Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. As the attention of the world has been focused on the pre-1991 Soviet behavior of President Putin in Crimea, I come to the floor to remind the American public and Members of this body that there is also a full-fledged humanitarian rights crisis ongoing in our own hemisphere, just 90 miles away from our shores in Cuba. As Ukrainians courageously fight to protect the democracy they won when the Berlin Wall fell 25 years ago this summer, the Cuban people continue to suffer from the oppression of a Soviet-style dictatorship that denies them the most basic rights. When the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, millions of people--from Kiev to Budapest to Africa to Asia-- were given their first chances in decades to build their own governments, a first chance to organize democratic elections, the chance to begin to determine their own futures. Since the end of the Cold War, peace, prosperity and progress has largely been the order of the day for hundreds of millions of people but not for the people of Cuba. Not one of those core principles of democracy can be found on the island. Fidel and Raul Castro have been the only names on any ballot in over 50 years. Not one free election has been held, not one Cuban has been allowed to own their own company, not one legitimate trade union has been allowed to be organized, and not one peaceful protest has occurred without being brutally squashed by the regime. No, this is the reality of Cuba today. It was the reality when the Berlin Wall fell, and it has been Cuba's reality for almost 60 years since Fidel Castro began taking control of every aspect of Cuban life. This reality in Cuba, a decades-long brutal oppression of simple human democratic rights, with total disdain for the aspirations of a people by the Castro regime, its military and communist lackey thugs who penetrate and control people's lives at all levels, should not be overlooked, should not be romanticized and it can never be explained away. But, unlike Ukraine, where we have watched in horror as people have been ruthlessly beaten and killed for simply aspiring to democratic and transparent government, the Castro regime does not allow images of its oppression to be broadcast around the globe, let alone at home. Just because we do not see those images streaming across television sets and in the newspapers does not mean the world should not be watching. It does not mean we have turned the other way, and it does not mean we have overlooked the brutal and oftentimes lethal oppression of the Castro regime. The number of people the regime has murdered or abducted is in the tens of thousands. Hundreds of thousands of children have been separated from their parents, maybe hundreds of thousands of families have been torn apart. We don't even know how many have died in the Florida straits in search of freedom. Millions of men, women, and young people have been forced into fields to cut sugarcane and perform other hard labor against their will. The average human worker lives on an income of less than $1 a day. The Castro regime has been most adept--not at spreading education and prosperity--I listened to some of my colleagues recently on the floor and, oh my God, what a paradise, a paradise that people are willing to take to makeshift rafts to flee from and die on the high seas, a paradise that has long lines at the U.S. interests section waiting to be able to come to the United States, such a paradise that there are well over 1 million Cuban Americans in the United States and others in Spain and throughout the world. It is not a paradise that I think people flee from. But they are great--not at spreading education and prosperity, but at instilling a penetrating fear and terror in the style of a Stalinist police state. It has been going on since 1959. Unfortunately, these are all of the realities. It is not a thing of the past. Let us not overlook the fact that arbitrary and politically motivated arrests in Cuba reportedly topped 1,000 for a third straight month this February, according to the Cuban Commission for Human Rights and National Reconciliation, a group inside of Cuba, formed and founded by Elizardo Sanchez Santa-Cruz--whose mission is to bring change and freedom--to report to the world. The commission reported that: . . . arrests in the past three months have nearly doubled from the monthly averages of the previous 2 years. We must remind ourselves every day of the continued oppression and human suffering that is happening, not halfway around the world but 90 miles from our own shores. The ongoing oppressive behavior of the Cuban regime we saw for the last half of the 20th century still haunts our hemisphere today. While Putin has annexed Crimea, while one wonders what is next, while Assad continues to kill his own people in Syria, while the world is watching the Taliban in Afghanistan, and violence continues in the Central African Republic taking countless lives, the oppression of the Castro regime keeps rolling along unabated. If there is a single symbol of that oppression, of the longing for freedom in Cuba, it is the Ladies in White, Damas de Blanco, and their leader Berta Soler. This is a picture of Berta. The courage she has displayed, along with all the other women, to promote democracy and political freedom in Cuba has served as an extraordinary example for all of us and everyone around the world who longs to be free. Every Sunday they protest the jailing of their relatives by attending mass and quietly marching through the streets of Havana, praying for nothing more than the freedom of their relatives and respect for the human rights of all Cubans. But, as we see in this picture, often arrested, roughed-up--let's go to the previous picture. These are some of the of the Ladies in White. All they do is dress up in white, they march with a gladiola--quietly-- toward church. The response of the state regime is to detain them, beat them, jail them, and hold them for days, maybe weeks. They are released, then jailed again. The Ladies in White are the symbol of freedom, and women such as Laura Pollan represent the story of thousands. She was a schoolteacher living with her husband Hector, the leader of the outlawed Cuban Liberal Party. They were living a normal life in a small house on Neptune Street in Havana. Early one morning there was a pounding on the front door. The police came in, searched everything. There was a sham trial held in Cuba. Hector was imprisoned, sentenced to 20 years in jail, and accused of acting against national security. His crime was dreaming of a free Cuba and putting that dream in writing. Since I last came to the floor to speak about Cuba, I met Rosa Maria Paya, the daughter of the long-time political activist Oswaldo Paya. He was a Catholic and head of the Christian Liberation Movement who collected 25,000 signatures under a project called the Varela Project, a peaceful effort to petition the regime under the existing Cuban Constitution for freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. For his peaceful efforts he was awarded the Sakharov prize by the European Parliament. His peaceful efforts were seen as a danger to the regime, a threat for which he was detained and arrested many times. Many times he suffered at the hands of the regime, and last year he died in Cuba, killed as Cuban state security rammed his car off the road. What we know is that the car, driven by a Spanish politician from Spain, Angel Carromero, a citizen of Spain, and Jens Aron Modig, a party activist in Sweden, was involved in the fatal automobile accident that killed Paya and his Cuban colleague Harold Cepero. The circumstances surrounding Paya's death lead any reasonable person to conclude what really happened on that road in eastern Cuba that took the life of Oswaldo was an assassination. His daughter Rosa Maria immediately challenged the regime's version of events, stating that the family had received information from the survivors that their car was repeatedly rammed by another vehicle. She said: So we think it's not an accident. They wanted to do harm and then ended up killing my father. Ms. Paya was in Washington not long ago accepting a posthumous award from the National Endowment for Democracy on behalf of another Cuban activist who died alongside her father. At the time the U.N. