Floor Statements

Madam President, my amendment is to protect the health insurance of 11 million low-income men, women, and children who are currently benefiting from the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion.

This amendment establishes a point of order requiring the CBO to certify that no legislation increases the overall number of uninsured, decreases enrollment in Medicaid in expansion States, or increases State spending on Medicaid.

There are currently 32 States that have expanded Medicaid, half of those States with Republican Governors. These Republican Governors-- from Louisiana to Nevada, to Arkansas, Iowa, and even my own State of New Jersey, to name a few--understand that not only is Medicaid expansion a literal lifesaver to millions of children and families, but it has resulted in substantial economic growth and budget savings, a reality that directly contradicts the outcries from Republicans who seek to destroy Medicaid and strip coverage away from 11 million of the most vulnerable among us.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' to protect those 11 million Americans.

Mr. President, how am I recorded?

I am not recorded. No to no protections.

Mr. President, I wish to extend my most sincere condolences on the passing of Domingo Enrique Morel Senior. Domingo was a pillar of the community during his time in my hometown of Union City, NJ, and he will be deeply missed.

As the saying goes, all politics is local. The foundations of our democratic system do not lie in the Halls of the Capitol but in the neighborhoods and cities spread across our great country. The critical progress we must make as a nation only occurs when groups of dedicated citizens selflessly contribute their time and efforts toward improving the lives of their families and communities. Domingo was one of these committed citizens.

As a resident of Union City, Domingo chose to give back to his neighbors through the political process. He spent many hours organizing neighborhoods and people in support of issues he believed would make his city and State a better place for people to live and work. Domingo did the hard, behind-the-scenes job of organizing communities at the grassroots level. I am eternally grateful for the effort Domingo gave on my behalf; it is because of his loyal public service that I am able to do my work on behalf of the citizens of New Jersey today.

My thoughts and prayers are with Domingo's family at this difficult time. I am proud to have called Domingo a friend. Though he may have passed, the goodness he brought to the world remains and will never be forgotten.

Mr. President, I wish to honor Rutgers University for winning the 2014 Senator Paul Simon Award for Comprehensive Internationalization from NAFSA: The Association of International Educators. The award is named for the late Senator Paul Simon and is among the most prestigious awards for systemwide comprehensive internationalization. The award recognizes Rutgers' significant strides in providing a global education to its students, tackling global challenges through research, and working with diverse communities at home and abroad.

The award honors the university's significant achievements in enhancing its global reputation over the course of its nearly 250-year history. One hundred and fifty years ago, the university first began this process when it welcomed to campus a handful of students from Japan. Today, Rutgers hosts nearly 1,500 international undergraduate students from over 125 countries each year.

Through the Rutgers' Centers for Global Advancement and International Affairs, GAIA Centers, the university has established hundreds of strong research and education partnerships with key institutions on six continents. The centers' advising services, cross-cultural social events, and immigration processing have streamlined the arrival and cultural adjustment of nearly 7,000 talented international students and scholars. The centers have grown service-learning abroad and study abroad opportunities from just a couple of programs in the 1960s to over 160 semester and year-long courses. The centers also foster unique and strong relationships with the United Nations, one of only a handful of universities around the globe to do so.

Rutgers actively participates in flagship international programs. Since January 2012, the university has hosted 73 Brazilian students for year-long, non-degree educational programs under the Brazilian Scientific Mobility Program. Rutgers was also one of only 20 universities nationwide selected to host talented young African leaders for a 6-week civic leadership program under President Obama's Mandela Washington Fellowship for Young African Leaders.

Rutgers students and alumni received 26 Fulbright grants this year, a record number for the university. The Fulbright U.S. Student Program reported that this ties Rutgers for third place among research universities nationwide.

The university's worldwide reception is higher than ever before. In 2013, the Center for World University Rankings, CWUR, ranked Rutgers 33rd out of hundreds of international institutions.

I congratulate Rutgers University for winning the 2014 Senator Paul Simon Award for Comprehensive Internationalization, and I look forward to their continued success.

Mr. President, I am here today to speak to the troubling situation in Nigeria, one of our strongest allies in Africa since its transition from military dictatorship to civilian rule over a decade ago.

Nigeria is currently facing two grave threats to its stability. First, the country is preparing to vote next month in the most closely contested presidential election in recent history, but there is a very real danger of prolonged violence across Nigeria and mass casualties if the election results are not deemed credible.

Second, in the last 2 months, Boko Haram, infamous for kidnapping over 200 schoolgirls in Chibok in 2014, has stepped up its murderous scorched-earth campaign, killing thousands of innocent civilians, gaining control over an increasing amount of territory in the northeastern portion of the country, and threatening to disrupt elections.

It is in the face of these dual challenges, that I, along with Senators Isakson, Shaheen, Boozman and Coons, have submitted a resolution which calls on Nigerian leaders to step-up to the plate and show real leadership in prioritizing the safety and security of Nigerians in the elections and doing everything possible to combat Boko Haram.

For over 5 years, Boko Haram has shocked the conscience of the world and terrorized Nigerian citizens of all religions and ethnic groups. It has targeted schools, mosques, churches, markets, villages and agricultural centers with a wave of kidnappings, killings and suicide bombs. Boko Haram terrorists have abducted hundreds, including the Chibok girls, who to this day remain missing; and has killed thousands--by some accounts over 6,000 last year alone and, since 2009, more than a million have been displaced.

In January, Boko Haram staged a 4 day assault on the northeastern town of Baga, abducting civilians, and forcing thousands to flee. Eyewitnesses claim as many as 2000 dead, though the government disputes this number. Satellite photographs show disturbing images of towns burned and razed. What began as a localized insurgency that targeted the military and government has grown into a sub-regional menace. Boko Haram has metastasized, effectively denying the government control over a significant swathe of territory in the three most affected states of northeast Nigeria, and undertaking bold incursions into neighboring countries. The Nigerian government's response has been ineffective at best. At worst, the actions of the security forces, who have been accused of alarming excesses, may have exacerbated the problem. These are things the Nigerian government must acknowledge and address if they want to end the reign of Boko Haram in communities most affected by the terrorist group.

The international community, the African Union, European Union, the Lake Chad Basin Commission, and United Nations Security Council--have all recognized that there must be a regional response to Boko Haram. On January 26, AU Commission Chairwoman Dlamini Zuma said that Boko Haram is a threat to the whole continent. Just days ago, the AU Peace and Security Council approved a 7500 strong regional force to combat the group. Recent U.S. efforts to provide assistance have been unilaterally rebuffed. Clearly, the international community is concerned and engaged. What is not so clear is the commitment of the Nigerian government to a thoughtful strategy of engagement.

During my meeting with President Jonathan at last year's African Leaders' Summit, I urged him to implement a comprehensive approach to address the Boko Haram insurgency--one that addresses both the security threat as well as the legitimate grievances of local communities. At the end of the day, Nigerian officials must come to terms with the fact that a military solution alone will not solve the problem. To date, the government does not appear to have formulated a comprehensive strategy, and as a result, the insurgency continues to gain momentum.

Against this backdrop of government inaction and Boko Haram's unspeakable terrorism raging in the north, presidential elections are scheduled for February 14. For the first time since Nigeria transitioned from military rule to democracy in 1999, a unified opposition party will challenge the ruling People's Democratic Party, PDP. This election will test the strength of an electoral process that has been marred by violence. In 2011, more than 800 people were killed in clashes that followed what international observers deemed to be the most free, fair, and best-administered elections to date.

Despite the history of electoral violence, the Nigerian Government has yet to implement reforms recommended by the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC. INEC itself has taken a number of steps to improve the legitimacy of the voting process, including conducting widespread voter registration programs and introducing biometric voter identification cards. INEC is engaged in a valiant effort to distribute permanent voter cards in time for next month's elections, and we should continue to support such efforts until the job is done to protect the legitimacy and integrity of the elections.

