Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, this February, Congress passed and the President signed a historic recovery package, setting the stage for the creation of 3\1/2\ million jobs and making critical investments to strengthen the 21st-century economy. We all agree that legislation has not ended the most serious economic crisis since the Great Depression. Americans know what this administration inherited and the time it will take to get out of it. Hundreds of thousands of Americans continue to lose their jobs every month, quality health care is still far from affordable for far too many, and we still have a dangerous dependence on foreign oil that threatens our safety, our wallets, and our planet at the same time. But the optimism we feel is real. Quick action on our part has contributed to bringing the economy back from the brink of absolute collapse. There are green shoots in this economy, and the Recovery Act has fertilized them. It has cut taxes for working Americans; it has made education more affordable; it has jump-started urgent investments that will make our commutes faster and our air cleaner, investments such as repairing crumbling bridges and highways and building high- speed transit and light rail, investments that will pay off over the course of generations. The hundreds of thousands of Americans who are going to work this morning because of the Recovery Act can tell us in no uncertain terms that the legislation is working. It is creating jobs, making responsible investments, helping workers damaged by this crisis. But in the face of these tremendous efforts, some are questioning the effectiveness of these investments. They have decided to attack the entire recovery process by jumping to conclusions, distorting the facts, and spreading outright falsehoods--all because of their failed George Bush-style ideology that created this crisis in the first place. There have been some who have commissioned their own report, a report which picked a conclusion first and then attempted to seek out facts later. The old saying goes, if the only tool you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. That is the case here. The radical conservative ideology that led to this report is like a steam hammer that its operators would like to use at all times, even if it means bashing away at the foundation of economic growth we are trying to build. I notice this report did not mention any projects from my home State of New Jersey, and I guess, because the conclusion they wanted to draw was failure, that would make sense not to include projects in New Jersey because, in fact, if you look at the issue of how New Jersey is handling this among many other States in the Nation, you would have to take issue with the thousands of New Jerseyans who will owe their jobs to this act. The report would have to take issue with an immediate tax cut for the average working family of up to $800, money that helped New Jerseyans pay their bills and support their families, or the over 1.5 million New Jerseyans who avoided the alternative minimum tax as a result of that law as well--more money in their pockets, less money going to the government. You would have to take issue with the college students and parents of college students in New Jersey who are finding their term bills just a little easier to pay because of the increased Pell grants in the Recovery Act. In addition to higher education, it would have to take issue with all the ways public elementary and secondary schools are being improved with $957 million in funding that they would not otherwise have for critical needs ranging from up-to-date textbooks to better technology in the classroom. It would have to take on all the teachers, police, and firefighters who have been able to keep their jobs and the individuals with disabilities who are now getting the support they need at school--made possible by the Recovery Act. The Recovery Act was intended to create jobs fast, pump money into the economy quickly. How well has it done that in New Jersey? I saw firsthand how the funding created 250 construction and engineering jobs improving Route 46 in Lodi. It is a project that is going to reduce traffic congestion, cut down on the time it takes to commute, make it easier to do business, and protect the roadway against flooding so parents can feel just a little safer as they drive their kids in heavy rain. I saw firsthand that the Recovery Act finally let us break ground on the Mass Transit Tunnel under the Hudson River that will ultimately create 6,000 jobs for several years and, at the end of the day, when that project is finished, over 50,000 permanent jobs. I met children who will be the future riders of that train and whose parents and neighbors are employed in its design, planning, and construction as we speak. In terms of infrastructure, you can see these results statewide. The Recovery Act required our State Department of Transportation to get enough projects ready for bidding so that 50 percent of that funding could be set aside within 120 days to get people to work. New Jersey met that requirement and plans to allocate the funding for all of its projects by the end of this month. The Recovery Act has been a lifeline for New Jersey and, for that matter, for millions of people across the country. I could not agree more that accountability is crucial. We understand that every dollar in the Recovery Act belongs to the American taxpayer. They deserve assurances that their money is being invested wisely. We have to ensure unprecedented transparency, oversight, and accountability so Americans can see not only how their money is being spent but also the results of their investments. That is why this act is being personally overseen by the Vice President of the United States. And it is why the Act provides for so much transparency, such as a Web site with all of the information about it readily available to the public. Ironically, the fact that there is so much transparency is the reason an individual Senator can issue a report about it at all, and it is the reason we can figure out so easily that many of the assertions in that report are wrong. Accountability means making sure our investments are smart and making corrections as need be. What accountability does not mean is attacking the job that hard-working men and women are doing, that the legislation made possible, because your ideology does not square with the facts. That is not accounting, that is undermining. Frankly, after 8 years of undermining, the American people are ready to build up this country again. And with the Recovery Act, with health care reform, so not only those nearly 50 million Americans who have no health care coverage in the greatest Nation in all of the world, but at the same time millions more who are one paycheck away from losing it, and so many who have health insurance, but have told me that, in fact, after listening to their insurance company and following all of the rules, they still get denied for claims of coverage they need. That is part of the reform we seek. With additional steps to make us energy independent, we are going to, in essence, rebuild this country. That is the process of saying ``yes'' to America, not ``no'' to America. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for 15 minutes, after which the Senator from Illinois be recognized.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, last Wednesday, a few blocks down the street, a neo-Nazi opened fire at the Holocaust Museum. He murdered a security guard and terrorized the museum's visitors, including schoolchildren, who had come to learn, to express sympathy, and to pray. That evil act was the work of a killer who had made his hatred of other religions and ethnic groups well known. And it was a reminder that intolerance, ignorance, and anti-Semitism have not yet been defeated in our world. This tragedy reminds us of the need of sound understanding of one of the darkest episodes in the history of the world. Far too many misrepresent the significance of the Holocaust, especially in regard to the State of Israel and her people. And far too many people deny it happened altogether, out of bigotry, hatred, and spite. In the face of so much misunderstanding, I am compelled today to speak up about the role of the Holocaust in Israel's history and Israel's challenges in preventing anti-Semitic murder from continuing to happen. The Holocaust was the most sinister possible reminder that the Jewish population in exile was in constant jeopardy. It was a definitive argument that anti-Semitism could appear anywhere, and its horrors galvanized international support for the State of Israel. But let us be very clear: While the Shoah has a central role in Israel's identity, it is not the reason behind its founding and it is not the main justification for its existence. The extreme characterization of this mistaken view is the following: The Western powers established Israel in 1948 based on their own guilt, at the expense of the Arab peoples who lived there. Therefore, the current state is illegitimate and 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. 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. Because of what is at stake, it is well worth reviewing this history in detail, and let me make a modest attempt at a very broad overview. There has been a continuity of Jewish presence in the Holy Land for thousands of years. Jewish kings and governments were established in that area that is now Israel several millennia ago. After untold years of Jewish sovereignty, based in Jerusalem, the land of the Jewish people fell repeatedly to invaders--Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, and many others. Jews were repeatedly massacred and expelled, and the departure of so many from the land they had always called home developed into an unparalleled diaspora. From the 16th century until the earliest 20th century, the land that is now Israel was under the control of a distant Ottoman caliphate based in Istanbul, and during this time, as earlier, many Jews returned to their ancestral homeland. The Ottoman Empire collapsed after World War I, and the treaty granted Great Britain a mandate over the area then known as Palestine. The League of Nations endorsed and clarified this mandate in 1922, requiring Britain to reconstitute a Jewish national home within the territory they controlled, in accordance with the declaration made by British Foreign Secretary Balfour in 1917, making the restoration of Jewish communities in that area a matter of international law. By the time World War II had ended, there were more than 600,000 Jews living in the British Mandate of Palestine. In 1947, the United Nations approved a plan to partition the territory into Arab and Jewish states. The Jewish Agency accepted the plan. The Arabs did not. On May 14, 1948, the State of Israel declared its independence. On May 15, five Arab nations declared war. Despite being surrounded on all sides, Israel prevailed and expanded its borders, providing a small additional measure of security against attacks which were certain to come--and did. So to be clear, the more than 700,000 Palestinians who left Israel were refugees of a war instigated by Arab governments, bent on seizing more land for themselves. But the Arabs who left Israel after its modern founding weren't the only displaced population in the Middle East. In addition to the hundreds of thousands of Jews who left Europe during and after the Holocaust in the 20th century, more than three- quarters of a million Jews fled or were expelled from their homes in Arab and Middle Eastern nations--in cities that many of their families had lived in for nearly a millennium. Their possessions were taken, their livelihoods were destroyed, victims of nationalism and hatred of Israel. 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 so the way to consider the immeasurable impact of the Holocaust in Israel is not to ask whether the State would exist otherwise. It is, at least in one sense, to imagine how even more vibrant Israel would be if millions upon millions had not been denied a chance to know it. The attacks on Israel have barely stopped since 1948--not just attacks by armies but attacks by individuals, attacks by tanks and terrorists, attacks that have come in the form of stones and they have come in the form of speeches. Its enemies have attempted to assassinate its people with rockets and assassinate its national character with hateful rhetoric. Today it is still surrounded by hostility; its back is still to the sea. It is surrounded by hostility from Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza strip. In looking at the threat Israel faces on its southwestern border, one fact must be absolutely, indisputably, unequivocally clear: There is no moral equivalency between Israel and Hamas. Israel is a sovereign democratic state of 7.5 million people--Jews, Muslims, and Christians. Hamas is a terrorist organization. It won control of Gaza after men in ski masks waged gun battles with another branch of Palestinian leadership. It used that control to launch rockets at sleeping children in the nearby Israeli cities of Ashkelon and Sterot. This is the thanks Israel got for withdrawing from Gaza. Hamas does not recognize agreements that Palestinian leaders have reached with Israel in the past, it does not recognize Israel's right to exist at all, and in fact it is ideologically committed to Israel's annihilation. Gaza's people thirst for freedom and opportunity but are held hostage to Hamas's thirst for destruction. And even today, after the consequences of menacing Israel became clear in a disastrous war, weapons are flowing freely through tunnels into Gaza, Hamas has rearmed and is readying itself for the day when it is going to take on Israel again. Hamas and Hezbollah may be the head of the snake when it comes to terrorism, but the tail extends much further. The weapons terrorists use were sent from Iran. Money they received was sent from Iran. Propaganda supporting Hamas's campaign of terror and calling for Israel's destruction was conceived in, produced by, and broadcast from Iran. The fundamentalist regime in Teheran isn't