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power had come before the Foreign Relations Committee during the nominations process and assured me she would reach out to Ms. Paya when confirmed. Since then, she has not only met with Rosa Maria but also to directly challenge Cuba's Foreign Minister to permit an independent international investigation into Mr. Paya's death. I want to commend Ambassador Power for standing with those still suffering in Cuba and with the family of Oswaldo Paya who died for advocating peaceful, democratic change and Christian values. But Cuba's reach doesn't end with the detention or the death of dissidents such as Paya. It doesn't end at the water's edge. It goes much farther. Cuba is the head of a new and dire crisis in our hemisphere that we cannot ignore, and now we see the same oppression of peaceful activists in Cuba on the streets of Caracas. Venezuela's political crisis is growing: 40 dead, hundreds injured, the nation's economy deteriorating, inflation at record levels, and a scarcity of basic food and goods. It sounds like Cuba to me. But behind Venezuela's economic crisis we can see Cuba's failed policies, expropriation, and nationalization of various sectors of the economy, fixed prices in the consumer economy, criminalization of business leaders and their companies, currency manipulation, and rationing of basic foodstuffs. Behind Venezuela's political crisis we can clearly see familiar Cuban tactics--the demonization of the dissent, intolerance, and oppression of any form of opposition, politicizing of the military and judiciary, the silencing of independent television and radio stations, the shutting down of newspapers, and the arrests of political opponents doing nothing more than exercising basic rights to freedom of assembly. We see Cuba's destabilizing presence is deeply intertwined in Venezuela's crisis, not simply because of the actions but because of these facts. It started with the discovery of 29 Cuban spies on Margarita Island in Venezuela. It grew steadily and insidiously throughout the Chavez years with the Cuban presence and key advisers from Havana in almost every institution of national government in Venezuela, from the military, to intelligence agencies, to the health sector, to industrial policy. And the result? Democracy subverted and innocent people dying from bullets fired by the government and its thugs, just like in Cuba. Yet knowing the instability the Cuban regime continues to spread, amazing, amazing European nations, nations in Latin America, then the Caribbean, some of my colleagues in this Chamber are seeking new opportunities to engage the Cuban regime by easing sanctions at a critical moment and fundamentally redefining our relationship with Cuba. I couldn't disagree more. We can never turn our back on what has happened and continues to happen inside of Cuba. We can never have a wink and a nod and say, well, it has been almost 50 years, that is long enough. Things are changing for the better in Cuba so we should ease sanctions when, in fact, that is not the case at all. As I listen to these human rights activists who finally have been able to come from Cuba and visit with us, to a person, they have said to me when I have asked them, is there change? They laugh and say: Senator, no, of course, there is no change. Is there a change in the economic system? No, there is no change. Is there change in your ability to organize? No, there is no change. They call for some of the most significant measures that I could imagine--based upon them being in the belly of the beast, not some romanticism from outside. So, no, we should not ease sanctions. That is not what they are calling for. We should not let up and we should not reward the Castro regime for its human rights violations, for the suffering it continues to cause the people of Cuba. We should not reward the regime of the long dark years that have been brought to the island. And we should not ease tourism restrictions simply because the clock is ticking. Those who wish to pursue that type of engagement with Cuba must not forget Cuba's history. It is also its present state of torture and oppression, its systemic curtailment of freedom. Recent events tell us a different story than those who have the sense of romanticism about the Castro regime. It is the story of two terrorist states: Cuba and North Korea. There is unshakable, undeniable, incontrovertible proof that the Cuban Government, colluding with North Korea, violated United Nations security sanctions regimes. In July of last year, a North Korean ship was docked in Cuba's new Mariel Port facility. The North Korean ship--suspicious even to the most untrained observer--left the dock, and it wasn't long afterward it was seized by the Panamanian Government when it attempted to enter the Panama Canal. Panamanian authorities boarded the ship and what did they find? There in the cargo bays, under some 200,000 bags of sugar, authorities discovered 240 tons of weapons--bound for where? For where? North Korea, another terrorist state. Apparently this evidence, to some of my colleagues, is not of concern, but that is not the end of the story. When authorities inventoried the 240 tons of weapons hidden beneath the 200,000 bags of sugar they found on the North Korean ship, they found 2 MiG aircraft, several SA-2, SA-3 surface-to-air missile systems, missile and radar components, and a cache of small arms and rocket-propelled grenades. This is a depiction from the U.N. sources of what was found. I ask my colleagues, is this the behavior of a tired and old, benign regime, one that deserves our sympathy? Is there a misunderstanding that does not check enough terrorist boxes? Is this something we should justifiably ignore, falling under the category of Castro will be Castro or is this, at its core, the active and dangerous play of a terrorist state that we would not tolerate from any other Nation? It seems to me that supplying a rogue nation such as North Korea with a secret cache of weapons demands something more than the loosening of travel restrictions and the opening of trade. It demands exactly the opposite. We should treat Cuba and the Castro regime as we would treat any other state sponsor of terrorism, because it is. Yet here I am once again forced to come to the floor of the Senate to point to pictures of a North Korean ship in a Cuban port smuggling MiG aircraft and surface- to-air missiles and ask: Why should we turn a blind eye to what we clearly would not accept from Iran, Syria or Sudan? And why in God's name would we want to take this opportunity to reward the regime with cashflow so they can continue to oppress their people and subvert neighboring countries? Why should we accept the lame excuses given by the Cuban regime that somehow--despite the fact that many of the arms were still in their original packaging, despite the fact that others had been recently calibrated, despite the fact there was a fresh coat of paint over the insignia of the Cuban Air Force on the side of the MiGs to hide their origin, despite the fact that the entire shipment was covered with 200,000 bags of sugar to deceive--this was a purely innocent business transaction, an innocent business transaction, and that the arms were being sent to North Korea for maintenance