National Security Advisor Sambo Dasuki has said the voter card distribution is too slow, and recently suggested that the elections be postponed. I think this suggestion has understandably raised suspicion and skepticism as to his motives and those of the PDP given that the race between President Jonathan and his challenger, Muhammadu Buhari, is by all accounts close to a dead heat. It is true, however, that increasing violence in three northern states threatens to disenfranchise a significant number of voters. And it is unclear how those who have been internally displaced will be given the opportunity to vote. In my view, there must be an effort to develop a consensus about how these twin challenges should be addressed or Nigerians may well dispute the results.

The two leading presidential candidates have made a public commitment to non-violence during the elections. They should be commended for their verbal assurances, and they should be held responsible if they renege. As Secretary Kerry said in Lagos at the end of last month, ``the international community is paying very close attention to this election.''

Nigeria has the largest economy and is the most populous country in Africa. So goes, Nigeria, so goes West Africa. We cannot, from a strategic standpoint, afford for it to fail. That is why the international community must continue to urge Nigerian political leaders to listen to all voices, regardless of ethnic, religious, or regional affiliation, and to safeguard the right of the Nigerian people to shape their own destiny.

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

Mr. President, as we approach the near end--I think--of the votes and legislation on the Keystone Pipeline--I know we are having a series of votes later today--I know what is likely to be next up is the question of Department of Homeland Security funding. I hope we can come collectively together to fund the Department of Homeland Security, the Department that keeps us safe in an unsafe world, the Department we created after September 11 to bring together disparate government agencies, all charged with keeping our cities, our ports, our airports, our railways, highways, bridges, and neighborhoods safe from the threat of global terrorism. I particularly understand that as a Member of this body who represents, according to the FBI, the most dangerous 2 miles in America, the chemical coastway, airports, seaports along the Hudson waterfront. This is the Department that funds emergency management in our communities. It protects the President. It is engaged in all domestic counterterrorism efforts.

But what are we doing instead? We are being asked, as one of the new Republican majority's first acts of this Congress, to shut down the Department of Homeland Security. Why? Because some of our friends on the other side are willing to take a gamble and put politics ahead of national security, a thinly veiled political stunt in response to the lawful actions of the President of the United States to do something to fix our broken immigration system. Their message is pretty simple: repeal the President's lawful Executive actions on immigration or shut down the Department of Homeland Security. Make no mistake, that is the textbook definition of pure politics: not caring what its impact might be, not caring whom it might hurt, not caring about the families whom it will tear apart, and the fact that it will put our Nation's security at risk.

I have been in this Chamber and in the other Chamber for over 20 years, and I don't think I have ever seen such a cavalier political recklessness played with our national security. Why? To prevent the President from taking lawful action to help DREAMers and immigrant families to come out of the shadows after they pass a criminal background check, register with the government, and get right with the law in exchange for being allowed to temporarily stay in the country and obtain a work permit.

The bottom line is clear: Republicans are doing all of this just to prevent a clean Department of Homeland Security funding bill from being sent to the President, a critical funding bill that the President has rightfully promised to veto should it include their anti-immigration amendments, a veto which Congress will not override. It is a fool's political errand that is neither good policy nor particularly humane.

Our friends on the other side have accepted these anti-immigrant poison pill amendments, knowing full well they will sink the Department of Homeland Security funding bill because they have allowed extremists, such as Steve King, to dictate the party's strategy on immigration.

Let's not continuously go down this dark path of partisanship instead of funding national security programs to keep our families and our communities safe. In my view it is shamefully and woefully irresponsible for Republicans to hold up funding for operations that protect every American against terrorism in the wake of what happened in France and against cyber attacks at a time when North Korea just carried out a dramatic attack against a major American corporation.

This is not a time to hold up funding to help the Department of Homeland Security investigate cyber crime that could cripple America's electronic infrastructure or when the world is a tinderbox of jihadists and would-be homegrown terrorists willing to die for a perceived version of Islam.

If Republican colleagues want to seriously consider this ill- conceived approach, they will be forcing a shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security--a shutdown of our national security infrastructure to pursue their agenda of mass deportations that will tear families apart, an agenda that embraces a system that doesn't distinguish between deporting a working mother with U.S. citizen children and a convicted felon.

Instead, I urge my friends on the other side to join us and pass a balanced and comprehensive bill. Let's talk. Let's sit down again and find common ground, as we did in the last Congress where this Senate came together on a bipartisan basis with over 67 votes to send a bill to the House of Representatives that dealt with our broken immigration system, provided for our national security, promoted our national economy, and at the same time made sure our legacy and history as a nation of immigrants was preserved. The answer is not holding up national security funding at a critical time, not turning our backs on the

hard-working men and women at the Department of Homeland Security in law enforcement who are protecting our borders, our airports, and our coastlines. It is not about trying to score political points by conflating national security and immigration reform, which will only make it harder to address security issues at home and almost impossible to move forward on comprehensive immigration reform.

Let's look at what my Republican colleagues are so opposed to. They are opposed to new DHS directives that include a rigorous application process that will ironically help eliminate national security threats. They seem to be opposed to the fact that applicants will have to come forward and register with the government. They will have to pass criminal background checks before they can receive a temporary reprieve from deportation and a work permit. No violent criminals, gang members, or terrorists will be able to take advantage of the program. They seem to be opposed to allowing immigrants who are not a public safety or national security threat to come forward and request deferred action, meaning there will be fewer people living in the shadows, beyond the reach of law enforcement.

These directives identify moms and dads who have a U.S. citizen or a legal permanent resident son or daughter and take them out of the deportation queue. They also take DREAMers out of the deportation queue.

The House amendment to the Department of Homeland Security funding bill would effectively end the new Deferred Action for Parental Accountability Program and the expanded DACA Program for DREAMers. They would also defund every other aspect of the President's November 20 Executive action that would promote border security, public safety, military service, legal immigration, citizenship, immigration integration, entrepreneurship, civil immigration enforcement priorities, including the prioritization of individuals with convicted felonies and gang activity and terrorist ties for deportation.

I will repeat that. It includes a prioritization. I would think the Senate would want to support a prioritization of individuals who are here illegally and are convicted felons and part of gang activities or who have terrorist ties for deportation and any future similar Executive actions.

The only directive our Republican colleagues found acceptable, which is interesting--in my mind, you say: Well, none of it can happen by Executive action. But it seems that the only thing that did happen by Executive action that our colleagues found acceptable pertains to pay increases for Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, which I believe they certainly deserve.

These amendments would break apart more families and destroy communities by ensuring that we continue to deport the parents of U.S. citizen and lawful permanent resident children. One of the most mean- spirited amendments would prohibit the use of Federal funds or resources to consider or adjudicate any new, renewed, or previously denied application for deferred action for childhood arrivals.

Let's call this amendment what it is: It is an amendment to deport DREAMers and targets all of those young people who came forward and signed up in good faith. I will give an example of whom these amendments attack.

I wish to remind my colleagues of who the DREAMers are. DREAMers are young people who came to this country through no choice of their own. The only flag they have ever pledged allegiance to is that of the United States of America. The only national anthem they know is the ``Star-Spangled Banner.'' Their country is this country.

I was fortunate to speak with people like the Morales-Cano family 2 weeks ago in New Jersey. They are a family of six, including 13-year- old, U.S.-born Rebecca Morales. Their lives have drastically improved thanks to the program Republicans are hoping to dismantle. If the Republicans are successful, Rebecca would be left alone in the United States without her parents or sisters--an American citizen left alone, perhaps in foster care, because Republicans don't care about prioritizing the deportation of convicted criminals over her mom, dad, and sisters.

The story of the Morales-Cano family is a clear example of thousands of deep-rooted families who have waited too long in the shadows for immigration reform.

Three years ago, after attending a deferred action for childhood arrivals workshop that my office organized in New Jersey, all three of Rebecca's older sisters--Ingrid, Evelyn, and Lesly--were given an opportunity to begin a new chapter of their lives after qualifying for the President's 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, joining thousands of others who had been granted relief.