just an emerging threat. It doesn't just have the potential to be a threat to Israel's existence. It is a threat to Israel's existence. Under no circumstances whatsoever can we allow that conventional threat to become a nuclear one. Especially in light of the threat of Iran, and in light of the threat extremists pose to so many innocent civilians around the globe, the importance of Israel as a strategic ally and friend to the United States could not be clearer. It is hard to overstate the value of having such a stalwart democratic ally in such a critical part of the world--an ally in terms of intelligence gathering, economics, politics, and culture. Israel arose in a desert rampant with repression, a force of moderation against fundamentalism and extremism. It is an ally we can constantly depend on and count on to be with us in international fora and on the key decisions that affect the safety and security of Americans around the world. For more than six decades, it has been a key U.S. trading partner and a scientific innovator. We have Israeli engineers to thank for everything from advances in solar power to cell phone technology to AOL Instant Messenger. Equipment we are using in Iraq to fight terrorism and keep American troops safe was developed in Israel. Medical treatments we are using in U.S. hospitals to fight cancer, heart disease, and chronic pain were developed in Israel. Israeli-born actors are stars of Hollywood, and an Israeli astronaut has accompanied Americans into space. So it is not only in the interest of Israel to have its full history recognized, it is in the national interest and the national security interests of the United States. It is in our interests to fully remember the unbreakable bond that has made us both stronger over the last 61 years and to make it unmistakable that our commitment is as strong as ever. The argument for Israel's legitimacy does not depend on what we say in speeches. It has been made by history. It has been made by the men and women who have 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 on a homeland to which they have had a connection for thousands of years. We can and must move forward in the peace process, and look for ways to reach agreement between all sides. But we cannot erase the moral distinctions between tyranny and freedom, and we must not edit history. If we stay true to history and follow our moral compass, I am optimistic that talks can lead to understanding and resolution of the very sensitive, detailed, and tough issues we face. The next pages of Middle Eastern history are not doomed to be stained by an endless, senseless fight to the death. It doesn't have to be that way. Different peoples of vastly different backgrounds have peacefully thrived in the Middle East for generations upon generations, and this coexistence can happen once more. Let us remember the words of Egyptian President Anwar al-Sadat in 1978, when he accepted the Nobel Prize for peace--words that not long before would have seemed incredibly unlikely. He said: Let us put an end to wars, let us reshape life on the solid basis of equity and truth. And it is this call . . . of the great majority of the Arab and Israeli peoples, and indeed of millions of men, women, and children around the world that you are today honoring. And these hundreds of millions will judge to what extent every responsible leader in the Middle East has responded to the hopes of mankind. I have been to Israel. I have shaken the hands of its citizens and visited its holy places. I know that in the heart of Israelis there is a strong desire for peace. We can never lose sight of why peace is so important. After the unspeakable horrors of the Holocaust, the Jewish people would forever be mindful that no one knows what turns history will take and every day we are mindful that anti-Semitism has not gone away, whether in the form of a firebombing of a French synagogue, defamatory comments of a government official in South Africa, or a senseless murder in Washington DC. Israel is the one place in the world, the one place where anti- Semitism can be structurally impossible. It is a field of hope on which fear can be vanquished, an island of refuge that can stand firm no matter how stormy the sea of history turns. That is why we must always keep it safe and always keep it free. The United States is not simply allied with a government, it is an ally of Israel's people. It is an ally of Israel's democratic ideals. It is an ally of its history, of its aspirations for peace and prosperity, its can-do spirit, and amazing resilience in the face of threats from all sides. In that sense, we are not just Israel's allies, we are admirers, we are partners, and we are friends. I plan to do everything I can to see that we support this friendship this year, next year, and every year thereafter. Let me close by saying Martin Luther King said: The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice. We know that in Israel's quest for security, there will be trials along the way, there will be setbacks, and there will be dangers too tremendous for words. But if we continue the work we do and continue to stay true to the values that drive our journey, then the long arc will eventually rest in place in the land of Israel and it is a just and lasting peace that will be at hand. I yield whatever time I have, and I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise to speak about the supplemental that is before the Senate in terms of the appropriations. Much of this bill is about supporting the men and women wearing the uniform of the United States who are serving this country around the world and acting as sentinels for America's freedom around the world. The question is, Will we appropriate the resources necessary to match the challenge we have given them and the call to service we have asked of them? That is what this appropriations supplemental bill is largely all about. In that context, there is one particular area of funding that doesn't go to where we have troops but where we, in fact, care about what is happening in part of the world, and that is Pakistan. We care about it because it is along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border; the area where, in fact, Osama bin Laden likely exists; the area al-Qaida is operating in, crossing back and forth along that border in order to attack our troops in Afghanistan; and also because of the Taliban. So we have clear national security interests as it relates to that part of the world. We all agree the situation in Pakistan is probably at the top of the list of our most serious national security challenges because this is where al-Qaida has reconstituted itself, and this was the entity, along with bin Laden, that struck us on that fateful day of September 11. Late last month, the Secretary of State warned us that Pakistan's government is facing an ``existential threat'' from Islamist militants who have established operations dangerously close to the capital city of Islamabad. These are militants who wish to do us harm, plot new terrorist attacks or, God forbid, seize control of that country's nuclear arsenal. There are plenty of reasons for the United States to be engaged. Since 2001, Pakistan has received more than $12 billion in assistance from the U.S. Government. The idea behind the assistance has been to support democratic institutions, human rights, economic development, along with counterterrorism operations to fight the Taliban and al-Qaida and create the conditions for stability in the country. Unfortunately, under the lax oversight of the Bush administration, that assistance had very few strings attached to it, and under that administration it is hard to see what kind of results we actually achieved for the money we spent. Democracy and institutions of civil society are as fragile as ever, the Taliban is expanding its reach, and we have heard reports about the Pakistani Government expanding its nuclear arsenal. So $12 billion later, the way we sent assistance may or may not have worked for Pakistan, but it certainly didn't work for us. So, Madam President, we have to constantly ask ourselves: How are we using our money in pursuit of our national interests and our national security interest, and what type of benchmarks and progress are we making so that we can, in fact, respond both as fiduciaries to the taxpayers of the country and, at the same time, in measuring benchmarks toward our national security goals? It is our responsibility to see that there is transparency and accountability in whatever assistance we are providing, and as the administration makes the case to reverse what it acknowledges are ``rapidly deteriorating security and economic conditions'' there, we have to make sure the funding we are sending over is actually doing its part to make the situation better. We have to ask those questions about the Pakistan funding in this current supplemental bill as well. For starters, in this supplemental, I think when we look at it, it is pretty significant. There is over $1.6 billion in the supplemental for Pakistan, including $400 million for the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund, $439 million in economic support funds, and $700 million in coalition support funds. I am concerned about the funding, but I want to specifically talk about the $700 million in coalition support funds. Those funds are used to reimburse the Pakistani Government for the logistical and military expenses of fighting Islamist militants. As the Pakistani military increases these activities--and we have seen those military activities finally take place in a way that we think is moving in the right direction--those coalition support funds are expected to increase substantially as well. So if we are going to have a shot at the militants, we are going to need to provide support. And we are agreed on that, I think. But that does not mean we should be sending out blank checks. Along with my distinguished colleague from Iowa, Senator Harkin, and several colleagues in the House, we suggested the Government Accountability Office look into the assistance we provided to Pakistan, including the $6.9 billion in coalition support funds it received. In a June 2008 report, the GAO found that the Pentagon did not consistently verify Pakistani claims for reimbursement, and additional oversight controls were needed. Here is an example from that report. The United States was reimbursing the Pakistani Government $19,000 per month for each of about 20 passenger vehicles, about $9 million in total, even though we later found out that we were paying for the same 20 vehicles over and over. A February 2009 report that we also asked for echoed and confirmed those findings and said that the Pentagon needed to improve oversight of coalition support funds reimbursements. Earlier today at a Foreign Relations hearing I asked Admiral Mullen, and he acknowledged we have not had good controls in the past on coalition support funds, but he assured the committee the controls have improved and additional steps are being taken to make sure the funds are being used wisely. The Deputy Secretary of Defense outlined these steps in a letter to Chairman Kerry last month, including new guidelines, additional face- to-face meetings with Pakistani counterparts, and additional visits by the Department of Defense to Pakistan to refine the coalition support fund claim processing and validate procedures. Personally, I have met with Ambassador Holbrooke, our special envoy to this region, as well as questioned Secretary Clinton yesterday before the Foreign Relations Committee, and they both assured me this administration is developing metrics to measure success and change the way we engage in Pakistan so we can defeat the militants and bring stability to the country and the region. I am pleased to see these steps being taken and I look forward to closely monitoring them as we move forward. Let me conclude by saying we all realize that conditions on the ground make detailed reporting and accountability a major challenge. We cannot expect to be getting daily comprehensive spreadsheets e-mailed from every remote mountain region. But as best as we can, it is the responsibility of this Congress to ensure that all of our funds are being used in a manner that is advancing our national interests and our national security interests. With these changes that have taken place, I think--partly because we have asked for these reports, partly because of the questioning at these hearings, partly because of the new leadership of the administration--I plan to vote for the supplemental. In doing so, however, I want to send a very clear message that it is not and should not be construed as a blank check. I have concerns with the coalition support fund program and concern about Pakistan's nuclear program. Money is fungible, and I am concerned as we send money to Pakistan for one purpose that frees up their money to be buying nuclear weapons, something that is not in our interest or in the interest of that part of the world. I am glad the Obama administration is taking steps to ensure accountability and in the future we need to do even more. We need to be sure we do not wind up right back here a year from now, having to say the same things. We cannot afford to yet again take one step forward and two steps back, and above all we cannot afford to be sending such resources without achieving the national goals of security and the interests we have. That is the best way to make sure we do not lose sight of our goal here and that is also the best way we keep America safe. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, we see gathering clouds in this economic storm and those clouds are credit card debt. At the very same time that it is becoming harder to get new credit, Americans have almost a trillion dollars of credit card debt outstanding. Defaults are rising and delinquencies are at a 6-year high. It is clear this isn't only a question of consumers overspending. Credit card companies are trying to boost their profit with deceptive practices and making the situation worse. People are seeing so much of their paychecks eaten up by late fees, over-the-limit fees, and interest payments that today companies can unilaterally increase at any time. Credit card companies are pushing cards on college students who can't afford them and teenagers are winding up with a lifetime of debt. Companies are raising interest rates on consumers and customers who have a perfect record with their credit card but miss a payment with some other creditor. Maybe worst of all, if you have a credit card, chances are there is a line in the fine print that says the company can change the rules at any time. Considering some of the changes companies have made already, who knows what they could do tomorrow. I have heard from thousands of people in New Jersey who feel their credit card contracts are booby-trapped, that their credit card agreements conceal all kinds of trapdoors behind a layer of fine print. Take one false step and your credit rating plummets and your interest rate shoots through the roof. These are the same kinds of stories we started hearing as the foreclosure crisis began. Right now there is nothing stopping credit card companies from doing this to consumers--no law, no level playing field, no protection for the average American, no way to get the kind of fair treatment we expect as a matter of common sense. When some people see that their interest rate has shot through the roof for no apparent reason, they call and plead with their companies for help, but their fate lies solely in the hands of the credit card companies. If the companies don't want to help, they are out of luck and stuck with an even bigger mountain of debt. Meanwhile, credit card companies are still making multibillion-dollar profits. This isn't just impacting the lives of individual Americans and families trying to make ends meet; it has major ramifications for the entire economy. One of our major economic challenges right now is getting credit flowing again but not at the high price credit card companies are imposing. The economy is never going to get running at full speed again if consumers can't get their bearings because they have fallen behind on a payment treadmill that credit card companies keep speeding up. If there is any time to end deceptive practices and level the playing field, it is now. Credit card reform is something I have been calling for since I set foot in the Senate. In 2006, one of the first pieces of legislation I introduced was an effort to reform credit card practices. Even then it was clear credit card debt was a looming problem that had the potential to wreak havoc on American families unless we achieved commonsense reforms. If there is one thing we have learned from this economic crisis, it is that we can't wait for a dangerous situation to reach full-blown crisis proportions before we act. This Congress, as I have done for several Congresses, I introduced the Credit Card Reform Act to tackle essentially the same issues this current bill deals with, including banning retroactive rate increases, protecting young consumers from being sucked into the cycle of debt, reasonably tying fees to costs, and prohibiting unilateral changes to agreements. We have $1 trillion collective debt in credit cards. That is how big this issue is. I am proud to see Chairman Dodd's credit card reform bill includes many of the provisions I included in my bill and have championed for years. His leadership is what has brought us to the floor today. I included in my bill many of those provisions, and we have championed them together. Though in some cases I would like to see different provisions that I think would make for stronger legislation, I still look forward to working with the chairman on one or two of those. But this bill represents one of the strongest, most comprehensive efforts yet to end some of the most egregious practices of credit card issuers, while making sure that Americans young and old don't fall so easily into financial traps. The principle behind this bill is simple: Companies should be clear about the rules upfront, and they should not change them in the middle of the game. The bill says, similar to a provision I have been pushing, if companies want to change the terms of credit card agreements, they have to give reasonable notice before they do so. It will end an industry practice known as universal default on existing credit balances so companies don't raise interest rates on customers' outstanding debt when they have a perfect record with that credit card but maybe miss a payment by a few days with some other creditor. I called for this in my bill, and I am proud to see Chairman Dodd has it in his. I am also proud he included a provision I called for in my bill to make sure that when fees are imposed, they are reasonably tied to the original violation or omission that triggered the fee, not just the companies' desire to increase profits. This bill will discourage the bait-and-switch tactics behind the preapproved offers that almost every American consumer has seen come into their mailbox, an idea I also put forward strongly in my own bill. When you get a card offer, the offer should be real. The terms should not be so good to be true that it fades away once you apply for the card. This legislation will provide recourse for consumers, if a card issuer tries a sleight of hand and changes the terms in the fine print. One of the things I have been focused on--and I am glad to see it in this bill--will protect young consumers from credit card solicitations they didn't ask for. I am convinced, having seen my own children, when they were in college and studying but not working, get an incredible number of preapproved credit cards, I could stack them this high, or my State director's 2-year-old who got a preapproved credit card, if you have a Social Security number and a pulse that, in fact, you can get a credit card. I am proud this bill includes a provision that says people under 21 can proactively opt in to receive credit offers, but they will no longer will be lured into deals unless the decision is their own. It would also ensure that when college students do opt in and apply for a credit card, they prove that they or a cosigner can actually make the payments on that debt before they get that card. That is something I even think should be considered more broadly, ability to pay as a fundamental essence. This way we don't get people on the march of bad debt, bad credit, and all the consequences that flow therefrom. For far too many people, credit card debt is already a personal financial crisis. If we don't act soon, it could grow to become a national financial crisis. Already there is a trillion dollars in collective debt. We cannot allow predatory and deceptive practices in the industry to continue as we did in the subprime mortgage market. We cannot allow the credit card problem to become the next foreclosure crisis. When it comes down to it, this legislation is about trust. At a time we have seen financial institutions fail, either fail to be profitable or just fail to be honest, it is clear that restoring trust by ending deceptive practices is good for everyone. People are not demanding too much, just rules that are fair, understandable, and don't change in the middle of the game. It is time we give individual consumers the tools to level the playing field when it comes to dealing with credit card companies. This legislation is about creating a trustworthy financial system, restoring some commonsense rules of the road, and stabilizing our economy by making it possible for consumers to get their footing. At the end of the day, that is in the interest of all Americans. Now it is time to act because, similar to the debt on our credit cards, if we keep putting this problem off month after month, it is only going to get worse. I look forward to working with the chairman to pass this bill, making it as strong as possible and making sure it becomes law. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, due to an official event in New Jersey, I was necessarily absent for rollcall votes 186 and 187. Had I been present, on rollcall No. 186, passage of S. 454, the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009, I would have voted yea; rollcall No. 187, the confirmation of R. Gil Kerlikowske to be Director of National Drug Control Policy, I would have voted yea.

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, two weeks ago, the democratically elected leaders of the Western Hemisphere met for the Summit of the Americas. The Castro regime in Cuba was not invited, because it has violated the democratic charter of the Organization of American States for the last 5 decades. At the same time as that meeting in Trinidad and Tobago, Raul Castro gave a speech in Venezuela. He said he would be willing to negotiate with the United States and put everything on the table. Many considered this ``news.'' Well, let me tell you, those comments aren't news to anyone who has followed the rhetoric of the regime over the decades. The Castros have made promise after promise and none of their promises have resulted in substantial change on the island, none of their promises have resulted in the release of the labor leaders, journalists or clergymen jailed for no crime other than speaking their minds, the end of the network of government spies on every block, or the granting of basic human rights that we in the United States take for granted. None of their promises have resulted in economic freedom for the millions of Cubans who try to get by on less than a dollar a day. And so it was hardly news that not long after Raul Castro spoke, his older brother Fidel made comments clarifying that nothing would change, and blaming all conditions in Cuba on the United States. He said President Obama acted with ``autosuficiencia'' y ``superficialidad'', he called him conceited and superficial. I am surprised that Secretary Clinton, in her remarks, would jump so fast to consider that good news. While Raul Castro spoke at a meeting in Venezuela, there was another gathering going on in Cuba. It was a gathering of state security agents and secret police, outside the home of Jorge Luis Garcia Perez, known as ``Antunez.'' With tremendous courage, Antunez began a hunger strike to protest the oppressive Castro regime. In response, agents descended on the house last March 17. According to Amnesty International, they have orders to use force against and arrest anyone to prevent them from entering the house, including anyone who could provide medical treatment. Antunez and three other Cubans have vowed to continue their protest until the torture of political prisoner Mario Alberto Perez Aguilera, held at the Santa Clara Provincial Prison, ceases immediately. They will continue their protest until he is taken out of a tiny solitary confinement cell, until he is no longer beaten and forced to starve, until the regime allows Antunez' sister Caridad Garcia Perez to rebuild her home destroyed by the hurricanes last year, which they have not allowed, as further punishment to these activists. From his house in Placetas, Cuba, Antunez wrote me a letter on April 13. Here's an excerpt, in Spanish: Compatriotas a nombre de nuestro pueblo cubano persistan en sus nobles y sinceros esfuerzos, sepan que para los cubanos la libertad, la dignidad y el respeto a los derechos humanos tiened mucho mas permanencia e importancia que las ventajas economicas que puedan traer los viajes de turismo y las llegadas de insumos que financiarin mas que al pueblo a la cruel tirania que nos oprime. He said: Those who continue their noble and sincere efforts on behalf of the Cuban people, please know, that for Cubans, liberty, dignity and respect for human rights are much more permanent and important than the economic advantages that might come with visiting tourists and the arrival of products, which will benefit the cruel tyranny that oppresses us more than the Cuban people. That is the kind of courage that can break a dictatorship. That is the kind of courage we should support. And that is the kind of person whose advice we should heed, the human rights activist, the Cuban who sacrifices day and night in a peaceful struggle for freedom, these are the voices we should listen to when we are making our policy toward the Castro regime. Some like to cling to a romantic notion of the Castros, but we cannot lose sight of these brutal facts. There is no indication that political prisoners are being released, free speech is being allowed or Cubans are being granted basic liberties that we take for granted. For the Organization of American States to readmit a regime that engages in this type of systematic suppression of human rights, it would have to rip up its Inter-American Democratic Charter as a farce. It would have to ignore Article 78 of the declaration, reaffirming, ``the legitimacy of electoral processes and full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.'' And it would be sending a clear signal to other countries moving in the wrong direction, away from democracy, that it is perfectly OK to do so. In respect to the very complicated choices we have on Cuba policy, President Obama has proven himself a man of action. I support his allowing Cuban-Americans more opportunities to travel to Cuba, because I think families should have the chance to be reunited. On the other hand, and although I support finding ways to improve the financial situation of the Cuban people, I think allowing unlimited remittances was not the right move, when the Castro regime still takes for itself up to 30 percent of all the money sent. The administration also announced changes regarding telecommunications policy. Let me be clear: in spite of the fact that the regime has rejected such gestures in the past, I hope that it will now allow U.S. telecommunications companies to increase the flow of information to and from the island. That said, we need to be sure to prevent a repeat of what happened in China, where U.S. telecommunications firms helped the Chinese government monitor Internet users and control content. U.S. companies cannot and should not censor Internet searches and block Web sites at the request of the regime. But mainly what we have learned from these good-faith actions on the part of the United States is that