Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, today the United States men's soccer team begins its quest for World Cup glory in Brazil. The 23 players selected by head coach Juurgen Klinsmann include native New Jerseyans Tim Howard, Michael Bradley, Jozy Altidore, and Alejandro Bedoya. They have dedicated themselves to being the best at their craft, and now have an opportunity to represent the United States of America at the world's premier soccer event. The World Cup is an extraordinary tournament whose reach extends well beyond the pitch. It has the incredible ability to unify peoples in celebration and even halt civil conflict, as was seen temporarily in Coote d'Ivoire in 2006. I sincerely hope that moving into the future, the institution of the World Cup can be a symbol of increased international cooperation. While many consider the U.S. a relatively recent addition to the global soccer community compared to our friends in Europe and South America, we actually finished third at the first ever World Cup held in Uruguay in 1930. I hope that this U.S. team will build upon our rich soccer history and represent our great Nation well in our seventh consecutive World Cup appearance. As our supporters say, ``onward U.S.A.!''

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, 2 weeks ago I came to the Senate floor to ask unanimous consent to ratify the protocol amending our tax treaty with Switzerland. I argued that the new protocol would no longer permit Swiss banks to withhold information on U.S. individuals who have hidden behind Swiss bank secrecy laws to avoid paying U.S. taxes. Today I come to the Senate floor to ask unanimous consent to ratify the bilateral income tax treaty with Chile. If the protocol with Switzerland is the perfect example of how tax treaties enhance our efforts to prevent tax evasion, the treaty with Chile--the first between our two countries--is the perfect example of why the United States pursues tax treaties. We pursue them to promote greater trading investment. We pursue them to protect American companies from double taxation. We pursue them to expand new markets and develop new business opportunities for companies and investors. On April 1 the Foreign Relations Committee, with strong bipartisan support, reported favorably on a proposed new income tax treaty with Chile. If ratified, the treaty would be only the third U.S. tax treaty in all of Latin America, but it would be a significant step forward in a region critical to U.S. international economic interests and would be with one of our strongest allies in the hemisphere. What does this treaty do? Simply put, it promotes trade and investment between the United States and Chile. It provides for reduced withholding rates on cross-border payments of dividends, interest, and royalties. It would prevent avoidance or evasion of the taxes, includes rigorous protections against treaty shopping, and ensures exchange of information between our nations' tax authorities. Let me also add, the American private sector's support for this treaty is unequivocal. To quote from a 2013 letter to Senate leaders from the National Foreign Trade Council, the National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and other major U.S. business associations, `` . . . ratification would represent an important milestone in lowering tax barriers to U.S. companies operating in Latin America . . . and would protect the interests of U.S. taxpayers'' in Chile. This protects and grows U.S. investment in Chile. It expands U.S. economic engagement in the region, and that is a win-win-win. I know there are those in the Chamber who do not see it that way, but these are the facts of economic engagement and economic statecraft in the hemisphere. In the last decade, Chile has taken a regional leadership role on trade issues. It is one of our most important bilateral economic partners in the region. Total bilateral trade has nearly tripled since 2003, and U.S. investment in Chile has more than tripled from $10 billion in 2004 to roughly $35 billion today. Ratifying this treaty will take the bilateral commercial relationship to the next level. I understand newly inaugurated Chilean President Michelle Bachelet plans to travel to Washington later this month to continue the close partnership between our two countries. Ratifying this treaty would send President Bachelet a strong message that we value our partnership with Chile and we are serious about further expanding economic opportunities between our two countries. Madam President, 1,421 days have passed since the last time this Senate ratified an income tax treaty. We can end that ignoble streak right now. So I ask unanimous consent, at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 8, treaty document No. 112-8; that the treaty be considered as having advanced through the various parliamentary stages up to and including the presentation of the resolutions of ratification; that any committee declarations be agreed to as applicable; that any statements be printed in the Record as if read; that if the resolution of ratification is agreed to, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I would have more extensive remarks, but I know my colleague from Maryland has a different unanimous consent request. Let me make just three quick points. Chile's and other tax treaties the Foreign Relations Committee has reported favorably do not represent the first time the Senate has considered treaties providing for information exchange based on a ``foreseeably relevant'' or ``may be relevant'' standard. In fact, since 1999--so that is about 15 years now--the Senate has adopted resolutions of advice and consent for at least eight other tax treaties using the relevant standard. This standard has been part of the model of U.S. tax treaties since 2006. So it is not correct that the ``may be relevant'' or ``foreseeably relevant'' standard is vague or ambiguous. In fact, it has been extensively defined in agreed guidance to which no country has expressed a dissenting opinion to date. I must say that not only are these objections ultimately not providing all the benefits that all of the private-sector interests have expressed--as I referred to before, the entire business community--but by the same token, I simply have a tough time accepting that those who cheat get away with cheating and that somehow we are going to make it easier for them to cheat when the average American does not have the opportunity nor the desire nor do they cheat in terms of their payment of whatever are the taxes they owe to the Federal Government in a way that helps sustain all of the things we seek as Americans: the best armed forces in the world, security here at home, educational opportunity for our kids. So there is a fundamental difference here. I will push these tax treaties, and I will urge the majority leader to give us votes then in a process because it has overwhelming support and we cannot have one Member of the Senate object to a process that can provide such benefits and such equity across the board. