[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 4 (Tuesday, January 9, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S27-S29]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                 U.S. Attorney's Office Investigations

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor to respond to 
a series of accusations raised by the U.S. attorney of the Southern 
District of New York.
  First, I would note that this is the second superseding indictment 
brought forth 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 
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 the third 
one just last week, in early January--it allows the government to keep 
the sensational story in the press. It poisons the jury pool, and it 
seeks to convict me in a court of public opinion. In so doing, the 
government's tactics harm not just me but each of you, my colleagues, 
the political establishment, and, most importantly, the electorate of 
New Jersey.
  The sensationalized allegations are now creating a rising call for my 
resignation, despite my innocence and before a single piece of evidence 
has even been introduced in a court of law. The U.S. Attorney's Office 
has engaged not in a prosecution but a persecution. They seek a 
victory, not justice.
  We have seen this play out with other prosecutions of public 
officers. Remember what happened to Senator Ted Stevens or Governor Bob 
McDonell. There are numerous other examples. It is an unfortunate 
reality, but prosecutors sometimes shoot first before they even know 
all the facts. It would be a shame that this venerable body does the 
same.
  So having set the stage for why this process has unfolded this way, 
let me deal with some of the issues, starting with the latest 
accusation.
  I have received nothing--absolutely nothing--from the Government of 
Qatar or on behalf of the Government of Qatar to promote their image or 
their issues. The government's principal allegation of what I 
supposedly

[[Page S28]]

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 Qatari Government for assisting the U.S. military in 
evacuating American citizens and Afghan refugees from Taliban rule. How 
nefarious was 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 
     exemplars by accepting Afghans ultimately seeking safe haven 
     in the U.S. after being forced to escape for their lives.

  That is 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 
have heard many Members of the Senate at the time speak out for.
  Qatar has played important roles in hosting our U.S. Al Udeid Air 
Force Base, the largest in the Middle East, in responding to the 
administration's call to supply natural gas to Europe during the 
Ukrainian conflict with Russia, and, yes, facilitating and receiving 
Afghan refugees whom the U.S. Government was seeking to evacuate, among 
other initiatives. And, most recently, they played a role in brokering 
the release of Israeli hostages held by Hamas.
  Like any other country, there are things that we disagree on. During 
the World Cup preparations, the question of labor violations took 
center stage. Qatar's engagement with its next-door neighbor, Iran, and 
with Hamas have all 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, 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 to substantiate their allegations. They show a 
picture of watches but no proof of receiving any such gifts. They talk 
about tickets to a State-sponsored event, but as we all know, Members 
of the Senate often attend State-sponsored events. Indeed, I have seen 
members of the State Department, the administration, and, yes, even the 
Justice Department, attend State-sponsored events. The government fails 
to mention that the family member referenced to already 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 investment company is illegal 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 State, to foster investments in their State--
investments that create jobs, ratables, revenues, and help grow the 
economy. Indeed, if that is a crime, then advocating for Boeing 
aircraft to be purchased by a foreign government, attracting a foreign 
chip manufacturer to your State, getting a country to buy agricultural 
products from your State, making technology investments, and so many 
other actions that Members of Congress take to attract investment and 
economic opportunity to their States would now be a crime.
  Now, let me turn to the government's other outrageous accusation of 
conspiring to act as a foreign agent for the Government of Egypt. This 
is an unprecedented accusation, 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 positions to 
the Government of Egypt; my defense of human rights, democracy, and the 
rule of law in that country; and my stinging criticism of the 
violations of human rights, democracy, rule-of-law issues in Egypt.
  One fact is indisputable. Throughout my time in Congress, I have 
remained steadfast on the side of civil society and human 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 record is clear and consistent in holding 
Egypt accountable for its unjust detention of American and Egyptian 
citizens, its human rights abuses, its deepening relationship with 
Russia, and efforts that would have eroded the independence of the 
nation's judiciary, among other concerns.
  In 2017, I led the writing of a bipartisan letter to President Trump 
expressing grave concerns with the worsening situation for human rights 
and civil society in Egypt.
  That same year, I sent a letter to the Senate Appropriations 
subcommittee supporting U.S. assistance to Egypt as long as Egypt 
adheres to the Camp David accords and urged the Appropriations 
Committee to include the requirements for assistance reform strategies 
outlined in the Egypt Assistance Reform Act of 2013.
  In 2018, I urged Secretary of State Tillerson to focus more on human 
rights issues in Egypt and raised concerns that the electoral 
environment ahead of Egypt's elections at that time were not fair, 
free, or credible.
  In 2019, I met President El-Sisi, along with Members of the Senate, 
at the Munich Security Conference and pressed him on the level of 
repression inside of Egypt, warning him that it risked eroding our 
security cooperation, and raised concerns, at that time, about Egypt's 
intention to purchase a Russian missile system.
  In 2020, I spoke on the Senate floor for International Women's Day 
and cited the cases of Mahienour El-Massry, a human rights lawyer, and 
Esraa Abdel Fattah, a human rights activist and reporter, who were 
unjustly detained in Egypt for fighting for human rights, democracy, 
and a free press.
  Does any of this sound like I was on the take with Egypt? Of course, 
not. But that is not all.
  In 2021, during this very time period that this indictment alleges I 
was an agent of Egypt, I placed a hold on $1.58 billion in foreign 
military funding to Egypt--M1A1 tank fleet--and $125 million in 
economic security funds. I placed that hold based on concerns I had 
with reference to the worsening human rights situation in Egypt and the 
harassment and detention of activists in general, 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 
in the presence of our U.S. Ambassador to Egypt, as well as 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-Sisi, which they know. The 
omission intentionally leaves a bad and unfair impression.
  Most recently, in a congressional delegation trip to Egypt in August 
of 2023, led by Senator Graham, along with nine fellow Senators and two 
House Members, I once again challenged President El-Sisi on these and 
other issues in the presence of my colleagues and U.S. Embassy 
personnel. Each and every time, I raised issues of arbitrary arrest and 
detentions, violations of human rights, disbanding of nongovernmental 
organizations, and other issues in a direct challenge to President El-
Sisi.
  Again, when Egypt has acted in concert with U.S. interest and 
values--like fighting terrorism in the Sinai, or its peaceful relations 
with Israel, or working to improve the rights of Coptic Christians to 
worship as they pleased--