they have not resulted in any change of behavior from the regime in Cuba. We have traded concessions and gotten only rhetoric in return. We have extended our hand, while the Cuban regime maintains its iron- handed clenched fist. We cannot allow ourselves to start down a slippery slope of relaxing restrictions, that only winds up allowing the Castro regime to strengthen the iron fist by which it rules. The press is reporting that the State Department is looking to hold talks on migration and counternarcotics with the Castro regime. These are serious issues. But without seeing any progress whatsoever on the part of the regime, it is hard to see why we should be looking for more opportunities to make additional concessions. It is hard to see why we should believe whatever promises the regime might make. And it is hard to see why we should cooperate on migration or counternarcotics with a Cuban navy whose main mission is patrolling for and sinking ships carrying its own fleeing citizens. If we open up discussions now, we are essentially giving the regime a pass on progress and taking the focus off of where President Obama rightly put it, freedom on the island, freedom for political prisoners, freedom from seizures of a huge percentage of remittances sent to the Cuban people. So, this is exactly the wrong time to start these conversations and starting them would be in direct contradiction to the White House's own statements, as recently as April 17, that put the burden where it should be, on the Castro regime. After 50 years of brutality, we need actions, not words, on the part of the Castro regime. Mere words won't erase the lack of dignity that Antunez is protesting with a hunger strike. Words won't stop people like Oscar Elias Biscet, a renowned doctor, from being thrown into prison for refusing to give women a drug that caused abortions. And words won't finally allow Oswaldo Paya to see the free elections he's worked for and marched for and gone to jail for. Last week I heard one of my distinguished colleagues speak about human rights abuses in China. I think the Senator was absolutely right to highlight those abuses. And I think we should be no less concerned with prison camps in China than prison camps in Cuba, no less concerned with Tiananmen Square than with the Primavera Negra crackdown, no less appalled at a child laborer in Beijing than in Havana. And by now we should be convinced that economic interaction in the face of an authoritarian government will not end Cuba's human rights abuses, just as it has not ended abuses in China. Another of my distinguished colleagues has pointed out the peaceful revolutions that ended communism in Eastern Europe, including in his ancestors' homeland of Lithuania. I share the Senator's deep respect for those revolutions. And I think it is worth pointing out that when they took place, there was international support and recognition not primarily for the businesses who wanted to open those countries up for financial gain, but for the democracy activists within those countries who risked their lives to bring change. There is simply no excuse for the Cuban regime's behavior. Forgiving it and forgetting it is not the answer. If we want to change the way we conduct our policy, there are many things we can do to isolate and weaken the Castro regime, and hasten the day when the Cuban people can be free. Let's have the U.S. offer more visitor and student visas for eligible Cubans to come to the U.S., to see and live our way of life. Having Americans travel to Cuba could never be as powerful as having Cuban youth see the greatness of our country, and its pluralistic, diverse, representative democracy. That taste of freedom would be infectious. In return we simply seek a commitment from Cuba to accept their citizens' return, and to guarantee the issuance of exit permits for all qualified migrants. Cuba is one of the few countries in the world that will not permit its citizens to travel even when they have a legitimate visa to do so. And, when they give them license to leave, they must pay to do so. I find it ironic that when people mention the U.S. embargo, they fail to mention the Castros' blockade on their own people, a blockade that keeps Cubans not only from leaving Cuba, but from moving freely within their own country. If we want to facilitate the sales of food to Cuba, let us insist that they be sold in open markets, available to all Cubans, without it being part of Castro's food rationing plan, a plan meant to further control the Cuban people. In exchange for cooperation with Cuba on narcotics trafficking, let them hand over the 200 fugitives the FBI knows are in Cuba, including JoAnne Chesimard, the convicted killer of New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster. And in exchange for freeing commerce, let the Castros free the political prisoners they hold and allow them to speak freely, organize freely, elect their own leadership and freely practice their religion on Cuban soil. I hope we are not so blinded by the color of money that we forget how important it is for the Castros to close their dungeons and let the light of freedom shine down on everyone who calls the island home. President Obama, who saw repression in Indonesia when he was a child, promised us this: He said: My policy toward Cuba will be guided by one word: Libertad. And the road to freedom for all Cubans must begin with justice for Cuba's political prisoners, the rights of free speech, a free press and freedom of assembly; and it must lead to elections that are free and fair. For 50 years, the regime has been a social, economic and moral failure. It has succeeded merely at staying in power. Today, after the regime has offered few new words and fewer new actions, we can choose to change how we feel about the regime, or we can try to change the way it operates. That is our choice. We can choose amnesia or we can choose justice. We can choose strong words or we can choose strong actions. We can choose giving in to the commercial interests of a few, or we can choose holding on to the moral interests that unite us all. That is what I hope we will do. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise today to discuss the Simon Wiesenthal Holocaust Education Assistance Act, which I recently introduced. This important legislation would provide competitive grants for educational organizations to make Holocaust education more accessible and available throughout the Nation. Last Tuesday, people from all corners of the Earth, representing all faiths stood together to solemnly commemorate Holocaust Remembrance Day, in memorial of perhaps the greatest crime ever perpetrated against humanity. As we reflect upon the tragedies of the events surrounding the Holocaust--the lives lost, the families destroyed, the potential unfulfilled--we must renew our commitment to never forget, so this dark chapter in history will never be repeated. We must never forget the approximately six million Jewish men, women and children, as well as the millions of others who faced persecution, displacement, and death at the hands of the Nazis. We must remember their stories not just to honor their lives, but more importantly, to educate the next generation about the dangers of intolerance, ignorance, and bigotry. Some may question the necessity of studying an event that--while horrific--happened over half a century ago and an ocean away. Other skeptics will argue that anti-Semitism--while terrible--is a relic of the past that simply doesn't exist in modern society. Unfortunately, we ignore history at our peril, and not recognizing and taking seriously the seeds of bigotry and anti-Semitism that have again begun to take root around the world only serves to promulgate it. Recently, anti-Semitism has surfaced disguised in the form of anti- Israel rhetoric. The two have morphed into a virulent attack against all Jews resulting in a provocative and dangerous escalation of physical attacks against Jewish individuals, synagogues and other Jewish institutions around the world. Symbols of Nazi Germany have been used in this form of anti-Semitism as a cudgel against Jews, insulting the honor of millions of Jewish people--a people still emerging from the dark shadow cast by the Holocaust. Some have sought to rewrite history to minimize and spin the facts surrounding the Holocaust. The leadership of Iran has waged campaigns not just to alter, but to simply erase an inconvenient history. Holocaust deniers--authors and others who have the bully pulpit have smeared the truth of history--something that is regrettably so much easier to do as the Holocaust recedes in time and as those who can bear witness are dwindling in numbers. Unfortunately, we need not look half way around the globe for examples of anti-Semitism, intolerance and hate; but rather we can look to our own neighborhoods and communities. In Fort Lauderdale earlier this year at an anti-Israel rally, a demonstrator was heard to say ``Go back to the oven. You need a big oven,'' a horrific reference to the crematoria of Nazi Germany. And it saddens me to note that in my home State of New Jersey, a State of immense diversity, tolerance and understanding, we have seen a number of recent troubling anti-Semitic incidents that tear away at the decency and civility that we should expect in this great Nation. Last December, three Glen Rock teenagers were charged with painting a swastika and the word ``Jew'' on the property of Jewish residents. This past January, a Kenilworth family awoke one morning to find a Star of David and the word ``Die'' carved into their garage door. Last month, Northvale public school students had to endure anti- Semitic graffiti scrawled throughout the walls of their school. A New Jersey family made national headlines by naming their three young children Aryan Nation, Hinler, and Adolf Hitler. As recently as last week, in Union City, where I grew up, authorities were investigating an act of arson in a classroom of a Jewish school that is being reported as a hate crime. These troubling events do not occur in a vacuum. They are a reflection of an ever-present current of hate. We cannot sit idly and hope that time alone will heal the wounds of genocide or solve our issues of continued intolerance. We must take proactive steps to ensure that our society remembers and learns from the painful experiences of the Holocaust. Holocaust education is essential to the enlightenment, understanding, and empathy of our youngest generations and their role in history to come. The Simon Wiesenthal Holocaust Education Act is an important step toward this goal. While some States, like New Jersey, currently require the Holocaust to be taught in public schools, this act goes further and makes grants available to organizations that instruct students, teachers, and communities about the dangers of hate and the importance of tolerance in our society. This legislation would give educators the appropriate resources and training to teach accurate historical information about the Holocaust and convey the lessons that the Holocaust can teach us today. I certainly cannot think of a better namesake for this bill, for Simon Wiesenthal honored the memories of those lost by dedicating his life to bringing those responsible for these horrific acts to justice. Only by proper acknowledgement of the incredible loss of life during the Holocaust, will we ever be able to ensure that such an event never happens again. It is in our common interest to raise our voices against anti- Semitism and against all hatred and discrimination. Funding accurate Holocaust educational programs is a step toward winning this battle. So as America stands with Israel and all followers of the Jewish faith in condemning anti-Semitism, let us do everything in our power to end discrimination and educate future generations about the danger of hatred and bigotry. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I came to speak in support of the nomination of Christopher Hill to be the Ambassador to Iraq, but I have heard my distinguished colleague from South Carolina speak, and I feel compelled to say a few things in response. It is easy to rail against the Government when you are part of it. It is easy to rail against the Government. But when we have a national disaster, whether it be September 11 or hurricanes or floods or tornadoes, it is only the National Government that can come and help our fellow citizens. It is only the National Government that can come at the end of the day and create a common defense. It is only the National Government that very often can stop us from economic collapse. Now, I am for the free market as much as anyone else, but there is a difference between a free market and a free-for-all market. What we saw over the last 8 years is regulators, who were supposed to act as the cops on the beat, ultimately allowing the private sector, particularly those who are regulated industries, to regulate themselves. The consequence of that is we have excess that now each and every American is paying for. Yet there are those who want to rail against that. There are those who also rail about spending. I am with them. But the time to have railed against that was in the last years that saw the debt and the deficit dramatically grow. If President Obama did absolutely nothing--nothing--he would have inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit. So I think we need some intellectual honesty in this Chamber as we have our debates. Mr. President, I want to now talk about the President's nomination of Christopher Hill to serve as our next Ambassador to Iraq. I support that. It should be clear to all of us that the position of the Ambassador to Iraq is one of the most critical ambassadorial selections that President Obama will make. We are at the beginning of a period of transition in our relationship with Iraq. We are now working under a Status of Forces Agreement. Our troops are winding down their combat role and many will withdraw by June 30 of this year. In his speech to the Marine Corps at Camp Lejeune at the end of February, President Obama made his policy clear: by the 31st day of August of the year 2010, in accordance with the Status of Forces