation in the region, I think the legislation sends the right message at the right time. Israel clearly has a right to self-defense. No country should stand by while thousands of rockets are being launched at it and a terrorist organization next door digs tunnels to funnel fighters into its country to kill its citizens. That is what is happening. Part of the effort of this legislation, the U.S.-Israel cooperation-- well, one example is an antimissile system called Iron Dome, which is an example of what our two countries can do together--save lives through technological advancement and defense cooperation. I think these are incredibly important opportunities. Beyond that, given the advances in shared achievement that have resulted from this U.S.-Israel partnership, this bill authorizes the President to further enhance cooperation in the fields of water, energy, homeland security, agriculture, and alternative-fuel technology. But the U.S.-Israel partnership extends far beyond our excellent security partnership. Senator Boxer's legislation does just that. It authorizes increased, enhanced, and enriched cooperation that reflects the critical importance of our bilateral relationship. It goes into Israel's energy security. Not long ago Israel was completely dependent on energy imports, but given recent discoveries they may soon be energy independent. But they need help. Thanks in part to work by Senator Landrieu, this bill would help provide the technical know-how on how to regulate a responsible natural gas extraction industry, how to charge and collect royalties, and how to plan for distribution and export networks. In other words, this bill can help make Israel an energy provider for the region and for Europe, greatly enhancing Israel's energy security and forming important economic ties with its neighbors. There are a lot of reasons for the Senate to pass this legislation and particularly to do so now. Let me address the process question. The ranking member did ask me late yesterday to have a markup. When we talk about process, we called for a markup in short order, without the regular timeframe, but also with what was, for me, an understanding that there were going to be no amendments. It was going to be an up-or-down vote on the legislation. If I had understood there were going to be amendments offered, then we would have had to have a timeframe to know what amendments they were going to be so Members could consider what those amendments are and could judge them--not at the spur of the moment when we sat down and convened a meeting but so they could make an informed judgment. Because it was a truncated process, which I was trying to accommodate the ranking member on, and because I felt we were going to go through basically an up-or-down vote, I called for the meeting. But then, unbeknownst to us, all of a sudden we were told there were going to be a series of amendments--amendments which were not even filed and for which there was no timeframe and therefore would come at a moment's notice when the meeting was convened and with no one having had the opportunity to understand the nature, substance, or consequences of those amendments. In my mind, that is not regular order. So maybe there was a misunderstanding, but because there was a clear understanding, from my perspective, to do it in an irregular fashion-- very short notice, with no amendment filing deadlines--but in order to accommodate the concern that legislation should not come but through the committee and onto the floor, I agreed to a special session, a special business meeting. Unfortunately, I do not know whether there is a misunderstanding of agreements here, but that is the nature under which I agreed. When I found out there were going to be all types of amendments, including amendments that are extraneous to the subject matter, I decided we could not do that in good order and in reasonable conscience, so we pulled down the business meeting. Let me say that I understand we have two concurrent resolutions pending before the Senate on the use of human shields by Hamas and supporting Israel's security. I support the substance of both of those Republican resolutions. However, I am not willing to allow them to move and provide lipservice to Israel's security when Members of the same party are preventing us from taking real action to support Israel's security by objecting to this bill, even though I do not question my distinguished colleague, who has worked incredibly well with me over the last year and a half, about what his concerns are about process. But we can't have Members want to offer all types of amendments, including extraneous amendments to this bill, and then say ``But we are asking the chairman to release the resolutions on human shields''-- which I in substance support--``from the committee,'' but when we can really do something for Israel, which is to pass this legislation, to say ``No, we cannot go through this process because it is not regular order.'' It is also not regular order to allow resolutions not to come through the committee as well. I hope that maybe in the timeframe there might be a way to consult with Members on both sides of the aisle to see if there can be a resolution. I do not judge anybody's purposes. But let me make it clear for the record that, yes, we did have a special business meeting. It was out of the regular order as to how we would call such a meeting and the procedures we would have for such a meeting. But it was done in good faith in order to accommodate the ultimate goal, which is passing an incredible piece of legislation at an incredibly important period of time. I see my colleague wants to say something. I have something else to say that is not related. I will yield.

Mr. MENENDEZ. If I may through the Chair--I appreciate that. Let me just say we were told there were amendments for the purposes of votes. Maybe that did not end up being the ultimate intention of some; others may have wanted votes. But I will say to the distinguished ranking member that if there are colleagues who want to express a reservation but are not seeking a vote, they would have the opportunity to come to the floor. I am sure we could carve out some time under which we could talk about what those reservations are. They would be fully on the record, and we might find a pathway forward to being able to cast a vote on this bill. But I will leave that for my colleague and his conversations with his colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I would say to my dear friend and distinguished ranking member that I know how he feels about his integrity and the process. I respect that. Only because the stakes are so high are the passions so strong with what is going on with Israel right now. So I would urge my distinguished ranking member to maybe have that informal survey with members and see if there is a way in which reservations could be expressed, and we might be able to move this legislation on the floor. I have worked with the Senator other times and on other issues and we have worked with each other, and I hope this might be a moment in which we could actually achieve that as well. I have nothing but the greatest admiration for the Senator's work and cooperation. Supplemental Appropriations I wish to move to another equally important topic and in part respond to my colleague from Texas. That is the question of the supplemental and the comments made that we are unwilling to do what the House has been incapable of doing so far--at least the last time I checked. I do not know if something has happened since I came to the floor, but the House has been incapable of even sending what they viewed as their supplemental. I do not know exactly why we would be blamed for not voting on something the House has not even passed, No. 1. Yes, there are many of us who will oppose what the House is sending because, No. 1, it doesn't even provide the resources necessary for an emergency--an emergency of unforeseen dimension: a refugee crisis and a humanitarian crisis that needs to be dealt with. When we look at the proposals that are contemplated in the House, not only do they not fund appropriately to meet the challenge, they misappropriate how they are going to do funding to meet this crisis. I don't know that we need to militarize the border, because no one is threatening the border so far as the consequences of any violence. I don't know that a National Guardsman with a rifle is necessary against an 8-year-old. I really don't. We heard our colleague from Texas say: Well, these children are actually submitting themselves to the Border Patrol, not trying to flee them. So part of what the House of Representatives wants is to spend millions of dollars for the National Guard. I would rather spend it on the Border Patrol, not the National Guard. We don't need to militarize our border. I would like to make sure that when a child does come over, having fled 2,000 miles because they were raped or a child was told by the gang to join us or die or a child who saw their father or mother killed before them and thought they would be the next one--that if that happens to be the case for that child, that they would have the opportunity to make their case, and they can't do that in 72 hours. I was at the same meeting earlier today with the President, which was really about national security. But the Senator from Texas raised this question--and it is a legitimate question to raise--and I didn't hear the same response in the context that the Senator from Texas characterized that response. The President said there has to be due process; but yet we need to find a way to try to accelerate that process but within the context of due process, and not to strip away the law that was passed in a bipartisan process and signed by a Republican President because he understood, as did the Congress at the time, that if you flee 2,000 miles and actually get here, it must be a lot more than an economic refugee. It must be because you have a credible fear of the loss of your life or your safety. That is what is at stake here. Now, it boggles my mind that we cannot get a successful vote. I don't know if we will or we won't, but I get a sense from what I hear from my Republican colleagues that they won't cast a positive vote for the type of supplemental that would give the resources to meet the challenge. To do what? To put more people on the border in terms of Border Patrol. To do what? To create more immigration judges, to create more prosecutors. What are they going to all do, coddle the child? No. They are going to be enforcing the border--the border in States where some of my colleagues seem to be the biggest opponents of the supplemental. I don't get it. Now, I have never voted for a supplemental that is enforcement only, but I am ready to do it because this is an emergency. I understand the gravity of the situation, both on the human side as well as the national security question. But I can't fathom, for the life of me, the views that say: No, let's vote against the money and create a crisis which basically is going to leave us in a situation in which, if we do not pass the supplemental prior to leaving on this recess, monies for the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Health and Human Services for these purposes will run out. The crisis won't have been abated, but the situation will continue to exist and the monies will have run out, which means what the President said: Well, I am going to have to reallocate resources from within those Departments for other purposes; which means that other national security, homeland security, and other health issues are not going to have the resources to meet the challenges they are presently meeting. That is not in the collective interests of the country. So I am strongly going to support a supplemental that I would have never voted for because of the emergent nature of what we have. But at the same time we can't be about putting the National Guard at the border. It can't be about militarizing the border when there is no military threat, and it cannot be about stripping a law that was passed in a strong bipartisan vote and signed by a Republican President because they understood the nature of the potential challenge and they understood the very essence of a child fleeing 2,000 miles and having a shot--only a shot, no guarantee--that they in fact make their case. That would send a message across the globe, as we are telling other countries in the world--in Africa; in Jordan, where we tell them to handle the Syrian refugees; in Turkey, where we tell them to handle the Syrian refugees; in the Dominican Republic, when there was the hurricane and we said let the Haitians come on over--we can't handle the humanitarian needs of children who have a credible sense and a credible case about fear for their life. Not every child will have that case, and those will be deported. But not every child should be automatically denied either.