Today, look at what this family is doing Ingrid cares for New Jerseyans' health at her job at the Ocean Medical Center. Evelyn moved to Illinois to attend the West Coast Bible College and Seminary. Lesly was able to enroll in Brookdale Community College to pursue her dream of becoming a nurse. Ingrid, Evelyn, and Lesly represent the hundreds of thousands of young individuals who, because of the deferred action for childhood arrivals, can actively contribute to our economy without fear of losing everything they have worked to gain.

Romeo Morales and Mrs. Magda Cano de Morales did not qualify for deportation deferrals under DACA and have continued to live with the constant fear of having their family abruptly separated. But thanks to the deferred action for parents program, recently announced by President Obama, both parents will likely qualify to come out of the shadows, register with the government, pass a background check, and join their daughters in their pursuit of the American dream--unless, of course, the Republicans get their way.

We cannot let that happen, and I will do everything to ensure that we will not let that happen. These are the real faces of our broken immigration system. There are many families like the Morales-Cano family who have been and remain an economic resource we cannot afford to waste. They are hard-working families who simply want to be full participants in American life, full contributors to the American family, and they want to remain united as a family. We should want them to remain united.

I have listened to so many speeches here about family values. Well, the core of a family value is a family being able to stay together, integrated and helping each other and driving each other to success and supporting each other. Ripping families apart is not a family value.

We must see through the smoke and mirrors and do what is right for America. Let's stop playing political games. Let's defeat these poison- pill amendments and pass a clean Department of Homeland Security funding bill. Let's not play politics with national security. Let's remember the people behind the policies. Let's remember the Morales- Cano family and the fate of Rebecca if we allow these amendments to pass.

With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished ranking member of the energy committee for yielding me some time this evening. I am not here for the purposes of legislation we have been debating; I am here to take time on the Senate floor on an occasion that I think is incredibly important to recollect, to commemorate, and to talk about.

Seventy years ago today a Soviet soldier, Ivan Martynushkin, arrived with his unit at the death camp at Auschwitz, and he said in an interview that he was instantly struck by the silence, the smell of ashes, and the emptiness. But as they entered the gates, Ivan and his unit were unaware of the atrocities, the war crimes that were to come to light over time.

Today I rise in memory of the 1.1 million persons who perished there, 90 percent of them Jews. I rise in recognition of 1.1 million lost dreams, lost hopes, the lost wisdom of 1.1 million that will never be shared, never be known, and the lost potential of a generation that perished in that camp between 1940 and 1945.

Ivan Martynushkin and his unit entered the camp thinking there would be a Nazi ambush, and then they noticed people behind barbed wire. ``It was hard to watch them,'' he said. ``I remember their faces, especially their eyes, which betrayed their ordeal.'' Ivan didn't know that the Nazis had evacuated another 58,000 prisoners 10 days earlier or the 6 million who were killed in camps across Europe.

He stood witness that day to the ultimate manifestation of man's inhumanity to their fellow man--7,000 prisoners left behind, 600 corpses born of hatred, intolerance, prejudice, bigotry, and a seething anti-Semitism that is again rearing its ugly head in Europe, the Middle East, and around the world.

There has been an alarming increase in anti-Semitic attacks and incidents in Europe that remain a challenge not only to stability and to security but to our shared morality, our mutually ethical core as human beings. Just two weeks ago, on January 9, 2015, four members of France's Jewish community were murdered during a hostage crisis at Hyper Cacher--a kosher supermarket--following the deadly terrorist attack on the Paris offices of the newspaper Charlie Hebdo.

The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights issued a 2013 report on anti-Semitism in France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Belgium, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, where 90 percent of Europe's Jews reside, in which three-quarters of respondents said that anti-Semitism had worsened over the past 5 years where they lived.

In France, home to Europe's largest Jewish population, it has been reported that the number of French Jews immigrating to Israel in 2014 had doubled compared to 2013. And for the first time ever, more Jews moved to Israel from France than any other country in the world.

Anti-Semitic acts in European countries in 2014 included violent attacks, death threats, and the desecration of Jewish homes, commercial property, cemeteries, and places of worship. On May 24, 2014, a gunman opened fire at the Jewish Museum of Belgium in Brussels, Belgium, and killed four people. On July 29, Molotov cocktails were thrown at the synagogue in Wuppertal, Germany, which had been burned to the ground by the Nazis during the 1938 Kristallnacht and had only been rebuilt in 2002.

We have all been shocked by the recent disturbingly stereotypical anti-Semitic utterances of President Erdogan of Turkey and those around him. He said in February of 2013, ``Today the image of the Jews is no different from that of the Nazis.'' Speaking at a campaign rally in the Black Sea province of Ordu, he said the ``terrorist State Israel has attacked Gaza once again, hitting innocent children who were playing on a beach,'' and the crowd chanted ``Down the Israel.'' Erdogan said, ``The world's media is under the influence of Israel.'' He said, ``Wherever Jews settle, they make money.'' He claimed during the 2013 Gezi Park protests that the Europeans and what he stereotypically referred to as the ``interest-rate lobby'' were backing the antigovernment campaign, with the ultimate goal of dividing Turkey from within.

A Turkish writer aligned with President Erdogan called for Turkish Jews to be taxed to pay for Gaza reconstruction. He said:

The reconstruction of Gaza will be paid for by Jewish

businessmen.

He went on to say:

The penalty for failing to pay the tax should be the

revocation of the Jew's business license and the seizure of

his property.

This is the kind of anti-Semitism we hear in Turkey today.

Around the world, the numbers are shocking. Based on the global survey, the ADL concluded that 1.09 billion people harbor anti-Semitic attitudes. Thirty-five percent never heard of the Holocaust.

If the world does not stand together in never forgetting and if our schools, teachers, parents, and communities do not join together in the fundamental principle of never forgetting, how can we prevent this from ever happening again? How can we work together to confront the anti- Semitism that enables hatred, violence, murder, and genocide around the world?

We can only ask what tomorrow might bring. We cannot know what the future will hold, but we have learned from the past. What we remember today--70 years after the liberation of Auschwitz--is that the United States and the American people will always stand shoulder to shoulder with the Israeli people and Jewish communities across the world in ensuring never again. This means confronting modern-day anti-Semitism, whether from the world's leaders, from ivory tower academics, or from economic belligerence pushing the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement. We must fight back against any and all efforts to delegitimize the Israeli State, the Jewish people, and the Jewish religion.

As I have said many times, on many occasions, the Holocaust was the most sinister possible reminder that the Jewish population in exile has lived under constant threat. It is the definitive reminder that anti- Semitism can appear anywhere, and its horrors galvanized international support for the State of Israel.

But let's be very clear. While the Shoah has a central role in Israel's identity, it is not and never has been the reason behind Israel's founding, and it is not the main justification for its existence. The extreme characterization of this mistaken view is that Western powers established Israel in 1948 based on their own guilt, at the expense of the peoples who already lived there, and therefore the current state is illegitimate and, according to religious clerics such as Supreme Leader Khamenei, who retains his own aspirations for regional hegemony, should be wiped off the face of the map.

This flawed argument is not only in defiance of basic human dignity but in plain defiance of history, in defiance of what we remember today. It is in defiance of ancient history, as told in biblical texts and through archeological evidence. It ignores the history of the last several centuries, and it stands in stark contrast to what we remember today. Several thousand years of history lead to an undeniable conclusion: The reestablishment of the State of Israel in modern times is a political reality with roots going back to the time of Abraham and Sarah.

At the end of the day, the argument for Israel's legitimacy does not depend on what we say in speeches and what we say on an occasion like this. It has been made by the hard reality of history. It has been made by the men and women who made the desert green, by Nobel Prizes earned, by groundbreaking innovations and enviable institutions, by lives saved, democracy defended, peace made, and battles won.

There can be no denying the Jewish people's legitimate right to live in peace and security in a homeland to which they have had a connection for thousands of years. And there can be no denying the suffering, the senseless slaughter of a generation, and all that the world realized we had lost when Ivan Martynushkin and his unit walked through those gates and liberated Auschwitz-Birkenau, a reminder for all times of the racism and hatred from the most devastating genocide in human history.