Agreement, the combat mission of U.S. troops in Iraq will come to an end. But even though the end of our combat mission in Iraq may now be in sight, we cannot forget that today we still have more than 140,000 U.S. troops there, and we have over 1,000 U.S. civilian employees from the Department of State, from USAID, and many other departments and agencies who have been assigned to work at the Embassy in Baghdad under the authority of our Chief of Mission. We all look forward to the day when our combat mission in Iraq is ended, our troops are returned home, and the Iraqis enjoy relative peace and security under the full protection of their own security forces. But that day has not yet come. We are at the beginning, not the end, of the transition in our role in Iraq. It is a time of uncertainty and risk, and that is why it is so urgent that the Ambassador's position be filled without delay. We hear the military counterparts constantly saying--General Odierno--where is my civilian counterpart? Where is the Ambassador? Now, I certainly respect the decision of any colleague to closely scrutinize any of the President's appointments. This is a keystone position at a critical juncture in our relationship with Iraq, and we need to ensure the person leading our Embassy in Baghdad is and has in full measure the background, skills, and pragmatism needed. I have scrutinized Ambassador Hill's qualifications and his testimony, both before the Foreign Relations Committee, of which I am a member, and in responding to questions for the record, and I am convinced that in nominating Ambassador Hill, President Obama has chosen exactly the right person to lead our Embassy in Baghdad at this point in time. I urge my colleagues to confirm his nomination without delay. During his 32-year career in the Foreign Service, Ambassador Hill has developed a well-earned reputation as a diplomatic trouble-shooter by taking on a series of difficult assignments, including serving as an ambassador in the Balkans, Special Envoy to Kosovo, Ambassador to Poland and South Korea, and most recently as Special Envoy to the six- party talks involving North Korea's nuclear program. He was one of the State Department's top negotiators during the 1995 Dayton talks that ended the war in Bosnia. He has never balked from taking on the most difficult assignments and has a long list of honors and awards which stand as evidence of his accomplishments. Now, one of the concerns raised by my colleague earlier was about Ambassador Hill's experience, or lack of experience, in the Middle East. It should be noted that our three prior ambassadors in Baghdad-- Ryan Crocker, Zalmay Khalizad, and John Negroponte--the persons who know best the experience needed to do the job--do not share this concern. They have expressed their support for Ambassador Hill's confirmation. I am confident the experience Ambassador Hill has gained in other areas can be readily applied to the challenges he will face in Iraq. Ambassador Hill's experience in coordinating the multilateral negotiations on North Korea's nuclear program will serve him well when he seeks the support of Iraq's neighbors on nuclear issues. That experience will also serve him well in working with Iraq's numerous political factions. Ambassador Hill's experience in the Balkans has prepared him to deal with sectarianism, border disputes, human rights, refugees, developmental assistance, and postconflict normalization of relations, all of which will be major issues in his portfolio in Baghdad. Mr. President, I share the concerns expressed by my colleague about North Korea's human rights record, and I agree completely with Ambassador Hill's own assessment of that record of North Korea when he said it is abysmal. But as others have noted, Ambassador Hill's mission with regard to North Korea was set by his superiors in the Bush administration, not by him. The primary objective was to push the North Koreans to end their nuclear weapons program and their nuclear proliferation activities. That was his mission, directed by the Bush administration. That is the mission he undertook to accomplish. I appreciate Ambassador Hill's continued willingness to take on these tough assignments. He is the right person to lead our Embassy in Baghdad at this time, and I urge his nomination be confirmed without delay. Finally, I too often hear on the other side of the aisle a very familiar refrain lately. It is no--no to just about everything we are trying to do here. President Obama was elected with overwhelming support to try to move this country in a different direction, and what we hear consistently on the other side of the aisle--using the procedural mechanisms of the filibuster in this institution--is no and no and no. Then, while they hold up nominees, such as yesterday's nominees for Assistant Attorneys General--incredibly important to the Attorney General for law and order in this country--when we finally get to the vote, we see overwhelming bipartisan votes. We have delayed it an inordinate amount of time instead of having those people work for the security of the country, instead of being able to move this agenda forward, instead of having more time for the Senate to meet some of the Nation's critical challenges. It is time to get over the noes and start saying yes to some of the critical issues we need. The first yes should be today, with Ambassador Hill. That will move our foreign policy agenda ahead in one of the most critical parts of the world today. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Craig Bryant, a fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the day.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 806

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, while we are getting set up, I would first ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 minutes.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, this week we are laying out a blueprint for the part Congress will play in America's economic recovery. Our budget isn't just a list of revenues and expenditures; it is a balance sheet of priorities and values. The line of numbers come together to form a bigger picture, laying out a vision for where we plan to lead the Nation. On a practical level, it gives us a chance to plan how we are going to create jobs, reform health care, make college more affordable, and end our dependence on foreign oil. This is President Obama's vision, and it is a mission we share and seek to make a reality with this budget. Considering the current state of the economy, the times demand a bold strategy to give immediate help to those damaged by the crisis and create the conditions for recovery in the long term. But as we are moving forward with clarity and confidence, let's not forget how we got where we are today. We would all prefer not to have the Government run a deficit and a debt. There is no question about that. Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are a little late in coming to that conclusion. Republican policies were tried in the last Presidency over the last 8 years and were tried in Congress for 10 years. They took a record surplus to a record deficit. They added trillions of dollars in debt, trading away our fiscal health in exchange for subsidies to big oil companies and tax breaks for the wealthy. They rubberstamped a $1 trillion war in Iraq without even accounting for it in the budget. For those who are proclaiming themselves guardians of fiscal responsibility, where were they when Dick Cheney declared that ``deficits don't matter''? Deficits don't matter. So let's be very clear: It is a Republican deficit that we are inheriting and that the President inherited. Even if he did absolutely nothing, he would have well over a $1 trillion deficit. Republican policies got us into the red. As President Obama has made very clear, over the next few years we are going to bring down that deficit he inherited because our long-term financial health depends on it. But right now, there is a bigger question. The question isn't just how do we cut the Republican deficit the Nation inherited; the question is, What kind of country do we want our children to inherit? Do we want them to inherit a country where foreign workers are better trained and better prepared to compete in the global economy or a country where Americans are, bar none, hands-down the best educated, best trained innovators in the world? Should the country they grow up in be one where they stay up at night worrying because one serious illness or injury can drive their family into bankruptcy or one where everybody can sleep soundly, knowing their whole family has health coverage? Is this going to be a nation that is forced to send hundreds of billions of dollars a year to foreign governments to pay for oil or a leader in the development of clean, cheap energy, creating jobs that can't be outsourced in exporting our technologies around the world? Those are the choices we face, and in this budget we have chosen our path with confidence. We are making health care more affordable for the middle class, investing in clean energy to create jobs that can't be outsourced, helping more middle-class Americans get a college education, and cutting taxes for middle-class Americans. That is the kind of country President Obama has promised to help us build, and it is the kind of country we are choosing to build in this budget. In a sense, if we want to get our economy moving again, we don't really have a choice but to make these investments. Since this recession began, more than 4 million Americans have lost their jobs, 600,000 people are losing their jobs every month and often their health insurance along with it. The housing market, the epicenter of this crisis, is still unstable. A tsunami of foreclosures is still devastating our neighborhoods and leaving families on the rocks, while homeowners have seen their homes lose a staggering collective $6.1 trillion in value since 2006. While paychecks are shrinking, Americans continue to send hundreds of billions of dollars every year to foreign countries to pay for their oil. So I don't think there is any doubt that investing in a better future isn't a luxury; it is a necessity. It is time for the kind of reinvestment this country needs to recover our economic dynamism and strengthen the 21st century economy, and that is what this budget does. Let me talk about middle-class tax relief. First, this budget brings immediate tax relief to middle-class families. It brings tax relief to married couples, an expanded child tax credit, and a patch for the alternative minimum tax. That tax, the alternative minimum tax, was originally designed to keep the wealthiest Americans from using creative accounting to avoid all taxes, but it was never intended to hit the middle class as hard as it is hitting them right now. I am proud to have introduced the amendment earlier this year in the stimulus package that passed that saves, for example, in my home State of New Jersey, over a million New Jersey families up to $5,600 a year, and this budget makes a commitment to those taxpayers that they will not be subjected to higher taxes under the alternative minimum tax for the next several years. That is why collectively all of the tax cut benefits--the revenue changes in this budget--are about $825 billion in tax cuts over the next 5 years. That is the kind of relief we need to put money back into people's pockets and give families who are being squeezed some financial breathing room. If you are a middle-class family, there is no doubt that this budget is good for you. Our budget also makes a strong investment in education. There are few instruments and investments we can make that are as important because it is no secret how closely tied our economic success is to success in the classroom. The country that out-teaches us today out-competes us tomorrow. So if we are going to stay at the apex of the curve of intellect and innovation, we need to invest in human capital and give our young people the skills to thrive in a 21st century economy. I know what that means personally. I know what Pell grants and other assistance for higher education means for students and their families. I was raised in a tenement--poor, the son of immigrants, the first in my family to go to college. I know I wouldn't be standing here today as one of 100 Senators in a country of 300 million people if it weren't for the Federal Government's support for higher education. So I am proud that this budget commits to making college more affordable. It boosts Pell grants to $5,550, and it provides a $2,500 credit for higher education through the American opportunity tax credit. That amounts to almost half of tuition at a State college or research university and full tuition at a community college. That is the kind of investment we need to help workers damaged by this crisis as well as to prepare younger people for a brighter future. Our family budgets, our economic competitiveness, the stability of our climate, and our national security all depend on ending our dependence on foreign oil. The budget builds on the economic recovery package, supporting investments in renewable energy, efficiency and conservation, and modernizing the electric grid. I am proud to have authored provisions that bring funding to our communities to help save energy in the most efficient ways they know. The more we assist our hometowns in energy-efficiency projects, the more it creates jobs, brings down our electric and heating bills, and fights the global warming that threatens our very way of life. The budget also takes a major step toward making health care more accessible and affordable. It expands coverage, saves on costs by implementing new technologies, puts a stronger emphasis on prevention and wellness, and supports the kind of research that can find a cure for my mom's Alzheimer's. For years, the administration neglected key areas of the Federal health system. This budget restores them to their rightful importance. We are going to have a National Institutes of Health which will save lives with their innovations. We are going to have an FDA that has the resources to keep the food we put on the table safe to eat and make sure we