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I appreciate my colleague's point. I would say America certainly has the capacity to give the legal opportunity for those children to make the case that they have asylum. And when we fail to do so, I think we undermine our own principles. We undermine our own history, we undermine our own legal obligation under existing law, and we also undermine our standing in the world when we ask others to take in refugees but we say in our case that we cannot.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. It is true it is a political appointment, but to the Republic of South Korea. At a time when we are facing challenges in the South China Sea, where there is a dispute between China and Korea, where we have critical interests, where we are dealing with North Korea, we can't have an Ambassador to South Korea? Let me just say that I could go through a list of critical countries. And it is pretty amazing to me. I have some of my colleagues who have come to the floor to talk about national security. Well, national security isn't only about having a trigger and a gun. National security is also about having an ambassador in a country to ultimately press our case and our concerns as it relates to our bilateral relationship with that country. So places like Russia, which was objected to, places like South Korea, places like Guatemala, where we are having the crisis, and a whole bunch of African countries that were in the career list--we are going to have the African leader come here next Monday and Tuesday, but we are not going to have ambassadors to a whole bunch of their countries--career ambassadors to a whole bunch of their countries. That is not in the national interests and security of the United States. I hope that after having waited quite some time in order to finally get to this point where I felt the necessity to come to the floor and ask for unanimous consent, that instead of the trickle that we occasionally get because there is a crisis and therefore there is a response to the crisis, that we can avoid responding by crisis and having people in places that maybe would help us to ensure that the crisis doesn't take place. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. MENENDEZ. The gentleman who is nominated, a career nominee to be the Ambassador to Guatemala is Todd D. Robinson.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I say to my distinguished colleague from Delaware that I already included the Ambassador to Guatemala in my list and there was objection. If the Senator from Wyoming, who I believe is not doing this in his own course but on behalf of his leadership, has an indication that he would accept that, I would be happy to do it; otherwise, I think we would further not be able to achieve it.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 958, Todd D. Robinson to be the Ambassador to Guatemala; that the nomination be confirmed; that the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table; that no intervening action or debate or further motions be in order to that nomination; that any related statements be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I will close on this. Look, the reality is that if each of these ambassadors was going to be brought up and had to go through cloture and go through the whole process of time or the debate time that would be attributed to each one of them, we would spend the rest of this congressional session doing exactly that. That would not help our national security interests in terms of getting these people in place. I want to get these people in place. I have limited the requests to countries that have career individuals and to countries that also are critical for our national security. I just hope that, in the national interest of the United States, we can come to a better position at some other time. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise in support of all of the career Foreign Service officers whose nominations have been held up in the Chamber until there is a crisis somewhere in the world, until there is a Presidential or Vice Presidential trip to some part of the world that suddenly demands our attention, and then miraculously holds are lifted and nominees are approved. On a Thursday, Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 crashed in eastern Ukraine. On the following Monday, the Senate confirmed Michael Lawson as the U.S. Ambassador to the International Civil Aviation Organization. He had been pending before the Senate. His first day on the job, his first time meeting his colleagues, he was forced to grapple with this crisis. In the last week or 10 days, two more plane crashes have occurred in Taiwan and in Mali, an Algerian plane. Random events around the world cannot determine when the Senate acts on nominees. We cannot continue to follow a policy of confirmation by crisis. It took the President to travel to Saudi Arabia--an important ally--and the Vice President to travel to Chile for the Senate to confirm the nominees to those countries. In the case of Chile, Ambassador Hammer was taken to his new office in Santiago for his first day on the job on Air Force Two because the Senate approved his nomination just before the Vice President was to visit Chile. It should not require flying on Air Force Two to get to your posting for your first day of work as a U.S. Ambassador. Take the case of our Ambassador to Qatar. She waited for months, and then Bergdahl was exchanged for five Guantanamo detainees released to Qatar, and suddenly she was approved. It almost required the President to be ``wheels up'' on Air Force One on his way to Riyadh before we confirmed an Ambassador to Saudi Arabia. I repeat, the criteria for confirming nominees should not be determined by a sudden just-breaking crisis, with the urgent need to fill a vacant post. Confirmation-by-crisis is not a strategy. It is not in the national security interests of the United States. Now the Foreign Relations Committee has moved judiciously--in some cases with record-setting speed--to confirm nominees. In the face of obstructionism on the floor of the Senate, the committee has proven that bipartisanship is not only possible but it can thrive when American national security interests are put first. It is my view that we must lift up our Ambassadors and their families, not put them down. These individuals are serving our Nation. Their families are sacrificing for our Nation. They deserve better. Our career Foreign Service officers serve Democratic and Republican Presidents. They should not, must not be treated as political pawns. We cannot continue to allow the pulpits where we preach American values to remain vacant. No Nation can listen to us if we are not present to speak for ourselves. American leadership can only occur if American leaders are present on the international stage. The Senate standoff that has left so many career Foreign Service nominees in political and personal limbo is damaging our credibility, undermining our national security, and it has to end now. I rise today for the career ambassadors who have not gotten the decency of a vote in the Senate, career ambassadors who are waiting, along with their families, for months, some more than a year, to take their posts. They are trapped on the Executive Calendar, unable to assume their appointed posts because the leadership on the Republican side has chosen to hold them hostage as a political tool. They have consciously chosen a strategy to do nothing, pass nothing, approve nothing, and leave key diplomatic posts unfilled for months, threatening national security and our ability to conduct foreign policy. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominees: Calendar No. 524, Adam M. Scheinman to be Special Representative of the President for Nuclear Nonproliferation, with the rank of Ambassador; Calendar No. 533, Karen Stanton to be the Ambassador to the Republic of Timor-Leste; Calendar No. 536, Eric Schultz to be Ambassador to the Republic of Zambia; Calendar No. 540, Donald Lu to be the Ambassador to the Republic of Albania; Calendar No. 542, Amy Hyatt to be Ambassador to the Republic of Palau; Calendar No. 544, John Hoover to be the Ambassador to the Republic of Sierra Leone; Calendar No. 546, Matthew Harrington to be the Ambassador to the Kingdom of Lesotho; Calendar No. 548, Thomas Daughton to be the Ambassador to Namibia; Calendar No. 637, Arnold Chacon to be Director General of the Foreign Service; Calendar No. 696, Luis Moreno to be Ambassador to Jamaica; Calendar No. 699, Maureen Cormack to be the Ambassador to Bosnia and Herzegovina; Calendar No. 707, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, an Assistant Secretary of State of African Affairs, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the African Development Foundation; Calendar No. 898, Ted Osius to be Ambassador to the Republic of Vietnam; Calendar No. 902, Gentry O. Smith to be Director of the Office of Foreign Missions and have the rank of Ambassador during his tenure; Calendar No. 927, Leslie Bassett to be Ambassador to Paraguay; Calendar No. 953, George Albert Krol to be Ambassador to the Republic of Kazakhstan; Calendar No. 954, Marcia Stephens Bloom Bernicat to be Ambassador to the People's Republic of Bangladesh; Calendar No. 955, James D. Pettit to be Ambassador to the Republic of Moldova; Calendar No. 956, John R. Bass to be Ambassador to the Republic of Turkey; Calendar No. 957, Allan P. Mustard to be Ambassador to Turkmenistan; Calendar No. 958, Todd Robinson to be Ambassador to the Republic of Guatemala; Calendar No. 961, Erica J. Barks Ruggles to be Ambassador to the Republic of Rwanda; Calendar No. 962, Brent Robert Hartley to be Ambassador to the Republic of Slovenia; Calendar