quorum call be vitiated. The presiding officer: Without objection. Mr. Menendez: I come to the senate floor to respond to a series of accusations raised by the district of the southern district of New York. This is the second indictment brought by the government. It should be noted that all of the information presented in the superseding indictments were fully available to the government since the beginning of this process. And for that at least a year prior to the bringing of this indictment. Which therefore begs the question, why did the government not proceed with all of these accusations from the beginning? The answer is clear to me. By filing three indictments, one in late September, a second one a few weeks later in mid-october, and a third one last week in early January, it allows the government to keep the essential story in the -- sensational story in the press and seeks to convict me in the court of public opinion. In so doing, the government's tactics harm not just me, but each of you, my colleagues, and most importantly the electorate of New Jersey. This is now c.e.o.ing a rising -- is now c.e.o.ing a rise -- creating a call for any resignation before a single piece of evidence has been introduced in a court of law. They have engaged not in a prosecution but persecution. They seek a victory, not juchlt we've seen this play out with other prosecutions of public officers. Remember what happened to senator Ted Stevens or governor Bob McDonald. There are other examples. It's an unfortunate reality, but prosecutors sometimes shoot first before they know the facts. It would be a shame if this venerable body does the same. For setting the stage for why this process has unfolded this way, let me deal with some of the issues, dealing with the latest accusation. I have received doing, absolutely nothing from the government of Qatar or on behalf of the government of Qatar to promote their image or issues. The government' principle allegation for what I supposedly did for Qatar was to support a senate resolution. This resolution was sponsored and introduced by senator graham and cosponsored by 11 other bipartisan senators, posted on the senate foreign relations committee agenda and passed by voice vote. Now, what was that resolution about? The resolution sponsored by senator graham and 12 of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle thanked the qatary government for assisting the United States military in evacuating American citizens and Afghan refugees from taubl rule. -- Taliban rule. How nefarious is that? Then they referenced some press release I made. Well, the press release says in one sentence, I am glad to see our friends and allies in Qatar be moral emempeculiars by seeking safe haven in the united States after being forced to escape for their lives. That's the one thing it says about Qatar. The rest of it is a call for international cooperation to help protect Afghan civil society, members, journalists and others at risk of Taliban rule, something I heard many senators speak out for. Qatar has played important roles in supporting the largest air force base in the Middle East in responding to the administration' call to supply natural gas to Europe and facilitating and receiving Afghan refugees that the united States government was seeking to evacuate, among other initiatives. They played a role in brokering the release of Israeli hostages held by hamas. Like many other countries, there are things we disagree on. During the world cup preparation, Qatar' engagement with its next door neighbor Iran and hamas have been points of contention, and I have criticized Qatar, as I have any other country when I felt they were falling short of their international obligations and applauded them when they have led in ways the United States and the world would commend. That give and take, that carrot and stick and that cajoling and rewarding is the essence of diplomacy. It is a job we all partake in every day as part of our duties in the senate. The government seeks to use baseless conjecture, not facts, to create the connective tissue. They have no proof of receiving any gifts. They talked about tickets to a state sponsored event, but many members of the senate often attend state sponsored events, I see members of the state department and even the justice department attend state sponsored events. The government fails to mention that they had their own purchased tickets to the event. That is not a perk and certainly not a bribe. Finally, on this point, the suggestion that an introduction of a constituent to a qatari development company is legal is not only wrong as a matter of law, it is dangerous to the important work all of us as senators do. Under the government's theory, it may be a crime for members of the senate to make introductions to companies and constituents in their own states to foster developments in their state -- investments in their state to help grow the economy. Indeed, if that is it a crime, advocating for Boeing aircraft to be purchased by a foreign government, getting a country to buyingaal -- buy agricultural products, so many actions that many of the congress take to attract investments to their state would be a crime. Let me turn to the government' other outrageous accusation of conspireing to act as a foreign agent for the government of Egypt. This is an unprecedented acquisition, and it has never ever been levied against a sitting member of congress. Never. And for good reason. It opens a dangerous door for the justice department to take the normal engagement of members of congress with a foreign government and to transform those engagements into a charge of being a foreign agent for that government. I want to address the accusations as they relate to me, but I don't want you to lose sight of how dangerous this precedent will be to all of you. Let me start by describing my history of taking adverse positionsto the government of Egypt, my defense of human rights, democracy, frn my stinging -- and my stinging criticism of human rights issues in Egypt. Throughout my time in congress, I have remained steadfast on civil rights defenders in Egypt and everywhere else in the world. If you look at my actions related to Egypt during the period described in the indictment and throughout my career, my career is consistent in holding each accountable for unjust attempts at Egypt citizens and efforts that would have eroded the Independence of the nation' judiciary, among other concerns. In 2017, I led the writing of a bipartisan letter to Prum expressing -- president trump showing grave concern for human rights in Egypt. I sent a letter to the appropriations subcommittee supporting assistance to Egypt as long as they adhered to the camp David accords and that they follow the requirements for the assistance reform strategy outlined in the Egypt resistance reform act of 2018. I asked that they focus on humanitarian rights in Egypt and that the environment of the Egyptian election was not fair. In 2019 I met president elcece and pressed him on the level of repression inside of Egypt, warning him that it risked eroding our security cooperation and raised concerns about Egypt' intention to purchase a Russian missile system. In 2020, I spoke on the senate floor for international women' day and cited the case of a human