fully know the risks and rewards of the drugs that come into the market. A larger health care reform is on the way, but up until that happens, our message is very clear: We will not rest until, in this great Nation of ours, no one goes to sleep at night without access to affordable health care. Let me conclude. There is one thing all economic crises have in common: They all end. While history has shown that government can play a constructive role, a recovery can't come from government alone. The jobs of the 21st century are going to be created by the free market within a regulatory structure that prevents it from collapsing on itself. With the kinds of investments we make in this budget, we are paving the way for the private sector to create jobs and start us on the road to economic recovery. The budget sends tax relief where it should go: to working middle- class families. It moves us away from the mistakes of the past by accounting for the costs of the war in Iraq until we withdraw in 2010. It makes health care more affordable and brings a college education within reach for millions of young people. It makes the investments to begin to end our dependence on foreign oil that will keep money in our pockets and create jobs here in America. And it will cut the deficit President Bush left us before the end of President Obama's term. To sum it all up, we put forth a plan to invest in our future and get our economy moving again. It is a plan that puts forth a basic idea about what America should be. It should be a country where anyone willing to work hard can get an education and a job, a country where everyone has access to the medical services that keep them healthy, a country where a lifetime of hard work guarantees the right to retire with dignity, a country that knows its past and cares about its future. We have a lot of work to do. I am tired of hearing just a chorus of noes, the same old politics, the same old Republican policies that got us to where we are today. As President Obama and we try to move forward in a much better direction for the country, what we hear is no, no, and no. This is about saying yes to a brighter future. This is about saying yes to the fulfillment of the opportunities that each and every American should have. This is about saying yes to a new set of policies, and it is about an opportunity to change the direction of our country. I have great faith that we will meet these challenges. This is a country that went to war twice in Europe to beat nazism and fascism and did so. This is a country that put a man on the Moon and created a scientific revolution as a result of it. It is a country that cured diseases that were once thought incurable. It started a technological revolution that still is the envy of the world. And with this budget and working with this President, it is a country that, once again, will lead both at home and abroad. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, today I honor Mary Ellen Rozzell, former President of the National Association of Professional Surplus Lines Offices, NAPSLO, who passed away unexpectedly on March 3, 2009, while attending a NAPSLO conference in Palm Springs, CA. Mary Ellen was a respected, beloved leader. The president of Continental/Marmorstein & Malone Insurance Agency in Paramus, NJ, she began working in the insurance business with the Marmorstein Agency some 40 years ago. Mary Ellen served as president of New Jersey Surplus Lines Association, NJSLA, from 1989-1990, and was named as NJSLA honoree of the year in 1992 due to her outstanding contribution to the New Jersey Surplus Lines Industry. She also served on the New Jersey Insurance Commissioner's Producer Advisory Council, and with the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation. Her warmth, openness, honesty, and good nature made everyone who met her feel immediately comfortable. These qualities served her very well in life, with family and friends, and in her remarkable career where she rose through the ranks with hard work and honesty. She was always prepared for the trials of life and business and the often difficult decisions required by both. She embraced responsibility, expected accountability and never failed those who depended on her. All who knew her benefited by her example. Her family has established the Mary Ellen Rozzell Foundation for AVM Research so that friends and colleagues might contribute to arteriovenous malformation research in Mary Ellen's name. I extend my sympathy to her family and those close to her. She will be missed greatly by everyone she touched.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Section 620 liberalizes individual travel regulations to Cuba for the promotion of agricultural and medical sales. This provision would systemically broaden the category of licenses available and allow individuals, in a self-policing manner, to travel to the island under the auspices of selling such supplies. While I am sympathetic to the U.S. agricultural industry, I remain concerned that provision was written with the aim not of benefitting the private sector but, rather, of undercutting the current travel regulations for individuals and putting a wedge in a broader issue of denying our currency to the Castro regime. Depending on how this provision was implemented, it could encourage a radical break in existing travel regulations and provide the Castro regime with enhanced financial benefit in the pursuit of its repressive policies. As a result, we asked Secretary Geithner specifically how the provision would be implemented. Secretary Geithner assured us in his letter dated March 5, 2009: Regulations promulgated pursuant to that provision, [Section 620] will seek to ensure that only travel for credible sales of food and medical products is authorized. In his letter dated March 9, 2009, Secretary Geithner wrote: The regulations promulgated pursuant to that to provision [Section 620] would provide that the representatives of only a narrow class of business would be eligible, under a new general license, to travel to Cuba to market and sell agricultural and medical goods. Any business using the general license would be required to provide both advance written notice outlining the purpose and scope of the planned travel and, upon return, a report outlining the activities conducted, including the persons with whom they met, the expenses incurred, and business conducted in Cuba. Section 622 concerns cash in advance payments. This provision would strip the ability of the Department of the Treasury to enforce a 2005 amendment that defined the term ``cash in advance.'' In his March 5 letter, Secretary Geithner wrote that the U.S. Treasury ``believes that this change likely will have no influence on current financing rules. The term `cash in advance' is in the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 and therefore private parties are and will continue to be statutorily required to comply with those payment terms. Because the bill's language does not modify or negate the statutory requirement in the 2000 Act, exporters will still be required to receive payments in advance of shipment and will not be permitted to export to Cuba on credit other than through third-country banks.'' Which is the law today. This comes particularly at a moment that is very important. The Paris Club recently announced that Cuba has defaulted on over $9 billion of obligations. At a time that we are facing challenges in the United States in terms of our financial institutions and credit, in general, to be giving credit to a country that has not only a repressive policy but has $30 billion in default is not, in my mind, good policy. President Obama said: My policy toward Cuba will be guided by one word: Libertad---- Which means freedom-- and the road to freedom for all Cubans must begin with justice for Cuba's political prisoners, the rights of free speech, a free press and freedom of assembly; and it must lead to elections that are free and fair. I could not agree more with President Obama on this point, and I fully support him in moving forward in this direction. Finally, I know some of my colleagues might be confused about my persistence with this issue over the last couple of weeks. So let me clarify what, for me, is a principled position. First, I have many citizens in New Jersey whose personal stories speak powerfully to the repression of the Castro regime. Many of them have spent 10 to 20 years of their lives in a prison cell. Their only crime was trying to seek peaceful change in their country. They are now proud U.S. citizens. But they languished in a jail for a decade or two decades simply for seeking to make peaceful change. Many of them were tortured in that process. They are a powerful reminder to me every day, when I am back in New Jersey, of that reality. Second, let me propose that for some it is difficult to imagine the deep personal significance these changes have for the human rights and democracy activists on the island who fight for the ability to speak freely and think freely, as well as my own personal convictions on this issue that my family has both lived under and died trying to change. Changes in our Nation's policy toward Cuba, such as changes in our Nation's policy toward any nation our country determines a state sponsor of terrorism--such as Iran, Sudan, and Syria--are extremely delicate policy issues. Any such changes in our policy with these countries deserve a democratic debate and careful deliberation. It is simply undemocratic to tuck them in the middle of a large unrelated but must-pass spending bill. I thank Secretary Geithner for his understanding of the sensitivity of these issues, working with Senator Nelson and myself to ensure that the spirit of the legislation is carried out in a responsible manner. I also thank my colleagues in the Senate who have worked with us on this and others who have understood and Majority Leader Reid for working with me on getting clarification on the implementation of these provisions. It is disappointing that the process unfolded in this way. We will look just as unkindly upon any future attempts to make significant foreign policy decisions of any sort, not only about Cuba, in this type of secretive and undemocratic manner. Instead, I wish to work with my colleagues in an open and transparent manner to deliberate the substance before we get to this point, even though, at the end of the day, we may still not find common ground. I would, of course, prefer that the provisions not be in this bill at all. But the assurances I have received from Secretary Geithner have allayed my most significant concerns, and I will vote in favor of the Omnibus appropriations bill. I yield to the distinguished senior Senator from Florida, who has been an ally in this effort to ensure that the clarifications needed were there. He is a tremendous advocate for freedom and democracy for the people of Cuba. I was privileged to work with him in getting the clarifications and making sure we are in a position so human rights activists and political dissidents in Cuba still have their opportunity to create change.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to engage my colleagues, Senator Nelson and Senator Martinez, in a colloquy. And as I do, let me start off by saying, we want to take a moment to discuss some important provisions in the omnibus bill. I discussed these provisions at length last week on the Senate floor, and I want to give an update as to where things stand today. As I discussed last week, this bill includes three important foreign policy changes with respect to Cuba that have not been subjected to debate in this body. They have not gone to the Foreign Relations Committee, they have not been subject to a vote in either body, and these modifications deserve a full examination. This has not taken place. Instead, this body would have been forced to swallow these changes in the crudest process I can imagine, without analysis, and without inclusion. Since we have been unable to debate the substance of these provisions, I have asked for a clarification, along with my colleagues, to the Secretary of the Treasury on the implementation of these provisions and expressed my concern for their possible implications and the unproductive signals they might send to those who are fighting for democratic change on the island. We did this to get clear, first, of what might have been major loopholes that could have been exploited by individuals or organizations seeking to circumvent the longstanding and necessary economic embargo. In response, Secretary Geithner has provided me with two letters that I ask unanimous consent be printed in the Record.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. President. Let me now make some broader comments about the omnibus, having expressed my concerns. And, again, in recognition and in light of the assurances we have received on the matter that Senator Nelson, Senator Martinez, and I have discussed, I have come to the floor today to support the omnibus bill. It is an important measure to help our economy recover and keep essential public services running. It includes important funding for my home State of New Jersey, including everything from an initial burst of capital for a new trans-Hudson tunnel--incredibly important to move large numbers of people across the Hudson River to New York, and also for reverse commutes, for economic opportunity, access to hospitals, a whole host of critical issues in a way that is promoting mass transit and does so not only in terms of economic opportunity and an enormous number of jobs that will be created as a result of that but also as it relates to the quality of life and the environment by moving a lot more people in a high-speed, nonpolluting process versus through a car--to support for flood control and protection of our shore--which is incredibly important in terms of the tourism and fishing industry and the economy of New Jersey--to grants that allow local law enforcement to have the latest technology to help the police officer on the beat. This bill invests in education, strengthening our commitment to science over the next decade so we can have a workforce that can compete on a global playing field and be second to no one in terms of that ability in those fields that are going to be the competitive future opportunities for our citizens and for our Nation. It makes strong advances in health care. It includes more than $30 billion for lifesaving research so that the National Institutes of Health leaves no stone unturned in the search for treatment for cancer, for diabetes, and the Alzheimer's that I have watched take over my strong and proud mother. The bill allows us to immunize an additional 15,000 children against debilitating diseases. And it funds the Patient Navigator program I established to help citizens make their way through a complicated health care system. The legislation puts resources toward revitalizing local communities and keeping families in their homes--because the housing crisis is at the root of our overall economic crisis. It funds community and economic development in over 1,000 cities and towns, gives competitive grants to revitalize neighborhoods, and renews section 8 vouchers to help nearly 45,000 families keep a place to call home. In short, the omnibus makes a broad range of the kind of worthy, needed investments that will help our economy recover and our citizens get through this difficult time. I am happy to see the Senate move forward on this vitally important legislation. Although I know I am not the only Senator to have felt frustration in this process, I wish to take this opportunity to express that I am always open to discussions with my colleagues, and I hope we can work together in the future to make sure in the greatest deliberative body in the world we will all do our part to deliberate before we take significant action. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 630

