Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 11, 2013, in room 562 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building beginning at 3:45 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Protecting Seniors From Medication Labeling Mistakes.''

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, let me start by thanking my distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from Delaware, for his remarks, and the people of Delaware who came to New Jersey to help us. That is the essence of why we call this great country the United States of America. In moments of challenge and adversity we come together. We appreciate the Delawareans who came to help us. We hope we never have to repay the kindness, but if perchance it comes, we will. I come to the floor on this anniversary of Superstorm Sandy a year ago. We all remember what has now become an iconic photo. It is hard to believe that it has been 1 year since Sandy, but it has. For a year, under difficult and trying circumstances, New Jerseyans have pulled together, worked together, and helped each other to recover. I rise today in praise of their tenacity, their resilience, their spirit of community, and remembering all of the hard work of the many first responders, Federal, State, and local officials, community leaders, and volunteers who helped in those recovery efforts. Just yesterday I was with Secretary Donovan in New Jersey to announce another $1.4 billion in community development grant disaster relief funding. This is $1.4 billion in flexible-use funding that comes in addition to the $1.8 billion we have already received from the hard- fought $60 billion disaster relief package we secured a year ago. We secured that funding after a long debate over whether we as a nation and the Congress were prepared to provide disaster relief to the people of my State and others who suffered devastating losses. Standing with me in that effort were many in this Chamber, and one who is no longer with us, our late colleague and friend Senator Frank Lautenberg. He and I worked against many who did not want to provide New Jersey the disaster relief we needed. We were in the midst of a debt ceiling debate, a fiscal cliff at the end after a congressional session, and even after Sandy relief had passed the Senate with bipartisan support, the House Republican leadership chose not to immediately bring the relief package to a vote, unnecessarily delaying our recovery from Sandy by 6 weeks. There were those in Congress who believe that even in times of disaster and crisis we are on our own. I don't believe that. I believe we are all in this together and in times of crisis we come together as a community. That is why when the State of New Jersey submitted its application last March to use $1.83 billion in Federal Sandy relief to help thousands of homeowners and small businesses rebuild, the Obama administration, through HUD Secretary Donovan, approved the application in April, the following month. We have come a long way since October 29th when Sandy made landfall in southern New Jersey. One hundred and fifty-nine people lost their lives, 8.5 million customers lost power, more than 650,000 homes were damaged and 40,000 in our State were severely damaged or destroyed. Here is a perfect example of how far we have come. You can see here the damage Sandy brought on this home one year ago today. And, as you can see in this second photo, today it is well on its way to being fully restored. But we have a long way yet to go in every community to fully recover from the extent of the damage and to make families and businesses whole again. A year ago, this headline ran in the Record: ``Business losses mount; Some choosing to close rather than rebuild.'' Hundreds of thousands of businesses were forced to close, causing an estimated $65 billion in economic loss and resulting in emergency declarations or disasters in 13 States up and down the East Coast. In a matter of minutes, people had lost loved ones, they lost their homes, their property, and their livelihoods, but they stood strong and began to rebuild. Beyond the headlines of this story, we see the Jersey spirit that came through in person after person. Despite the uphill climb, New Jersey rebuilt one home at a time, one business at a time, one community at a time. That's what makes us Jersey Strong. For 10 days, millions along the East Coast lived without power, without phones, seniors were stranded on the upper floors of buildings where elevators were out, and the loss of power led to fuel shortages and long gas lines. You can see in this photograph of the PATH Train Terminal in Hoboken, the extent of damage to our transportation infrastructure. It was a wake-up call to what could happen again in the future and the investment we need to make in our infrastructure to avoid future damage from future storms. The Sandy Recovery package we passed last year included $13 billion in critical funding I sought to help restore our transit and highway systems from what they looked like then, as you can see in this photograph. The Port Authority was able to repair the PATH station at Hoboken and harden electrical equipment to prevent future damage. NJDOT was able to elevate roads that were washed away by Sandy. At the end of the day, the legislation included necessary policy reforms that helped streamline recovery efforts and improve FEMA's Public Assistance Programs, allowing us to rebuild what was in place before the storm and build it stronger and better than before. Since then, almost $400 million in FEMA grants have been approved to help individuals and families recover. That is over $341 million for housing assistance and more than $54 million for additional needs. Homeowners, renters, and business owners have received over $764 million in SBA disaster loans and $314 million in FEMA Public Assistance grants to help local communities and local non-profits that serve the public and provided relief. National Flood Insurance Program payments to New Jersey have amounted to $3.5 billion to help people rebuild and get their lives back on track. In New Jersey alone, more than 261,000 people contacted FEMA for help and information and over 126,000 homes have been inspected. While these numbers show the progress we have made, the reality is that for thousands of people in New Jersey, recovery is a round-the- clock, 24-7 effort. Many New Jersey families have been hit with the ``triple whammy,'' having been flooded by Sandy, then facing repair and mitigation costs and then facing astronomical increases in flood insurance costs built into a flood reform bill that was passed before Sandy hit. Even as we slowly recover from the worst natural disaster in our State's history, a manmade disaster is looming in the distance, jeopardizing our recovery. The combination of updated flood maps and the phaseout of premium subsidies for the National Flood Insurance Program threatens to force victims out of their homes and destroy entire communities. Many homeowners will be forced to pay premiums that are several times higher than the current rate they pay. Those who cannot afford the higher premiums will be forced to either sell or be priced out of their home--probably at a fire-sale price. This in turn will drive down property values and local revenues at the worst possible time. I have heard from countless New Jerseyans, many who have come to me in tears, who are facing this predicament. These are hardworking middle class families, who played by the rules, purchased flood insurance, and are now being priced out of their home. In order to stop this manmade disaster from doing even more damage, I am leaving the floor in a few minutes and going to introduce bipartisan legislation to take a time-out and assess the impact these premium hikes will have on homeowners and the flood insurance program as a whole. The Homeowners Flood Insurance Affordability Act, which we will be announcing in a few minutes, would delay flood insurance premium increases imposed in the Biggert-Waters legislation for most primary residences until FEMA completes an affordability study that I had offered, and proposes a regulatory framework to address the issues found in the study. This will give current homeowners some breathing room before their flood insurance premiums go up. For prospective homebuyers, the certainty that they will not see their rate dramatically increase simply because they purchased a home is critically important to maintaining property values. At the end of the day, we look back at the year since the storm struck and remember those who lost their lives and those who came together to help