As we commemorate the victims of the Holocaust, let us never forget. But let us be very clear as we look around the world today that the struggle is not over. Combating anti-Semitism is not only a Jewish issue of the past, it is a matter of basic civil and human rights today, now, in the present.

Like those Russian soldiers 70 years ago, I have personally stood at the gates of Auschwitz-Birkenau. I felt the impact, the horror, the silence, the emptiness, and I felt the lives lost. It is a moving experience that should compel all of us to collectively reflect on how we must transform the lessons we should have learned into concrete acts to prevent history from repeating itself.

Now is the time to renew the vow ``never again'' with even greater resolve.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, what I am not a fan of is a foreign company coming to the United States and taking the property of U.S. citizens. This amendment seems innocuous, but it embraces the seizure of private property for private gain to the full extent of the Constitution.

Ten years ago my dear friend from Texas decried the Kelo decision and advocated for severely restricting the use of eminent domain for private gain. Now, with this amendment, he endorses it.

The Founders of our country and its Constitution never envisioned having a company from another country come to the United States and use eminent domain to take the property of U.S. citizens for private purposes. That is what we are trying to avoid with the Menendez amendment.

If you vote for the amendment by the Senator from Texas, you in essence will continue to allow the opportunity for any foreign company to come into the United States and take private property of U.S. citizens for private purposes. That is not what we want to see.

Vote no on the Cornyn amendment.

This amendment protects private property from unjust seizure by foreign corporations using eminent domain proceedings against the will of those who are not willing sellers.

Let me read a letter from the Nebraska landowners to the majority leader.

Dear Senator McConnell, our farms and ranches are

definitely at risk of tar sands and benzene spills. We ask,

even knowing that you support the Keystone Pipeline, that you

vote for Senator Menendez's amendment that makes it clear

TransCanada cannot take land from unwilling sellers. We ask

you to stand up for our property rights and not permit

eminent domain be used for private gain.

I wish to yield the remainder of my time to Senator Tester.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment to call up my amendment No. 72 to protect private property from unjust seizure by a foreign corporation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment. It prohibits TransCanada from using eminent domain proceedings to seize private property in order to build the Keystone XL Pipeline.

As we all know, eminent domain is the power of a governmental entity to take private property and convert it into public use subject to reasonable compensation. Traditionally, property could only be seized for public use, such as a public park or a public road, but increasingly the exercise of eminent domain has been used for private gain.

Many, including some of my most conservative friends on the other side of the aisle, are outraged by the idea that eminent domain proceedings could be used to seize private property for private gain.

President Bush issued an Executive order restricting the use of eminent domain by the Federal Government for ``the purpose of benefitting the general public and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties.''

The senior Senator from Texas introduced the Protections of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005, which would have prohibited the use of eminent domain by Federal, State, or local government entities for private economic development.

I have been working very closely with Senator Cantwell on this amendment, and we agree with our conservative colleagues that using eminent domain proceedings for private gain is outrageous.

On the issue of Keystone, a foreign-owned company is using eminent domain to seize private property so it can better export Canadian oil. The project is not in the public interest, but it is clearly in the special interest.

I do not begrudge the fact that a Canadian company wants its subsidiary to build this pipeline so it can export foreign oil to distant shores through American infrastructure. They want to make a profit, and I understand that. But I do not think we should allow our sovereignty to be compromised in order to do it.

Right now the U.S. Federal Government is trying to build a ferry terminal in Canada to serve Alaska, but Canadians are protecting their sovereignty and objecting to U.S. steel and other U.S. content from being the sole source for the ferry terminal. I disagree with Canada on that point, but I understand they want to protect their sovereignty. Similarly, we need to protect American sovereignty and American landowners from a Canadian-owned company that wants to seize our private lands for private gain and force Americans to take a risk of Canadian pollution.

Over the weekend landowners along the route of the Keystone XL Pipeline were seeing a pipeline spill on the Yellowstone River in Montana. It is happening now. If we were to see pictures of it, we would see that the efforts to clean up the spill are being hindered by a sheet of ice. Who knows what damage is being done by 50,000 gallons of oil in this river. We might not know until spring. Landowners are wondering if their family farm will be the victim of a similar spill, wondering if property that has been in their family for generations can still be passed on to the next generation.

One landowner who has seen firsthand what can happen when a pipeline is put on your property is Lori Collins. In October of 2012 Lori Collins walked outside her home to find construction workers for a TransCanada contractor trying to clear the way for the southern leg of the Keystone Pipeline. They had dug up the lines to her septic system, completely destroying it. When she asked the workers to repair the damage, they did not. Instead, they piled dirt over the damage and clogged the system. The result was raw sewage flooding back into the Collins' home, staining walls and carpets, leaving a black mold throughout their house, and leaving Lori Collins with severe respiratory problems. The Collins family was eventually forced to move out of their home. While they were able to get a settlement after suing TransCanada, the family says they can never repair the damage to their lives.

Jim Tarnick, a farmer in Nebraska, has heard of TransCanada's track record and fears that he might have to suffer similar damage or, worse, face an oilspill. TransCanada wants to put the pipeline right through his front yard on his property that has been in his family for over 100 years.

Mr. Tarnick's farm sits near the Ogallala Aquifer, which provides critical freshwater for farmers and ranchers in the heart of U.S. farm country. A pipeline spill such as the one on the Yellowstone River over the last few days could damage the aquifer and therefore jeopardize a resource relied on by Nebraskan farms and ranches. Mr. Tarnick fears he will be served with papers invoking eminent domain on his property any day now. TransCanada is asking that he and other Nebraskans trust that they will protect the Ogallala Aquifer and the livelihoods it supports.

Instead of forcing Mr. Tarnick to host the Keystone Pipeline against his will, let's instead let TransCanada work with landowners who are willing to take the risk and will be paid what they feel is fair rather than what TransCanada's lawyers can convince a judge is fair.

Senator Cantwell and I believe this amendment is one of simple fairness and should be a no-brainer, an easy amendment every Senator can support. In recent years Republicans have insisted on similar language prohibiting the use of eminent domain when we establish national parks. If eminent domain cannot be used to establish a national park in the public interest to conserve our national treasures and preserve America's beauty for future generations, then surely it should not be used to benefit private interests--in this case, in the interest of a foreign-owned oil company seeking to ship its product around the world.

I call on my colleagues to be consistent, stand on principle and logic, protect landowners, and support my amendment to protect private property from seizure by foreign corporations,

preserve our sovereignty, and preserve the rights of U.S. citizens along the way.

With that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: I understand we are on the bill.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. President, let me say that I rise in general opposition to the Keystone Pipeline, and I rise in favor of Senator Markey's amendment. After long and careful deliberation--and after having had the benefit of a hearing on the pipeline in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee--I have decided to oppose this bill for four basic reasons.

First, on the bill, I am deeply concerned that if approved this pipeline will be the first of many pipelines opening one of the largest sources of carbon on Earth to exploitation.

Second, contrary to what many believe, I am convinced this pipeline will simply not enhance, help or--in any positive way--improve our energy profile.

Third, in my view, it is completely absurd for Congress to take the role of permitting pipelines. It is a role we have never assumed and should not assume now.

Fourth, I believe it is ridiculous that our Republican colleagues insist on language banning eminent domain for national parks legislation but oppose it when it comes to foreign or private projects such as Keystone.

Furthermore, we cannot underestimate the environmental impacts of this pipeline. The facts are clear. The resource in Alberta is enormous; the tar sands formation is the size of Iowa; tar sands oil is 17 percent more greenhouse gas intensive than other forms of oil because it takes an enormous industrial process to extract it.

It has been estimated that if this resource were fully exploited, it would release more carbon dioxide in the air than the United States has emitted in its entire history.

As James Hansen, one of the foremost climate scientists in the world, has said, building the Keystone pipeline would be ``game over for the planet.''

There are also more local risks. Over the weekend, landowners are seeing the pipeline spill in the Yellowstone River in Montana. It is happening right now, and landowners are wondering if their family farm will be the victim of a similar spill, wondering if property that has been in their family for generations can still be farmed and passed on to the next generation.