and would have been returned to the island? Does anyone actually believe such a ludicrous claim? Can we and should we simply ignore it and move on, even though U.N. weapons inspectors found that the shipment was a clear violation--a clear violation--of U.N. sanctions, that Cuba was the first country in the Western Hemisphere to violate international sanctions related to North Korea and that the shipment constituted the largest amount of arms shipped to or from North Korea since the adoption of Security Council resolution 1874 in 2009 and resolution 2094 in 2013? I repeat, the largest amount of arms shipped to or from North Korea. If that is not food for thought when it comes to easing restrictions against a terrorist state to our south, I don't know what is. In recent years some would have us believe--and I have listened to some of my colleagues--that reforms led by Raul Castro placed Cuba on a path to economic progress, but if we look at the new law on foreign investment Cuba just passed last week, we get a clearer picture of the truth behind Cuba's economic model. Let's be clear about this economic model. Under Cuba's new foreign investment law, investment projects will be allowed to be fully funded by foreign capital, business taxes on profits would be cut by 50 percent, foreign companies would be exempt from paying taxes for the first 8 years of operations in Cuba, and many foreigners living in Cuba would be let off the hook from paying income taxes at all. Think about it. The question is, Who wins? Who wins? Not the people of Cuba. The most glaring omission in this law is any benefit at all to the Cuban people. Instead of receiving a new investment opportunity or benefiting from tax cuts--although Cubans don't make enough to benefit from any tax cuts--they will continue to live under restrictive laws and regulations, unable to start their own business, unable to follow a dream or build a better life. They are left to live under the most restrictive laws preventing them from ever realizing their dreams for themselves and their families. In fact, the Cuban regime has permitted people to work for themselves but only in 200 types of jobs the government officially sanctions. They have a list of authorized jobs that includes sewing buttons, filling cigarette lighters, street performing--not exactly lucrative startups that can build an economy. These authorized jobs bear more resemblance to a feudal economy than anything we would recognize as economic opportunity. At the same time the government has moved aggressively to close inhome movie theaters, secondhand clothing markets, and fledgling private restaurants that it considers too large or too successful. Why? Because anything that allows Cubans to meet legally, lawfully, and as a group is seen as a threat to the regime. Simply allowing people to come together for what we take for granted in our country and most countries in the world is seen as a threat to the regime because God knows what those Cubans would do if they started talking to each other in a place where they had no fear. While the Cuban Government offers new incentives to foreign investors and continues to clamp down on self-employed workers, the real economic change in Cuba is the growing role of the Cuban Armed Forces in the country's economy. Under the watchful eye of Raul Castro's son-in-law, a general in the Cuban Armed Forces, the military holding company, GAESA, has amassed control of more than 40 percent of Cuba's economy. Through companies such as GAESA, the government and the Armed Forces-- those most loyal to the Castros--are laying a foundation for its future control of Cuba and the Cuban economy. On the economic front, I think it is important to make the point that when people argue for travel and trade with Cuba, they are arguing to do so with who--with Castro's monopolies. Let us be clear: Regular Cubans are prohibited from engaging in foreign trade and commerce. So do we want to trade with Castro's state-owned monopolies--monopolies that are largely controlled by the Armed Forces of Cuba? Do we? Do we truly want to reward a regime that sends the biggest amount of weapons to North Korea in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions? The U.S. Government's own report of agricultural sales to Cuba states how every single transaction with Cuba, by hundreds of American agricultural companies, has only one counterpart--Castro's food monopoly through a state-owned company named Alimport. That hasn't helped the people one bit. So do we truly want to unleash billions to Castro's monopolies? Also, every single foreign people-to-people traveler who currently stays at a hotel or resort owned by whom? By the Cuban military. No exceptions. No exceptions. So how does that promote independence of the Cuban people from the regime as President Obama's policy statement upon release of this regulation states? At the very least they should be compelled to stay at what we call a casa particular, which means a private home that used to be able to take in a visitor, but staying at the military facilities owned by the military or copartnering by the military with some foreign private sector contravenes the President's own policy statement. This hardly constitutes an economic opening for the people of Cuba. By the way, if you are an individual Cuban, you can't go to a foreign company. You can't even go to the hotels in your own country unless you are invited in by a foreigner. You work there if the state sends you there. Those of us who get to work here, we actually would only be here because the state would send us here, not because through our abilities and competency we would have earned the opportunity to be employed here or anywhere else in this country or in the private sector. That is not possible for the average Cuban. So in their own country they cannot go to a hotel unless they are invited in by a foreigner. Imagine visiting throughout our country and not being able to go into a hotel unless somebody from some other country tells you you can go into it. However, if there is one positive trend to be found in Cuba today it is that after decades of fear and self-imposed silence there is a growing and growing number of Cuban citizens beginning to speak out critically, increasingly in public. In June of 2012, Jorge Luis Garcia Perez--known as Antunez--testified at my invitation before the Foreign Relations Committee via Skype from the U.S. intrasection, as you can see in this photograph. After he testified he was beaten and detained for his testimony on human rights abuses on the island, but that didn't stop him. It didn't stop the bloggers from the Cuban diasporo from getting the word out. After decades of being manipulated by the Castros, the people of Cuba no longer identify with the government. While the government still holds power through its security operations, its legitimacy is plummeting in the opinions of its people. So after 55 years of dictatorship, it is our responsibility in the international community to encourage this independence and help the people of Cuba reclaim their rights--rights to freedom of expression, rights to organize unions, rights to freedom of assembly, rights to freedom of the press, rights to freedom of religion--universal human rights, the rights and freedoms that will be the building blocks of a new and Democratic Cuba of the future. But let us not be misled. Although Berto Soler--the ladies in white that I showed earlier--is now allowed by the regime to visit the United States and Europe after an enormous amount of international pressure, when she returns to Cuba there is no change in the status of the ladies in white. The pictures I showed of the beatings and the arrests is still their reality. Every move she and her courageous partners make is monitored by the Castro regime. They