their neighbors rebuild. We remember the efforts of first responders and government and community leaders pulling together. It is often said that ``the hardest steel must go through the hottest fire,'' and Sandy tested what we were made of. When we look at this photograph of twisted metal that once was a rollercoaster, we associate it with the destruction of Sandy, but we also associate it with how far we have come and what we have learned. We learned that it is not enough to live in a community, we have to be part of it. We have to remember that citizenship comes with responsibility not just to ourselves, but to each other. In the face of Sandy--in the aftermath, the tragedy, and the loss--we pulled together as a community. We worked together, helped each other rebuild lives, businesses, homes, our beaches and boardwalks--and, in doing so, we strengthened New Jersey's sense of pride and a belief that we are, in fact, all in this together. It is that spirit, that unity, that has made New Jersey stronger and better than before. Let me conclude by saying that recovery from any disaster depends on our continuing cooperation within our communities at every level of government. The business of government is people--their lives, their hopes, their dreams of a better life for themselves and their families. In New Jersey, we proved that--at every level of government--with various agencies working together--we all came together. There can be no tolerance of partisan division when it comes to the future of my State or any State's efforts to help families rebuild from a disaster like Sandy. The storm was extraordinary, but what makes me extraordinarily proud is that New Jerseyans rose to the challenge as they always do. There is much work left to do. We have learned that recovery from a disaster is not a one-size-fits-all endeavor. Full recovery from Sandy will take more than a village. But at the end of the day the biggest reason New Jersey has made the progress that it has, and why our State will come back better and stronger than before, is because of the people who live there. It hasn't been easy. But I have never been more proud to represent the people of New Jersey than I have during this last year since Sandy struck. I have seen the best of who we are and what we can do when we pull together, each of us working for the recovery of all of us. Looking back at the last year, I would say we are all New Jersey proud as well as New Jersey strong. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise today to honor the extraordinary work of Stephen Adubato, Sr., and the lifetime of contributions he has made to better the lives of Newark, NJ residents. From the 3- and 4-year-olds who attend the preschool program he founded, to the older adults who are cared for at Casa Israel Adult Medical Day Care, thousands of people each and every day are positively touched by the institutions that Mr. Adubato has created. Mr. Adubato began his own career in education as a history and government teacher in the Newark public schools, where he taught for 15 years. While teaching, he obtained a master's degree in education and completed the coursework for a doctorate in education. Beginning in 1970, Mr. Adubato built the North Ward Center from a small storefront office on Bloomfield Avenue into the thriving institution it is today. During an era of instability, uncertainty, and transformation in the city, the North Ward Center served as a pillar of stability, offering job training, education, and recreational opportunities to families struggling for survival. Given his strong commitment to education, it is no surprise that one of the first programs created by the North Ward Center was a preschool. Today, the North Ward Child Development Center educates 700 children a year and is one of the largest Abbott preschools in the State. In 1980, the North Ward Center founded the Newark Business Training Institute, NBTI, which has helped thousands of adults transition from welfare to work and has returned more than $1 billion into the State's economy. NBTI currently offers English as a second language to ensure recent immigrants have the language skills necessary to find good jobs. The crowning achievement of Mr. Adubato's lifelong dedication to education is the Robert Treat Academy Charter School, which enrolls 450 students in grades K-8. Founded in 1997 as one of the State's first charter schools, Robert Treat has gained a national reputation for its academic success and was named a Blue Ribbon school in 2008. In August 2009, Robert Treat opened a second campus in the Central Ward of Newark. It started with a kindergarten and first grade class and will add a grade each year. Between the two campuses, Robert Treat will eventually enroll 675 students. Mr. Adubato received a doctor of humane letters from Kean University in May 2010. He received the Official Knight of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Italy and was honored by the New Jersey Ballet and the Archdiocese of Newark as the Humanitarian of the Year. Mr. Adubato was also honored by the Thurgood Marshall College Fund and National Organization of African-American Administrators. In September 2009, he was honored by Essex County, which named the recreation complex in Branch Brook Park the Stephen N. Adubato, Sr., Sports Complex. There is no doubt that the lifetime work of Stephen Adubato, Sr., has greatly benefited the people of Newark. His commitment to helping those around him is not only admirable, it is inspiring, and his legacy is sure to have a lasting impact on the city. I join together with all New Jerseyans in thanking him for a career of remarkable contribution.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 29, 2013, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Housing Finance Reform: Essentials of a Functioning Housing Finance System for Consumers.''

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 29, 2013, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 29, 2013, at 2:30 p.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The Committee will hold a hearing entitled, ``Broadband Adoption: The Next Mile.''

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 29, 2013, at 10 a.m., in room SH-216 of the Hart Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled `` `Stand Your Ground' Laws: Civil Rights and Public Safety Implications of the Expanded Use of Deadly Force.''

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Here we are again at the same crossroads. We know the landmarks. We know the signs. We have been here before. We negotiated in good faith to avert the last shutdown, the last default threat. We opposed the sequester, but that wasn't enough. So here we are, once again, and here we will be again in a week, a month, 6 months, a year, being asked for more concessions to a minority of extreme Republicans who seem to have forgotten that we operate under the rule of law. They simply have chosen to ignore it. The fact is we passed the Affordable Care Act. It went through the legislative process, was signed by the President, tested in the Supreme Court, but so what, they say. It does not count. Similar to the schoolyard bully, they want a do-over or they will take over your lunch money. The rightwing Republican minority claims to love the Constitution, adheres to the strictest interpretation of its tenets but apparently is not interested in living by it or by the rule of law that this Nation stands for and lives by. They say Democrats have failed to negotiate in good faith and voted against trying to reach a compromise. The fact is for 6 months Senate Republicans have stood in the way of budget negotiations--what they want, negotiations--by blocking requests for Budget Committee members to conference with the House of Representatives. They have objected over 20 times to those budget negotiations. The Senate followed regular order and passed a budget resolution for fiscal year 2014 on March 23 of this year. Our budget resolution provides just over $1 trillion by replacing the irresponsible sequestration cuts while following the spending limit imposed by the Budget Control Act. The House wants to keep sequestration cuts by funding the government at $976 billion or about $80 billion less than the Senate. The fact is we have already compromised with the House by agreeing to a continuing resolution at a level of $986 billion--much closer to their numbers than to ours. If you ask me, that is more than $70 billion in compromising. But they simply will not take yes for an answer. What the past weeks have shown us is that this is not even about budget numbers. They