While some jobs will be created by the pipeline, the fact is--after 2 years of construction--it will create only 35 permanent jobs--35. That is not a lot of jobs.

If we want to create millions of permanent infrastructure jobs, I urge the supporters of the pipeline to support our efforts to increase transportation funding. I urge them to continue incentives for clean energy. I ask them to do all they can to help local governments rebuild local infrastructure systems. That is how we create permanent jobs that build our economy and help us keep our competitive advantage.

By comparison, the number of jobs created by Keystone is hardly an argument for passage of this legislation. As you all know, we also have the issue of eminent domain--the power of any governmental entity to take private property and convert it to public use subject to reasonable compensation.

Many, including some of my most conservative friends on the other side, were outraged by the idea that eminent domain proceedings could be used to seize private property for private gain. I have been working very closely with Senator Cantwell on an amendment, and we agree with our conservative colleagues that using eminent domain proceedings for private gain is pretty outrageous. Here, on the issue of Keystone, a foreign-owned company is using eminent domain to seize private property so it can better export Canadian oil--a foreign-owned company using eminent domain to seize private property so it can better export Canadian oil. The project is not in the public interest but clearly in the private interest. Senator Cantwell and I feel this amendment should be a no-brainer--an easy amendment every Senator can support.

In recent years Republicans have insisted on similar language prohibiting the use of eminent domain when we establish national parks. If eminent domain cannot be used to establish a national park in the public interest to conserve our national treasures and preserve America's beauty for future generations, then surely--surely--it should not be used to benefit private interests; in this case, in the interest of a foreign-owned oil company seeking to ship its product around the world, which brings me to the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts.

Amendment No. 13

We know the oil that will flow through this pipeline will flow directly to foreign markets. That is why I support the amendment from the Senator from Massachusetts. Foreign oil is not subject to America's crude oil export ban, but whether it is shipped as crude or refined here and then exported, we all know this oil is not going to help the American consumers.

The intent of the Markey amendment can be summed up very simply, using an old adage that President Reagan was fond of: ``Trust but verify.''

For months now supporters of the Keystone XL Pipeline have been telling us the tar sands that will travel through the United States will help advance our energy security. They have been telling us the pipeline will bring a reliable source of fuel from a close ally and that it will reduce prices at the pump, helping U.S. consumers and businesses.

The Markey amendment does nothing more than confirm the promises made--time and time again--by supporters of the pipeline. It would require the tar sands that travel through the United States stay in the United States. It says that if Americans are to accept all of the downsides of the pipeline, if U.S. property owners are to have their lands taken away for TransCanada's benefit, if Americans are forced to live with the risk of an oilspill of dirty tar sands that we do not even know how to clean up properly, then the very least we can do is get a guarantee in law that the United States will reap the benefits that come with all of these risks.

So all this amendment does is put into writing the promises we have heard over and over again from supporters of the pipeline. It codifies in law what we previously had to take on faith.

I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for offering the amendment, and I would note he has a long history of working to improve America's energy security. He and I have worked closely since he came to the Senate to protect the longstanding requirement that U.S.-produced crude oil stay here at home to benefit the U.S. consumer rather than being shipped across the globe.

This amendment is another commonsense protection to make sure our Nation's energy policy is aimed at helping consumers rather than helping oil companies' bottom line, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

For the last several Congresses I have introduced the American Oil for American Families Act, a bill to ensure that oil or petroleum products that originate within America's public lands or waters are not exported as crude or in refined form. That bill would increase our energy supply at home, lowering prices for consumers and businesses, and I intend to reintroduce that legislation in this Congress.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the Markey amendment. I intend to vote against the bill, which in my view is nothing more than an earmark for Big Oil. The pipeline will have enormous environmental impacts, it will not significantly help the American economy, it will not benefit American consumers, and it will needlessly harm landowners for generations.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise to say that nothing has changed in Cuba since Cuban arms were captured on this North Korean ship going through the Panama Canal a year and a half ago, just after the Obama administration started its secret negotiations with the Cuban Government--not the regime, not its mindset, nor its oppression of its people.

This is the essence of the regime. They put this missile system and MiGs in a container ship going through the Panama Canal, hid them under tons of sugar in violation of U.S. Security Council resolutions. It was the most significant violation of security council resolutions as its relates to North Korea in quite some time, and certainly the biggest violator in all of the Western Hemisphere.

We could not trust the Castro regime then, and we cannot trust it now. What we can trust are the voices of those who promote human rights and democracy who have been arrested and rearrested time and time again, year after year, for demanding nothing more than their ability to speak their minds freely, openly, and without fear.

Voices such as Berta Soler, the leader of the Ladies in White--the Ladies in White are a group of women who each Sunday travel to mass dressed in white, normally holding a gladiola--peacefully. These are women whose husbands or sons languish in Castro's jail simply because of their political views. And as they march to church, they are savagely beaten by state security.

Berta Soler, the leader of the Ladies in White, said:

Sadly, President Obama made the wrong decision. The freedom

and democracy of the Cuban people will not be achieved

through these benefits that he's giving--not to the Cuban

people--but to the Cuban government.

The Cuban government will only take advantage to strengthen

its repressive machinery, to repress civil society, its

people and remain in power.

Or the voice of Yoani Sanchez, a prominent Cuban blogger and independent journalist, who said, ``Alan Gross was not arrested for what he did but for what could be gained for his arrest. He was simply bait and they were aware of it from the beginning. Castroism has won, though the positive result is that Alan Gross has left alive the prison that threatened to become his tomb.''

Or the voice of Rosa Maria Paya, the daughter of Oswaldo Paya, the island's most prominent and respected human rights advocate, who was killed in what the regime calls an automobile accident, what many of us call an assassination. His whole effort was under the existing Cuban Constitution to petition his government under that constitution for changes in the government, of which he amassed thousands of signatures of average Cubans across the island, and the regime saw that as such a threat that he was run off the road and, sadly, killed.

His daughter Rosa Maria Paya said:

The Cuban people are being ignored in this secret

conversation, in this secret agreement that we learned today.

The reality of my country is there is just one party with all

the control and with the state security controlling the whole

society.

If this doesn't change, there's no real change in Cuba. Not

even with access to Internet. Not even when Cuban people can

travel more than two years ago. Not even that is a sign of

the end of the totalitarianism in my country.

Or another voice, the voice of Sakharov prize winner Guillermo Farinas, who spoke for many Cuban dissidents when he said this:

Alan Gross was used as a tool by the Castro regime to

coerce the United States. Obama was not considerate of Cuban

citizens and of the civil society that is facing this

tyrannical regime.

In Miami, Obama promised he would consult Cuba measures

with civil society and the non-violent opposition. Obviously,

this didn't happen. That is a fact, a reality. He didn't

consider Cuba's democrats. The betrayal of Cuba's democrats

has been consummated.

As you can see, Farinas is in the midst of being arrested by state security simply for a peaceful protest.

Or the powerful voice of the husband of Berta Soler, Angel Moya, a former political prisoner of the Black Spring in 2003 when Fidel Castro imprisoned 75, including 29 journalists along with librarians and democracy activists. He said this:

The Obama Administration has ceded before Castro's

dictatorship. Nothing has changed. The jails remain filled,

the government represents only one family, repression

continues, civil society is not recognized and we have no

right to assemble or protest.

The measures that the government of the United States has

implemented today, to ease the embargo and establish

diplomatic relations with Cuba, will in no way benefit the

Cuban people. The steps taken will strengthen the Castro

regime's repression against human rights activists and

increase its resources, so the security forces can keep

harassing and repressing civil society.

These are the voices of those who languished inside the belly of the beast. These are the voices not of this romantic image that some have of Castro's Cuba but of the reality, the harsh reality--people who, simply to be able to promote the basic freedoms that we enjoy here in the United States and most people in the Western world, are constantly thrown into jail for long periods of time, beaten and oppressed.

Those are the voices of freedom inside of Cuba. These are the men and women who have been arrested and suffered under the oppressive hand of the Cuban regime for the belief in the right of all Cubans to be free. These are the people who know that nothing--nothing--has changed. The regime, after reaping the benefits of what in my view is a bad deal, is still arresting peaceful protesters, including more than 50 at the end of December.