are physically harassed intimidated and arrested. Why? For simply wanting what any mother in any country on the face of the Earth wants--to learn the fate of her husband, her son or daughter who has been harassed, beaten and jailed by an aging, illegitimate regime. According to the Cuban Commissioner for Human Rights and National Reconciliation, there were more than 15,000 cases of arbitrarily, politically motivated detentions since the start of 2012. In January of this year, when 30 heads of State from Latin America and the Caribbean came together, as well as the Secretary General of the United Nations and the Secretary General of the OAS, at a summit in Havana, there were more than 1,050 detentions over the course of 1 month. In one prominent case, a leading Afro-Cuban political activist, intellectual, and known leftist Manuel Cuesta Morua was arrested after attempting--to do what? To organize a parallel civil society summit during the visit by the heads of state. This simple practice--a practice not uncommon and, in fact ubiquitous throughout Latin America and the world--is not tolerated by the Castro regime. Instead, Mr. Cuesta Morua faced 5 days of intensive interrogation and has been charged with ``disseminating false news against international peace,'' joining prominent activists Jorge Luis Garcia Perez Antunez and Guillermo Farinas--who was awarded the Sakharov Prize by the European Parliament--simply because they knew there were heads of state throughout Latin America and of major international organizations wanting to hold a parallel meeting, peacefully doing so to promote their vision of what human rights and democracy should be inside of their country. Their result was to ultimately be jailed and face the charges which can leave them for many years in jail. Unfortunately, except for one or two, most of the leaders of the hemisphere who went to that meeting didn't even try to meet with the human rights activists, political dissidents, or independent journalists because they did not want to insult the Castro regime. Here is Farinas shown being taken away by the police. These activists have faced repeated brutal acts at the hands of the Castro regime--no less violent than the regimes of any other terrorist state. Finally, it is important to note that detentions, violence, and harassment are not reserved for political activists alone but also directed at labor rights activists as well. In early March of this year AFL-CIO President Trumka called on the Cuban Government to end its harassment of Mr. Cuesta Morua and all independent union activists advocating for labor rights to protect Cuban workers, such as Morua and Maria Elena Mir and her colleagues. American workers are not turning a blind eye to what the Cuban regime is doing to limit worker rights, and we should not turn a blind eye either. We must support those such as Morua and Maria who are willing to step forward for labor rights in the face of a repressive regime that will not stop at anything to silence them. As the people of Cuba look to cast off the shackles of five decades of dictatorial rule, we must stand with and speak out in support of all those who seek to reclaim their civil and political rights and promote political pluralism and democratic values. We cannot turn our back on Cuba's human rights violations record for decades simply because ``enough time has passed.'' If that is the case, enough time has surely passed in places such as Syria, Sudan, Iran, and North Korea. To me and to the thousands who have suffered at the hands of this regime, the clock has nothing to do with our policy options. Engagement and sanctions relief have to be earned. It can't be timed out. It must come through real change, not Xs on a calendar or the ticking of a clock. And the clock is ticking for Alan Gross. On December 4, 2009, Alan Gross, a private subcontractor for the U.S. Government, working to bring information to the Jewish community inside of Cuba, was arrested in Cuba. Mr. Gross, a 64-year-old development professional who worked in dozens of countries around the world with programs to help people get access to basic information, was doing nothing different. That is why I am amazed with this uproar which exists by some who want to paint this picture that, my God, we actually were trying to assist the Cuban people to have greater access to the Internet through a Twitter program. That is what we do throughout the world. Even the foreign operations legislation talks about tens of millions of dollars--not several hundred million dollars--to be promoting Internet access in closed societies. It seems to me that freedom of information is one of the most fundamental elements, and yet we have this bit of a firestorm going on over simply creating the possibility for people to have access to information so they can speak for themselves and hear unfettered what is happening in the outside world. We all condemned what is happening in Turkey when the head of Turkey ultimately tried to shut down Twitter, but somehow it is OK to shut down the people of Cuba. Since 2009, Alan Gross has been detained in Villa Marista, a prison in Havana notorious for its treatment of political prisoners by the Cuban National Security Agency. This is not a minimum-security prison where foreigners are routinely held. It is a harsh, repressive prison reserved for Cuban dissidents. He is still being held at Villa Marista, and it is time for the Castro regime to let this American be released. He did nothing wrong. After serving 4 years now of a 15-year sentence, this 64-year-old American's mental health is reported to be deteriorating and his life may well be in danger. The case of Alan Gross is only one example of why we cannot let up until the dead weight of this oppressive regime is lifted once and for all. We have supported democracy movements around the world. I have been a big advocate of that in my 21 years in the Congress, in the House and the Senate, serving on both foreign policy committees. I am a big advocate because freedom and democracy and human rights, when they are observed, mean we deal with countries in which we will have less conflict and more opportunity. It is the idea upon which this Nation was founded, and it is who we are as a people and what we stand for in the eyes of the world. We can no longer condone, through inaction and outright support--in some cases even from some of my colleagues in this Chamber--the actions of a repressive regime 90 miles from our own shores simply because of the passage of time or because of some romantic idea of what the Castro regime is all about. So to my colleagues, let me say, I know I have come to this floor on many occasions demanding action. I have come to this floor demanding that we live up to our rhetoric and our values. I ask that we hold the Castro brothers accountable for the suffering of the Cuban people--not only the years of brutality and oppression which have deprived the Cuban people of the basic human rights we so proudly proclaim to support around the world, but also for the continuing reality of the suppression of those human rights today. I will come to the floor again and again to ask for nothing less, to ask that we never allow the Castro regime to profit from increased trade which would benefit the regime and will use these dollars for repression but not put one ounce of food on the plates of Cuban families. I will end with this photograph of a man being arrested in Havana and flashing a sign recognized across Cuba and throughout the world. The sign is ``L'' for liberty. Libertad. That is all we ask for the people of Cuba, and I won't rest until we achieve it. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration en bloc of the following resolutions which were submitted earlier today: S. Res. 414; S. Res. 415; and S. Res. 416.