No. 966, Michele Jeanne Sison to be the Deputy Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations, with the rank and status of Ambassador, and the Deputy Representative of the United States of America to the Security Council of the United Nations; finally, Calendar No. 967, Michele Jeanne Sison to be Representative of the United States of America to the Sessions of the General Assembly of the United Nations, during her tenure of service as the Deputy Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I appreciate that. Further, that their nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations; that any related statements be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I don't know about nuclear options, but I do know about national security. When we have objections to some career ambassadors--I am not even talking about other nominees who are equally as important to places in the world where we face a challenge. But when I extract those out of the list that are also pending before the Senate in critical places in the world and just say, my God, if a career ambassador--someone who serves under Democratic and Republican administrations and has committed their life to the service of our country in the foreign service--cannot get to their places, I don't understand. I don't understand how we can actually object to places like Guatemala where we are having the crisis that we just debated right now. Wouldn't it be great to have a U.S. Ambassador to Guatemala to direct the Guatemalan Government as to our concerns about how children are coming here? Wouldn't it be great to have the Ambassador to Turkey at a time when we have all of these challenges in the region, where Turkey has a huge number of Syrian refugees. And we say we object to those? Or Vietnam, where we are looking at a 123 nuclear agreement and where we are concerned about what China is doing in the South China Sea as it ultimately challenges Vietnam in international waters for drilling purposes? And the list goes on and on. So let me at least try some. If I can't do them as a bloc, let's see if we can get somebody confirmed here at the end of the day to critical positions. So let me ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider this following nomination: Calendar No. 968, John Tefft to be Ambassador to Russia, a career ambassador. Now, imagine if we cannot send a United States Ambassador to Russia in the midst of the enormous challenges. So I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider nomination Calendar No. 968, John Tefft, Ambassador to Russia; that the nomination be confirmed; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that there be no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to that nomination; that any related statements be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, this is not a procedure the majority set up. The procedure that is being set up is one where career nominees and critical nominees are being held on the floor as a procedure that the Republicans have decided to do. Let me try once again. Let's see whether there is a more important place than Russia. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: Mark Lippert to be Ambassador to South Korea, Calendar No. 893; that the nomination be confirmed; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be made in order to that nomination; that any related statements be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative business.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I will be very brief. I want to join Senator Rubio, if I can have 2 minutes as well, before going to Senator Merkley. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the modified request is agreed to. The Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 4 minutes.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Oregon for his courtesy in allowing me to do so. I agree with everything my colleague from Florida Senator Rubio has said about this issue, and I appreciate his leadership alongside with us. He has been following Venezuela intimately. So many people in the State of Florida have exiled there, and so he personally understands this issue and he has been a tremendous champion. Since February of this year, hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan citizens have protested about the lack of security from rampant crime and violence and an inflation rate that is the highest in the world and a scarcity of food and basic consumer goods that has become part of their daily lives. But instead of listening to the legitimate concerns of its people, the Government of Venezuela has responded with a deplorable display of force and brutality that was seen around the world. To date there have been more than 40 deaths, more than 50 documented cases of torture, and more than 2,000 unlawful detentions. In May of this year Human Rights Watch released a report on these human rights violations. The report documented how Venezuelan security forces systematically violated the rights of students, women, men, members of the political opposition, and journalists. They said they did so ``to punish people for their political views.'' Last week the Venezuelan Government opened its show trial against opposition leader and prisoner of conscience Leopoldo Lopez. After spending 5 months in a military prison just for speaking his mind, Mr. Lopez and his attorney were barred from presenting any evidence in his defense--none. No defense allowed. If that were not enough, we saw that recent events showed that the Venezuelan Government is even willing to threaten regional stability to get its way. Last week law enforcement officials in Aruba picked up Hugo Carvajal, the former head of the Venezuelan military intelligence and an individual who was designated as a drug kingpin by the U.S. Department of Treasury back in 2008. When indictments were unsealed last week, the world saw evidence of how a senior Venezuelan Government official was deeply involved in the international drug trade, allowing traffickers to operate freely in Venezuelan territory and even coordinating drug shipments himself. When this official was arrested, what did the Venezuelan Government do? It threatened to cut off flights from Venezuela to Aruba and Curacao. It threatened to end a contract with Curacao's oil refinery, and it moved naval vessels into the waters surrounding these islands. In short, it resorted to every form of blackmail and coercion at its disposition until the Dutch Government released Mr. Carvajal. We should be clear that democracy has had its opportunity. In recent months foreign ministers from across South America and the Vatican have attempted to mediate dialogue between President Maduro and his allies and the political opposition, and they have not been able to accomplish it. It is time to move more vigorously forward with the types of sanctions and other efforts envisioned in the other legislation I and Senator Rubio have offered, and if we do that tomorrow we will send a message to the hemisphere and to the people of Venezuela that, in fact, they have a real opportunity to have their voices heard, and we will stand on the right side of human rights and democracy. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, first of all, let me say I am really moved by Senator Booker's passion, Senator Nelson's clarity of thought, and by my other colleagues who have joined us. I am compelled to join them because we do have a crisis, but we also have, in my mind, a clear moral and legal compass we need to follow. We have a refugee crisis on our southern border, which I argue requires an emergency response domestically and the urgent recalibration of our foreign policy. Why do I say that? Because, as I have argued for several years in the Foreign Relations Committee, the continuous cuts we have had in the programs that are in our national interests, in our national security, were going to bring us a day in which we would rue the consequences of those cuts. So here we are with Honduras having the No. 1 murder rate per capita in the world, and the other two Central American countries from which these children are fleeing in the top five in the world. As Senator Nelson spoke so eloquently, there is the whole question of the narcotics trafficking taking place, using this as a via to the United States where the demand is, and the total inability of these countries to deal with entities that have more money and very often have more firepower than any of the national governments that are engaged. Then add to that the dynamic and explosive growth of gangs. I am talking about gangs armed and fueled with money in a symbiotic relationship with the drug traffickers. That creates a challenge. In one of these countries it went from 600 to 40,000 members of a gang. This isn't about some far-off place; this is right here in our own front yard, in our hemisphere, a very relatively short distance. Unless we deal with the root causes of these problems, there will be no resources or any change in law that is going to ultimately meet the challenge of those who flee because to stay is to die. So that is the challenge we have before us. We have to deal with that challenge on our southern border, and our distinguished chair of the Appropriations Committee has fashioned a package I think is balanced and seeks to do that. But as we deal with this refugee crisis, in my view, it is equally important that we not rush to change our laws in a way that strips children of the very rights for which we have been known as a country. I am not even talking about the 2008 law; I am talking about the very essence of our immigration law for decades that has asylum as a fundamental pillar. It is imperative to understand this is a desperate effort by desperate parents to do what any parent would do to protect their child from violence and the threat of death. Imagine the circumstances a parent must be in to send an 8-year-old on a treacherous journey of 2,000 miles where all things can happen to them in the hope--in the hope--they can arrive and make a claim for asylum, but not knowing whether their child will actually be able to arrive alive. That is some dramatic choice, but those are choices facing these parents. These children are facing tremendous threats: towns and schools controlled by narcotic traffickers, gangs threatening to kill them, rapes and manufacturers. In the Foreign Relations Committee recently, we held a hearing and I noted a piece that was written in the New York Times by Pulitzer Prize- winning author Sonia Nazario, who testified before the committee. This was to give the Senate the sense of what we are talking about. A young boy named Christian Omar Reyes, a sixth grader--his father was murdered by gangs while working as a security guard. Three people he knows have been murdered this year. Four others were gunned down on a corner near his house in the first 2 weeks of this year. A girl his age was beaten, had a hole cut in her throat, her body left in a ravine across from his house. Christian said: It is time to flee. Carlos Baquedana, a 14-year-old who worked in a dump picking scrap metal when he was a boy, making a dollar or two a day, when he was 9 years old, barely escaped two drug traffickers who were trying to rape him. When he was 10, the drug traffickers pressured him to try drugs and join a