As a matter of fact, on New Year's Eve when most of us were celebrating the advent of the new year, there was an effort inside of Cuba. Tania Bruguera and a series of other human rights activists and political democracy activists were going to hold in Revolution Square a 1-minute opportunity for any Cuban who wanted to come forth and talk about what they aspired to for their freedom, what they aspired to for the Cuba of tomorrow to be. It was going to be a peaceful demonstration and an exposition of the hopes and dreams and aspirations of Cuba's political dissidents and human rights activists inside their country. In that peaceful effort, dozens of human rights activists and political dissidents, including the organizers, were arrested before they ever got to the event. The event was totally suppressed.

Weeks after the administration's deal with the Castro regime--even then--the simple act of speaking for 1 minute about what your views would be of the future were repressed. So let me say that while I welcome the news that Cuba has released 53 political prisoners and that the administration has finally shared the list of names it negotiated with the Castro regime, this entire process has been shrouded in secrecy.

Reuters reports that the administration officials said the list was created in June or July. But some of the 53 were released well before June, before the list was supposedly put together. As a matter of fact, 14, to be exact, were released 6 to 8 months before the December 17 announcement. One was released over a year ago.

So, clearly, the list that supposedly was put together by the administration with the regime could not have envisioned or could not take credit for

those who were released well before the list was put together. Many had simply finished their unjust prison terms. Clearly, keeping the list secret provided the regime the flexibility to define ``mission accomplished.'' The fact is, the release of 53 political prisoners does not mean there are no longer political prisoners inside of Cuba. Human rights groups had stated, prior to the President's speech in December, that there were over 100 long-term political prisoners in the country, and there were 8,900--to be exact, 8,889--political detentions in Cuba last year--an appalling number--8,889.

In short, while 53 political prisoners have been let out of jail, the same corrupt jailer is still ruling the country. The Castros have a long history. I have followed this not only for all of my career of 23 years in the Congress, but even before that. They have a long history of rearresting these political and human rights activists whom they previously released.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

I ask unanimous consent to be able to continue for about 10 minutes.

Mr. President, the fact is that as someone who has spoken out time and again on the brutal repression of the Cuban people under the Castro regime, someone whose family has suffered the consequences, I believe the agreement this administration has reached with the Castro regime is one-sided and misguided. It fails to understand the nature of the regime that has exerted its authoritarian control over the Cuban people for over 55 years. Now, no one wishes that the reality in Cuba were more different than the Cuban people and Cuban Americans that have fled the island in search of freedom.

In December, the same month that the President announced changes to U.S. policies, the Cuban Commission for Human Rights and National Reconciliation, a group that works within Cuba, documented 489 political arrests, bringing the total number of political arrests during the first 11 months of 2014 to nearly 8,900.

This is the regime that imprisoned an American citizen for 5 years for distributing communications equipment on the island. Releasing political prisoners today in Cuba is meaningless if tomorrow these individuals can be arrested again and denied the right to peacefully pursue change in their own country. It is a fallacy that Cuba will change just because an American President believes that if he extends his hand in peace, the Castro brothers will suddenly unclench their fists.

As you see from the quotes I have read, a majority of democracy activists on the island, many whom I have met with in the past, have been explicit that they want the United States to become open to Cuba only when there is a reciprocal movement by the Castro brothers. They understand that the Castros will not accede to change in any other way. In my view and in theirs, the United States has thrown the Cuban regime an economic lifeline. With the collapse of the Venezuelan economy, Cuba is losing its main benefactor, but it will now receive the support of the United States, the greatest democracy in the world.

This is a reward that a totalitarian regime does not deserve. It is a reward that at the end of the day perpetuates the Castro regime's decades of repression. The regulatory changes the regime has won, which are clearly intended to circumvent the intent and spirit of U.S. law and the U.S. Congress, present a false narrative about Cuba that suggests that the United States and not the regime is responsible for its economic failure. So let's be clear. Cuba's economic struggles are 100 percent attributable to a half century of failed political and economic experiments that have suffocated Cuban entrepreneurs. In Cuba private business is controlled by the Cuban government--most significantly the military--with the benefits flowing directly to the regime's political and military leaders.

Cuba has the same political and economic relations with most of the world. But companies choose not to engage because of political, economic, and even criminal risks associated with investment on the island, as exhibited by the arbitrary arrests of several foreign investors from Canada, England, and Panama in just recent years.

To also suggest that Cuba should be taken off the list of state sponsors of terrorism is alarming while Cuba harbors American fugitives such as Joanne Chesimard, a cop killer who is on the FBI's list of most wanted terrorists for murdering New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster. She is not the only one who is a cop killer inside of Cuba from the United States. There is also Cuba's colluding with North Korea, as I showed before, to smuggle jets, missile batteries, and arms through the Panama Canal in violation of the U.N. Security Council resolution, and for giving refuge to members of FARC from Colombia and members of ETA from Spain, groups that the State Departments has recognized as foreign terrorist organizations.

Now, finally with respect to the President's decision to attend the Summit of the Americans, I am extraordinarily disappointed that we intend to violate our own principles laid down in the Inter-American Democratic Charter in 2001, on the Summit being a forum for the hemisphere's democratically elected leaders. This action disavows the charter, and it sends the global message about the low priority that we place on democracy and respect for human and civil rights.

So in this new Congress I urge my distinguished colleague, the now chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Corker, to hold hearings on this dramatic and mistaken change in policy. I will keep coming to this floor to address at length all of the issues I have raised. I will come to this floor again and again to expose one of the most oppressive, repressive, and undemocratic regimes in the world.

To those of my colleagues who herald this agreement and for those in the press who still live with the mistaken romanticism of the Castros' revolution and who speak out about human rights abuses and democratic movements all over the world, it is so hypocritical to be so silent--a deafening silence when it comes to the democratic and human rights movement inside of Cuba.

I have listened to many eloquent speeches of my colleagues about human rights violations and democracy movements in many parts of the world. But on Cuba their silence is deafening.

This does not end here. It does not end today with one speech. It surely will not end until the people of Cuba are truly free.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak on two separate and distinct topics. The first is about Cyprus.

This year marks the 40th anniversary of the Turkish invasion. We hoped it would have brought a fair settlement to the Cyprus question; that would have brought an end to a 40-year-long occupation and division of the island by Turkey.

There is always cause for optimism and room for faith that the realization of a reunified Cyprus is in the near future. Global and regional dynamics

have made the reunification of Cyprus a priority, driven in part by Cyprus's newly found energy resources. This is particularly true in light of Russia's Machiavellian-like power plays in Central Europe that have placed Cyprus and Israel at the forefront of the discussion of European energy security.

The natural resources that have been discovered this year in the eastern Mediterranean offer both Greek and Turkish Cypriots alike a powerful incentive to reach an agreement. Cyprus can play a pivotal role in regional energy security. But the dynamics have again changed, which is why I rise today to express my grave concern over the Republic of Turkey's incursion into Cyprus's exclusive economic zone.

On October 20, Turkey sent a Russian vessel--the Barbaros--into Cyprus's exclusive economic zone to stop the Government of Cyprus from exercising its lawful and sovereign right to explore the natural gas within the exclusive economic zone. In the days following, Turkey dispatched warships to support the Barbaros in its illegal activities, where they remain to this day.

The incident is merely the latest in a long series of violations on the part of Turkey against Cyprus's sovereign right to explore and exploit its natural resources within its own exclusive economic zone. Turkey, of course, also illegally occupies, with 40,000 Turkish troops, the northern portion of the island and has for 40 years prevented any meaningful reconciliation efforts.

This map, from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, shows the positions of the Turkish ships in red. They are sitting between the island of Cyprus and its own ships in its own exclusive economic zone.