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles, where applicable, be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I understand that H.R. 2575 has been received from the House and is at the desk. I would ask for its first reading.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I would ask for a second reading and object to my own request.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Tuesday, April 8, 2014; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate be in a period of morning business until 12:30 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees; that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. to allow for weekly caucus meetings; further, that the majority control the time from 2:15 p.m. until 3:15 p.m. and the Republicans control the time from 3:15 p.m. until 4:15 p.m.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, this evening cloture was filed on the motion to proceed to the equal pay bill. Under the rules the cloture vote will be Wednesday morning.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the consideration of H. Con. Res. 92, which was received from the House and is at the desk.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I ask unanimous consent the concurrent resolution be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Connecticut for his engagement and for recognizing our former colleague, Senator Lautenberg, whose passion for public transportation was unmatched in this body. He understood the nexus of why it was important not just to our State of New Jersey and the Northeast but to the country. My colleague from Connecticut is correct, that Portal Bridge--it is called the Portal Bridge because it is a bridge that is a portal to the entire Northeast corridor and carries passengers over a movable swing bridge across the Hackensack River between Kearny and Secaucus, NJ. It is a portal into and out of Manhattan. It is one of the busiest sections of the corridor with hundreds of passengers and commuter trains crossing it every day. You would think that given its importance to the Northeast and the millions who live in that region, it would be a state-of-the-art, reliable, world-class bridge that we would be willing to invest in, making it the best possible bridge. Unfortunately, the reality is quite different. The Portal Bridge was built in 1910. It is over 100 years old and deteriorating--causing significant delays for Amtrak riders in New Jersey and throughout the system. Because of the low clearance over the Hackensack River, the bridge opens to allow ships to pass, thereby creating delays for rail passengers and then more delays come when the bridge doesn't lock into place because it is too old and doesn't work properly. We have delay after delay all because we are unwilling to invest in our infrastructure, and that is simply unacceptable. When the bridge doesn't close, trains throughout the Northeast corridor are delayed while Amtrak workers scramble to fix it. Further adding to the problems are speed restrictions that have been in place on the bridge since 1996. These restrictions have been essential to allow trains to cross safely, hardly a comforting thought for riders traveling on the corridor. The Northeast corridor is the Nation's busiest rail line and serves 700,000 people every day. The line supports eight commuter railroads every day, carrying over 200,000 New Jersey transit passengers. So failure to invest in a modern, state-of-the-art system does a disservice to all of us--certainly to the commuters. It is an economic hindrance in a region that supports 20 percent of the entire Nation's GDP. There are other reasons to consider the importance of these investments and one is our economy and jobs. These intercity rail systems ultimately create an opportunity for people to get to employment and to reach out to find employment and find better employment. It is also about companies that send their sales force up and down the Northeast corridor in a thorough and effective and efficient way. It is about those who might visit one of the great health institutions along the Northeast corridor for a health challenge they face. It is about tourism from anywhere--from the sights of New York or New Jersey or along the entire route, crossroads of the revolution, all the way to the Nation's Capital of Washington, DC. It is about visiting a loved one and having a way to do it that allows them to be able to afford to do so. In the aftermath of September 11, we learned that a multiplicity of transportation modes was critical to security questions because on that fateful day when every trans-Hudson crossing closed down--the bridges closed down, the tunnels closed down, the ability to do intercity rail closed down--the one element that was open was a different form of transportation, and that was ferries. Imagine, in a different context, if you don't have intercity rail to move people away from a location in which there was a September 11-like event that, in fact, the consequences that would flow. We learned after September 11 that transportation is more than about getting from one place to another, more than about sending a sales force, more than even about the quality of life and the environment by having more people on an efficient system, it is also another dimension of security in a post-September 11 world. We must do better. As far as the Amtrak budget proposal, I am pleased that Amtrak's fiscal year 2015 budget request takes a step in the right direction to improve its record of good repair and reliability in the Northeast corridor. In spite of the challenges of aging infrastructure, Amtrak in the Northeast corridor is a profitable rail line, generating over $300 million each year. Yet, under the current structure, Amtrak has been unable to invest those profits back into essential projects such as the Portal Bridge, which is ultimately the portal by which all of Amtrak's rail lines to the Northeast have to go through. These profits have instead been used elsewhere on Amtrak's system, subsidized long- distance services that were traditionally a core Federal responsibility. For too long Congress has failed to meet its responsibility on these routes, relying on the riders of the Northeast corridor to subsidize other parts of the rail network. Riders on the Northeast corridor deserve to have profits generated along the line reinvested--not used as a substitute for insufficient Federal investment. Amtrak's new proposal will allow it to keep revenue generated by the corridor in the corridor--a commonsense solution and a successful business model for the Northeast. At the same time, Amtrak proposes full funding for lines outside of the Northeast corridor, making this a win-win proposal for America's rail system. Finally, making these investments now will help us prevent large- scale failures that could cripple our region in the future. Unfortunately, we in New Jersey know all too well the consequences of a significant transportation failure. When Hurricane Sandy crashed ashore in October of 2012, our transportation systems were inundated with water and severely damaged. We saw firsthand what happens when the transit and rail networks we often take for granted are rendered unusable. Residents were stranded--cut off from their loved ones and their livelihoods. Sandy showed us just how much our region depends on its rail and transit networks. As New Jersey and its networks work to rebuild, we must take every opportunity to strengthen our infrastructure and prevent future failures of our transportation system. Current Federal funding requirements leave the Northeast corridor vulnerable by preventing us from reinvesting in critical projects. Amtrak's budget proposal is a straightforward solution, by keeping and allowing the Northeast to keep and reinvest its own