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the distinguished Senator from Arizona and a distinguished member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for his courtesy. I know he will be making comments in which I share his concerns and for which he has been very outspoken. I will try to condense my effort here. On Monday, the Department of Justice announced that Swiss bank Credit Suisse pled guilty to the criminal charge of helping American citizens cheat on their taxes, and agreed to pay a $2.6 billion fine. The bank admitted to using bogus entities to disguise undeclared U.S. accounts from American tax authorities, and it admitted to helping its clients arrange large cash transactions to skirt U.S. reporting requirements. The guilty plea means that the bank will be punished for its transgressions, and it serves as a warning to others who would engage in or enable tax evasion. But astoundingly, Credit Suisse will not be required to disclose additional names of U.S. citizens who hired the bank to help them cheat on their taxes and evade prosecution by U.S. authorities. As the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations reported earlier this year, the Justice Department has only been able to obtain the names of 238 Credit Suisse customers out of 22,000 U.S.-owned accounts at the bank. The reason for this is simple. Swiss bank secrecy laws forbid Credit Suisse and other Swiss banks from sharing information about their clients with U.S. tax authorities, even if those clients are actively violating U.S. tax laws. Luckily, we have a simple solution, one which we could enact right now with the agreement from this body. On April 1, the Foreign Relations Committee, with strong bipartisan support, reported out favorably a new protocol amending our tax treaty with Switzerland. For decades, tax treaties have played a key role in facilitating greater and more transparent trade and investment. They have helped protect American companies from double taxation and made it easier for them to explore new markets and business opportunities. They do this all while simultaneously protecting U.S. taxpayer privacy and information confidentiality. They enhance our efforts to prevent tax avoidance or evasion. The new protocol with Switzerland would not permit Swiss banks, like Credit Suisse, to withhold information on U.S. individuals who have, for years, hidden behind Swiss bank secrecy laws to avoid paying U.S. taxes. The protocol brings our tax treaty with Switzerland into conformity with both the entire internationally accepted standards on the information exchange as well as the most recent U.S. model tax treaty. It includes an arbitration provision to ensure that when disputes arise between the U.S. and Swiss tax authorities over issues like the exchange of information, these disputes will be resolved expeditiously, rather than dragging on and frustrating cross-border tax enforcement. The Swiss government has already ratified the protocol. We should do the same. Credit Suisse pled guilty to abetting tax evasion--a criminal charge. But they were not forced to disclose the names of actual tax evaders because doing so would violate Swiss bank secrecy laws. Ratifying the treaty with Switzerland is therefore necessary. It will enable U.S. authorities to obtain information about these and other tax evaders who are still taking advantage of bank secrecy laws to avoid paying their fair share. I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 9, treaty document No. 112-1; that the treaty be considered as having advanced through the various parliamentary stages up to and including the presentation of resolutions of ratification; that any committee declarations be agreed to as applicable; that any statements be printed in the Record as if read; that if the resolution of ratification is agreed to, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Very briefly, I am disappointed because basically what we are going to do--those of us who are law-abiding and pay our taxes have to suffer the consequences of those who cheat and go abroad to do so. When they do that, they undermine the ability of this government to have the resources to arm the men and women who serve us abroad, protect them, take care of their health care, and deal with the challenges of educating the next generation of Americans. Let me just say that this question that the treaty somehow infringes--first of all, if Switzerland is not a friendly country, I don't know what is. It is not a question of a country that isn't friendly, so let's remove that objection. The treaty supposedly infringes on the fourth amendment rights of U.S. citizens. Look, these bilateral tax treaties only permit the exchange of information that is foreseeably relevant to the collection of taxes. The proposed treaty also provides protection against fishing expeditions. To exchange information, the requesting country must demonstrate that the individuals targeted have engaged in activities that suggested they are engaging in fraud. The existing treaty with Switzerland requires the requesting country to establish tax fraud or fraudulent misconduct as a basis for the exchange. That standard has clearly proven to be too narrow for the purposes of prosecuting tax evasion, as demonstrated by the outcome of this Credit Suisse settlement, where the bank still does not have to hand over the names of individuals who use Credit Suisse accounts to hide their income. Now the wages and U.S. bank account interests of Americans are both reported to the IRS. There is no reason why people with foreign bank accounts should be able to hide their money from the IRS in a way that average, hard-working Americans cannot. It boggles my mind that we are going to treat average, hard-working Americans in a different way than those who have the money to cheat and ultimately avoid their responsibility to our collective society, so we will continue to raise this issue. I won't expound upon it any more--I have plenty to say--in deference to the Senator from Arizona, who was gracious enough to yield the floor. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 22, 2014, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, on May 22, 2014, at 10 a.m. in room SD-430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Examining Access and Supports for Servicemembers and Veterans in Higher Education.''