There is no doubt in my mind that Turkey's actions have endangered peace talks between the Greek and Turkish Cypriots that began in February with a joint communique issued by the two communities. That communique committed to finding a durable solution based on a bizonal, bicommunal federation with political equality. But because of Turkey's bullying practices, peace talks are now on hold. For peace talks to resume, Turkey must immediately withdraw its ships operating in and around Cyprus.

The international community has been abundantly clear in supporting Cypriot President Nicos Anastasiades in recognizing Cyprus's right to explore the resources within its economic zone and in condemning Turkey for this blatant violation.

On November 13, the European Parliament adopted a resolution strongly condemning Turkey's ``illegal and provocative actions'' in Cyprus, stressing that ``the Republic of Cyprus has the full and sovereign right to explore the natural resources within its exclusive economic zone.''

Turkey's recent actions in Cyprus are only one instance of its belligerent and bellicose rhetoric and backsliding on peace and democracy. In recent weeks, President Erdogan and his Cabinet have used unusually belligerent and anti-Western rhetoric to attack the West. He actually said--and I am amazed at the rhetoric:

Americans look like friends but they want us dead--they

like seeing our children die.

He said: They like seeing our children die. This is the President of Turkey. He also said:

Women are not equal to men. Our religion has defined a

position for women: motherhood.

Erdogan said this at a summit in Istanbul on justice for women.

He went on to say:

Some people can understand this, while others can't. You

cannot explain this to feminists because they don't accept

the concept of motherhood.

He then went on so far as to say that Muslims discovered America, not Columbus.

He has vowed to make lessons in the Arabic alphabet Ottoman language compulsory in high schools--a highly symbolic move which enraged secularists who proclaim he is assuming an increasingly extremist agenda.

These statements, along with Turkey's illegal actions in Cyprus's exclusive economic zone, are a dramatic escalation of Turkey shifting away from democracy and its partners in the West, and in my view requires an immediate and forceful response.

The Cypriot people need a strong voice on this issue. They need us to demand President Erdogan to immediately withdraw from Cyprus's exclusive economic zone so reunification talks can resume.

Cyprus's leaders deserve credit for trying to change the dynamics and return to talks. They also deserve credit for being an ally and advocate of America's interests.

Cyprus's active role in supporting counterterrorism efforts, terror financing, and the removal of chemical weapons from Syria have not gone unnoticed to this Senator. Cyprus is clearly positioning itself as part of the Western security architecture and is a resource, advocate, and an ally for our interests.

These developments have led the White House to play an active role on behalf of Cyprus, and I was very pleased to see our former colleague and now Vice President--Vice President Biden--visit in May and to hear of his commitment to resolving the Cyprus question. I share his support for the confidence-building measures in Famagusta that would benefit both sides and accelerate progress toward a final settlement where Cypriots control their destiny and their territory, and where at the end of the day any settlement is from the people of Cyprus, by the people of Cyprus, and for the people of Cyprus, and Cyprus alone.

To that end, I recently sent a letter to President Obama urging his continued engagement on the issue of reunification of the island and the restoration of human rights for all its citizens. I also wrote to Ambassador Power urging her active involvement in the extension of the island's U.N. peacekeeping operation, and I was pleased when the extension was formalized at the end of July.

I hope President Erdogan, now that his election is behind him, will use this opportunity to play a renewed role in finding a fair settlement. We all appreciate that any progress will depend on a true commitment by the Turks to the peace process.

As the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, I believe the United States is committed to supporting Cyprus as a friend and ally. So as we mark the 40th year of a divided Cyprus, let us hope and pray that a fair and mutually beneficial settlement will be reached very soon and that, once again, the island will be reunited. Above all, let the warship and let the other ships that do not belong in Cyprus's waters be removed and removed now.

Mr. President, at this time, I would like to switch the topic to the nomination of Sarah Saldana, and I want to reiterate my strong support for Sarah Saldana, a woman eminently qualified to serve our country and to lead ICE as our next Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security.

The junior Senator from Texas began this long legislative weekend engaged in his own political battle, wholly dependent on a strategy of obstructionism, delay, and some quixotic fixation on preventing the Senate from exercising its constitutional responsibility to legislate and ensure that critical leadership positions for our Nation are filed in a timely manner.

Unfortunately, some of my friends on the other side have joined in the politics of obstructionism. Now they want to prevent a duly elected President from filling a position they themselves feel is of paramount importance. They have railed about the need for strong Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and now, given the chance finally to confirm a Director of ICE to give them the strong enforcement they have demanded, they refuse, they obstruct, they delay, and they reverse their positions from when they voted for her to be a U.S. attorney. They now use her nomination to score political points with their base because they disagree with the President's politics--not with the qualifications of the nominee, but with the President's policies.

Sarah Saldana is qualified, and Senators Cruz, Cornyn, Sessions, and everyone on the other side of the aisle know it. I think they have said so themselves. She currently serves as the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Texas. She is the first Latina U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Texas and would be the first Latina to head

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

Madam President, I come to the floor in favor of the confirmation of Tony Blinken, who is no

stranger to this institution and no stranger to the most significant national security issues this Nation has faced in a generation.

As the former staff director of the Foreign Relations Committee and a close confidant of then-Chairman Biden and now a member of the President's national security team, he has earned a reputation as hard- working, studious, and keenly analytical. He comes from a family of diplomats and has lived his life in and around the Foreign Service.

His nomination as Deputy Secretary of State comes at a time when the United States is facing a range of critical challenges, from Ebola in west Africa, to Russian aggression in Ukraine, to the challenge of countering ISIL in Syria and Iraq, to Iran's continued request for a nuclear weapons program. At the same time, we are forging new global alliances and partnerships with India, in the Middle East and Asia, and looking for opportunities to expand American exports and business opportunities. There will be no shortage of critical issues he will face.

Foremost on our national security agenda is countering the barbarity of ISIL, whose terrorist ambitions threaten our national security as well as the stability of an entire region. We also face a continued crisis in Ukraine, where the cease-fire has collapsed and Russian tanks, troops, and weapons continue cross-border incursions into eastern Ukraine.

Clearly, the list of challenges is long and the diplomatic calculations are complicated, and all of these challenges will be part of the portfolio of the Deputy Secretary of State. There will be times where we will agree and times where we will disagree. I look forward to working closely with Mr. Blinken should he be confirmed, and I expect that he will be.

I know there is opposition by some of my colleagues to Mr. Blinken. As we considered his nomination in the Foreign Relations Committee last week, several of my colleagues raised concerns which I would like to take a few minutes to address.

First, there is an incredible notion that Mr. Blinken is somehow unqualified. Anyone who has served the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as staff director, two Presidents, a Vice President, as Deputy National Security Adviser to the President of the United States, and has chaired the National Security Council's Deputies Committee is more than qualified, and my colleagues know it. They simply disagree with the politics and the policies of the President which are the responsibility of the person who is serving that President to ultimately promote--anyone he chooses to appoint to a key position. But they cannot disagree that Mr. Blinken has served the Nation admirably, with dignity, diplomacy, and has honored every position he has held, that he has devoted his life serving this Nation's national security interests, and he has excelled at doing it. Frankly, if Mr. Blinken is unqualified, then the bar my colleagues have set is too high for any human being to reach.

I ask those who would object to this nominee, what additional qualifications can there be? Outside of already occupying the position for which he is nominated, it is hard to understand what additional qualifications my colleagues would expect Mr. Blinken to have to demonstrate his worthiness. Perhaps they would prefer that he be nominated by a different President whose policies they agree with, but that is not how it works.

This is an eminently qualified candidate who has the full trust and confidence of this President, my colleagues' policy concerns notwithstanding. They may disagree with specific policy decisions of this President dutifully carried out--I repeat, carried out--by Mr. Blinken.

Even listening to my dear friend and colleague Senator McCain, a distinguished member of the committee whom I regret we are going to lose in the next Congress from the committee--when he made the comment that the President's personal decision--referring to Syria--when all his national security advisers recommended providing arms to the Free Syrian Army, Mr. Blinken is clearly one of those national security advisers, but the President is the one who ultimately makes the decision on what policy will be pursued.

That leads us to the questions about Mr. Blinken's participation and decisions involving Iraq, Afghanistan, and other parts of the world, with which certain Members of this body have taken issue.