profits. At the same time, the proposal would maintain funding for other rail lines to ensure a valuable, viable national network. The bottom line: This is a proposal whose time has clearly come. So it is time that we as a Congress say enough is enough; 100-year- old infrastructure is simply unacceptable. It is time to make the investments that will support our economy and our quality of life and, I would add, our security. It is time to live up to our Federal commitments and fully fund our rail network. I certainly wish to join my other colleagues in thanking our colleague from New York Senator Schumer for leading this important discussion about the future of Amtrak. I urge my colleagues to support this budget proposal, to fully fund Amtrak's operating and capital costs nationwide, and to take the long overdue step of allowing Northeast corridor profits to be reinvested into our critical infrastructure. Now let me turn this over to my colleague Senator Booker who, until he came to the Senate, was the mayor of the State's largest city by which all of these different modes of transportation came together and through which the Northeast corridor has a major station. He saw, as it related to his own community, the realities of what the rail passenger system meant for consumers, what it meant for businesses, and what it meant for our security. I yield the floor for the distinguished Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Theresa Harrison, a legislative fellow in Senator Schumer's office, be granted privileges of the floor for the duration of today's session.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I shortly am going to make a unanimous consent request on S. Res. 404, a resolution I submitted honoring the life and legacy of Cesar Chavez. This resolution has been blocked by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle every time it has come up for the last 7 consecutive years--every time. Now, today, on what would have been Cesar Chavez's 87th birthday, I ask my Republican colleagues to find it in their hearts to honor a man who really made a difference in our country. Frankly, I do not understand their reluctance. I do not understand their obstructionism. I do not understand how they can look back at that time in history, at the sacrifices Cesar Chavez made for our country, asking for nothing more than fair treatment and justice. I realize it is uncommon to make a live unanimous consent request for a commemorative resolution, but if Republicans are going to object yet again--for an eighth year in a row--to honoring, in my view, a great American hero, I really want it to be on the record. I think Republicans need to answer to the American people as to why, as a party, they can agree to passing resolutions honoring World Plumbing Day or congratulating the Penn State Dance Marathon--both Senate resolutions that were adopted this month by unanimous consent--but insist on standing in the way of honoring a civil rights trailblazer who changed the course of our Nation's history. Cesar Chavez was a man before his time, and he deserves proper recognition. He dedicated his life to fighting for equality, justice, and dignity--not only for Hispanic farm workers but for all workers in the United States. Yet our friends on the other side cannot find it in their hearts to honor him. I have to ask why. Why can't they simply say yes, he was an extraordinary man who gave of himself for his cause and deserves to be remembered and honored by the U.S. Senate? The President of the United States proclaimed today, March 31, 2014, as Cesar Chavez Day. Over 10 States honor his life and legacy each year on this day. The Secretary of the Interior established a national monument in his honor, and across the country you will find schools, parks, streets, libraries, and other public facilities named after Cesar Chavez as well. So I implore Senate Republicans to reconsider denying Cesar Chavez's legacy for an eighth year in a row. Adopt this commemorative resolution by unanimous consent. Give Cesar Chavez the recognition he so deserves. That is all we ask--nothing more. This year there is a new movie chronicling the life of Cesar Chavez-- a life lived with honor and dignity and decency for the betterment of all of us. The film is long overdue. That life, that dedication, that spirit will always be missed. He was born near his family's farm in Yuma, AZ. When he was 10, in the hard times of the Depression, the family lost their farm, like millions of Americans, and they became migrant farm workers, laboring in vineyards across the Southwest, where he learned of the injustice and hardship of a farm worker's life. He never left those fields. He never left the land. He never turned his back on the people who worked it. And the rest is history. Robert Kennedy called him one of the most heroic figures of our time. I think it is because Cesar Chavez understood and believed in one fundamental truth. He always said: ``The fight is never about grapes or lettuce; it's always about people.'' He was right. And that fight continues today. The struggle for fairness and dignity for every American goes on, and Cesar Chavez was and is its inspiration. He certainly is an American hero but most definitely a hero to the Hispanic community. He paved the way for the contributions of Hispanic Americans--for innovative progress and social improvements. If there is one man who redefined leadership, it is Cesar Chavez. I think my colleagues need to know that the community stands with me today and stands firmly behind my resolution honoring the life and legacy of Cesar Chavez. Mr. President, I have a list--and in the interest of time, I will not read it--of 37 national Hispanic and labor organizations that all support the resolution. I ask unanimous consent to have that list printed in the Record.

Mr. MENENDEZ. We all eagerly await the day when politics will no longer preclude its passage. Cesar Chavez's profound legacy and lasting influence can be reduced to three words--the motto of the United Farm Workers--that recall his fight for justice and have echoed from the fields of Delano, CA, across America all the way to the White House: ``Si se puede.'' These three words, while simple in nature, harbored the power to move entire communities from the dark shadows of injustice toward a brighter light of hope. These three words represent at their very core the spirit that breathes life into Americans' struggle for a better life. As the leader of the first successful farm workers union in the United States, he fought to ensure those working tirelessly to provide Americans with food received the benefits they deserved. Nonetheless, his service extends far beyond our agricultural fields and provides inspiration to those working to improve human rights, empowering workers, regardless of race or ethnicity. His countless efforts to ensure equality, justice, and dignity for all people in the United States are a testament of his leadership and success--a success that can only be measured by the lasting impact he has made toward ending workplace discrimination, unsafe and unfair working conditions, low wages, and child labor. He was more than just a farmer with a vision. He was a civil rights leader who embodied the pursuit of justice that continues to inspire millions of Americans today. So I come to the floor today to honor the life and achievements of Cesar Chavez, to ask my Republican colleagues to put aside their politics and do what is right by a man whose life and legacy deserve the recognition of this Nation--one Nation and one Congress. Let's stand together and recognize the accomplishments of a great American hero but, most importantly, let's honor the values that make our country great--the values of tolerance, hope, and freedom, upon which this country was founded. And let's always remember, as Chavez said, the fight is always about the people. With that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 404, the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Reserving the right to object, this is not about Cesar Chavez. This is about immigration. I know my distinguished colleague has a different view about immigration than I do. I know Senator Vitter, for whom he is offering this amendment, also has a different view. The Senate has spoken on the question of immigration. Sixty-seven Senators, two-thirds of the Senate has already sent an immigration reform bill to the House of Representatives. So while we may have different views, that is not the issue of Cesar Chavez. In my view it is an injustice to his memory to offer such an amendment. That is why I will have to object.