gang or die. He has known eight people who were murdered-- three killed in front of him. In one case he watched as two hit-men brazenly shot two young brothers execution style. Going to school is even too dangerous for him now. These stories are, unfortunately, not unique. They are tragic stories of life-changing experiences that too many children face in Central America every day--children such as Christian and Carlos whose stories are unknown but no less tragic. Let me take a moment to repeat that I strongly oppose changing existing law. The answer is not to repeal the law that keeps these children safe and gives them an opportunity--that is all the law gives them, an opportunity--to determine whether their status here can be adjusted under asylum. The answer is not to deny these children their day in court and send them back to very probable death. But those who want to repeal the 2008 law would be doing exactly that. If we provide the funding the government needs, the administration has the authority to deal with the crisis in a safe and humane way without turning our back on the rule of law that we take pride in as a nation. Antitrafficking organizations have explained to me that this trafficking law was designed by both Republicans and Democrats in broad bipartisan efforts to give special protections to children who cannot adequately represent themselves and who often do not self-identify as victims of abuse, crime or human trafficking. Congress sought to provide special protections for those who have fled thousands of miles in recognition of the fact that a larger percentage of these children may have very compelling and legitimate claims. Unfortunately, the Border Patrol's cursory review of Mexican children's claims often results in a failure to identify children who are at risk of persecution or trafficking, according to the U.N. Commissioner for Refugees. Extending this type of superficial screening to Central American children would certainly mean serious abuse or death upon their return. We can keep this important antitrafficking law and at the same time address the situation on the border. Let me explain how the administration already--already--has the authority to control this crisis. Critics have complained that the 2008 trafficking law requires children to be released into the community, but what the law actually says is that children need to be held in the manner that is in the ``best interests of the child.'' In this situation, where we are dealing with an influx of thousands of children, it is clearly in the best interests of these children to hold them in a safe and clean shelter rather than returning them to face possible death or quickly releasing them into the hands of a sponsor who may not be properly vetted. Failure to properly screen these children could result in children being returned to their very traffickers. Critics have also complained that deportation hearings do not take place for years after the children arrive and that this creates an incentive for children to come to the United States. But the law allows the Justice Department to hold hearings much more quickly--without denying due process--by moving recently arriving children and families to the front of the line for hearings before a judge. As the Justice Department testified last week before the Appropriations Committee hearing, that is exactly what they are doing-- surging resources and expediting full hearings. This expedited process that still protects due process would send a signal to the parents in Central America that children without valid claims--and there will be a significant universe that will not have a valid claim and will be deported--will not be able to stay in the United States. But at the same time we protect the rights of legitimate refugees and trafficking victims. So while not every single child apprehended at the border will have a valid claim to stay in the country, and many will be deported, we have a moral and a legal obligation to keep them safe until their status is resolved. The answer is not to repeal the law that protects them but to enforce it and to provide the administration with the resources it requested to address both the domestic and international aspects of this crisis. This problem was not created overnight, and it will not be solved overnight. But the solution is not to abandon our values and the rule of law that we uphold as an example to other nations so every child will be safe wherever they may live. If we do this now, I can tell you, I do not know how we will have any authority to look at any other country in the world and say to them: You must accept refugees from Syria, you must accept refugees from Congo, the Dominican Republic, you must accept refugees from Haiti. The list goes on and on. There is a reason this law was passed. It was passed to say if you are fleeing 2,000 miles to try to come to the United States, there may be a greater probability that you have a real case to be made for asylum because you have a credible fear for the loss of your life. As I hear those who advocate for the rule of law, I say you are right. The rule of law means you do not undermine the law or change it when you do not want to ultimately live under it. You obey it. You obey it. If you flee 2,000 miles because you were told by the gangs to join or die or if you were raped and you flee 2,000 miles never to experience that tragic and traumatic set of circumstances again, you have a very compelling case. So let me close by saying the fact is there are some who are exploiting this issue for political gain, some who could not even see their way to cast a vote or to allow a vote on the type of comprehensive immigration reform the Senate passed on a broad, bipartisan basis in which both border control and human trafficking and all of these other issues we are now facing would have had the resources and would be addressed. I also find it incredible to see the Governor of Texas saying he is going to send the National Guard to the border. What is the National Guard going to do in what is otherwise a Federal law enforcement obligation with Border Patrol agents who ultimately are obviously interdicting these young people but they are actually turning themselves over to them. What is the National Guard, with rifles, going to do at the Texas border that the Border Patrol cannot do themselves? This supplemental bill is almost entirely for enforcement of the law. I know Republicans have been saying for years they want more money for enforcement of immigration law. Well, folks, here it is. Here it is. I cannot believe with the resources that are going to the very States that say they face a challenge, there will be those who will vote against it. I cannot believe that just because the President is proposing it, they cannot ultimately find their way to vote for the money that is going to go largely to the States that face the most critical challenge at this time. So that is what our immigration debate has come to. We began this Congress with an overwhelming bipartisan vote in favor of commonsense immigration reform, and here we are unwilling to even provide something I have never voted for but will--strictly enforcement funding. We have Republicans calling for DREAMers to be deported as part of this bill in the House of Representatives and a rollback of legislation to protect small children from human trafficking. That is what we have come to. Rolling back this law, which passed with broad bipartisan support in both Houses of the Congress and was signed by a Republican President, is not something I can personally accept, and I will use the procedures of the Senate--I hope with others who feel the same--if that is the choice that has to come before us, not to permit that to happen. The President has the authority to control this crisis already. Let's give him the resources to do the job, and let us, in the process of doing that, not create a dark day in our Nation's history which we will regret for years to come. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I come again to the floor to speak about one of our greatest national security challenges, which is a nuclear-armed Iran and the latest conflicting remarks coming from Iran's leaders. I will say at the outset, as I have said in the past, I support the administration's diplomatic efforts. I have always supported a bipartisan, two-track policy of diplomacy and sanctions. At the same time, I am convinced that we should only relieve pressure on Iran in exchange for very verifiable concessions that will fundamentally dismantle Iran's illicit nuclear program and that any deal be structured in such a way that alarm bells will sound from Vienna to Washington to Moscow and Beijing should Iran restart its program anytime in the next 20 or 30 years. I am gravely concerned by the recent remarks of Iran's Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah, whose views about what Iran is willing to give up in a deal seem to deliberately undermine the positions of Iran's negotiators in Vienna and clearly curtail their flexibility as we enter into a critical stage of the talks. Yesterday, Foreign Minister Zarif gave an interview that went public with Iran's negotiating position. Let's break down exactly what it is he offered. He said Iran will freeze its nuclear fuel program for several years in exchange for being treated like other peaceful nuclear nations and for sanctions relief. Let's be clear. This will leave 19,000 centrifuges spinning in Iran. It would not, from what I can tell, require Iran to dismantle anything. In my view, that is not a starting place for an end game. It is the same obfuscation and the same Iranian tactics we have seen for years and decades. Iran puts offers on the table that appear to be concessions but in reality are designed to preserve Iranian illicit nuclear infrastructure and enrichment so that the capacity to break out and rush toward a nuclear weapon is still very much within reach. That is not an end game; it is a nonstarter. Essentially what Zarif is offering is the same concessions as what Iran made for the interim agreement over 6 months ago. In exchange, Iran gets sanction relief--except we know Iran is not like any other nation, and its history of cheating, lying, and evading inspections proves it. One commentator said this morning: ``So it seems that Iran is trying to protect its nuclear breakout capacity while trying to appear moderate.'' Zarif's proposal last night is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. It is more moderate than the Ayatollah's outlandish demand for 190,000 centrifuges last week, but at its core it is an offer to not give anything in terms of enrichment capacity and in exchange receive sanctions relief, and that is unacceptable. The Zarif proposal will extend the joint plan of action, allowing Iran's nuclear program to run in place subject to inspections but will not make a single concession--none--that would demonstrably set back Iran's nuclear ambitions in the long term, including no concessions on the number of centrifuges in the secret Fordow enrichment facility. Iran would get the relief it wants while retaining the infrastructure to quickly rebuild its stockpile of highly enriched uranium. That is straight out of the North Korea handbook--freeze and preserve your ability for a future date. I remind my