rights lawyer and Ezra Adel who were unjustly detained in Egypt for fighting for a free press. Does any of this sound like I was on the take with Egypt? Of course not. But that's not all. In 2021, during the very time period that this indictment allegation, I was an agent of Egypt, I placed a hold on $1.58 billion in funding a-1 tank fleets and $125 million in security funds. I placed that hold on concerns I had with the worsening human rights situation in Egypt, including the detention or harassment of family members in Egypt of activists currently living in the United States. In the fall of 2021, I took an official trip to Egypt where I forcefully raised all of these issues directly with president el-sisi with the staff of the senate foreign relations committee. The government references this trip in its indictment but tellingly fails to state what actually occurred and how I confronted president el-si cinch, which they -- sisi, which they know. This leaves a bad and unfair impression. Most recently on a congressional delegation trip to Egypt in August of 2023, led by senator graham along with two house members, I pressed president el-sisi, each and every time I raised issues of arbitrary arrests, the expanding of nongovernmental organizations and other issues in a direct challenge to president el-sisi. When Egypt has acted in conference with fighting terrorism or its peaceful relations with Israel or working to improve the rights of Christians to worship as they please, I have commended them. You can't challenge the lead are of an authoritarian state in public and take actions adverse to their interests and at the same time solve serve -- time serve as an agent of that foreign government. Over my 30 years of engaging in foreign policy, I don't know of any dictator or authoritarian leader who is willing to be publicly chastised or one who dares to do so as his agent. Which brings me to the danger of what the justice department has done with charging a member of congress acting as a foreign agent. The definition of agent is broad. It includes anyone who engages in, quote, political activities, publicity services, or other certain acts at the order request or under the direction or control of a foreign principal. Applied to members of congress, it covers anything that could in any way influence agency or official of the United States or any section of the public within the United States as to public policy. So when members of the senate from agricultural states went to communist Cuba to sell rice or poultry or sugar or beef and were told by the Castro regime they would consider doing so, but the senators would need to convince the U.S. Administration to change U.S. Law and lift the embargo and then came back to the United States and advocated for exactly that request, did that make them a foreign aejt -- agent of Cuba? I think not. When senators travel to Israel and hear from their leaders requesting greater economic or defense assistance or replenishment of iron dome, did that make them a foreign agent of Israel sfl I think not -- Israel? I think not. When senators travel to the Middle East in pursuit of currents to become part of the Abraham accords and that a mutual defense agreement and technology trvrs might be -- transfers might be prerequisites for Saudi Arabia joining the accords, and add advocated for that, were they agents for the Saudi government? I think not. What if any of this these examples that this country bought right or meat or sugar from your state, would that be a quid pro quo? What if you got contributions from your campaign to individuals associated with those countries? Would that be with a quid pro quo. What a chilling effect on the mere engagement of these conversations and inkwirryes -- inquiries would it be if the sum of those actions taken in pursuit of your fact finding effort to inform you what your legislative actions should be can be turned into official acts in violation of the law and not within the protection of the speech or debate clause of the constitution. Now, some may be alarmed by what I've described. But in this case explain it away -- but in this case there are allegations of cash and gold bars. The problem is that there is no evidence of the giving or receiving of cash or gold bars N. Fact, there has been and will be at trial a full explanation of what is the truth about those issues, a truth that proves I am entirely innocent of the charges. And that is the problem. Almost everyone, including play friends in the press who have reported on it, haven't read the indictment. They've only taken the government's sensational narrative of what the accusations are as truth. They haven't sought facts of the allegations. I'm innocent and I intend to prove my innocence. Not just for me but for the precedent this case will set for you and future members of the senate. I am, however, alarmed that the greatest and most ardent defenders of the constitution in this body are among the most vociferous in calling for my resignation. They would deny me the due process and undermine the principles of law that in America you are innocent until proven otherwise by a jury of your peers. Members of the senate are not above the law or beneath it either. If for political expediency and indictment and accusations are now tantamount to guilt, we have upended our system of justice in America. And when the next person or group of persons are wrongfully accused, you will not be able to claim that the constitutional guarantees of due process and innocence until proven guilty need to be observed. Now, some say that a U.S. Senator answers to a higher standard. But even then the question of whether that standard has been violated depends not on accusations but proof of guilt after being afforded due process beyond a reasonable doubt. Finally, let me say that I understand how the government's accusations may in the most sensational and purposefully damning way possible, its misuse of the grand jury system to bring superseding indictments even though it had all the information alleged from the beginning can be a source of concern and content by some of my colleagues, the political establishment, and most importantly the people of new Jersey. I get it. And I am suffering greatly as a result of what they have done. After 50 years of public service, this is not how I wanted to celebrate my golden jubilee. But I have never violated the public trust. I have been a patriot for and of my country. Now let me close by saying I understand some of my colleagues are in tough races and for them this was a political calculation. Let me also say that for the administration, the political establishment, and for my detractors, it would be much easier to have me exit the scene so that an unjust deal in immigration that won't really solve our problems at the border but that would hurt the Latino community would be easier to be achieved or a new deal with Iran would be more possible or cozying up to the Castro regime could take place or selling f-16's to Turkey could be finalized. I get it. But I will not step aside and allow those things to happen in the name of political expediency. I have never chosen the easy path, never have, never will, and will not do so now. I simply ask for justice to be allowed to work its way. With that, Mr. President, I