just want to make a political point, and they are holding the country hostage in order to make it. They simply do not want either the Affordable Care Act or, for that fact, this President to succeed. But that train has left the station. The President is already turning the economy around from the massive deficits he inherited when he took office, and the Affordable Care Act is the law of the land. Make no mistake, it is not a coincidence that we are here again doing the same thing much like ``Groundhog Day.'' Mark my words, we will be here again tomorrow and in the future if the Republican shutdown strategy continues. We are being asked to capitulate yet again at the threat that Republicans will keep the government shut down, that they will force America to default on its obligations and risk a global consequence and America's leadership role in the world. It is a deliberate, if fatally flawed, Republican strategy. One might go so far as to call it a conspiracy--adopted to achieve through bullying what they cannot achieve at the ballot box. We know it is a deliberate effort hatched many months ago. In fact, it goes back to 2010 when the House Republicans threatened to push the Nation into defaulting on its obligations and shut down the government unless we agreed to aggressive and deep structural cuts that met their political objectives in the midst of one of the deepest recessions in our history, a recession President Obama inherited when he took office. Then, in November of 2010, the antitax, antigovernment, antispending, antiprogress side of the Republican Party exercised their newfound power and hamstrung their leadership into rejecting any kind of compromise, forcing the House Speaker and majority leader to reject any grand bargain proposed by the Democrats. They did it gleefully. It was part of their strategy to block any successful effort to actually govern. They chose instead to fuel the rightwing flames, burn down the house, and bring government to a halt until they achieved their objectives. From December 2 to December 21, 2010, we enacted four separate continuing resolutions to keep the government open--four of them--to keep the government functioning until March 4. Let's not forget that these appropriations actually cut the Congressional Budget Office's projection of discretionary spending from 2013 through 2022 by $400 billion. But that was not enough. They wanted more. On March 2, 2011, as the new deadline approached, we passed another short-term CR, taking us to March 18--just 16 days--that cut spending by yet another $4 billion. Still not enough. On March 16, the deadline approaching once again, we passed another continuing resolution, taking us to April 8, with another $6 billion in spending cuts. Was it enough? Of course not. On April 4, House Republicans applauded the Speaker's announcement to begin preparations, for what, yes, a shutdown of the government. Clearly, nothing is enough. On April 14, just before midnight, the Speaker agreed to the seventh short-term extension with more cuts that analysts said would amount to an additional $350 million in that year alone. All in all, we agreed to $40 billion in total cuts, and we have cut even more since then, including the current Senate-passed clean funding bill that would reopen the government today if the House would just pass it. They say we have not taken votes. We have taken a bunch of votes on what they have sent us. They have not taken one vote on the one resolution we have sent them. It is a clear pattern, a clear strategy. They will not stop. They will not take yes for an answer, and they clearly will not govern until they achieve their political and ideological goal to end government as we know it. That has been their plan all along. In fact, last Sunday the New York Times reported that after the President was sworn in to his second term, a coalition of top conservative activists, including former Attorney General Ed Meese, along with the Koch brothers, devised a take-no-prisoners legislative strategy to derail health care by shutting down the Federal Government. Now we are being blackmailed again. As further proof of this take-no- prisoners strategy, Jonathan Chait of New York magazine recently reported on something called the Williamsburg Accord. Mr. Chait wrote: In January, [this year], demoralized House Republicans retreated to Williamsburg, Virginia, to plot out their legislative strategy for President Obama's second term. . . . They called it the Williamsburg Accord. He said: If you want to grasp why Republicans are careening toward a potential federal government shutdown, and possibly toward provoking a sovereign debt crisis after that, you need to understand that this is the inevitable product of a conscious party strategy. . . . His article goes on to say: The way to make sense of it is that Republicans have planned since January to force Obama to accede to large chunks of the Republican agenda, without Republicans having to offer any policy concessions of their own. That is not negotiation. We saw the implementation of that strategy beginning early in the spring when we did exactly what Republicans wanted. We passed a budget in the Senate, and the House passed a budget, and we attempted to go to conference to work out the difference between the two. Actually, we have attempted to do that more than 20 times now, and every single time Republicans have blocked action. For 6 months they have refused to talk, they have refused to negotiate, they have refused to have a conversation. As we now know, this all was planned out from the beginning, going back to their January Williamsburg Accord. They have intentionally driven us to the edge of the cliff to serve their own political interests at the expense of the Nation's economy, the jobs of working families, and the retirement savings of our seniors. Now the GOP's solution to get us out of this Republican shutdown is the equivalent of Whac-A-Mole. It is their form of governing. Whatever issue pops up that they see a problem with as a result of their shutdown, they draft a bill to address a single issue. Last week it was national parks. This week it was death benefits for soldiers. What will it be next? Anyone who has ever been on the boardwalk and has played that arcade game of Whac-A-Mole knows you can never quite get ahead of those pesky moles that keep popping up. How long do they plan to govern in this way? Bill Moyers recently wrote in an essay: Despite what they say, Obamacare is only one of their targets. Before they will allow the government to reopen, they demand employers be enabled to deny birth control coverage to female employees; they demand Obama cave on the Keystone pipeline . . . they demand the watchdogs over corporate pollution be muzzled and the big bad regulators of Wall Street sent home. Their ransom list goes on and on. The debt ceiling is next. . . . At least let's name this for what it is: sabotage of the democratic process. Kevin Drum of Mother Jones wrote: How do you get across how insurrectionary this is? Raising the debt ceiling isn't a concession from Republicans that deserves a corresponding concession from Democrats. It's the financial equivalent of a new nuclear bomb. Warren Buffett used equally stark terms when he said in Fortune magazine: It ought to be banned---- Referring to defaulting on the Nation's obligations---- It ought to be banned as a weapon. . . . It should be like nuclear bombs, basically too horrible to use. Clearly, in the name of some misguided allegiance to an extreme ideology, a handful of ultraconservative extremists in the Republican Party are putting at risk the rule of law. They are putting at risk the full faith and credit of the United States, America's influence--as well as our obligations--around the world, and our national security, embassy security, intelligence collection apparatus, and American diplomats, Foreign Service officers, and contractors serving in posts around the world. This is not a game. Real people are already being hurt by these tactics. I find it pathetic that some Republicans are willing to risk the full faith and credit of this Nation and inflict unnecessary harm on hard-working families and put the very principles of this democracy on the line all just to show how ideologically pure they are. It is one thing to come to Washington wanting to destroy your government. It is quite another to destroy our economy in the process. If you want to negotiate, let's negotiate. Let's do it constructively, in good faith, and without threats. Let's try, as we have tried over 20 times, to get to that moment. Let's reopen the government, let's pay our bills, and then we will negotiate. It is time to reject the schoolyard bully political strategy that Republicans hatched months ago, ratchet down the rhetoric, and do the hard work of solving problems together. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, we are at the verge of the midnight hour here, and what is playing out is a challenge to the very essence of our government, and it is a challenge both at home and abroad. I will speak to that in a moment. I was in the other body, in the House of Representatives, 17 years ago when we had the last government shutdown, led at that time by the Republican majority in the House of Representatives. I had thought they learned the consequences to the Nation and to their party as a result of such a shutdown. But it seems those memories have faded. Now we are on the verge of a consequence that is consequential to the lives of American families, consequential to the economy of the country, consequential to the message we send across the globe. What I cannot understand is the fixation that our Republican colleagues have on the question of the Affordable Care Act, which they derisively call ObamaCare. It is something that was passed by the Congress, signed by the President, reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court, which is the final voice of what is the law of the land, and then reaffirmed by the American people in their reelection of the President with a significant majority. There were two candidates in that election. One was President Obama, who said: I intend to fully implement the Affordable Care Act and create millions of opportunities for those who have no insurance--to control costs; to end preexisting conditions as a limitation; to ultimately ensure that children could stay on their parents' insurance to the age of 26; to be able to provide millions of dollars of relief across the landscape of the country; to help senior citizens who often chose between putting food on the table, keeping their home, or having access to lifesaving, life-enhancing drugs, by getting a doughnut hole--that gap in coverage for seniors--to be ultimately eliminated. It has provided tremendous relief for the seniors in our country not to have to make those dynamic choices. So what they could not achieve at the ballot box they are trying to achieve by shutting down the Federal Government. And then, at this late hour, after having tried a series of times to undermine the Affordable Care Act--and believe me, when they talk about a 1-year delay, which they seem to try to show that it is benign, it is not benign. There is a purpose to their strategy. The reason that a 1- year delay--in addition to the fact that the law should be able to move forward for millions who have no insurance to be able to finally have insurance--is because if you delay the mandate, that means 11 million people will go uninsured who otherwise would get coverage. It means, as the Congressional Budget Office estimated--the nonpartisan entity of the Congress that scores everything we do: Is this going to cost money; is this going to save money--they estimated that repealing that individual mandate will increase premiums anywhere between 15 to 20 percent because fewer healthy people will enroll to balance out those with higher medical needs. Insurance is about spreading the risk across the spectrum. In my home State of New Jersey, we tried to have insurance reform that limited preexisting condition exclusions and different premium band ratings without an individual requirement for coverage. The result was skyrocketing premiums. So, in essence, delaying the mandate for a year--which is the essence of what the House Republicans have sent here various times as a condition of keeping the government open--is a Trojan horse because Republicans know that, in doing such a delay, the mandate will create higher premiums. And in creating those higher premiums, they, in essence, create rate shock and they fulfill that which they would like to see, which is the failure of the Affordable Care Act. They have a very particular strategy. It is not benign by any stretch of the imagination. They are not concerned that the Affordable Care Act will fail. They are concerned it will actually succeed. So what they seek to do is to introduce poison pills to make it fail. It is amazing to me that I keep hearing: Well, we will replace it. With what? We have not heard with what. When we challenge our colleagues, they say: Oh, yes, preexisting conditions, we are for that, making sure that does not exist anymore. We are for the seniors getting the rebates on prescription drugs. We are for making sure there are no more lifetime caps on anybody's insurance, so if they have a catastrophic illness, they will not come up against that cap. We are for all of those things. The only problem is, to have all of those benefits which Americans overwhelmingly want, it costs money. And the only way to do that is, of course, to have everybody ultimately insured in the country. This is not a fight between Democrats and Republicans. This is a battle for the very soul of the Republican Party. Unfortunately, they are playing it out in a way that affects the Nation. This is a designed strategy. Jonathan Chait of New York magazine wrote a tremendous piece. I recommend it to all of my colleagues. He basically described a meeting that took place in January of this year. I am going to read from his article for a moment: ``In January, demoralized House Republicans retreated to Williamsburg, Virginia, to plot out their legislative strategy for President Obama's second term. Conservatives were angry that their leaders had been unable to stop a whole series of things, including the Bush tax cuts on high incomes, and they wanted to make sure their leaders would no longer have any further compromises. Not only did they decide they would not have any further compromises, but, in fact, they developed a legislative strategy. Before I go into that, I am happy to yield to the majority leader who I understand has an announcement.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I had hoped we would not get to this point. I believe that where I was headed is to embody why we have come to this moment today. It just did not happen. I was referring to this article by Jonathan Chait of New York Magazine that in January the House Republicans met, retreated to Williamsburg, VA, and came up with a strategy. What is that strategy? He goes on to say: The first element of that strategy is a kind of legislative strike. House Republicans initially decided to boycott all direct negotiations with President Obama, and then subsequently extended that boycott to negotiations with the Democratic Senate-- Which only goes to prove why, despite having passed a budget 6 months ago or over 6 months ago, each of the 18 times that Senator Murray, the budget chair, has asked to go to a conference--which is a meeting of the House of Representatives and the Senate to work out their differences in their budget--there have been objections. So when I read this article and see that House Republicans decided to boycott all direct negotiations with President Obama and then subsequently extended that boycott to negotiations with the Democratic Senate--we are seeing the consequences of that strategy here today. This kind of refusal--he says in his article that ``to even enter negotiations is highly unusual.'' The way to make sense of it is that Republicans have planned since January to force Obama to accede to large chunks of the Republican agenda without Republicans having to offer any policy concessions of their own. It is pretty interesting. You know, for those who said: Well, both sides, the reality is that there is no moral equivalency to shutting down the government. If you are willing to use the tools of shutting down the government in order to elicit what you could not achieve by winning at the ballot box--i.e. getting a Republican President elected, both Houses of the Congress--then you could ultimately repeal a law with which you disagreed. But since you could not do it that way, to have a policy that ultimately says: No, we are willing to shut down the government in order to achieve what we could not do at the ballot box with the will of the American people, there is no moral equivalency. So it cannot be accepted that both sides are to blame when clearly only one side is willing to pursue their political goals by closing down the government and the consequences that flow from that. It is an interesting article. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record so that all of my colleagues might be able to read it.