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on Housing, Transportation, and Community Development be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 22, 2014, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Bringing Our Transit Infrastructure to a State of Good Repair.''

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, a year ago the Senate Judiciary Committee reported out a piece of legislation that would do more than increase the gross domestic product, do more than reduce the deficit, do more than promote prosperity, and do more than create jobs. It passed legislation that would take 11 million people out of the shadows in America, prevent anyone from becoming a second-class citizen in this country, and finally establish comprehensive, commonsense immigration reform. Today, 1 year later, it sits languishing in the House of Representatives and 11 million people wait and wait and wait. While they wait, while they hope that we come to our senses and govern as we should, the toll from inaction compounds: families suffer, children suffer, deportations continue, and injustice prevails. There is a cost to our inaction, a cost those in the House of Representatives are forcing upon us, as we wait for them to act, that accrues every day. They claim they are for fiscal responsibility. Yet their inaction is costing us each year, on average, $80 billion of real GDP, $40 billion in higher deficits, 40,000 STEM grads who earn a Master's or a Ph.D. in STEM fields from U.S. universities, 50 million in the Social Security trust fund, over 50,000 fewer jobs, and $13.5 billion in lost revenue. I hope our Republican colleagues in the House understand exactly what the cost of inaction is. I hope they understand that every minute we waste passing commonsense immigration reform is costing American taxpayers more and more, and the cost is on them, and the losses I view as Republican losses. The fact is Republicans are acting as if nothing is at stake, as if there is no cost, as if the lives of people and families are not in the balance, and they could not be more wrong. Besides the economic cost of inaction, there is a very real human cost. Franklin Roosevelt once said, citing Dante, that, ``Better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference.'' Let us not be frozen in the ice of our own indifference. Let us act, govern. I call on my Republican colleagues to warm their hearts and think about the costs of inaction not only in dollars and cents but in the lives of families and the future of this Nation. The legislation we are waiting for is a comprehensive way to tackle our immigration problem. We are on the verge of historic change. I am proud to have been part of the Gang of 8 that hammered out a strong bipartisan effort that passed this institution with 67 votes. That is not usual these days for questions of great controversy. I say to my friends in the other body: Do the right thing for America and, by the way, for your own party. Find common ground, lean away from the extreme, opt for reason, and govern with us. In my view, the leadership in the other body has a chance to be American heroes, a chance to bring both sides together in an alliance that will ensure passage of this bill. I believe, based on poll after poll, that a vast majority of Americans want immigration reform to pass, and will thank them for doing the right thing. I hope they have the political will. I hope they have the political courage to unite the Nation and send this bill to the President's desk. I hope they will pass a bill that will increase the gross domestic product, reduce the deficit, promote prosperity, and create jobs. As I have pointed out on this floor many times, this chart shows cumulative economic gains of the legalization process over 10 years after passage of this legislation. Fixing the broken immigration system would increase America's gross domestic product by over $800 billion over the next 10 years; it would increase the wages of all Americans by $470 billion over 10 years, and increase jobs by 121,000 per year for 10 years. That is over 1.2 million jobs. What do we ever get to do here that increases the gross domestic product, reduces the deficit, raises the wages of all Americans, and creates 120,000-plus jobs per year? Very little. This legislation does that, not just simply because I say it but because the Congressional Budget Office said many of these figures were, in fact, a reality. Immigrants will start small businesses, they will create jobs for American workers, and it is time to harness that economic power. The CBO report also tells us we reduce direct spending and the deficit by $158 billion over the next decade, and by another $685 billion more from 2024 through 2033. Let's remember, we are talking about almost $1 trillion in deficit spending that we can lift off the backs of the next generation, exactly what our Republican friends demand. Yet they are balking in the face of achieving one of their very fundamental principles. What other single piece of legislation increases GDP growth, increases wages, increases jobs, and lowers the deficit? The Center for American Progress found that fixing the broken immigration system would increase wages of all Americans by $470 billion over 10 years and increase jobs by 121,000 per year. What we realize now and what the numbers tell us is that giving 11 million people a clear and defined earned pathway to citizenship is, in effect, an economic growth strategy that lowers the deficit and creates jobs. That is exactly what we are looking to do to move this economy forward. New Americans who follow this pathway we lay out will have to play by rules. They will have to pass criminal background checks, they will have to pay a fine, they will have to pay their taxes. But if they do, there will be no obstacle they cannot overcome to the day when they raise their right hand and pledge allegiance to the United States and become a naturalized citizen. Too many families have waited too long for that day. Too many have waited too long to say those words that will change their lives forever. They changed my mother's life, and, in turn, gave me a chance to stand here today and vote for a pathway to citizenship that can change the lives of millions of others. But it is not just the economics of the legislation that creates the urgency of now, it is the human toll, the toll on millions