colleagues in the Senate that in October of 1994, the United States and North Korea signed an agreed framework which the international community hoped would end the ongoing crisis over North Korea's nuclear program. The agreement froze the operation and construction of North Korea's nuclear reactors which were part of its covert nuclear weapons program. In exchange, the United States agreed to provide two proliferation-resistant nuclear power reactors. There were high hopes for the agreement. Many called it a first step in the full normalization of political and economic relations with North Korea. While North Korea carried out some of the measures in the agreement, it simultaneously continued its ballistic missile program by improving the range and accuracy of its missiles, and it secretly began to pursue a clandestine program to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons separate from the plutonium program which the agreement had frozen. Once again, international tensions came to a head in January of 2003 when North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and following its withdrawal from the NPT, North Korea kicked out IAEA inspectors, restarted the nuclear reactor that had been frozen under the 1994 agreed framework, and began moving spent fuel rods to a reprocessing center that could produce plutonium. At the time of its withdrawal, North Korea, like Iran, said it ``had no intention of making nuclear weapons'' and that its nuclear activities ``would be confined only to power production and other peaceful purposes.'' Of course, as we know now, North Korea would conduct a nuclear test establishing its potential to build nuclear weapons. This history should serve as a warning about what could happen if we allow Iran to maintain a robust nuclear infrastructure. The fact is that Iran is simply agreeing to freeze and to temporarily lock the door on its nuclear weapons program as is and walk away. Should they later walk away from the deal, as they have in the past, they can simply unlock the door and continue their nuclear weapons program from where they are today. That is exactly what the talks--in my mind--were intended to avoid. As I stand here, there is a rush for our negotiators in Vienna and Secretary Kerry to go and try to save the essence of what seems to be a significant distance between the parties. I know our side is working in good faith to reach an agreement. Our terms have been on the table for months, and now, at the critical hour, the Supreme Leader throws a monkey wrench into the negotiations and even surprises his own negotiating team by demanding that 190,000 centrifuges remain for any final deal. At this point it is our obligation to ask some very pointed questions. Are Zarif and President Ruhani truly empowered to make this deal? Even though Zarif and Ruhani's intentions seem sincere, can we say the same about the ultimate decisionmaker in Tehran, Supreme Leader Khamenei? Does the Supreme Leader truly want a deal or are his redlines an attempt to undermine the negotiations? Secretary Kerry said this morning that ``the U.S. believes Iran has the right to a peaceful nuclear program under the NPT.'' Let's remind ourselves of first principles. No country has a right to enrichment. They may have the ability to enrichment or a desire to enrich, but they do not have the right to enrich, and certainly not Iran given its past behavior. Let's remember how we reached this point. Over a period of decades, Iran has deceived the international community about its nuclear program, breaching its international commitment in what everyone agrees was an attempt to make Iran a nuclear weapons state or at least a threshold state. Experts such as those at the Institute for Science and International Security believe that Iran began building a secret uranium enrichment centrifuge facility underground at Fordow in 2006--3 years--3 years--before it was declared to the International Atomic Energy Administration. Now Iran is seeking to turn the tables on the negotiation to again convince the international community--through words rather than deeds--that it seeks a peaceful nuclear energy program. The Supreme Leader called the idea of closing Fordow ``laughable.'' For my colleagues, this is a facility built under a mountain, declared only after Iran was caught cheating, and designed to withstand a military strike. It does not take a nuclear expert to draw the obvious conclusion about Iran's intentions. If Iran can't even agree to close the facility that is at the heart of its covert enrichment program, what concessions can it possibly make that would address international concerns? Are we supposed to take Iran at its word when its actions have demonstrated over years that it is not a good-faith actor? Are we supposed to believe that Iran wants 190,000 centrifuges--about 171,000 more than it has right now--for peaceful purposes? That is truly laughable. Even for a country that doesn't have the world's third largest oil reserves--which Iran does--that would be an absurd position. Iran can-- and in fact already does--get cheaper and better nuclear fuel for the Bushehr reactor from Russia than it could make at home. Let me repeat that. It gets cheaper and better fuel from Russia for its nuclear reactor at the Bushehr facility than what it can make at home. Experts agree that centrifuges must be a part of the deal. David Albright, a respected former International Atomic Energy Administration inspector, has said for Iran's move from an interim to a final agreement, it would have to close the Fordow facility and remove between 15,000 and 16,000 of its existing 20,000 centrifuges. Even then, we are looking at a breakout time of about 6 to 8 months, depending on whether Iran has access to uranium enriched to just 3.5 percent or access to 20-percent enriched uranium. Dennis Ross, one of America's preeminent diplomats and foreign policy analysts, who has served under both Democratic and Republican Presidents, has said Iran should retain no more than 10 percent of its centrifuges. That is no more than 2,000. So maybe the comments we have heard from the Supreme Leader were, as some analysts have suggested, an effort by the Supreme Leader to superimpose limitations on the negotiating team so at some point they would be free to say these issues are out of their hands, in the hope of somehow forcing a better deal this week in Vienna. So I suggest that we are either seeing a not so clever game of good cop-bad cop or Iran's negotiators in Vienna have done a poor job of communicating what their boss believes is the bottom line at the negotiating table or maybe we just haven't been listening to what we don't want to hear. From the onset of the talks, Iran's Foreign Minister Zarif and President Rouhani have said they would not dismantle any centrifuges. President Rouhani was adamant in an interview on CNN that Iran would not be dismantling its centrifuges. Let me quote from that interview with Mr. Zakaria. President Rouhani: We are determined to provide for the nuclear fuel of such plants inside the country, at the hands of local Iranian scientists. We are going to follow on this path. Zakaria said: So there will be no destruction of centrifuges, of existing centrifuges? President Rouhani said: No, no, not at all. Let's remember that the onus in these talks is on Iran, not the P5+1. Iran is the party at fault. Iran is the party that came to these talks with unclean hands. Iran is the party that has been consistently and overwhelmingly rebuffed by the United Nations and the international community for its nuclear ambitions and support for terrorism, the subject of six U.N. Security Council resolutions and a multitude of sanctions regimes. Just last week the U.S. courts agreed to a landmark payment of $1.7 billion to the families of Iranian terror victims, including families of the 241 servicemembers who died in the bombing of the Marine Corps barracks bombing in Lebanon in 1983--31 years ago--and 19 who died in the Khobar Towers bombing in eastern Saudi Arabia in 1996--both bombings perpetrated by Iran. Iran's duplicity has been going on for decades. So who is the bad guy here? Now commentators may choose to see the U.S. Congress as the antagonist here, but I suggest they look across the table and decide whether they want to take a deal with Iran on a nod and a handshake. In my view, through its history, through its actions, through its false words and deeds for decades, Iran has forgone the ability for us to shake on a deal that freezes their program. The only option on the table can be a long-term deal that dismantles Iran's illicit nuclear weapons program--a deal that clearly provides for a long-term verification, inspection, and enforcement regime, and incentives for compliance in the form of sanctions relief-- based on Iranian actions that are verifiable, not on what Iran claims to be the truth. The fact is, from my perspective, there is no sanctions relief signing bonus. If Iran wants relief from sanctions, then it needs to tangibly demonstrate to the world it is giving up its quest for nuclear weapons--period. Let's remember that, although none of us in this Chamber are at the negotiating table, we have a tremendous stake in the outcome. Without Congress's bipartisan action on a clear sanctions regime, there would have been no talks and we would not even have had the hope of ending Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions. As a separate and coequal branch of government representing the American people, Congress has an obligation to provide oversight and a duty to express our views of what a comprehensive deal should look like. I will continue to come to this floor to express my views and my concerns given what we have heard and seen in the past from Iran. Iran has a history of duplicity with respect to its nuclear program, using past negotiations to cover advances in its nuclear program. And let's not forget that President Rouhani, as the former negotiator for Iran, said, in no uncertain terms: The day that we invited the three European ministers to the talks, only 10 centrifuges were spinning at Natanz. We could not produce one gram of U4 or U6. We did not have the heavy water production. We could not produce yellowcake. Our total production of centrifuges inside the country was 150. We wanted to complete all of these. We needed time. We did not stop. We completed the program. That is his quote. The simple truth is he admitted to deceiving the West. Everyone knows my history on this issue. Everyone knows where I stand. It is the same place I have always stood. For 20 years I have worked on Iran's nuclear issues, starting when I was a junior Member of the House, pressing for sanctions to prevent Iran from building the Bushehr nuclear powerplant and to halt IAEA support for Iranian mining and enrichment programs. For a decade I was told that my concern had no basis, that Iran would never be able to bring the Bushehr plant on line, and that Iran's activities were not a concern. Well, history has shown those assessments about Iran's abilities and intentions were simply wrong. The fact is Iran's nuclear aspirations have been a long and deliberate process. They did not materialize overnight, and they will not end simply with a good word and a handshake. We need verification. If Iran's nuclear weapons capability is frozen rather