[[Page S29]]

I have commended Egypt's actions. But you can't challenge the leader of 
an authoritarian State in public and among other Members of Congress 
and take actions adverse to their interests and at the same time serve 
as an agent of that same 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 who regards someone who dares to do so as its agent, which 
brings me to the danger of what the Justice Department has created by 
charging a sitting Member of Congress with acting as a foreign agent.
  The relevant FARA statute's definition of ``agent'' is broad. It 
includes anyone who engages in ``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 any 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 that they would consider doing so but that the 
Senators needed to convince the U.S. administration to change U.S. law 
and lift the embargo and permit credit to take place for such sales, 
and then came back to the United States and advocated for exactly that 
request, did that make them a foreign agent of Cuba? I think not.
  When Senators travel to Israel and hear from their elected leaders 
requesting greater economic and defense assistance or for the 
replenishment of the Iron Dome, did their advocacy upon return make 
them a foreign agent of Israel? I think not.
  When Senators traveled to the Middle East in pursuit of engaging 
countries to become part of the Abraham Accords and heard from Saudi 
Arabia that a civilian nuclear program, a mutual defense agreement, and 
technology transfers might be prerequisites for Saudi Arabia joining 
the Abraham Accords, and then they came back to the Senate to advocate 
for that, were they foreign agents of the Saudi Government? I think 
not.
  What if, in any of these examples, that country bought rice or sugar 
or meat from your State? What if that country purchased Boeing aircraft 
made in your State? Would that be a quid pro quo? What if you got 
contributions to your campaign from U.S. entities or individuals 
associated with those countries? Would that be a quid pro quo? For the 
government, the sky is the limit if they want to pursue you.
  What a chilling effect on the mere engagement of these conversations 
and inquiries would it be if the sum of those actions, taken in pursuit 
of your factfinding effort to inform you of 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 have described but in this case 
explain it away by saying: 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 and gold bars. In 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 my friends in the 
press who have reported on it, haven't read the indictment. They have 
only taken the government's sensational narrative of what the 
accusations are as truth. They haven't sought facts of the allegations.
  I am 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 due process and undermine the 
fundamental principle of our law--that in America, you are innocent 
until proven otherwise by a jury of your peers. Now, Members of the 
Senate are not above the law, but they are not beneath it either.
  If for political expediency an indictment and its 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, made 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 they alleged from 
the beginning, can be a source of concern and contempt 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 on 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 that a new deal with Iran would be more possible or a 
cozying up to the Castro regime could take place or selling F-16s 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. I never have, I never will, and I will 
not do so now. I simply ask for justice to be allowed to work its way.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.