living in the shadows. That can be pretty dark and frightening. Last year over 150,000 people were deported just for paperwork violations. Hundreds of thousands have been deported despite having U.S. citizen children. They are not criminals; they are hard-working families trying to make ends meet. For many years I have asked the administration to stop deporting fathers and mothers, stop separating families, stop taking away parents from their U.S. citizen resident children. Let me tell you about one of these cases, the case of Carlos Oliva-Guillen who was about to be deported away from his three U.S. citizen children, including his 7- month-old infant son who is suffering from a life-threatening disorder. The baby was on the verge of a coma and facing potential brain damage while his dad was in detention about to be deported. The doctors needed to do a blood test on Carlos, the baby's dad, to see if the baby's illness is genetic. Thank God that Carlos was released and brought back to New Jersey so doctors could pursue these lifesaving tests and treatment. Those tragedies continue as long as we do not have comprehensive immigration reform. With all of these economic benefits and the tremendous human suffering at stake, what are we waiting for? We are waiting for the House leadership to stand up to a minority--to a minority. We are waiting for Speaker Boehner to schedule a vote. We are waiting for reason to prevail, for our Republican friends in the other body to once and for all do what is right and think about the cost of inaction, not only in dollars and cents but in the lives of the families and the future of this Nation. We are waiting for the Speaker to stop letting the most radical voices, such as Stephen King, dictate the future of immigration reform. Speaker Boehner himself has publicly denounced Congressman King for his ``hateful language.'' Yet the only--the only--immigration-related vote the Speaker of the House of Representatives has allowed in the past year was for radical proposals to end DACA and deport our Nation's DREAMers. It is time for Speaker Boehner to stand for the majority of the Republican Party and of the Congress in the House of Representatives and remove Stephen King's undeserved carte blanche on immigration policy. If we had a vote in the House, the Senate bill as passed would pass. It would pass today. It would pass with both Democratic and Republican votes. We have the votes in the House to pass the Senate bill. We just need the will of a Republican leadership behind a bill that reduces the deficit, increases the GDP, creates jobs. I cannot understand, for the life of me, why they cannot break the stranglehold by a few against the will of the many. Considering that there are enough votes in the House to pass the Senate bill and send it to the President, we deserve action. Eleven million people deserve, at the very least, the political courage to face down the extreme minority and do what is right and govern from the commonsense center. Time is not on our side. There is a limited window of opportunity. We only have about another 2 months at most for the Speaker to act. So it is in the Speaker's hands. Does he want reform or doesn't he? I know I hear him say he does. I want to believe that. I will be the first to applaud him. Speaker Boehner, however, on the one side said he wants to get immigration reform. The next thing I hear is that he questions the President's commitment to enforce the law as the reason why they are not moving forward on immigration reform, even as this President is deporting more people than the Bush administration. This administration has deported almost 2 million people. I do not understand. When the Speaker says, ``We can't trust the President to enforce the law,'' it seems to me what he is calling for is even greater deportations than the greatest deportations that have taken place over the last Republican administration. So saying the President isn't enforcing enough, the Speaker is really arguing for more deportations and has done nothing to stop those deportations. The only conclusion we can draw is that my friends on the other side support the current dysfunctional system, and they do so at a cost to the country. They do so at a cost to families, and I also believe that beyond all the policy arguments that I have talked about--the GDP, the reduction in the deficit, the creation of jobs, the raising of wages, helping our agricultural industry through the ag jobs provision, helping our high-tech industries through the provisions of the legislation, and so many others--not only do they risk all of that and risk the families, but I believe they risk their political futures. The road to the White House goes through the barrio, as my friend in the House of Representatives, Congressman Gutieerrez, says. If we look at States across the country in which there are large immigrant populations who vote, who are U.S. citizens, and who look at this as the civil rights issue of their time, you cannot win the electoral votes of those States if you cannot find a way to a commonsense immigration reform. So their own futures, politically speaking, are at risk. But even more than that political risk, our country is at risk--a risk that will hinder our own economic growth and leave millions in the shadows as second-class citizens, a risk that deportations will continue to tear parents away from their infants, despite the parents desperately seeking to register, get right with the law, and pay their taxes. I thought that so many of my colleagues talk about the family values. Well, family values isn't about ripping families asunder. Family values isn't about ultimately saying that someone has a paperwork violation, so you rip them apart from their three American children--a risk that we will address as one of the greatest civil rights issues of our time. I have cases in my office of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents of the United States unlawfully detained in immigration raids because of the happenstance of where they live or what they look like or how they speak. Who among us, who have the privilege of serving in this institution, is ready to become a second-class citizen because of the happenstance of where you live, what you look like or how you speak, when you are a U.S. citizen or a legal permanent resident? This includes among others, in one case, an Iraq war veteran who