than largely dismantled, they will remain at the threshold of becoming a declared nuclear State should they choose to start again, because nothing will have changed if nothing is dismantled. Make no mistake. Iran views developing a nuclear capability as fundamental to its existence. It has seen the development of nuclear weapons as part of a regional hegemonic strategy to make Tehran the center of power throughout the region. That is why our allies and partners in the region--not just Israelis, but the Emiratis and the Saudis--are so skeptical and so concerned about having a leak-proof deal. Quite simply, our allies and partners do not trust Iranian leaders, nor do they believe that Iran has any intention of verifiably ending its nuclear weapons program. So while I welcome diplomatic efforts as what we have worked toward and I share the hope that the administration can achieve a final comprehensive agreement that eliminates this threat to global peace and security, for the U.S. Congress to support the relief that Iran is looking for, we will need a deal that doesn't just freeze Iran's nuclear weapons program, but a deal--demonstrated through verifiable action by Iran over years--that in fact turns back the clock and makes the world a safer place. Let me say the fact is there are those who have created a false narrative over the last 6 months that now seems to be self- perpetuating, that anyone who expresses an opinion different than the desire to have a deal--almost a deal at any cost--is a warmonger. For those who now say, Well, if we don't have a deal, then what? I would remind them of what the administration has said time and time again: No deal is better than a bad deal. I agree with that sentiment. But I am concerned that there are forces that would accept a deal even if it is a bad deal. This doesn't serve the interests of the negotiators at the table in Vienna, and it doesn't serve the interests of the American people who want to ensure that Iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon, and that any deal permanently eliminates the possibility that Iran could develop a nuclear weapon that threatens the international order. One mistake is all it takes. At the end of the day, keeping the pressure on Iran to completely satisfy the United Nations and the international community's demands to halt and reverse its illicit nuclear activities is the best way to avoid war in the first place. 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, we are here today to address a refugee crisis in America. I never thought I would have to use those words on the floor of the Senate, but there is no other way to describe what is happening on our southern border. What is happening in Central America--the violence, the kidnappings, the failure of the rule of law--is the root cause of the problem and it is threatening tens of thousands of families and thousands and thousands of children. It is causing a refugee crisis that is simply unacceptable in America and unacceptable in our hemisphere. Let's be clear. It is being caused in large measure by thousands in Central America who believe it is better to run for their lives and risk dying than stay and die for sure. It is nearly a 2,000-mile journey from these countries to the U.S. border. These families are not undertaking this journey lightly. My Republican colleagues make it sound as though parents are willingly choosing to risk their children's lives, send them on a 2,000-mile journey fraught with smugglers, thieves, child abductors, and sex traffickers as if that is a choice. They are parents, just as we are parents. I, as a parent, cannot imagine having to make that choice--to send them on a perilous journey with no guarantees of survival except out of an absolute fear for their lives if they stay. To politicize the decision to send a child away as opportunistic, as a way to take advantage of American law, is as cynical a position as I have ever heard. First of all, there is no deferred action. Nothing we did for DREAMers in this country would help any of these people. They don't qualify under any elements of that provision. The immigration reform that passed here in the Senate by a broad bipartisan vote--68 votes-- would not help any one of these people because they would have had to have been in the country by December 31, 2011. Nothing in that law is an attraction--nothing. Yet the Republicans in the House of Representatives will not even take a vote on immigration reform. Frankly, my Republican friends cannot have it both ways. They cannot criticize the President--in fact, sue the President--for abusing his Executive authority and at the same time come to this floor and criticize him for a lack of leadership when they will not even cast a vote. That is nothing if not totally and transparently political. This is not about a welcome mat. It is a desperate effort on the part of thousands of parents to do what parents instinctively do, and that is to do what you must do to protect your child from the threats of violence and death at home even if it means sending them away. Let's be clear. First and foremost, violence and crime are a pandemic that has sadly become part of life in Central America--in Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala. Honduras has the highest per capita murder rate in the world. El Salvador and Guatemala are in the top five in the world. Second, more than 80 percent of the illicit drugs coming from South America to the United States travel through Central America. Drug traffickers and local gangs harass and extort local residents, and they are able to use their profits to corrupt the police, judicial system, and government institutions. Third, the rates of poverty and inequality in these countries are sky high, while levels of economic growth and development lag far behind other countries in Latin America. A recent report by the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees found the majority of the minors they interviewed here in the United States had left their home country out of fear. The bottom line is we must attack this problem from a foreign policy perspective, from a refugee perspective, and from a national security perspective. We need to do all we can to stabilize the situation in Central America and stop the flow of children and refugees to our border. After a full year of squandering every conceivable opportunity to pass commonsense immigration reform, Speaker Boehner has admitted his party has killed any prospects for reform. Now we have to deal with the political consequences of the Republican leadership's obstructionism. I fully support the President's efforts to fix some of the most urgent problems facing our Nation's broken immigration system, and I look forward to seeing those families who are here and eligible receive relief from deportation as we continue to advocate for a permanent legislative solution. In the meantime, we need to provide emergency funding to deal with this refugee crisis. To begin with, the President's supplemental appropriation request is a very tough pro-enforcement legislation. By the way, as we talk about more money for enforcement, we are actually doing a good job in enforcement of the border. Why do I say that? Because the reason we know of the size of the refugee challenge we are facing is because we are interdicting and apprehending these people at the border and then putting them in detention facilities. It is not that the Border Patrol is not doing their job. They are doing their job. Yet we have a supplemental request on the appropriations bill that includes $3.7 billion for enforcement, Homeland Security, and other resources. It provides critical funding to prosecute traffickers who are bringing these kids here, and that is what my Republican colleagues have been asking for. Let's be clear. We need to keep the supplemental clean and free of riders and authorizing language. If we don't keep it clean, it will never get passed. One person will want to add an item to immigration reform, and then another person will want to add an item to immigration reform. The bottom line is this body already passed--with over 68 votes--comprehensive immigration reform. We don't need to have a debate on a bill we have already passed. We need to deal with the emergency. I love it when my Republican friends scream for action. This is emergency funding, and it is as conservative as it gets, focused almost entirely on enforcement. The bill is giving Republicans what they have always asked for--more money for border enforcement, especially in the border States. We need to provide the President with the money so he can handle the refugee crisis. It is what we expect of nations around the world. It is what we tell other nations around the world. The history of America is to treat refugees appropriately and according to international standards. Some of these children and families are refugees and some of them are not. The children who have claims should be able to pursue those claims with a day in court under existing U.S. law. If they lose, they will be deported. We have a legal system to address the crisis. Let's use it, and let's give the President the resources he needs to enforce it. The President's supplemental appropriations request, in my mind, is an essential beginning, but I hope the administration will consider the 20-point plan I laid out that deals, in part, and I think importantly, with the root causes. Because if we spend $3.7 billion for enforcement and spend what we have been spending, which is about $110 million among five countries in Central America to create citizen security so people don't flee in the first place, it seems to me we have this equation a little wrong. We are going to spend $3.7 billion to deal with the consequences, but we are going to spend $110 million to deal with the cause. If we don't deal with the cause, guess what. There will never be enough money, and there will always be a continuing challenge of refugees fleeing the violence in their countries. I hope we will increase aid for citizen security directed to help them with our law enforcement entities, to deal with the security of their country, to deal with the drug traffickers, to deal with the gangs. I hope we will increase aid to be able to create a sense of security in neighborhoods so people don't flee the country; so it isn't likely that your mother or father will be killed in front of you or your brother will be killed or your sister will be raped, which is increasingly the stories heard from these individuals, and that we will do it while implementing humane reforms that don't put innocent children in harm's way. South of our border, we are seeing unprecedented violence, unprecedented suffering, unprecedented abuse. This is far more than an immigration issue, it is a refugee issue, much as we have seen in other parts of the world, and we must stop it. It will not be easy. There are no easy answers and no easy fixes, but I, for one, believe we should muster all the outrage we can to come up with a short-term fix and a long-term solution, as well as a strategy that does the following: First, we have to identify the root causes of this far-reaching refugee problem. Second, we have to put pressure on governments in the hemisphere that are not handling crime and violence in their Nations in a way that prevents families