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I have a deep respect for Senator Sessions. But I will just simply say this is the 8th year, the 8th year in which under some figleaf--before they could hide through their objections. But this is really a fig leaf. The Senate has expressed itself on immigration reform. This is not about immigration reform. This is about Cesar Chavez. This is about a man who led boycotts across the country to bring to justice the rights of farmworkers and of all workers across the land. There is no bigger supporter, by the way, than the United Farm Workers, which he helped build, create, and today is one of the strongest voices for that immigration reform. It is, from my view, shameful that we can pass commemorative resolutions on some of the most insignificant issues, but on the life of someone who changed the course of this country for millions of Latinos who understand that life and history and would want to see that life commemorated, that there can be a continuing objection for 8 years. I will keep coming each year to the floor to make this happen. At some point it will. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I come to the floor as we are at a moment of truth and a moment of incredible importance, and I wish to start off by acknowledging the distinguished Republican ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Corker, for the spirit in which we have worked together to marshal forces to bring critical legislation to the floor at a critical time in history. This is the type of relationship we have had for the last 15 months, during which time we have often seen such partisanship, where on every major piece of legislation that has passed out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, it has passed on a strong bipartisan vote, and I appreciate his leadership and his working with us. Let me reiterate what I have said on the Senate floor. President Putin is watching. He is waiting to see what we will do, waiting to see if we have the resolve to act, waiting to see if he has a green light to take the next step. I believe we need to act now and pass this legislation, and I welcome the flexibility the House has shown in its resolve to move this quickly upon receipt. Although I believe our response to Russia's annexation of Crimea should have included IMF reforms to strengthen the U.S. role in the international community, that will not be the case, but we still need to act on this issue today. So I hope, in short order, we can have the IMF reform legislation on the floor and take a responsible vote on an important issue. But let us be clear where we are at this moment. Let us be clear about what happened in Ukraine over the last several years and what is happening now as Ukraine simply looks westward. Former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was elected on a platform that advocated closer ties to Europe. In fact, his first trip abroad was not to Moscow but to Brussels to meet with European Union officials. For 3 years Ukraine officials voted in good faith with their European counterparts. They believed they did so with their President's support. Ukrainian public opinion polls favored the conclusion of an agreement between the EU and the Ukraine that would increase trade and cooperation, allowing more people, goods, services, and ideas to cross the border from the West. On November 21, Yanukovych flipped 180 degrees. He announced an end to talks with the European Union, and Ukrainians felt bitterly betrayed. For 20 years, Ukraine has struggled to economically develop. They have struggled to establish representative government. They have struggled to achieve a stable way forward, a path of economic security and political democracy. The association agreement with the European Union had promised a path toward those goals. So people were furious, and they took to the streets. They knew from personal experience what the world now knows--that Yanukovych and his government and his family had stolen tens of billions of dollars from Ukrainian taxpayers, jeopardizing the solvency and independence of their country to support a lavish lifestyle while the public went without. The people who took to the Maidan Square in the freezing cold were simply looking westward. They believed the European Union was their last best hope to break the cycle of corruption. They knew their future was being stolen. So they marched and they took beatings from Yanukovych's paramilitary forces, not for a treaty but for the hope of a better, more honest and free Ukraine that it promised. Putin resorted to outright extortion to keep Ukraine in his sphere of influence, essentially offering to buy Ukraine by offering Yanukovych $15 billion, and it would have worked but for the uprising of the Ukrainian people who realized this was a Faustian bargain and that Putin was the devil, not their savior. Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians demonstrated for 3 months to call for the President's resignation. On February 22 of this year, President Yanukovych fled to Russia and an interim government was installed in Ukraine. Almost immediately, Russian forces took control of the Crimean Peninsula, a clear violation of international law and Russia's own commitments under the Budapest agreement and the Helsinki Final Act. This demands a swift and coordinated and powerful response from the international community and from this Congress. It demands a message to Putin of our resolve and to the Ukrainian people of our support. That message came, in part, on March 13, when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed, by a bipartisan vote of 14 to 3, the Support for the Sovereignty, Integrity, Democracy, and Economic Stability of Ukraine Act of 2014. In addition to providing $1 billion in loan guarantees for Ukraine to provide crucial support to stabilize Ukraine's economy, this legislation authorizes assistance for democracy, governance, and civil society programs as well as for enhanced security cooperation. It provides support to the Ukrainian Government to help recover access linked to corruption by former President Yanukovych, his family, and other government officials. It imposes sanctions against those who are responsible for violent human rights abuses against antigovernment protesters as well as those responsible for undermining the peace, security, stability, sovereignty or territorial integrity of the Ukraine. It imposes asset freezes and visa revocations on Russian officials and their associates who are complicit in or responsible for significant corruption in Ukraine and authorizes sanctions against any Russian official engaged in corruption in the Ukraine or in Russia. Putin's cronies should recognize that Putin may not be the right horse to be betting on any longer. Finally, it sends a powerful message to Russia that there are consequences for using force to annex sovereign territory against the established norms of the international community. I will take one other