was detained while his status was determined. My first and foremost focus is on getting the House Republican leadership, after 1 year of this body's having passed an immigration bill, to either consider the Senate legislation or their own comprehensive version. That is the ultimate solution. Everything else is a bandaid. But let me be clear. There is a limited window of opportunity we have open to us until the end of July. If Republicans do not act, they will have forced the President to ultimately use his executive powers on enforcement questions and on deportation relief. Either they are tone deaf to the priorities of the Nation's largest- growing and fastest-growing minority or they are ignoring the will and interests of their own party and acting against their own stated goal of reducing the deficit. They can keep finding excuses for inaction, but there are no more excuses. Enough is enough. The community across the country is riveted in their attention as to what is going to happen in the House of Representatives. I hope that attention will ultimately be a joyful one if the House acts. But if it does not, it will reap the wrath of a community who sees this as the critical civil rights issue of their time and the consequences will be longstanding. I hope they meet the better angels that are within them and ultimately produce the comprehensive immigration reform the Nation needs for its security, for its economy, for doing the right thing as a nation of immigrants, by doing the right thing for those families. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I wish to recognize National Tourette Syndrome Awareness Month, which runs from May 15, 2014, through June 15, 2014. This annual observance is an opportunity for us to help the many Americans affected by Tourette syndrome by raising awareness and encouraging expanded investments in research. Tourette syndrome, or TS, is a neurological disorder that typically develops during childhood. TS is characterized by repetitive, stereotyped, involuntary movements and vocalizations called tics, which can range from mild to severe and disabling. The National Institutes of Health, NIH, estimates that 200,000 Americans have the most severe form of TS and as many as 1 in 100 Americans exhibit milder symptoms such as chronic motor or vocal tics. Additionally, people with TS often have other co-occurring mental or behavior health conditions. A child diagnosed with TS has a 79-percent chance of being diagnosed with another condition such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, ADHD, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, OCD, anxiety or depression. An often misunderstood and stigmatizing disorder, TS can have a profound and negative impact on the quality of life of those affected. Research indicates that TS may be hereditary and that abnormal signaling between brain circuits plays a casual role, but the cause of the disorder remains unknown. Treatments for TS are also limited, although several agents have proven effective in mitigating tics and improving social functioning. Expanding our national research efforts on TS can help us to identify the cause, discover new treatments, and find a cure. Last session, I introduced the Collaborative Academic Research Efforts, CARE, for Tourette Syndrome Act, which builds upon our national research efforts in two major ways. First, the bill expands and intensifies data collection on the prevalence of TS and the availability of medical and social services for those with TS and their families. Second, the bill establishes centers of excellence to conduct in depth, multidisciplinary research into the causes, treatments, diagnosis, and prevention of TS. National Tourette Syndrome Awareness Month, which runs from May 15 to June 15, presents us with an opportunity to advocate for the passage of the Collaborative Academic Research Efforts, CARE, for Tourette Syndrome Act (S. 637). We must provide the NIH with the tools necessary to further our understanding of TS. Through greater awareness, expanded information, and enhanced therapies and treatments, it is my hope that we will improve the quality of life for all people touched by TS.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, the 2014 Ice Hockey World Championship began on May 9 in Minsk, Belarus, one of the last vestiges of authoritarianism in Europe. By hosting a global sports competition that promotes integrity and observes uniform regulations, Belarus should take this opportunity to show the international community that it will follow suit and support the fundamental rights and freedoms of its citizens. This year also marks the 20th year of President Lukashenka's iron- fisted Presidency whose elections have been marred by the detention of political opponents and civil society actors, as well as the lack of an open and free press. During his rule, he has eliminated all political opposition, eroded the rule of law, and curtailed the freedoms of expression, assembly, and association. President Lukashenka, the international community calls on you to support the right of every Belarusian citizen to be free. We call on you to take decisive steps towards making Belarus an open and democratic country where the rules of politics, as well as those of sports, are governed by free and fair standards.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Reserving the right to object, this request is, in my view, without merit. It is an effort to follow in the footsteps of the unfortunate, politically motivated creation of a just-founded special committee by the House of Representatives just in time for midterm elections. The supposed reason once again we hear colleagues saying we need to have another review, another hearing, another investigation, is the White House email. This is the smoking gun. When you read the email, in fact, it is nothing more than a day-to- day work product and part of the job of the President's staff when they are talking about, not Benghazi--not Benghazi--but what is happening across the entire region, and clearly across many parts of the Arab world. What happened as a result of that video was a visceral response, and it is in that context that this email is being discussed, but our friends--who will never be satisfied because it doesn't solve their political concerns--at the end of the day seek to use this as their latest claim for their ``investigation.'' Their previous one-trick pony, repealing the Affordable Care Act, has finally been put out to pasture. The Republicans desperately need another political trick, and apparently when there is nothing else of substance to fire up their base, their plan is to yell ``Benghazi'' as often and as loudly as possible. This request is, from my perspective, purely a political witch hunt without merit. There have been 11 congressional hearings on the attack. The executive branch has released 25,000 pages of documents and email related to the incident. There has been an independent Accountability Review Board report. There have been multiple Congressional reports on the attack. The Senate Intelligence Committee issued a bipartisan report last January on the attack. The House Armed Services Committee issued a report on military response to the attack. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which I chair, has held multiple hearings and briefings to review the events that occurred in Benghazi. We heard from Secretary Clinton. We heard from Secretary Kerry. We have heard from Deputy Secretary Burns. We have met with survivors of the Benghazi attack. We have multiple briefings from Assistant Secretary Starr and with diplomatic security. We have had briefings from the intelligence community and the Department of Defense. Whatever questions remain are meant, from my perspective, only to score political points. I feel confident the Congress and the American people have received the necessary information about the attack, but Congress is not without responsibility. We also have an obligation to do our part to comply with the Administrative Review Board's recommendations. Benghazi again highlighted the need to maintain focus and to revise policies to better protect the nearly 70,000 men and women serving across the world in more than 275 posts. The Congress took a serious look at the issue following another set of tragedies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam that resulted in 224 deaths, including 11 American citizens. We may not be able to prevent every single terror attack in the future, but we can and we must make sure our embassies and employees, starting with high-risk, high-threat posts, are capable of withstanding such an attack. That is why the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed S. 1836, the Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty Embassy Security Threat Mitigation and Personal Protection Act of 2013. If the Senate wants to take effective action to safeguard our brave men and women serving in U.S. embassies and consulates abroad, if we want to actually be serious about discharging our duties and to make sure these attacks are less likely to occur in the future, rather than grandstanding for cheap political advantage, then it is time to take up S. 1386 and immediately pass a bipartisan bill--that Senator Corker and I authored together with support from both sides of the aisle on our committee--that would authorize the funding for the key items identified by the Accountability Review Board on Benghazi, including embassy security and construction, language training, and an improved and integrated foreign affairs security training for State Department personnel. It provides contract authority to the State Department to allow it to award contracts on a best value basis, rather than to the lowest bidder, where conditions require enhanced levels of security, and it goes on and on about our high-risk, high-threat posts meeting all the elements of what the review board said was critical to make sure we don't lose lives again. I would rather we legislate, which our constituents sent us to do, and pass bills extending our Nation's security policy and addressing the real challenges and real lessons to be learned from the tragic events at Benghazi. The bipartisan embassy security bill does just that. For that purpose, I would ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 257, S. 1386, a bill to provide for enhanced embassy security; and further, that the committee-reported amendments be agreed to; that the bill as amended be read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I would say to my colleague from Texas that the consent request for embassy security we passed in committee in a bipartisan effort is much different than a partisan effort to have an investigation that ultimately also is led by a partisan effort in the House of Representatives. So one is guaranteed to have the support of both sides of the aisle in order to ensure that we protect our men and women in the Foreign Service in the days ahead. The other one is guaranteed to pursue a political line and a political attack instead of making sure we ultimately save lives in the future, not because I said it but because an independent review board made these recommendations that we incorporate them. So, of course, the two are not the same.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I am happy to answer my colleague on that, because he suggested that his 10 questions--that because he asked the 10 questions, they are suddenly worthy of being answered, worthy of in fact not being viewed through the prism of any politics. I would simply say if there is political spin--several of the Senator's questions are pretty shocking to me in terms of the political nature of them. As I said to the body, we have had a whole host of efforts to review the facts and come to a determination of the truth of what happened on that day. They have been in public hearings and they have been in secure intelligence briefings. Members on both sides--on both sides-- have been exposed to it. Members on both sides got to ask questions across the spectrum, and so from my perspective we have gone through the search of what happened on that fateful day. We all abhor what happened to the men who lost their lives on that day. That is why what I want to do is ensure that we lose no more lives as a result of this Congress's irresponsibility to act on embassy security, knowing what in fact a panel of experts, undisputed in their capacity, has said is necessary to protect our men and women around the world. Yet we cannot seem to get that legislation passed through the Senate. Now, that is about congressional responsibility from my perspective.