from sending their children across the border in the first place. Third, we need to combat the smuggling and trafficking rings in Central America. That is in our own national security interests. Fourth, we have to effectively deal with the situation at hand and meet the humanitarian needs of these children-- and I mean children, 8 years old, 7 years old--no matter what it takes, without placing them in jail in the process. Fifth, we have to deal with the overriding issues and basic causes from a foreign policy point of view. Then, we can deal with the join-or-die gang recruitment and the gang threats against children and their families in the hemisphere--in Honduras and in Guatemala. Six, we have to do all we can to combat international crime, working with our neighbors to end the violence, threats, and crime activity that is destabilizing the region. Seventh, we need to crack down hard on the explosion of gangs and smugglers forcing families apart and preying on young children. I can tell my colleagues, as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I am seeing day after day violence in so many countries spreading to so many countries, but I have never seen or thought I would see refugees from this hemisphere spilling over our borders. We need to act, and we have to deal with the immediate crisis at hand. This is not just a challenge here. Asylum claims in the region, meaning to other countries in the Central American region, have skyrocketed by 700 percent in recent years. Current law protects the ability of those children under our system who apply for asylum and trafficking protection and other specialized forms of relief to have their day in court. Not every child will have a valid claim, and those who do not will ultimately be deported and reintegrated back to what is obviously a violent set of circumstances as it exists today, but that will be the case. But it is critically important that every child be given the chance to have due process under our existing law so we don't inadvertently return them to death and violence. There are better ways to deal with this population than through detention or expedited proceedings that don't undermine that due process. I would like the administration to explore the use of alternatives to detention for families we want to monitor and make sure they show up at their court proceedings. This supplemental appropriations bill should also include the opportunity to make sure we look at those systems and that the representation of children in court is an adequate one. While the short-term needs are very pressing, we must also not ignore the long-term importance of shoring up our regional security in Central America. Congress should increase funding for CARSI, the Central America Regional Security Initiative, to assist with narcotics interdiction, institutional capacity building, and violence prevention. State and USAID must develop a long-term strategy that includes increased development budgets to support sustainable growth. The Millennium Challenge Corporation should accelerate engagement in the region. I also think the State Department should designate a high-level coordinator to establish an office to be the focal point for policy formulation and a response to humanitarian concerns facing children escaping this region. Lastly, State and USAID should work together to establish effective repatriation and reintegration programs for children who are returning to their home countries. If we don't deal with the root causes, this is what is going to happen: We will expedite the process, we will deport, and when they go home and face the same violence we have done nothing to change, their option will still be the same, flee or die. And they will take the risk all over again, and we will have the challenge all over again. There are no easy answers, but I truly believe, at the end of the day, immigration reform--which had very significant border protection provisions, very significant antitrafficking and smuggling of individuals--in terms of assistance to deal with those challenges, would have been and is still incredibly important. Convincing our Republican colleagues in the House that if we continue to do nothing, then there will continue to be trouble on our borders and the refugee problem will only get worse seems to be a difficult proposition. The fact is the Senate-passed bill actually contains important border security measures. If it had been passed in the House 1 year ago when the Senate passed it and sent it over there, then maybe we would have preempted a good part of the challenge we have today. It contains antismuggling, antitrafficking measures. It contains provisions to address criminal activity. Yet the House Republican leadership cannot bring itself to marginalize the extreme rightwing and do what is right and just and fair. The bottom line is that we have to attack this problem from a refugee perspective, a foreign policy perspective, and a national security perspective. We need to do all we can to maximize our effort to fight the criminals, increase development opportunities, and provide the type of economic statecraft that can provide relief. We have to give families a chance to fight back economically and politically against those who are causing the violence and the illicit trafficking, the gang and drug violence, and those running criminal networks in the region. I am concerned and I am angry and it is time to fight back, but it is also time to deal with the crisis that is upon us, and we can only do that if we give the President the resources to meet the challenge. Failure to be willing to support the resources to do that will rest on those who cast a negative vote and, therefore, from my perspective, will risk the national security along the border of the United States, will risk the consequences of the humanitarian and refugee crisis that will continue to flow, and will risk the consequences of the drug traffickers in Central America, the gangs in Central America, all who use that as a route to come to the United States. It is easy to say no. It is far more difficult to be constructive. So far what I have heard in response to this crisis is the negativity of no, the criticism of the President for using Executive powers when the Congress of the United States fails to act in its own right. You can't have it both ways. This is a moment to call for the greater interests of the Nation than to play partisan politics that I have seen so far. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, rising from the ashes of the 1994 genocide, the Rwandan people can be proud of the progress their country has made over the past two decades. Through reconciliation and resilience, Rwanda has entered a new phase of economic growth and is working to protect civilians in other countries through its vital contributions to global peacekeeping missions. The world has cheered these successes, but today we have cause for concern. To cement its legacy as a world leader and model for development, there is in Rwanda today a clear need to ensure space for a thriving civil society--a hallmark of any democracy. I am deeply troubled by reports of shrinking space for dissenting voices. Rwanda's domestic human rights movement has been profoundly constrained by a combination of intimidation and stigmatization, threats, harassment, arbitrary arrests and detentions, infiltration, and administrative obstacles. The government's actions to censor domestic and international human rights groups appear to be part of a broader pattern of intolerance of criticism. In 2013, the United States, the United Kingdom, the United Nations Human Rights Council, Amnesty International, and Freedom House all expressed concern over the interference of the Rwandan Government in determining the leadership of the Rwandan League for the Promotion and Defense of Human Rights, one of the last remaining independent advocacy organizations in the country. This has effectively curtailed domestic civil society initiatives to monitor human rights abuses. In June of this year, the U.S. State Department cited its deep concern over the arrest and disappearance of dozens of Rwandan citizens over a period of 2 months, citing incommunicado detention and a lack of due process, as well as the threatening of journalists. Also in June, Human Rights Watch, HRW, an organization that has worked on Rwanda for more than 20 years and documented the 1994 genocide, was accused by the Ministry of Justice of political bias and collaboration with the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda, FDLR, some of whose members participated in the genocide and committed horrific human rights abuses in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, DRC. These accusations come in the wake of a May HRW critique of the Rwandan Government's actions, including forced disappearances, and discount HRW's constant critique of the FDLR's egregious human rights record in the DRC. HRW, the last independent international organization based in Kigali speaking out against human rights abuses, appears at increasing risk of not being able to do its job, and perhaps even of being shut down. Rwanda's past should not be used as an excuse to suppress free speech and independent reporting in Rwanda today. Dissent is an important tool for citizens in holding their elected leaders accountable. Peaceful, law-abiding individuals and organizations should not be labeled as conspirators or enemies of state because they question the government. Freedom of expression and due process are rights that should extend to all Rwandans and its visitors--including journalists, human rights advocates, opposition members, and everyday citizens alike. Rwanda has made great strides, but there is still work to do. As Rwanda faces its newest challenges, the United States stands with its people and remains committed to their success.