Mr. MENENDEZ. This is a battle within the Republican party itself about where they are headed. It is a battle that is totally unnecessary because I think there is a simple message to the Speaker: Allow the House of Representatives to have an up-or-down vote on what the Senate has sent it, which is basically a clean continuation of the government without any gimmicks, without any poison pills. If that vote were allowed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives on the floor of the House of Representatives, I believe it would pass and the government would stay open. Instead, a few within the Republican Party who hatched this concoction in January of this year when they lost the elections and retreated to figure out what was going to be their legislative strategy are bringing the Nation to its knees. That is simply unacceptable. I said at the beginning of these comments that it is not only consequential here at home--and it will be consequential--to many families, to those who are Federal employees, and their families, to those who seek the assistance of the Federal Government, whether that is a small business loan, whether it is somebody for the first time enrolling for Social Security payments or a veteran's disability or a whole host of other things; they will not be able to do it if the government is going to be shut down tomorrow--it is also a consequence in the world. I say that as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. What message do we send to the world when, in fact, we cannot get our own budget done and one party is willing to hold the Nation hostage in order to get their political views pursued? We are trying to convince Iran not to pursue nuclear weapons. We tell Iran if you disarm totally and stop your nuclear weapons program, then sanctions to you can be lifted. I believe the Iranians are looking and saying is it possible that such an agreement could ever be delivered by the Congress of the United States, if we do actually disarm, if we end all of our nuclear weapons program, if we do everything that the Security Council has asked of us. Would the United States lift the series of sanctions that they have ultimately passed upon us? This Congress cannot agree with the President. When I say this Congress, I speak of the Republican Congress and the House of Representatives. It is a dangerous message in the world. We tell other nations that we believe they have to abide by certain disciplines, and yet we cannot ultimately keep our own budget open and the Nation and this government functioning. I think this is the ultimate extortion. I believe that since this is by design, not by chance, it is going to have real consequences for our Nation. There is no doubt that if there is a prolonged shutdown, it will be consequential to our economy. It will be consequential to the gross domestic product. We saw that 17 years ago. It will be consequential to not only Wall Street but to Main Street in terms of their confidence as to how to move forward. This economy is in recovery. The last thing it needs is a body blow by its own government as it tries to continue to grow an economy in which more people can be employed. The consequence of Republicans doing this is more than a government shutdown, it is increasingly an economic shutdown. This is simply something that we should not accept. Finally, to send us a resolution after 6 months of trying to go to a conference, 18 different petitions and motions on this floor to go to a conference, to go to that simple meeting that might have reconciled these differences that were objected to by certain Republicans within this chairman--and now to say you are going to send us a motion to go to conference when you have shut down the government and, therefore, have a gun at our head in order to be able to try to negotiate the critical issues that might be negotiated--is simply unacceptable. They already have a legislative victory. We have accepted an amount in the temporary budget that is less than what we devised in the Senate budget, $80 billion less. Yet that is not satisfactory to them. This is not about the economics. This is about their drive to kill the Affordable Care Act in a way that undermines the health and quality of opportunity for millions of Americans who finally don't have to worry about preexisting conditions. They don't have to worry about lifetime caps, can keep their children on their insurance until the age of 26, and can get millions of dollars across the landscape of the country for seniors to reduce prescription drug costs, that finally controls costs in this Nation. Their fear is not that it won't work. Their fear is that it will succeed and in doing so will undermine the very essence of what they have been against all along. That is a hard way to pursue a political tactic as a consequence of the Nation's laws. This is what is going on here today. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague from the Foreign Relations Committee having already objected, but I wish to make a few remarks because there are those--regardless of what is reviewed, regardless of who comes forth, regardless of all the information--who want to keep this alive for what are ultimately election purposes. I know the next Presidential election is a few years away, but it seems it is very alive in the Senate. Look, I am always for getting to the truth, particularly when the lives of American diplomats have been lost. That is an honorable pursuit. But by the same token, from my perspective--and let me say why I am going to have this perspective. My perspective is we have two of the most outstanding individuals in Ambassador Pickering and Admiral Mullen. Certainly, no one questions their integrity. At least I have not heard their integrity questioned on the Senate floor. They conducted the Accountability Review Board. In the process, they yielded 29 recommendations that are, in fact, being implemented, that our committee has continued to pursue oversight in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. We have held two hearings. We have had multiple level--high-level briefings, including intelligence briefings, bringing all the respective parties who are responsible together. In fact, we had the former Secretary of State before the committee at a hearing I chaired at the time who addressed all of these issues. We had before that, former Chairman Kerry, now Secretary Kerry. He held a hearing of the committee on the events that transpired with Deputy Secretary Burns and Deputy Under Secretary Nyes. We had two classified briefings on December 13 and 19, specifically on the circumstances surrounding the attack. In those classified briefings, we had the key individuals who could get us to the truth. I understand the Select Committee on Intelligence is presenting a bipartisan report on the events that occurred in Benghazi. Last December, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs chairman at the time, Senator Lieberman, and Ranking Member Collins released a bipartisan report on the security deficiencies at the temporary U.S. mission in Benghazi that led to the deaths of those four Americans, including our Ambassador Chris Stevens. The House has conducted its own hearings and investigations. Yet we have those who want to continue to pursue this, despite all of these different efforts, independent of the Senate, between the House, the Accountability Review Board. There is a lot of culpability, and maybe there is coverup in a different sense. The coverup is a Congress that doesn't want to put the money where it is necessary, to ultimately take the high-risk, high- threat posts of this country and ultimately protect them. It is nice to talk about who is responsible. Let's talk about who is also responsible in terms of obligations. We have over 30 high-risk, high-threat posts in the world right now--right now as we speak on the Senate floor--that are at risk and that do not meet the present security standards. Yet Congress seems to move ever so slowly toward getting to the resources that would accelerate the pace on which we create the physical and other protections for those high-threat, high-risk posts. Those, of course, are the 30 that exist today. We know from history that in fact what exists today as a high-risk, high-threat post, tomorrow there could be another one on the list. So we have diplomats who are at institutions that do not meet the present standards. Yet at the pace we are going, based upon the appropriations of this Senate, we would find ourselves a decade from now dealing with just those 30 posts. I would like to see the Members who do not seem to be willing to vote for the security of diplomats abroad, before the next attack comes--and inevitability, unfortunately, in the world in which we live that is very possible--put their resources to work to accelerate the pace to where we would succeed in preventing injuries or death. Let's be honest about this process. Yes, there was a process that ultimately led to a series of recommendations. The legislation that the committee has ultimately reported out in a bipartisan basis--working with Senator Corker, the ranking Republican on the committee--would deal with these challenges. It would deal with language issues. It would deal with the funding issue. It would deal with diplomatic security preparation, which we have scattered across a whole bunch of institutions that do not meet the goal. It would deal with all of these elements. It would create greater accountability. Do you know what else it would do? It would let the Secretary of State have the ability to ultimately fire those individuals who might be found derelict in their duty, which is not presently in the law--the ability for the Secretary to pursue that. So let's move that legislation. I hope my colleagues are going to support that as we move forward, to try to find the success that we want in making sure that our diplomats across the globe are as safe as humanly possible as they advocate America's national economic interests, its national interests, its national security interests, still always facing a risk but minimizing those risks to the greatest extent. If not, then I certainly believe the garish light of attention should be placed upon the institution of the Congress, which is not meeting its responsibility as it relates to our diplomats abroad. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, we come to this Chamber as we have many times before--to make one of the most difficult decisions we are tasked to make: the authorization of the use of American military power--this time in Syria, to respond to the horrific attack, including the use of chemical weapons, of August 21 that took the lives of 1,429 Syrians, including at least 426 children. The world is watching, America is waiting to see what we do in this Chamber in response to the threat the world faces from those who cross the line of human decency and use chemical weapons against anyone, anywhere in the world. The images of August 21 were sickening and, in my view, the world cannot ignore the inhumanity and horror of what Bashar al-Asad did. As I have had to say too many times before as a Member of Congress: I do not take the responsibility to authorize military force lightly or make such decisions easily. I voted against the war in Iraq when it was popular, according to the polls, to vote for the war and strongly supported the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. But today I urge my colleagues to support this tightly crafted, clearly focused resolution to give the President authorization to use military force in the face of this horrific crime against humanity. Yes, there are clearly risks to any action we authorize, but the consequences of inaction--the consequences of standing down from fully upholding the norms of international behavior--are greater and graver still: further humanitarian disaster in Syria, regional instability, the loss of American credibility around the world, an emboldened Iran and North Korea, and the disintegration of international law. This vote will be among the most difficult any of us will be asked to make. But the American people expect us to make the hard decisions and take the hard votes. They expect us to put aside political differences and personal ideologies, forget partisanship and preconceptions, forget the polls and personal consequences. This is a moment for a profile in courage--a moment for each of us to do what we know is right--based on what we know is in the best interest of the United States, regardless of the polls or pontifications of political pundits. To be clear, the authorization Senator Corker and I seek is for focused action, with a clear understanding that American troops will not be on the ground in combat. We have worked closely to put politics aside, weigh the facts, search our consciences, and pass a resolution in committee that we believe is in the national security interest of the American people. I have said before and will say again: This is not a declaration of war but a declaration of our values to the world. I want to thank Senator Corker for being a close partner in helping to tailor and focus the language of this resolution so it reflects the will of the committee, the interests of the American people, and gives the President the authority he needs to respond to Syria's use of chemical weapons against its own people. What we know. What we know is clear, notwithstanding Asad's interview and his denials. According to the declassified intelligence assessment, we know--with high confidence--that the Syrian Government carried out a chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs on August 21. We know that the buck stops with Asad--his interview-denials aside. We know that he controls the regime's stockpiles of chemical agents, including mustard, sarin, and VX gas, and has thousands of munitions capable of delivering them, again, under his control. It is inconceivable--and defies all logic--that he would not know about the preparations and deployment of these horrific weapons. We know that personnel involved in the program are carefully vetted to ensure loyalty to the regime and the security of the program. We know that chemical weapons personnel from the Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Center, subordinate to the regime's Ministry of Defense, were operating in the Damascus suburb of `Adra from Sunday, August 18 until early in the morning on Wednesday August 21 near an area the regime uses to mix chemical weapons including sarin. Human intelligence, as well as signal and geospatial intelligence have shown regime activity in the preparation of chemicals prior to the attack, including the distribution and use of gas masks. Some may still be skeptical about Asad's direct involvement, but clearly the buck stops with Asad when it comes to the use of these weapons. Some may also be skeptical that we have not done enough to allow diplomacy to work, but the fact is we have tried diplomacy. We have gone to the UN on many occasions, and it has only bought Asad more time. Notwithstanding Russia's belated offer today to take action, which, by the way, only be on the table today specifically because of the threat of the use of force, let us not forget it has been their intransigence that brought us to this point in the first place. The fact is, on August 28, a week after the attack, Russia blocked a UN Security Council resolution that called ``for all necessary measures'' to be taken, and simply called for any state that used chemical weapons to be held accountable. On the day of the attack, August 21, Russia blocked a Security Council press statement simply expressing ``concern'' that chemical weapons might have been used. On August 6, Russia blocked another press statement welcoming the news that a UN investigations team would investigate three sites, and calling for their full and fettered access to those sites. Russia has also vetoed a Security Council resolution enshrining the June 30 Geneva Communique brokered by Kofi Annan, vetoed a resolution calling for an end to violence in Syria, vetoed a draft resolution endorsing the Arab League's plan of action that would have condemned human rights violations. They blocked a press statement calling for humanitarian access to the besieged city of Homs, and one calling for Syrian authorities to provide the UN with humanitarian access. Over the course of the conflict in Syria, the United States Government, specifically the State Department, has met consistently with its close allies and partners, as well as with Syria's neighbors, to help prepare the region to detect, prevent, and respond to potential use or proliferation of chemical weapons. As Ambassador Power acknowledged in her remarks at the Center for American Progress on September 6, the United States has regularly engaged with the Russians and Iranians to attempt to get them to use their influence to stop the Asad regime from using chemical weapons. The same day, September 6, the United States and 10 other countries issued a joint statement condemning the Asad regime's use of chemical weapons. They were: Australia, Canada, France, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Turkey, and Great Britain. Since then 14 other nations have also signed onto that statement: Albania, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Honduras, Hungary, Kosovo, Latvia, Lithuania, Morocco, Qatar, Romania, and the United Arab Emirates. It is only the threat by the President, and this resolution, that would drive both Russia and Syria to the negotiating table. The facts are clear. We have tried diplomacy. Let us understand that this action is not a choice of force or diplomacy. It is about both. It is about enforcing international norms that will, at the end of the day, leverage necessary UN action and help bring about a political solution. For those who want to see UN Security Council action, those who want to push Syria to sign a chemical weapons agreement and give up their weapons, this resolution is the best path to getting there. Let me say to my colleagues who believe that the authorization of the use of military force will be nothing more than a pin-pick. This resolution will have clear and verifiable consequences. It will help keep these weapons in check, degrade Asad's ability to deploy them, and prevent the proliferation of chemical weapons and their use by anyone, anywhere in the world. The resolution will have clear consequences, but it is also not open- ended. It appropriately narrows the scope, duration, and breadth of the authority granted to meet Congressional concerns, and the concerns of the American people. It is tightly tailored to give the President ``necessary and appropriate'' authority to use military force to respond to the use of weapons of mass destruction by the Syrian government; protect the national security interests of the United States and our allies and partners; and degrade Syria's capacity to use such weapons in the future. It has a requirement for determination that the use of military force is necessary, that appropriate diplomatic and other peaceful means to prevent the deployment and use of chemical weapons by Syria have been used, and that the United States has both a specific military plan to achieve the goal of responding to the use of weapons of mass destruction by the Syrian government and that the use of military force is consistent with the broader goals of U.S. strategy toward Syria, including achieving a negotiated settlement to the conflict, and a limitation that specifies that the resolution ``does not authorize the use of United States Armed Forces on the ground in Syria for the purposes of combat operations'' assuring there will be no ``boots on the ground.'' The authorization would end after 60 days, with the President having the ability to request and certify for another 30 days, and with Congress having an opportunity to pass a resolution of disapproval. It provides for an integrated United States Government strategy for Syria, including a comprehensive review of current and planned U.S. diplomatic, political, economic and military policy towards Syria, and requires a Report to Congress on the status of the military operations. I