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, what brings me to the floor is the Kyl amendment that is presently before us. I have listened to some of my colleagues say how this is the wrong amendment at the wrong time. I would simply say that, in fact, this is. I happen to agree. I happen to agree that it is at the wrong time. I might very well agree with Senator Kyl on the underpinnings of the amendment. I think we need to do what we must in order to ensure that Iran does not achieve the possibility of a nuclear weapon, and whatever we need to do in pursuing a two-track parallel as we engage them, at the same time have them understand that if engagement is not going to achieve them stopping obtaining a nuclear weapon, that there are consequences. But this is the wrong way to do foreign policy--in an omnibus bill--just as it is the wrong way to do foreign policy on the Cuba provisions in this bill. I am compelled to come to the floor because I will oppose the Kyl amendment particularly because I think it is wrong to include it in an omnibus bill without going through the process--the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and others--to consider in fact whether this is the best policy, to have an open and free debate about it, to be able to vote on it either way after such rigorous debate. But we are being asked to vote for an omnibus bill that has provisions that change a significant foreign policy as it relates to the United States and Cuba. So there is a duality. Finally, I have been reading a lot from our friends in the blogosphere and others, who talk about this issue on Cuba, and the press. What is incredible to me is that they still cannot cite one human rights activist in Cuba, one democracy activist in Cuba, they do not have the name of one prisoner of conscience inside of Cuba. They lose track. They talk about policy, but if it were any other part of the world--if we were talking about Burma, if we were talking about what happens in the Sudan--if we were talking about any other part of the world, we would see the same attention being given to the human rights activists, the democracy activists, the political prisoners inside of Cuba who languish each and every day, and their crime is simply to try to create a civil society with the benefits of the freedoms we enjoy here in the United States--to be able to come to a body like this and be able to debate; to be able to choose our elected representatives; to worship at the altar at which we choose to worship; to be able to enjoy the benefits of the sweat of our labor, whether by brawn or by brain. But there is silence. I am a little tired that we keep reading about those who will spend hours listening to Castro's soliloquies but not spend 1 minute with human rights activists, with political dissidents, with independent journalists. There was a time when we used to help human rights activists and democracy activists in the world; when we put an international spotlight on people such as Lech Walesa in Poland; when we did it with Vaclav Havel in the Czech Republic; when we did it with Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in the former Soviet Union. By creating that spotlight on those individuals, we gave them the opportunity not to be harassed on a daily basis, as Cuba's democracy activists are, in jail and in prison and sentenced, sometimes for a quarter of a century for some minor act that, in fact, we would enjoy here as one of our fundamental freedoms, such as wearing a simple white bracelet that says ``cambio''--change. Change in the last election in the United States would get you elected President. Say ``change'' in Cuba, it sends you to jail. Yet there is silence. There is silence. It is deafening. It is deafening. So I will vote against the Kyl amendment because I think it is the wrong process in an omnibus bill. But, by the same token, you cannot have it one way and say it is wrong to have major foreign policy changes in an omnibus bill and then be silent about the other. It is wrong to say our policies should be changed but not have one word about democracy, human rights, political prisoners. It is amazing to me that people do not know who Oscar Elias Biscetis is, an Afro- Cuban doctor who ultimately was sent to jail for 25 years simply because he refused to perform the abortions the regime called upon him to do. He protested it and he was sent to jail for 25 years; or Marta Beatrice Roque, who, in fact, languishes with health issues, and every time she goes out, most recently to visit a U.S. diplomat, gets beaten along the way; or Antunes, who is on a hunger strike trying to create limited openings in a civil society and protesting the beating and incarceration of another human rights activist. I hope people will get to know their names, such as they did Vaclav Havel and Lech Walesa and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and others in the world whose voices we hear from our colleagues who come here and talk about them. I am proud of them for doing that. They need to start speaking out about the voices of those who languish in Castro's jails and stop losing the romanticism of the regime and start talking about those human rights activists, democracy activists, those who are suffering simply to create an opening in civil society within their country. Then there will be some balance. Then there would be some equity. Then we would have an opportunity to move on broader in the context of policy. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, February 16 of this year marked 50 years since the revolution in Cuba that brought Fidel Castro and his brother, Raul, to power. Some have used this anniversary as an opportunity to put forth some romantic views of the revolution. So I have come to the floor to talk about the realities of the situation in Cuba. The reality is that this golden anniversary for the Castros is an impoverished anniversary for the rest of the country. Over the course of 50 years, the tides of romanticism have come and gone, but they have always crashed hard against the rocks of reality. All the pictures of Che Guevara on T-shirts cannot hide the brutality of the declaration he made before the United Nations in 1964. He said then: hemos fusilado, fusilamos y seguiremos fusilando mientras sea necesario-- Translated that means: [W]e have executed people, we execute people now and we will continue executing people for as long as we deem necessary. No words better sum up the character of the revolution. The Cuban regime has bent and gilded the spirit of their people over a rotten core of brutality, depravation, and fear. Here are the realities of the last five decades on the island: According to the Free Society Project of the Cuban Archive, which has verification for every case, the number of people the regime has murdered or abducted numbers in the thousands, if not the tens of thousands. Hundreds of thousands of children have been separated from their parents. Millions of men, women, and young people have been forced into the fields to cut sugarcane and perform other hard labor against their will. Here are the realities of Cuba today: The Government is, pure and simple, a brutal dictatorship. Every now and then, the regime stages meaningless elections with 609 candidates, all 609 chosen by the regime, vying for only 609 seats in a National Assembly that does not do anything without the approval of the Castro brothers. Despite fertile soil and perfect climate, as well as significant financial assistance, access to food is tightly rationed. The average Cuban worker lives on an income of less than $1 a day. World Bank statistics show that fewer people have telephones, televisions, computers, and cars than in almost any other country in Latin America. The regime makes sure as few people as possible can use the Internet, so that the percentage of people who have access in Cuba is less than in Haiti. The regime's claims about great progress in health care and education are immediately undermined by the costs paid--in lives lost, economic opportunities stolen, and freedoms denied. The island was not rich in 1959. Yet Cubans have fewer opportunities to get ahead than they did 50 years ago. Across a wide variety of indicators of human development, Cuba has watched other countries in Latin America make similar or even greater gains. This poverty has an enormous cost. The widespread desperation of families has forced far too many young girls and boys into becoming sex workers, even though defenders of the revolution constantly cite the elimination of prostitution as one of its supposed accomplishments. In fact, a few years ago, Cuba was listed by Voyeur Magazine as the sex tourism hotspot of the world. So much for that success of the revolution of eliminating prostitution. The Castro revolution has been most adept not at spreading education and prosperity but at instilling penetrating fear and terror, perpetuating their own power through a Stalinist police state. The Cuban security forces were trained to torture by the dreaded Stasi of East Germany and carry on that legacy today. If you doubt that, ask Senator McCain about one of his torturers in Vietnam, a Cuban agent. The world has expressed outrage at the treatment of detainees in the prison at Guantanamo Bay, and President Obama announced he would close it within a year. When the news of that decision reached Juan Carlos Herrera Acosta, who has spent more than 6 years in jail for his political views, he said: Cuando el mundo abrira sus ojos y dira que hay que cerrar los otros guantanamos que existen en Cuba? Translated that means: When will the world open its eyes and say that it's time to close the other Guantanamos in Cuba? There is no excuse for turning a blind eye to the 300 other prisons on the island, prisons that make Guantanamo Bay look tame by comparison. Armando Valladares, who wrote the prize-winning book ``Against All Hope,'' was imprisoned in the infamous Isla de Pinos in 1960 for his opposition to communism. He lived through the hell of Castro's jail, suffering violence, forced labor, and solitary confinement. His writings were smuggled out, read throughout the world, and he was finally released after intense international pressure, 22 years after he was taken prisoner. Here are some of his memories of his captivity: I recall the two sergeants, Porfirio and Matanzas, plunging their bayonets into Ernesto Diaz Madruga's body. . . . Boitel, denied water, after more than fifty days on a hunger strike, because Castro wanted him dead; Clara, Boitel's poor mother, beaten by Lieutenant Abad in a Political Police station just because she wanted to find out where her son was buried. . . . Officers . . . threatened family members if they cried at a funeral. I remember Estebita and Piri dying in blackout cells, the victims of biological experimentation. . . . So many others murdered in the forced-labor fields, quarries and camps. A legion of specters, naked, crippled, hobbling and crawling through my mind, and the hundreds of men mutilated in the horrifying searches [they went through]. Eduardo Capote's fingers chopped off by a machete. Concentration camps, tortures, women beaten. . . . And in the midst of that apocalyptic vision of the most dreadful and horrifying moments in my life, in the midst of the gray, ashy dust and the orgy of beatings and blood, prisoners beaten to the ground, a man emerged, the skeletal figure of a man wasted by hunger with white hair, blazing blue eyes, and a heart overflowing with love, raising his arms to the invisible heaven and pleading for mercy for his executioners. ``Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do.'' And a burst of machine-gun fire ripping open his chest. Those are Armando Valladares' live memories of the 22 years he spent in Castro's jails. This has been going on since 1959, but, unfortunately, it is not a thing of the past. In 2003, armed security forces raided 22 libraries and sent 14 librarians to jail with terms of up to 26 years in prison, simply because they established a library in their community. Oh how dreadful is the power of a book that could cause those people who created libraries to spend a quarter of a century in prison. That year, it rounded up 75 journalists, human rights activists and opposition leaders and gave them summary trials and sent them to jail for up to 28 years. To put a human face on this, because sometimes we talk about dictatorships and