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise to speak to the 42 very well- qualified and very patient nominees who, through no fault of their own and certainly no fault of the Foreign Relations Committee and no fault of their records of service to this Nation that have been established, are trapped on the executive calendar, unable to assume their appointed posts because the Republican leadership has chosen obstructionism as a political tool. They have consciously chosen the strategy to do nothing, pass nothing, approve nothing, and leave, most importantly in my view, key diplomatic posts unfilled for months, threatening in many cases national security and our ability to conduct foreign policy. Those who say that Congress is broken are wrong. The Congress isn't broken, but if the Republican leadership wants you to believe it is, they use every parliamentary tool to make certain, among other posts, we cannot fill key foreign policy positions. And the world waits, American foreign policy waits, diplomacy waits, and our allies wait to let these nominees and their families have some closure and get to work. The blame for these posts being left vacant with these people being in political limbo rests squarely on the shoulders of the Republican leadership. It is not a problem with Congress or the Democrats or the President or with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Never, to my knowledge, has this body as a political strategy obstructed en masse the appointments of noncontroversial career Foreign Service officers who have worked for both Democratic and Republican administrations. Never. Never have we held up appointments to so many ambassadorial positions, State Department positions, USAID positions, and representatives to the multilateral development banks. Eighteen of the forty-two pending nominees are ambassadors who would fill important posts in the Czech Republic, Bosnia, Albania, Gabon, Mauritania, Cameroon, Niger, Sierra Leone, Djibouti, and Kuwait. Nearly 20 percent--20 percent--of our total ambassadorial presence in Africa is being held up by the Republican leadership. All of them have waited on average 280 days--280 days--for Senate action. That is unfair to them. It is unfair to their families. It is bad policy. It is unnecessary, irresponsible, and completely unacceptable. And it has to end. It harms our regional coordination on issues such as food, security, and counterterrorism. We are seeing what is happening across Africa, particularly northern Africa, and we have a challenge. We have a challenge that involves our national interests and our national security. You cannot promote the solutions to those challenges if you don't have an ambassador on the ground in those countries. Let us remember that U.S. leadership plays a major role in supporting peace and security efforts alongside our development, democracy, and humanitarian goals across Africa and around the world, preventing us from being able to project power and leadership, leaving us--in my view--vulnerable from a national security standpoint. In West Africa, the Nigerian terrorist organization Boko Haram is perpetuating a brutal campaign of violence and fear, kidnapping young women and taking advantage of porous borders with Niger and Cameroon. The United States is leading an effort with our international partners to improve regional coordination to address both this threat and serious development challenges in the region. Unfortunately, the Senate has yet to confirm the ambassadorial nominees to Niger or Cameroon. We need to fill these ambassadorial positions in order to promote our interests and our coordination in the region in pursuit of some of these goals. Mauritania has been a key partner in addressing the terrorist threat posed by Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, AQIM, in Africa's volatile Sahel region. Let's not forget that the East African Nation of Djibouti holds U.S. Africa Command's Combined Joint Task Force--Horn of Africa and is the U.S. military's only enduring infrastructure in Africa, Camp Lemonnier, home to some 4,000 U.S. servicemembers and civilians. Our cooperation with Djibouti supports counterterrorism efforts against Al-Shabaab in Somalia and Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in nearby Yemen and anti-piracy operations in the Gulf of Aden. Al-Shabaab recently carried out its first terrorist attack in Djibouti, targeting a restaurant frequented by westerners. Yet our ambassadorial nominee, Thomas Kelly, remains unconfirmed. In addition to supporting peace and security efforts in Africa, the United States also plays a key role supporting democratic governance across the continent, which in turn contributes to greater stability. Niger and Namibia are set to hold Presidential elections within the next 9 months and both ambassadorial nominees have yet to be confirmed by the full Senate. At a time when stability in parts of Africa is tenuous, at best, with conflicts, famine, and the ever-increasing threat from criminal and terrorist organizations, it is simply not in our national interest to have the President's nominees--many of them career Foreign Service officers--in many cases held up for political reasons for nearly a year--a year in so many cases. U.S. leadership in international organizations is being negatively affected. In fact, the nominee for Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs was reported to the Senate on March 3. Her nomination is not the least bit controversial, and yet she has not been confirmed. Nominees for posts at the United Nations have been pending for months, including the nominee to be U.S. Representative to the U.N. Conference on Disarmament, who was reported out on March 11. These gaps have affected our credibility around the world, and they are affecting U.S. national security. It is worth understanding that this list is not static. We are constantly adding nominees to the Executive Calendar. We held hearings for an additional five nominees last week. Four more had their hearings today, chaired by Senator Cardin--who is here on the floor with me and has done an exceptional job in this regard--including our nominees to be ambassador to Korea and Vietnam. Simply stated, the backlog is weakening America's role in the world. The vast majority of these nominees are uncontroversial. They have passed committee by voice vote, not even a recorded vote, and are nominations that normally would have gone through the Senate en bloc by unanimous consent. Holding them hostage is simply wrong on every level. Never has one party stood in the way of full and complete conduct of foreign policy, and it is time the American people understand who is to blame for the dysfunction that is holding them hostage for political reasons. And as we hold up action on these nominees, the world is convulsing. The days are filled with a steady stream of breaking-news stories, disheartening images, trending tweets of reports of unrest in Ukraine, Iraq, Venezuela; mass atrocities in Syria, South Sudan, the Central African Republic; heart-wrenching accounts of kidnapped girls in Nigeria and alarming events of violence against women in Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and other parts of the world. That is the daily diet of what we see unfolding across the world. American leadership is expected by the international community during this challenging period, and it is in fact something that is in our own national interests and national security interests. Some complain that the United States does too much and others argue that we don't do enough, but always the debate in foreign affairs is centered on our Nation and the vital role we fill within the international system. We live in a new world defined by technological advancement and rapid globalization, but we are history-bound by a deeply imbued duty to provide moral clarity when it appears lacking, of serving as a lighthouse to a community of nations undergoing profound transformation. In one very particular arena, we are failing this charge. We are leaving our embassies without the tools they need, without the necessary leadership to pick up that metaphorical hammer. Using obstruction as a political tool, we are being forced to turn from our vital responsibility of confirming ambassadorial nominees to conduct American foreign policy. That means turning from our responsibility in everything from providing emergency services for Americans abroad to responding to humanitarian crises around the world, to supporting U.S. businesses and our commerce agenda overseas. The lack of confirmed ambassadors is crippling our global agenda. Consider this: Key U.S.-held positions at the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, the Inter-American Development Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and other international financial institutions are not filled. Seizing the opportunity, Russia and China are actively lobbying IMF members to reduce U.S. ownership share in the bank. Just recently, Christine Lagarde, IMF managing director said: ``I wouldn't be surprised if one of these days the IMF was headquartered in Beijing.'' No nation can hear what we have to say if we are not there, if we have no voice. It is not an overstatement to say our national security is affected by Republican noncooperation. One example is the Assistant Secretary of State for Verification, Compliance, and Implementation tasked with monitoring and verifying our arms control agreements remains empty, and that affects our ability to design and implement a potential agreement to halt Iran's illicit nuclear weapons program. Last week, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing for the nominees to serve in Egypt, Iraq, and Qatar. Imagine those countries not having a U.S. ambassador during a time when they are going through massive turmoil and change--some of them, not all of them, but Iraq is certainly going through turmoil. We will soon vote to approve these Foreign Service officers, but there is no guarantee they will be confirmed expeditiously by the Senate despite the very obvious need for a constant U.S. presence in these Nations. Iraq is on the verge of civil war and we have no way to confirm Stu Jones, a very qualified nominee who is currently serving in Jordan for the post to replace Robert Beecroft, who is headed to Egypt but is currently in Iraq. That this scenario is even a possibility, given their pending assignments, concerns me and should concern all of us. Perhaps their fate will be similar to the nominee to Kuwait, who has not received a confirmation vote for nearly 200 days. The Emir of Kuwait recently made a historic visit to Iran. Persistent reports link wealthy Kuwaiti donors to a variety of extremists, including the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria--the ISIS, which is threatening Iraq. Yet we lack the ambassador's ears and eyes on the ground to provide the analysis we need. Of the 42 unconfirmed nominees, almost half are career ambassadors, who, as I said earlier, have served this Nation for a lifetime on behalf of Democratic and Republican administrations. Some were already confirmed, as I said earlier, in the past by the Senate and served as ambassadors in previous posts. So let me conclude by saying since becoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, we have debated and voted to approve 125 nominees, oftentimes unanimously and without discord. But apparently the pricetag for Leader Reid executing what some call the nuclear option to get anything done in the Senate is the Republican leadership's intransigence that gums up the Senate proceedings, particularly holding ambassadorial nominees hostage and in so doing harming our national security objectives. This standoff is having very negative and real implications in the world that is beset by chaos and in need of American engagement. It has to end and it has to end now. It is not about a Republican or a Democratic divide in terms of importance. This is about the national interests and security of the United States. If we are not in our embassies abroad as a leader, we can do all the diplomacy and efforts from the State Department, but at the end of the day the person on the ground every day and engaging with the leadership of that country and promoting American ideals, values, and interests is the ambassador. In the absence of an ambassador, we cannot be heard. I don't want the United States not to be heard. I see my colleague from Maryland, a distinguished member of the committee who has held so many of these hearings for nominees and has done a fantastic job on behalf of the committee. He is going to speak next. As the chair of one of our key subcommittees, it is critical, as you will hear from him, that we have our nominees so our interests can be represented. I yield the floor.