know my colleagues on both sides will want to offer a range of amendments. Let me say in conclusion, history has taught us harsh lessons when it comes to the use of chemical weapons. The images we saw of children lined on the floor on August 21 were not the first images the world has ever seen of the horrors of chemical attacks. We saw them almost 100 years ago in World War I. If we do not learn from and live by the lessons of the past, if we fail the test of history then we are destined and doomed to repeat it. If we allow the use and proliferation of chemical weapons despite the world's horror at the gruesome and horrific use of mustard gas, phosgene, and chlorine at the beginning of last century, then we risk the same horrors again in this century. Let us not fail the test of history. Let us say to the world that we cannot allow anyone to use chemical weapons again, and that we can never allow such weapons to fall into the hands of stateless-actors and terrorists who would unleash them against America or American interests around the world. I repeat what I said earlier: Let us understand that this action is not about force or diplomacy. It is about both. It is about enforcing international norms that will, at the end of the day, leverage necessary UN action and help bring about a political solution. For those who want to see UN Security Council action, those who want to push Syria to sign a chemical weapons agreement and give up their weapons, this is the best path to getting there. Make no mistake, the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime ultimately represents a national security threat to the United States, a global security threat we cannot ignore. Let me read what our former colleague and respected Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Lugar, recently said in the press: ``We are talking about weapons of mass destruction. We are talking about chemical weapons in particular which may be the greatest threat to our country of any security risk we have--much more than any other government, or another nation--because they can be used by terrorists, by very small groups. The use of those weapons has got to concern us to the point that we take action whenever any country crosses that line and use these weapons as we have seen in Syria.'' Senator Lugar is right. We must be concerned--deeply concerned--and that is why we must act. The danger of proliferation is too great--too much of a risk--for us to stand silent and stand down. I urge my colleagues to put aside politics, polls, and preconceptions and do what we know, at the end of the day, is in the national security of the American people. Again, I want to thank Senator Corker and members of the committee for working quickly together to respond to this crisis with a well- crafted resolution that is a declaration of our values and will send a clear message that we--and the world--cannot and will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons anywhere--by anyone.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of Samantha Power's nomination to be the Ambassador to the United Nations. As I said in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which I chaired, on Ms. Power, her appointment as Ambassador to the United Nations has come with much fanfare and with some criticism--which, at the end of the day, means she must be doing something right. In that regard, as I listen to my colleague member of the committee express his reservations and his opposition to Ms. Power, I think we have to have some context. When she responded: The United States is the greatest country in the world and I will not apologize for it, it was her way of rejecting any characterization of statements that she made in the past. It was very clear to me. I want a U.N. ambassador sitting in front of the world who considers the United States the greatest country in the world and who will not apologize for the United States before that world body. She made it very clear that is exactly what she intends to do. On accountability, we cannot achieve accountability at the United Nations if we do not have a U.N. Ambassador there to lead the effort on accountability. On those questions where she was asked by several members: Are you committed to making the United Nations a more accountable organization, not only did she say yes several times, in the affirmative, but she gave examples of how that accountability can be achieved. We need an Ambassador to pursue accountability at the United Nations. Finally, I agree with my colleague that when America fails to lead in some critical times, we leave a void in the world. But we cannot lead if we do not have a U.N. Ambassador raising their voice and their vote on our behalf on some of the critical issues of the day. So this nomination is critical to pursuing the national interests and security of the United States. Whatever my colleagues might think about her nomination, I don't believe anyone can question her considerable credentials or her years of service. Certainly, no one can question her willingness to speak her mind, especially her willingness to speak out on human rights issues around the world. As a war correspondent in Bosnia, in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Sudan, she has, as she said in her Pulitzer Prize-winning book, seen ``evil at its worst.'' Ms. Power has built a career and a reputation as one of the Nation's most principled voices against all human rights violations and crimes against humanity. I know that voice will be heard around the world should we confirm her. While some of us may not agree with everything she has written and said during her extensive career as a journalist and foreign policy professional, she has been a tireless defender of human rights, and she has seen the tragedy of human suffering from the frontlines firsthand, and it has given her a unique perspective. In her role at the National Security Council, she was clearly involved with U.S. policy toward the United Nations. She knows the United Nation's strengths, its weaknesses, and how it operates. At the end of the day the United States needs a representative at the United Nations who will uphold American values, promote human rights, secure our interests and the interests of our national security. I have every confidence in Samantha Power's ability to do exactly that, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting her nomination. Personally, I am incredibly appreciative of the principled positions she has taken on the Armenian genocide, her belief that we should use the lessons of what clearly was an atrocity of historic proportions to prevent future crimes against humanity is a view consistent with my own and which is supported by her role in the President's Atrocities Prevention Board. I agree we must acknowledge the past, study how and why atrocities happen, if we are ever to give true meaning to the phrase ``Never again.'' As the son of immigrants from Cuba, I personally appreciate her commitment to exposing Cuba's total disregard for human and civil rights, and I respect her for not idealizing the harsh realities of communism in Cuba. I know from the conversation we had in my office, she appreciates the suffering of the Cuban people--the torture, abuse, detention, and abridgement of the civil and human rights of those who voice their dissent under the Castro regime. I welcome her commitment to reach out to Rosa Maria Paya, daughter of the longtime dissident and Cuban activist, Oswaldo Paya who died under mysterious circumstances last year in Cuba as his car was bumped off the road, and I look forward to her fulfillment of that commitment. At the end of day, it is fitting that someone with Ms. Power's background represent American interests and American values at the United Nations. In the words of the U.N. Preamble, it was created ``to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small. . . . '' Who better than Samantha Power, a recognized advocate for the fundamental rights of every human being, to be our ambassador to the United Nations? If confirmed, her focus will, of course, be on the crisis du jour: the Middle East, Syria, Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and others, and the nature of nations that emerge from the Arab spring. But I know while she is meeting those challenges, she will also be engaged on human rights around the world: on freedom of expression in Latin America; on fighting HIV-AIDS, malaria, and polio in Africa; on the status of talks to resolve the 66-year-old question of Cyprus; on women's rights in Pakistan and labor rights in Bangladesh and human rights in Sri Lanka. Ms. Power, during her nomination process, has repeatedly expressed steadfast support for the State of Israel during her hearing, in her testimony, and individually to several members of the committee, including myself as chair. She has promised to stand up for Israel at the United Nations, and I know she will. I ask unanimous consent that a letter to the committee in support of Ms. Power from six bipartisan former Ambassadors to the United Nations be printed in the Record, calling on the Senate to confirm her as soon as possible in this time of opportunity, to have a U.S. representative in New York advocating for American interests. I urge my colleagues to support this qualified, experienced nominee. I know she will serve the Nation well.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of my distinguished colleague from Virginia. He is a very thoughtful member of the committee. I appreciate his remarks on behalf of Ms. Power. With that, I yield all remaining time. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation? I understand the opponents of this amendment have 30 minutes; is that correct?

Mr. MENENDEZ. Then I ask unanimous consent that as the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee I control the remainder of the time.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I----

Mr. MENENDEZ. Yes. It is my intention to consume about 8 minutes approximately, to yield Senator McCain 6 minutes, Senator Graham 6 minutes, and Senator Corker 5 minutes.

