Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to conclude my comments before the vote.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise today to once again urge my Senate colleagues to take the bipartisan, practical pro-manufacturing step of providing advice and consent to ratifying the Kigali Amendment. Each of the four previous amendments to this treaty, the Montreal Protocol, have enjoyed overwhelming bipartisan support in the Senate, and Kigali should be no different. Our companies are clear. They want us to approve this treaty so that they can maximize their export potential of cutting-edge chemicals that they have pioneered. They want us to approve the treaty. It will generate billions of dollars in economic activity and create thousands of jobs here at home in the United States. They are also clear that if we fail to ratify, they stand to lose. They will be locked out of export markets in key products. American workers will suffer, which is why the National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and impacted industries all support the action we are prepared to take. Now, I have heard the concerns that some colleagues have raised about China and how it benefits from its antiquated status as a ``developing country'' under the Montreal Protocol. Frankly, it is a fair point to raise, but it should have no bearing on whether we join Kigali. The simple fact is, whether we join Kigali or not has no impact on whether China is treated as a developing country--none. On the other hand, ratifying Kigali will have a major positive benefit for us because China has doubled down on yesterday's chemicals, and we, the United States, lead on all the alternatives. Joining Kigali will turn the world away from China and its companies and towards our competitive strength. It is good for the United States and our businesses, and it is bad for China. However, I also recognize the plain fact that China is no longer a developing country, and I agree that it should not enjoy advantages under the Montreal Protocol that it received because of decisions made more than 30 years ago. I have been a steadfast champion of addressing the challenges China presents as they are, not as we hope for them to be. I led passage of the Strategic Competition Act and my Taiwan Policy Act, which was recently voted out of the Foreign Relations Committee on an overwhelming bipartisan basis. So I have no problem acknowledging that China should no longer qualify as a developing country, and for that reason, I support the Lee-Sullivan amendment. The Senate's constitutional role on treaties is both unique and vital. What we are doing today will directly, positively--if we adopt ratification--impact American workers, American businesses, and American consumers. It will meet our challenge against China. It will create greater security at home. It will create great prosperity. There are few things that we do in the Senate that can improve our economy, create jobs, and meet the challenge of China in this one dimension. For all of those reasons, I urge my colleagues to support providing advice and consent for the Kigali Amendment after the Sullivan amendment is considered.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise today in support of Amanda Bennett to be the Chief Executive Officer of the U.S. State Agency for Global Media. When autocrats around the world have been cracking down on independent media; when regimes silence opposition with repression and fear; when they shut down the internet, as we have seen in countries like Cuba and Iran; when they actively target the United States and like-minded democratic nations with disinformation campaigns, it is critical for the United States to have a champion of democracy and free speech leading the U.S. Agency for Global Media, someone who can meet the challenge posed by the spread of digital authoritarianism around the world. Ms. Bennett is prepared to take on that task. She has over two decades of experience in journalism, including as the director of Voice of America. For 23 years, she worked at the Wall Street Journal, including as a correspondent in Beijing, where she came face-to-face with China's authoritarianism. She has seen how their state security forces watch and detain journalists to suppress the truth. As a former director of Voice of America, she understands the importance of the U.S. Agency for Global Media's networks and American public diplomacy efforts. Over the course of her career, she served on the boards of the Lenfest Institute and Committee to Protect Journalists. In short, Ms. Bennett is without a doubt the right person for this position. She will be a tireless advocate for the journalists working at USAGM and an effective steward of its operations. She will also be an invaluable ally to USAGM's independent partners, including Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Radio Free Asia. She will defend the importance of Radio and TV Marti. And she will be accountable to Congress in these efforts. It has been almost 2 years since the Agency has had a Senate- confirmed CEO at the helm. It is in dire need of steady leadership that supports independent media. I enthusiastically support Ms. Bennett. I respectfully urge my colleagues to support her confirmation as well.