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I think whether the President slept on that day, the question is, Did he even get told by those who had information that such an attack was going on? I don't know. The bottom line is would that have saved anybody? I don't know that either. The bottom line is does the Senator want to do something about saving future lives or does he just want to do politics with this issue? If he wants to save lives tomorrow, where he does have the control--where he does have the control at this moment--then he will let the embassy security bill go forward. If, God forbid, we have an attack somewhere in the world, and the legislation we are seeking in a bipartisan way in response to that independent board is stopped because the other side wishes to stop it, then God forbid we have an attack and lives are cut off. Then there will be an accounting at that time.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I say to my colleague from Texas that we have come to a conclusion based on all of the hearings, all of the testimony, and all of the reports as to what transpired and what we can do to save a life prospectively; therefore, I say to the Senator, he has it in his control to ultimately ensure that we set the foundation so no one else will lose their life. If he wants to hold that hostage to his political efforts to continue an issue that has had thousands of hours of reviews, hearings, reports--all with bipartisan participation--then he can choose to do so.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I object.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I wish to honor 59 high school seniors in Camden County, NJ for their commendable decision to enlist in the United States Armed Forces. Of these 59, 18 have elected to join the United States Army: Troy Anderson, Cody Andreczski, Jacob Bauscher, Ennajee Brisbane, Juliana Davis, Nicholas Dzindzio, Kristopher Espinal, Tyler Fisher, Glenn Gray, Rajven Herrera, Austin Hughes, Velez Lopez Velez, Anthony Nigro, Chandler Pons, Tyron Robinson, Orlando Santos, Joshua White, and Gordon Zenzola. Five have joined the United States Navy: Raul Paneto, Spencer Wiggin, Taquayla Wilson, Angel Gonzalez, and Kenneth Ralph. Five have elected to join the United States Air Force: Ryan Swift, Ryan Bauer, Alam Nazmul, Christian Burgos, and Alex Thach. Nineteen have elected to join the United States Marine Corps: Michael Porch, Thomas Hutchison, Johnny Nunez, Jerome Williamston, Jordan Freeman, David Zane, Anthony Reed, Emily Krowicki, Randy Nguyen, Nicholas Celenza, Ian MacKenzie, William Hemphill, Steven Charyszyn, James Pitcher, Ryan Gustafson, Douglas Bardalesarevalo, Ezekiel Williams, Kyle Azzari, and Michael Hurley. And 12 have elected to join the New Jersey National Guard: Caitlyn Mount, Clarimar Rodriguez- Vargas, Zachary Blome, Christopher Foschini, Michael Lombardo, Kevin Martina, Patrick Martina, Patrick O'Hanlon, Kristie Siegman, Christopher Robinson, Kylah Thomas, and Charles Reiss. These 59 will also be honored on May 20, 2014 at an ``Our Community Salutes South Jersey'' recognition ceremony in Voorhees Township, NJ. The future of our Nation remains strong because of young men and women like these 59 individuals who have decided to step forward and commit themselves to the defense of our Nation and to upholding the ideals upon which it was founded. Indeed, these New Jerseyans represent the very best of America, and they should rest assured that the full support of the Senate as well as the American people, are with them in whatever challenges may lie ahead. It is thanks to the dedication of untold numbers of patriots like these 59 that we are able to meet here today, in the Senate, and openly debate the best solutions to the many and diverse problems that confront our country. It is thanks to their sacrifices that the United States of America remains a beacon of hope and freedom throughout the world. We owe them, along with all those who serve our country, a deep debt of gratitude.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Reserving the right to object to Senator Paul's request to discharge S. 2265 in the committee, this legislation Senator Paul has been referring to has not been considered by the committee. It was just introduced in the last day or so, I think. As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and on behalf of the Republican ranking member, Senator Corker, who had to depart to return to Tennessee but otherwise would have joined me in making remarks, I come to the floor to express our opposition to an effort to circumvent the normal legislative process and deprive the members of our committee of the opportunity to decide whether to take up this legislation. The authorization to provide or cut U.S. assistance to the Palestinian Authority is clearly within the purview of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and it should have its members decide if it is appropriate, and it should be fully and openly considered by the committee. This bill is a blunt-force instrument that would risk the collapse of the Palestinian economy in the West Bank. That is not in Israel's interests and it is not in our interests either. The bill would shift the burden of dealing with a failed state on its borders to Israel. That is certainly not my goal, and I hope it is not the goal of Senator Paul either. Our goal should be to get back to a process and a negotiation toward a two-state solution that will allow Israel to live in peace and security. We need to allow the parties--and particularly Mr. Abbas--the time to steer back toward a productive path to peace. To be clear, his time is limited. I am in agreement with Senator Paul that President Abbas must ultimately choose between a future that envisions two States living side by side in peace and security or a destructive unity pact with a terrorist organization whose stated objective is to make sure there is no two-State solution. A unity government--not a unity announcement but a unity government-- between Fatah and Hamas has consequences that are clear under existing U.S. law. If Mr. Abbas definitely opens the door to Hamas exercising influence in the Palestinian Authority, I will encourage my colleagues to stand with me in exercising the existing legal authority to halt assistance to a government that includes parties that reject Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state and continues to support terrorism. For those reasons, I must object to the Senator's request.