Mr. MENENDEZ. That should take the remainder of our time. Mr. President, this amendment may be good politics but it is bad policy. I appreciate the concern of the Senator from Kentucky for Detroit. He and others in this Chamber have had plenty of times to vote for America's cities, but I have not seen those votes be there. Nothing in this amendment, notwithstanding what we heard, suggests that cutting all aid to Egypt ultimately means putting that money into the cities of America, such as Detroit. So let's not be mistaken about that. I share many of the concerns that have been raised by my colleague today about the situation in Egypt. I believe, however, halting all military assistance to Egypt at this time is misguided and it is shortsighted. It would drastically reduce U.S. influence with both the interim government of Egypt and the military at an incredibly delicate time for Egypt and its people. And in so doing, it may in fact undermine our shared goals and desire to see elections and a democratically elected government reestablished in Egypt as quickly as possible. It has been just a little more than 2 years since the onset of the Arab spring and a revolution in Egypt that unseated Hosni Mubarak after two decades in power. During these tumultuous 2 years, Egypt has struggled as a society with the transition to democracy that its people clearly want, and with efforts to create the economic opportunities that its people clearly need. That struggle is real and ongoing. The demonstrations that ousted Mubarak in a clear military coup were unprecedented--until they were eclipsed by demonstrations this summer which drew as much as a third of Egypt's population of 83 million people onto its streets. That is more than 30 million people who have been emboldened by the revolution, who are united in their call for reform and democracy, and who have embraced their ability and right to peaceful protests and to demand change. If you think about it, a comparable protest in the United States involving a third of our Nation would mean that 100 million Americans would be on the streets of the cities of America. That is the equivalent of what has been happening in Egypt. So my point is that Egypt is changing but perhaps not as quickly as we would like and with a process that has been, not surprisingly, pretty chaotic. Abandoning our diplomacy and engagement with Egypt--a country that sits at the heart of the Middle East--because the road that leads to change is not straight or certain would be naive. It might make us feel good, at least for a moment, but in the long run it would threaten to undermine vital national security interests and set back our values. Making such a significant change to U.S. foreign policy--with all the potential implications for U.S. national security and for our ally Israel--should not be done in haste. It should not be done carelessly or thoughtlessly. It should not be done without a full understanding of all of the ramifications of such a change. And it certainly should not be tacked onto the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill. It is far too important a decision to be an afterthought to an appropriations bill. In my view, it is ill-advised to make foreign policy on the fly without due consideration of all of the consequences. I would point out that my friend from Kentucky has introduced an identical bill that has been referred to the Foreign Relations Committee. Last Thursday the committee held its first extensive hearing on the crisis in Egypt. I can assure my friend from Kentucky that the committee will continue to work on this issue and to look at appropriate policy options through a deliberative process. We need time to determine whether the process underway in Egypt will meet the demands of the Egyptian people and lead back to democracy or if the military leadership will dig in further and thereby invoke restrictions in U.S. law with respect to assistance. Our patience is not unlimited and our assistance is not without limitations. The administration is already actively reviewing U.S. assistance. The delivery of four new F-16 aircraft that was to occur last week was halted by the administration, clearly sensitive to the situation. At the end of the day we should allow for flexibility to deal with this delicate situation as events dictate, not precipitate an unwanted response with a knee-jerk reaction rather than deliberative reflection. The administration has a process to make its decisions. I would say this is about--as I listen to the Senator from Kentucky-- far more than Egypt. He basically opposes all foreign assistance abroad. The reality is that foreign assistance abroad has worked for the national interests and security of the United States. It has saved millions of lives through PEPFAR against AIDS and HIV. It has helped strengthen democracies. It has helped create democracies. It has helped create open markets for American products and services. As a matter of fact, these sales to Egypt--about $1.2 billion--are largely from the manufacture of equipment here in the United States that creates jobs here at home and then ultimately gets used in Egypt. We need a more nuanced approach, one that speaks to both our values and our interests, and one which provides the President with the flexibility needed to conduct delicate and discriminating policy in a challenging and chaotic environment. A quick end to aid at this time--meat-clever approach, when a scalpel is needed--is simply ill-advised. Last week Ambassador Dennis Ross, whose reputation and experience as a diplomat, Presidential adviser on the Middle East, and author, has made him one of the Nation's most respected foreign policy minds on both sides of the aisle, told the Foreign Relations Committee it is imperative that America ``stay in the game.'' We cannot and should not pull out now. Ending aid to Egypt would only cause Egyptians to shut the United States out of discussions and disregard our advice. Ambassador Ross also said that such an action could be the only thing to unite all Egyptians across the entire political spectrum against the United States--against the United States. In fact, that opinion was shared by the majority panelists who feared our inability to influence events in Egypt if we were to step out of the game. In the interim, as we further assess the situation, our response and our policy must be carefully calibrated to press for the democratic reforms that the Egyptian people have demanded and--simultaneously-- support U.S. national security interests in the region. U.S. assistance to Egypt has, for decades, helped support the Camp David Accords. It also supports our security interests in countering trafficking of weapons and people into the Sinai, and in antiterrorism cooperation with the United States. In recent weeks, Egypt's military has launched a major crackdown on terrorist activity and extremists in the Sinai Peninsula, carrying out arrests and attempting to seal smuggling tunnels connecting the Sinai to Gaza. U.S. cooperation is essential to the continuation of these activities. Let me conclude by saying, at the end of the day, Egyptian leaders and the Egyptian military must show that they are committed to an inclusive political process, credible democratic elections, and democratic governance that protects the rights of religious minorities, women, civil society leaders, and a diversity of political parties. That includes, from my perspective, vacating the June 4 verdicts for the 43 individuals convicted in the politically motivated trial of nongovernmental organization workers, including 16 Americans, and permitting civil society organizations to reopen their offices and operate freely. It also clearly means an immediate cessation of arrests and use of force against peaceful protestors. Steps that exacerbate the divide in Egyptian society, including the use of force against protestors and arrests and harassment of pro-Morsi and Muslim Brotherhood leaders, serve only to deepen the chasm and forestall reconciliation. The only way forward to a pluralistic, vibrant, and stable democracy lies in the inclusion of all political parties and groups, as long as they are committed to a democratic process and to peaceful change. The United States has to move cautiously, not precipitously, in this delicate situation. The Paul amendment is not the answer when it comes to our future relationship with Egypt. The future of that relationship will be determined by our actions in the coming weeks. Whether we will have a stable and willing partner on crucial matters of security, combating terrorism, trafficking of weapons and persons into the Sinai, and support for peace in the Middle East is up to us or we can stand aside and hope for the best. I think abandoning Egypt is a particularly poor choice. That is why I oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I yield to the distinguished ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Corker.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Florida.