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to speak to the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol. I thank the leader for bringing this important legislative initiative to the Senate floor, and I want to thank our Republican colleagues who have joined in a bipartisan effort to send a very strong message that this is about America's competitiveness; this is about America's security; this is about challenging China. For more than 20 years, U.S. manufacturers have been hard at work pioneering new technologies for our refrigerators and air-conditioners. They defined the global standard, and they have the competitive advantage over companies in China and India which have doubled down on yesterday's technology. Our companies want and need the Senate to support them so that they can continue to lead, to create jobs, and to export their goods to global markets. So this is why I come to the floor today, to urge my Senate colleagues to provide advice and consent to the Kigali Amendment, the fifth technical update to the incredibly successful Montreal Protocol, a treaty amendment that passed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by bipartisan voice vote--a bipartisan voice vote. That just shows the depth and scope of bipartisan support. Each of the four prior updates were approved by the full Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support, and I urge my colleagues to do the same for Kigali. The amendment is a success story of business and government working together, dating back to the George W. Bush Administration. It is an update that will ensure U.S. leadership in exports into the future, and it is the only way--the only way--to keep our businesses from being locked out of markets across the world. American businesses are clear. It is time to phase down antiquated chemicals, known as HFCs, which American manufacturers want to leave behind. It is time to usher in a new era in which the modern products are purchased all over the world. Our companies already lead in this space. They have been investing billions of dollars to develop new technologies--alternatives to HFCs-- and they have done so in ways that will ultimately decrease costs-- decrease costs--for U.S. consumers. That is why, for the time being, we have the competitive advantage over China and others. So the choice on this is clear: Ratifying Kigali means ensuring U.S. companies dominate the export markets. Failure to ratify means a wasted investment and a missed opportunity. Ratifying means we will see thousands more domestic manufacturing jobs--33,000, according to industry estimates. Failure to ratify means U.S. businesses that employ tens of thousands of people across the country will not--will not--be able to sell many of their products in key countries. We are talking about $4.8 billion annually--annually-- of increased exports; $12.5 billion of increased economic output per year. So do we want billions of dollars a year in more exports and economic output or do we want to have lost jobs? Do we want lost exports? Do we want our companies suffering needlessly? Beginning in 2033, the nations all around the world that have already joined Kigali--137 of them and counting that have already done this-- will be required--required--to block the imports of most HFCs from the countries that have not joined Kigali. So we would be blocked if we don't, in fact, ratify this amendment. We don't want U.S. manufacturers to be on the outside looking in. They employ thousands of people all over the country. We don't want them to be unable to sell products that they had been at the forefront of developing. Adopting this treaty amendment is the only way to keep our businesses from being locked out of global markets. So let's not waste the engagement and encouragement by the Bush administration that led U.S. manufacturers to develop alternatives to these harmful chemicals. Let's not waste the accomplishments made by the AIM Act, which President Trump signed into law. We need to remember that the AIM Act provides for the exact same chemical phasedown required by Kigali, which means that we have already taken the required steps domestically. This means that we wouldn't be required to do anything more--anything more--if we ratify Kigali, but we will miss out on billions in exports and thousands of jobs if we fail to do so. That is the essence. That is why manufacturers all over the country in States like Wisconsin, Texas, and Kentucky support Senate approval of Kigali. That is why there has been an outpouring of support from the business community, including major employers like Walmart, Carrier, Trane, Lennox, and others. That is why the National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the impacted industries all support this practical and bipartisan Senate action. So, in closing, I ask my colleagues to fulfill our constitutional role in the treaty process by providing advice and consent to the Kigali Amendment. That requires 67 votes. I think we are well on our way there. Let's support American businesses. Let's continue to be the global leader. Let's support American consumers. Let's make sure the United States stays ahead of the competition. And let's beat China, instead of help China, at the end of the day. We can do all of that and so much more by adopting today's amendment. And I want to thank so many who have worked on this in a bipartisan effort. Senator Kennedy has been working very hard. I want to thank my colleague Senator Carper, the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, who has been so passionate about the Kigali Amendment and such a force to bring us to this moment today. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with my colleague, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Wyden. In the corporate alternative minimum tax, there is some question as to whether companies that operate in foreign countries with standard tax years that are different from the U.S. could lose foreign tax credits strictly because of these non-conforming years. This may especially be an issue in the very first year of the corporate alternative minimum tax's application. Does Treasury have authority to issue regulations dealing with potential issues with foreign income taxes relating to nonconforming foreign tax years and how that impacts foreign tax credits in the corporate alternative minimum tax? This would include fair rules for the utilization of foreign tax credits in the law's first year.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the chairman for this clarification of the provision.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I was happy to listen to my colleague from Colorado's erudite exposition of what the opportunity is before us and what it means for the American people, and so I very much appreciate it. Tribute to Keith Roachford Mr. President, I come to the floor today for a very important reason. I rise not to introduce a bill nor to ask my colleagues for unanimous consent. No. I am here for one simple reason, and I want to make sure that the C- SPAN cameras are capturing this moment for posterity. I come to the floor today to honor Keith Roachford, a member of my staff who has faithfully served the State of New Jersey, the U.S. Senate, and the United States of America for more than 35 years. As you can see from Keith's face, it is clear that he had no idea this was happening. We told him he was coming for another reason, and I don't think we would have gotten him otherwise. But, nonetheless, I rise today because, after 35 years and 18 Congresses, Keith is retiring from the Senate, and as result, I wanted to come to the floor to send him off with a tribute befitting his legendary career. A native son of Willingboro, NJ, Keith has served not one, not two but four U.S. Senators for the Garden State. He is the very definition of institutional knowledge, and countless fellow staff members can attest to his experience, which has saved the day on more than one occasion. Keith has sometimes said that he has been here so long he came with the furniture. It is a classic Keith line, a glimpse not only into his sense of humor but also his view of how staff work behind the scenes gets things done. Now, that may be the case, but today, Keith, I rise to shine a spotlight on your illustrious career. To start, I would like to share some of the stories that his colleagues have sent me: Keith has not only been a mentor to me, he's also been a friend to anyone lucky enough to come into contact with him. When I think of Keith, the words that come to mind are helpful, generous, thoughtful--a patient and understanding team player. Another one said: He is so kind to everyone, from interns to the Chief of Staff, and is always--always--willing to share his knowledge with others. So it brings me immense joy to speak these words into the Congressional Record so that, like Keith's legacy, they may stand the test of time. But beyond his accolades, beyond his track record and sterling reputation, Keith, at heart, is a humble man. I know it isn't easy for him to be sitting here, listening to me shower praise on him, but to that I say: Well, you are still on the payroll so you will have to bear with it. But above all, Keith is a family man, a devoted husband to his wife Sandy and an incredible father to his beloved children, Rick, Daniel, and Lauren. He is a man that every day for the last 36 years has braved the brutal beltway traffic to come into work in the Hart Senate Office Building. And he is a man that every weekend has made a similar trip with his family to attend services at St. George's Episcopal Church here in DC. Keith credits his faith for guiding him throughout his life, and he would be the first to tell you that it has been a moral compass for him, season after political season. But as the Book of James asks, ``What good is someone who says they have faith but does not have works?'' Fret not. In addition to his duties as senior warden of the Vestry at St. George's, Keith takes the time to give back to his community. He is a member of the Brotherhood of St. Andrew. He serves as the secretary of the convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, and he is a Boy Scout leader. At every opportunity, he goes out of his way to give back. It is a trait he learned growing up. As the son and grandson of public servants, Keith was taught from an early age that service to others is the highest calling. His