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I wish to honor the memory of an exemplary citizen of New Jersey who we lost too soon: Matthew E. Klemchalk of Allendale. Matthew passed away on April 10, 2014 at the age of 35. He was an outstanding member of his community, beloved by his family and friends, and a professional engineer whose work will be appreciated by generations of New Jersey residents as they drive over the roads and ride the rails that he designed and saw to completion. Matthew was a 1996 graduate of Northern Highlands High School, and a lifelong train enthusiast. He brought his passion for trains to his work as chief estimator of track at the Railroad Construction Company, where he worked for the past 14 years. Matthew worked on major infrastructure projects that New Jersey's citizens see and use every day, including the Secaucus Road separation project, the U.S. Route 46 interchange improvements in Wayne, Route 46 over Overpeck Creek in Bergen County, and the Lackawanna Avenue improvement and bridge replacement in West Paterson. He taught concurrently as a professor at Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, where he earned his bachelors and masters degrees. The institute has organized the Matt Klemchalk Scholarship in his name to honor his memory and help other prospective engineers follow in Matt's footsteps to meaningful community engagement and service. He is survived by his parents Matthew and Jane and his sister, Jennifer, and will be missed by many others whom he touched during his short life. The great State of New Jersey is better today for his dedication to detail and passion for engineering, and my condolences go to his family and loved ones. I would encourage more of America's youth to follow his example of living your dreams to the benefit of your community and your country.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak to two issues, both in the Western Hemisphere, that I think are incredibly important. I come to the floor to speak about labor rights in Colombia and labor rights of workers around the world. Three years ago today the U.S. and Colombian Governments announced the creation of a Labor Action Plan that identified concrete steps to address the challenges faced by Colombian workers--threats, deadly violence, and widespread informality that opens the door to worker abuse. Both governments said that the implementation of the plan would be a precondition to enacting the free-trade agreement between our two countries. At the time I advocated that the standards laid out in the Labor Action Plan should have been part of the formal free-trade agreement and should have included provisions for monitoring the plan's implementation. It is true that the Colombian Government initially made impressive steps, but unfortunately other aspects of the plan have not been fulfilled. Today the AFL-CIO and Colombia's National Union School have released reports evaluating the Labor Action Plan and identifying key areas where implementation has fallen short. I come to the floor to share these key findings. In February I traveled to Colombia and met with Colombian union leaders and representatives of the National Labor School. I had a chance to meet with President Santos and Minister of Labor Rafael Pardo. We had the opportunity to review the important steps the Colombian Government has taken and what still needs to be done. Shortly after the Labor Action Plan was established in April of 2011, nearly overnight Colombia established an independent Ministry of Labor. To date, the Ministry has hired more than 480 new labor inspectors and created a formal complaint mechanism for workers and unionists. The Colombian Government reformed its penal code to strengthen sanctions against employers violating rights to free association. The Ministry of Labor has opened nearly 400 investigations of violations and issued nearly 70 sanctions. The government has directed its protection units to concentrate efforts on labor activists who are under threat. As a result of these steps, Colombia has made progress. According to the Colombian Government's own statistics, more than 530,000 jobs have been formalized in accordance with government standards. While it is important to acknowledge the progress that has been made, the reports released today by the AFL-CIO and Colombia's National Union School remind us that much more needs to be done. Aspects of the Labor Action Plan remain unfinished and risks to Colombian workers continue, specifically in the palm oil industry, sugar sector, oil industry, and ports sector. Both reports point out, while some trade unionists have seen better protection from the government, others continue to face threats and violence. In 2013, 26 trade unionists were murdered. Equally troubling was the fact that in the cases of murdered trade unionists, 86.8 percent go unresolved in terms of the cases. The two reports recognize that in response to the Labor Action Plan, the Colombian Government took steps to address irregular contracting practices, specifically focusing on associated work cooperatives or CTAs as they are known. But given the loopholes in new labor regulations that have come to light, the government has been unable to stem the rise of alternate hiring, such as simplified joint stock companies that keep workers from being directly hired and being entitled to benefits and collective bargaining rights. So there has been progress but clearly more needs to be done. The report rightfully applauds the creation of the Ministry of Labor but also notes that the hiring of labor inspectors did not comply with international labor organization standards, severely affecting these inspectors' autonomy and technical capacity. As further evidence of the challenges of informal labor arrangements, a majority of labor inspectors are provisional hires. When it comes to finding those guilty of violations, the Colombian Government has levied millions of dollars in fines against companies violating labor standards, but both the AFL-CIO and the National Labor School point out that not a single dollar of those millions of fines has been collected--not one. Fines hardly constitute a deterrent if companies know they will never have to pay the bill. As the U.S. and Colombian Governments along with organized labor in the United States and Colombia look forward, it is important that everyone come to the table, identify targeted goals, and establish benchmarks that will bring the kind of change we are all looking for, lasting change that protects workers and worker rights. Given that the United States and Colombia renewed the Labor Action Plan through the end of 2014, now is the time to renew political commitment. Now is the time for collective action. Having met with Minister Pardo and knowing our colleagues in the Department of Labor, I know the political will is there. Now is the time for swift action. Lessons from Colombia should be lessons for all of us, as the United States continues to engage in trade negotiations around the world. Our trade agreements must include the highest labor standards, concrete benchmarks for guaranteeing compliance with these standards, and a clear plan to monitor implementation. Anything less will leave the most vulnerable around the world at risk. We are moving in the right direction when it comes to protecting workers and workers' rights in Colombia and around the world. Let's keep moving forward and aspire to the highest labor standards in every nation. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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