moment to say that I have read some editorials suggesting that Ukraine is not that important to us; that it is more important to Europe than it is to us, so what could be our interest. Let me offer a few observations of what the interest of the United States is. For some time we have been working to see Ukraine move to a democratic, stable government, looking westward, and in doing so strengthening a big part of Eastern Europe at the end of the day in a way that strengthens the security of that region and the fiscal opportunities of that region. We look at the Ukraine and we say to ourselves, well, they are not a NATO member. But other NATO allies--some of which I met with when I was in Brussels this past week--who are NATO members are watching and asking: What will Europe and the United States do in the face of Russian aggression? What is our ultimate security going to depend on? We are a NATO member. We are, under article 5 of NATO's treaty, ultimately supposed to be protected because we are committed to the protection of all our other neighbors under NATO. Some of those countries actually meet the full responsibility they have under NATO to pay their quota for the collective defense. So Ukraine is not a NATO member, but they are looking at what the West's resolve is in the face of this aggression and the possibility of Russian forces moving further west, asking: Is NATO going to stand up for me? That agreement is one of the fundamental institutions that has created security on the European Continent and for which America twice--twice--sent its sons and daughters abroad to ultimately guarantee that security. We need to ensure that NATO continues to be a vibrant entity for the collective security of the United States and of Europe. This is another reason we are interested. Thirdly, I would just simply say, as I have said on the Senate floor before, the world is watching. China is watching, and they are wondering what America and the West will do as they look at territories they dispute with our allies--Japan and South Korea in the South China Sea. They say: The West let Putin get away with this. Why should we not take those territories? There will be no consequence. Or as we are negotiating with Iran across the table to stop their nuclear weapons program, the Iranians look and ask: How much will the West punish Russia for this aggression, because if there isn't much consequence, then why should I not try to get the maximum of this deal or not accept the deal at all. Or North Korea, which wants to advance even further its missile program, which already possesses nuclear capability, what is their calculation? I could go around the globe describing at this moment, beyond the Ukraine, how the European Union and the United States acts will send a very clear message to world actors, and that message hopefully will be one of strength, because in doing so we may avert the consequences of security challenges around the globe, avert the possibility we will have to send our sons and daughters into harm's way if we act decisively, if we act with strength. That is the opportunity we have. The world is watching, and we must rise to the challenge. Passing this legislation goes a long way toward that goal, and that is both the opportunity and the responsibility before the Senate. I urge my colleagues to speak with one voice. I hope we get as near to unanimity as possible, as we have done at other times; for example, on the question of sanctions on Iran. This is such a moment. If the Senate speaks with one voice, I think President Putin will understand the consequences of miscalculating further. I hope that is the opportunity of which we will avail ourselves and, in doing so, send a message beyond Putin to the rest of the world that we have the resolve necessary to rise to such challenges. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise to express my strong support for Maria Contreras-Sweet--a woman eminently qualified to serve our country as the next administrator of the Small Business Administration. Maria Contreras-Sweet is the right person to lead the SBA given her distinguished record of public service and her deep understanding of the challenges and needs facing small businesses today. As the founder of ProAmerica Bank, the first Latino-owned business bank in California in over 30 years and a leading financial services provider and SBA lender, she successfully expanded access to capital for small- and medium-sized businesses that often lacked access to larger, traditional financial institutions. Just yesterday, my colleagues in the Hispanic Task Force and I met with Latino business leaders from across the Nation, and the No. 1 issue that was raised by nearly everyone in the room was the need to assist minority entrepreneurs and small business owners with obtaining financing and access to capital--an essential function of the SBA, and one that Maria-Contreras Sweet understands first-hand. Her commitment to supporting small businesses owners embodies the entrepreneurial spirit that makes our country great--and is exactly the kind of leadership the SBA needs. Maria Contreras-Sweet also has a proven track record as a dedicated public servant. She previously served as secretary of the California Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency, where she was the driving force behind major job creation and public investments in infrastructure and housing. As the first Latina to serve as a cabinet secretary in the state, she managed a budget of $14 billion and oversaw more than 40,000 employees. This is truly a remarkable nominee who brings a wealth of knowledge and leadership to the Small Business Administration, as well as a compelling personal story. Maria Contreras-Sweet, like me, has humble beginnings. As a young child, she immigrated to the United States from Guadalajara, Mexico. She settled in California, where her mother worked long hours at a chicken packaging plant to support her and her five siblings. Her family did not speak any English when they arrived, and Maria has said that it was precisely hearing no' so many times and seeing so many doors close for them that prompted her to speak up for others, to fight to level the playing field for all, and to find a way to say yes' to people with good ideas who can drive innovation who are all too often overlooked for the wrong reasons. Maria Contreras-Sweet represents the promise of America, the fulfillment of the American Dream, and the expansion of this dream to millions more entrepreneurs and small business owners across the Nation. She is building wealth for American families and communities, and building pathways to growth and prosperity that extend far beyond the business sector. Maria Contreras-Sweet is the right nominee for the job. I applaud President Obama for selecting her to be our nation's next SBA administrator, and I thank Leader Reid for moving quickly to confirm her nomination without delay. I'm very pleased the time has finally come for good people like Maria Contreras-Sweet to get the up-or-down vote they deserve. I urge my colleagues to vote to confirm this qualified, competent nominee without hesitation. With that, 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 March 27, 2014, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 27, 2014, at 9:45 a.m., in room SD- 366 of the Dirksen Senate Building.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, on March 27, 2014, at 9:45 a.m., in room SD- 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``MAP-21 Reauthorization: State and Local Perspectives on Transportation Priorities and Funding.''

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 March 27, 2014, at 10 a.m., in room SD-430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Strengthening the Federal Student Loan Program for Borrowers.''