grandfather was a transit operator for the city of New York, while his father, a veteran of the U.S. Army and the New Jersey Army National Guard, worked for the sanitation department for 37 years. It is no surprise, then, that Keith has followed in their footsteps. He is a throwback to a previous era, one where individuals spent years, if not decades, working for the same organization. I know Keith never intended to spend 36 years working in the Senate. He used to joke with colleagues that he came to Washington fresh out of the college just to try it out. But in the process, he has gone from working as a constituent liaison, to mail director, to deputy chief of staff, and so much more. Today, Keith is an indispensable resource for our legislative staff. He is our go-to person for appropriations, defense, veterans' issues, homeland security, and the budget. He has had a hand in passing countless initiatives for our office, from supporting community development financial institutions to shoring up supply chains and expanding senior housing, to inserting provisions in the PACT Act--that is how we got him here, telling him that is what we were going to talk about--that addresses the needs of veterans suffering from Gulf war illness. Keith has had a hand in far too many legislative wins to count, but suffice to say, the legend of Keith Roachford has led to what we call ``the Roachford Rule,'' which is simple: With every appropriations letter I sign on to, with every bill I cosponsor, for something to pass the Roachford Rule, it needs to have a tangible benefit for New Jersey families. Much like the man it is named after, the Roachford Rule is about connecting what we do here in DC to the people whose lives it affects back home. Long after Keith has left the Senate, his rule will live on, a testament to his relentless pursuit of good government, a trademark for a public servant devoted to the common good, a namesake that all of us in this Chamber would do well to emulate. I will end with this: Last March, I came to this floor to rebuke the words that a colleague used in reference to the January 6 attack. I won't use the time to rehash what I said; instead, I will use this time to once again lift up the bravery and the courage of the man who compelled me to act. Late one night, Keith sent me an email that outlined the pain and the outrage he felt after reading our colleague's comments. In personal terms, he relayed how his entire life he has had to endure--in overt and covert ways--the harmful legacy of racism and the stain of White supremacy. Knowing Keith, it could not have been easy to type that message to his boss, a sitting U.S. Senator. But as I said in that speech, there comes a time when you either ruffle some feathers and speak the truth or you fail to do justice to the values you hold dear. The U.S. Senate is a better institution, and I am certainly a better Senator, for having Keith Roachford work in these Halls. He is man of principle, a man of God, a man who has put every ounce of his being into the work that New Jerseyans have sent us here to do. He is the first person to tell you that he is not perfect, the first to say that he has certainly seen it all over 36 long years of service, but, by God, I cannot help but feel so thankful, so grateful that we have been blessed with his presence. He is a calm and steady hand that has helped guide our office since 2006. He is the quiet one, the one who keeps his powder dry and plays the long game; the one who never loses sight of the ultimate goal, which is to improve the lives of hard-working American families. John Madison, one of the Framers of our Constitution, once said: If men were angels, no government would be needed. I have never met an angel, but I have worked alongside Keith Roachford for 16 of those 36 years. He has served with me longer than any other of the U.S. Senators he has worked with. And it is why I can truthfully say without pause or equivocation that Keith Roachford is truly doing God's work here on Earth. When Keith first mentioned to me that he was thinking of leaving, he said the most incredible thing. He said: You know, Senator, it's just that with the pandemic and with work from home, I've just gotten to spend more time with Sandy and the kids. We don't want to wait any longer to get started. We make breakfast and we take walks. . . . I just don't want to wait any longer to do that. That is Keith in a nutshell. That is who he is. So I want to congratulate Keith on an incredible 36 years of Senate service. We are going to miss you, certainly so. But to you, to Sandy, and to your three children, we wish you all the best on a well-deserved retirement. Thank you, Keith. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague Senator Warren for beginning this debate, and we will move to a consent shortly. I want to thank her for working together with me on this most important issue. At this moment, there are millions of women who face an uncertain future after the repeal of Roe v. Wade, millions of women who no longer have the right to make their own decisions about their own bodies. It is a heart-wrenching choice, no doubt one of the hardest decisions anyone will ever have to make. But in the midst of this, in this post-Roe landscape we find ourselves in, there are organizations, as has been discussed here, known as crisis pregnancy centers that are preying on the fears of women, exacerbating the problems caused by the Dobbs decision. Make no mistake, crisis pregnancy centers are anti-abortion organizations that cloak themselves in benign language about ``providing answers'' and ``offering advice.'' They have an agenda; namely, to steer women away from abortion through a combination of guilt, concealment, harassment, and downright lies. Crisis pregnancy centers in my State of New Jersey pretend that they are there to educate, support, and empower women facing unplanned pregnancies. And yet at the bottom of their websites, in very small print, you will find a disclaimer that lays it all bare. Crisis pregnancy centers do not offer or refer for pregnancy terminations or birth control. Information should not be relied on as a substitute for professional and/or medical advice. That is a disclaimer. You can hardly read it, but it is there. This is pulled straight from the web page of one center in my State. I will repeat that ending again. Information should not be relied on as a substitute for professional and/or medical advice. Ironically, this is the only objective and accurate piece of information you will find on the site and others like it. As Senator Warren mentioned, crisis pregnancy centers are not required to have a physician or a registered nurse on staff. Very few of them do. They are not required to provide contraceptive care or even stick to medically sound claims. And because they claim to only provide so- called education services, they can promote blatant lies about how abortion increases risk for breast cancer. Women in America do not deserve to be lied to. They shouldn't be preyed upon during moments of vulnerability or any other time. When assessing healthcare, they shouldn't have to shift to what is real and what is not. And they certainly shouldn't have to parse through the carefully constructed language of crisis pregnancy centers that promote an anti- choice agenda. Our bill, the Stop Anti-Abortion Disinformation Act, would empower the Federal Trade Commission to issue rules prohibiting false advertisement of abortion services. It would allow the FTC to penalize those who are found in violation. And it would provide greater oversight over crisis pregnancy centers that profit from the pain of unplanned pregnancies--sometimes while double-dipping on the taxpayer's dime. Senator Warren and I are leading this bill to end the practice of deceiving women and girls through false advertisement. We are leading this bill to promote truth in advertisement, to end misinformation and disinformation, and to protect women from harassment. Yes--harassment. As Senator Warren said, crisis pregnancy centers have no duty to uphold HIPAA privacy protections--the most significant information that you can give about your health and the status of your health and your condition. You do that thinking that you are in a medical center. And now you have given all this information that has enormous consequences to it if it is misused to these deceptive entities. And after divulging personal information to them, they can freely sell it to scammers who would want to take advantage of them. So I ask my colleagues, let's end the assault on bodily autonomy and the right to access reproductive care. Let's end the barrage of attacks on their healthcare. Let's end deception in any delivery of any service. Let's end the fraud in any delivery of any ``service.'' Let's end the barrage of attacks on their healthcare. Join us in passing our bill so that in the hardest moment of their lives, women all across our country can rest assured in knowing that what they are getting is the truth, not some biased agenda pretending to be medical advice, not some one-sided talking point that steers them toward one outcome, the truth--the truth. Pregnant women in America deserve the truth, and that is what this bill does. To oppose our unanimous consent request is to promote deception, is to promote fraud. I don't think anybody really wants to do that. As in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Commerce Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 4469 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. MENENDEZ. While my colleague is still here, I would like to propound a question to him through the Chair. Does the First Amendment allow you to promote fraud? Does the First Amendment allow you to promote deception? Is it great work to lie to someone about what you are providing them? Is it great work to allow someone to get your vital health information believing that you are a health provider and then being able to use that private information?

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, if I may continue to ask my colleague through the Chair, is it right, no matter who gets the information by fraud, to give your most private health--surely, as a doctor, the Senator would say that no one should give up their health information to an entity that does not preserve it under HIPAA laws. So could the Senator not join us if we limit it to fraud that ultimately has that fraud create the insecurity of HIPAA information?