Mr. Blinken has had to defend those decisions no matter his personal views or advice. That is his job. You can disagree with the President's policies, but you cannot blame this nominee for doing his sworn constitutional duty to carry them out.

I want to be very clear. We cannot judge the qualifications of this nominee or, for that fact, any nominee based on the policy decisions of this President or any President. He has been part of this administration, to be sure, but if the Senate starts to hold every nominee to account for every decision made by every President they serve, I think we will find that there is no one who will pass muster and no one who will be confirmed.

I happen to think President Bush's decision to evade Iraq was a geostrategic blunder of the highest order. I opposed it at the time, and history, tragically, has proven that judgment right. The brave sacrifice of our young men and women and the squandering of hundreds of billions of our children's and grandchildren's inheritance have compounded the magnitude of this error. Would my colleagues suggest that I should oppose all future Republican nominees who served in the Bush administration because no matter how qualified they are, somehow they must be held accountable for what I believe history will show in evaluating the Bush Presidency as a historic blunder that led to the civil and secular wars that are changing the shape of the Middle East? I don't believe that is what my colleagues would suggest, but that appears to be how they are judging Mr. Blinken. But none of that is reason to oppose Mr. Blinken or any nominee.

I hear these references to Iraq. Well, Prime Minister Maliki at the time opposed signing a status of forces agreement, and without such an agreement it was impossible to have our forces continue to be in Iraq subject to the possibilities of any issues being pursued legally under Iraqi law versus our own law, or, in Afghanistan, the question of what the force size should be in 2014. The President has made the statement of what it is to be, and maybe we can even have disagreements with what the size of those forces should be in 2014 as we see things evolve, but it is not for someone in an appointed position who is supposed to carry out the President's policies to say: No, we are not going to have that size; we are going to have a bigger size.

I fully expect that if confirmed, there will be a number of issues where Mr. Blinken and I probably won't see eye to eye--or, rather, the administration he will represent and I may not see eye to eye. When those issues arise, I fully intend to let Mr. Blinken know exactly how I feel and to engage him in debate to influence the policy, and I will avail myself of all the tools a Senator can use to do so.

Frankly, given his experience working for this body and given his professionalism and experience with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I would rather it be Mr. Blinken who will be across the table from me rather than someone else who doesn't have any understanding of this institution and the prerogatives of Senators. I am confident he will understand where I am coming from even when we disagree, and I am confident that he willing approach these discussions with an open mind, that he will seek to persuade but he also will be open to persuasion.

I don't think any of us here in this body would like to be held to a standard of perfection in our judgments, one that holds no space for loyal service to this Nation and no space for qualified nominees who have honorably and faithfully implemented the policies of their President.

Let's be clear. We are not judging the President's policies; we are judging the qualifications of a man who has loyally and professionally carried out those policies.

I do not doubt the sincerity of my colleagues in this body. Even when I may disagree, I do not doubt that they are seeking what they believe is the best for our Nation. At times I think they are right. At other times I think

they are wrong. Today, as it relates to Mr. Blinken, they are wrong.

Tony Blinken is a tireless and able public servant who serves the Nation well, and I urge my colleagues to confirm this nominee. He is a man of the Senate, a qualified public servant, and an accomplished national security and foreign policy expert.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I was unavoidably detained for rollcall vote No. 327, the motion to proceed to executive session to consider Executive Calendar No. 1084, Sarah Saldana to become the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the Department of Homeland Security. Had I been present, I would have voted yea.

Mr. President, I was unavoidably detained for rollcall vote No. 328, the motion to proceed to legislative session. Had I been present, I would have voted yea.

Madam President, I rise in strong support of the lands package. I wish to congratulate the Senator from Alaska as well as the Senator from Louisiana for their work, and particularly in support of adding Hinchliffe Stadium to Great Falls National Park in Paterson, NJ. It has a special place in the hearts of many New Jerseyans, and it has played a vital role in the story of America's fight against institutionalized segregation.

Critics of this legislation are using a mixture of the stadium showing overgrown shrubs and graffiti on the walls--asking, What does a stadium such as this have to do with this and should it be in with our national park system?

Unfortunately, the picture being circulated only shows a side of the story at a different time. What it fails to show is the dedicated work of the surrounding community to clean up Hinchliffe Stadium. So I brought three photographs that I think illustrate the work being done in Patterson and to put to rest this notion that the stadium is an abandoned place that the community doesn't care about.

The first is a picture of dozens of local residents working together to clean up the stands, paint the walls, and begin the process of restoring this vital community center. The second is a closeup picture of just a handful of these volunteers. These are young people taking the time to improve their community and honor the history that was behind the stadium. The third shows the final product--much different than what my colleague showed--of their hard work. These pictures were taken earlier this year at an event where 700 volunteers worked to clean up Hinchliffe Stadium.

The argument that we are dumping this land on the National Park Service is simply false. The legislation specifically prohibits the Park Service from directly purchasing this land, meaning that the community of Paterson will continue to be intricately involved in the management and preservation of the stadium.

I think these photographs illustrate the dedication of the residents that Paterson and the surrounding area have to protecting Hinchliffe Stadium. There is a reason for this dedication. Hinchliffe Stadium has the designation of being one of the few remaining sites that hosted the Negro League Baseball. In the 1930s and 1940s, Hinchliffe was the home of the Black Yankees, and in 1933 the stadium hosted what was called the Colored Championship. In 1936, the field was home to the New York Cubans, a team made up of players from Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, and Puerto Rico.

Some of baseball's greatest stars, including Satchel Paige, Josh Gibson, and Larry Doby all took the field at Hinchliffe Stadium. Doby went on to become the first African-American player joining the American League, helping Jackie Robinson break down the color barrier.

Contrary to the negativism and misrepresentations we are hearing today, Hinchliffe Stadium should be part of the Paterson Great Falls National Park. I know it, everyone who knows about its history knows it, and America should know it as well.

I am proud to be a sponsor of the legislation adding Hinchliffe boundaries to the national park. This bill has been championed by Congressman Pascrell in the House of Representatives, where it was passed by a House vote earlier this year.

I want to read briefly from a guest columnist editorial Congressman Pascrell wrote with another individual. He said that Hinchliffe Stadium in Paterson is one of the last remaining stadiums associated with the Negro League Baseball.

It is where sports and racial history coalesce. Hinchliffe

Stadium is the only National Historic Landmark in baseball

and only one of two professional Negro League venues

considered nationally significant.

Cal Ripken, 2007 Hall of Famer, when he talked about Hinchliffe, said:

Not only does it deserve recognition for its place in

history, but it deserves the opportunity to be restored into

a place where tomorrow's youth will be able to walk in the

footsteps of yesterday's legends and experience the history

of this community firsthand.

I am also pleased with this legislation that is cosponsored by Senator Booker and formerly by Senator Jeff Chiesa, a Republican who served in the Senate for a period of time after the passing of Senator Lautenberg. And speaking of Senator Lautenberg, he was one of Hinchliffe's greatest champions, and he was proud to count Paterson as his hometown.

The version of the legislation that we consider today includes amendments suggested both by the Parks Service and by House Republicans. That is why it passed by voice.

Some critics cited the previous National Park Service study opposing the inclusion of the stadium in the national park. The study was discredited by 25 distinguished scholars at the time. Since then, the Park Service has completed an additional study and designated the stadium as a national historic landmark.

I believe strongly that the story of our fight against institutionalized segregation is a story worth telling.

Critics of this legislation may look at Hinchliffe Stadium and see a rundown sports field. Not me. When I look at Hinchliffe Stadium, I see a field of dreams, an enduring reminder of how far we have come since the days of separate but equal, when institutional segregation marginalized the works, the dreams, and the achievements of African Americans. I see a community coming together decades after Hinchliffe first earned a place in the canon of American history to preserve the legacy it represents. I urge my colleagues to join me in standing up for this legacy and supporting the inclusion of Hinchliffe Stadium in the Great Falls National Park as part of the national lands package.

I yield the floor.

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.