the consequences of their actions and we talk about people in mass numbers--but these are the faces: Oswaldo Paya; Marta Beatriz Roque; Oscar Espinosa Chepe; Armando Valladares, whom I quoted; and others who actually languish inside the jails in Cuba and who have been beaten and/or who ultimately have been harassed in the pursuit of peaceful civil society movements. In 2003, Fidel Castro ordered one of the most sweeping, brutal crackdowns on opposition figures in years--a roundup of 75 dissidents and their summary trials. In that black spring, his agents took away Marta Beatriz Roque. She is an economist, a leader of a group called the Assembly for Promoting Civil Society, a coalition of nongovernmental organizations dedicated to peaceful democratic change on the island. In 2003, she was sentenced to 20 years behind bars for the crime of wanting peaceful change, for the crime of speaking her mind. In prison, her diabetes and blood pressure made her so ill that the regime let her leave her tiny cell. But they did not let her go far. Two years later, the Government sent a mob to attack her as she was traveling to meet a U.S. diplomat. They beat her. And when she tried to leave to get medical care, they trapped her in her home. She was 60 years old. Now, every day of her life, she knows she could wake up and be thrown in a cell once more, left to die for the crime of thinking independent thoughts, for the crime of asking for change. During the crackdown in the spring of 2003, Fidel Castro also arrested Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet. Dr. Biscet founded the Lawton Foundation for Human Rights, one of the first independent civic groups in Havana. On February 27, 1999, he was arrested for hanging the national flag sideways at a press conference, and he was sentenced to 3 years in jail. He was protesting the forced abortions he was ordered to perform. After his release, he organized seminars on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for Cubans. And he was arrested again in December of 2002 for organizing these seminars. In April of 2003, he was sentenced to 25 years in jail and sent to a special state prison. I have, in the Chamber, this picture of his jail cell. His dark, damp cell is barely bigger than he is. In 2007, he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honor this country gives to anyone. But he still has not won something far more important: his own freedom. He still languishes in a cell like this. It is a myth that detentions of activists has dropped off since Raul Castro, Fidel Castro's brother, took power. More than 1,500 were rounded up last year, according to the Cuban Commission on Human Rights and National Reconciliation, an independent observer group. They may be released temporarily, but they are always subject to rearrest. Multiple human rights organizations confirm that the Cuban regime is still holding more than 200 political prisoners whom we know of-- independent journalists, economists, human rights workers, and doctors all jailed for speaking their minds. In the United States, we saw an election last year that was all about a powerful call for change. The year before, 70 young Cuban youth were walking down the streets of Havana and detained simply for wearing a white wristband that has one simple word on it: ``CAMBIO''--``Change.'' All they did was wear a simple, white wristband to express what they wanted to see. While in the United States, the mantra of change can get you elected to the Presidency of the United States. In Cuba, the mere suggestion of change can get you arrested. What an irony. The dictatorship maintains a network of spies on every single block. It is called ``El Comite por la Defensa de la Revolucion.'' It is a block-watch organization in every city, in every village, in every hamlet. If they suspect you, first, you will find yourself quietly demoted at work. Then you will lose your job. You will wake up one morning and your house will be covered in graffiti calling your family worms. You will walk outside and four former friends will now spit in your path. The case of Adolfo Fernandez Sainz could hardly be more representative. He is a journalist forced to spend 15 years of his life behind bars, in part for the crime of owning the novel by George Orwell, ``1984.'' Fifteen years of his life behind bars. But the saddest proof that a country is operated like a prison is when people are shot trying to escape. It was a hallmark of Soviet Russia and East Germany, Communist Hungary and Czechoslovakia, but today the Caribbean is the Cuban's Berlin Wall. All boats and building materials belong to the State, so taking a shipment to the waters or even building a raft can be considered crimes, often punishable by death. Cuban planes have attacked ships from the air. The Cuban Navy has attacked ships from the sea, surrounding boats, sinking them, sending men, women, and children to the bottom of the ocean. The Cuba Archive has documented almost 250 cases of assassinations as people fled, in addition to the countless thousands who have died at sea, either drowning or being killed by sharks. Those Florida Straits, as people searched for freedom, are the burial grounds of so many that we don't know. Cubans know the risks, and yet they continue to seek freedom. Since 2005, the Washington Post cites the number who have fled to America or sought to flee to America at 80,000--some of the country's best and brightest, risking arrest and death, leaving under the cover of darkness. Since 1959, according to the Center for the Study of International Migrations, nearly 1.7 million Cubans have been forced into exile. For those who cannot leave, there is another sign of despair on the island. The World Health Organization data reveals a sad fact: that Cuba has one of the highest suicide rates in the hemisphere. For over five decades we have seen democracy take hold in every country on the Western Hemisphere but one--one island, suspended in the past, resisting the tide of history, its people waiting for something to change. In 1962, the United States restricted commerce within travel to Cuba. It stands as a legal, political, and moral statement that we reject the dictatorship's abuses and it serves as a way to weaken the regime. At the beginning, it was embargoed in name only. U.S. foreign subsidiaries were allowed to freely commerce with Cuba and it wasn't until the mid-1980s that these loopholes were closed. The Cuba Democracy Act and later the Libertad Act caused the Cuban regime to downsize what had become the third largest military per capita in the Western Hemisphere. That was good for the Cuban people and good for the hemisphere because Castro could no longer send his troops to promote revolution and to destabilize Latin American countries. But that came about not out of ideological change by the Castro brothers; it came about as a result of economic necessity. The U.S. dollar--the most hated symbol of the revolution and illegal to own for quite some time--is now eagerly sought by the regime, creating a divide in Cuba. It is a divide between those who have access to U.S. dollars from their families and can use them at state-run dollar stores with prices that gouge those Cubans--and millions who have no family to send them dollars and chafe at that disparity. They question a regime that doesn't allow the freedom to work at jobs such as tourism and others, that might give them access to those dollars. This conflict exists because these circumstances came about not as a change in Castro's ideology; they came about because of economic necessity. Economic necessity, not ideological change, further drove the regime to accept international investment--specifically, in tourism and mining-- something that was also previously illegal. This has created resentment by Cubans who are sent to work at these establishments by a state employment agency; and where the Cuban who goes to work at these foreign companies, their labor is sent there, they have to go work there, they get paid in worthless Cuban pesos, while the state gets paid in dollars for their labor. They get a fraction of the cost of their labor. In addition, foreign companies summarily fire workers without recourse and get new workers from the state employment agency--no questions asked. Cubans have been denied access to visit these hotels in their own country and now--only now--are they told they can do so if they can pay hundreds of dollars a night when they make less than a dollar a day. Notwithstanding these economic challenges that have created pressure for change in Cuba, opponents of the embargo are quick to point out that it has been in place for many years and the Castros remain in power. They seem very confident that allowing more American money to flow into Cuba will magically topple the regime. The truth is their prediction about cause and effect runs completely contrary to what has actually happened there. Over the years, millions of Europeans, Canadians, Mexicans, South and Central Americans, among others, have visited Cuba, invested in Cuba, spent billions of dollars, signed trade agreements, and engaged politically. And what has been the result of all of that money and all of that engagement? The regime has not opened up; on the contrary, it has used resources to become more oppressive. Foreign funds often temporarily reach the hands of Cuban families, but they are then forced to spend those dollars in government-run dollar stores so that the money ultimately winds up in the hands of the Cuban Government and many suspect in the secret bank accounts of the Communist Party elite. So allowing Americans to sit on beaches which Cubans cannot visit unless they work there; smoking a Cuban cigar for which a worker gets slave wages, sipping a Cuba libre, which is an oxymoron, will not bring the Cuban people their liberty. When the government isn't manipulating international aid, it sometimes rejects it altogether, as it did during last year's hurricane season, further punishing its people. So I ask those who argue that lifting the economic embargo on Cuba means the demise of the Castro regime--nothing I would want to see more--why, then, has lifting the embargo been the No. 1 foreign policy objective of the Castro regime? Does it seek its own demise after 50 years? Certainly not. What it seeks is the economic viability to continue to perpetuate itself. But beyond the practical realities, I think there is also a broader principle at stake. Now, as power has passed somewhat--because Fidel is still alive--from Fidel to Raul, from one dictator to another, are we to declare that their tyranny outlasted our will to resist it? When a murderer escapes the police and is a fugitive, do we declare them innocent after a few years because we haven't caught them? Should we suddenly say it is too much for the Cuban people to be able to decide for themselves what course their nation will take? Should we decide to suddenly legitimize the behavior of the regime and strengthen its ability to continue perpetuating crimes? Which one of the freedoms we seek for the Cuban people as a condition of our full engagement as a country are we willing to deny them? Which one--free speech, free association, freedom of religion, freedom to politically organize and elect their own leadership? Which one? Which one of those freedoms that we are willing to say to the Cuban people they cannot enjoy are we willing to give up? I have also heard the suggestion from opponents of legal restrictions on Cuba that the United States has dealt with other brutal dictatorships more openly than this one. Those who make that argument must have a strange definition of a successful policy. If we consider prison camps and child labor, forced abortions and slavery, violent suppression of protest, Tiananmen Square, ethnic cleansing of Tibet, and denial of human rights, be it in China or anywhere around the world, anywhere these violations are happening, if we are willing to accept that as successful engagement, I believe we are deeply mistaken. The disregard of human rights violations for the sake of economic gain in the past is never an argument to do it again in the future. A full and open discussion of the real situation in Cuba is timely for more reasons than the fiftieth anniversary of Castro's revolution. It is timely because in this Omnibus appropriations bill that we have before us there are some who have attempted to sneak in changes to our current policy. But perhaps the greatest irony of all is that this bill includes three important foreign policy changes with respect to Cuba that have not been subjected to debate in this body. They have not been questioned for their impact on both our national interests and our national security. They have not gone through the Foreign Relations Committee. They have not been subjected to a vote on the floor of either the House of Representatives or the Senate. These modifications deserve a full examination. They should be subjected to vigorous debate. We should gather evidence, bring a wide range of voices to the table, and make careful and thoughtful considerations of their implications. But this isn't what is taking place. Instead, this body is being asked to swallow these changes in the crudest process I can imagine: without analysis, without inclusion, and without debate. Now, supporters of these modifications claimed that they are carrying them out in the hopes of fostering democratic change in Cuba, even as they do so in a way that silences democratic debate in our country. The United States cannot claim to be a model for democratic process and inclusive change if we find ourselves resorting to such undemocratic means. Jamming these foreign policy changes in an Omnibus appropriations package by a handful of Members at the exclusion of the rest of this body, not to mention the rest of the other body, and not to mention the executive branch, whose jurisdictions these changes fall within, is simply not democratic. These changes come in the same week that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's ranking member, and my very dear, distinguished colleague from Indiana, Senator Lugar, produced a staff trip report. I have seen it quoted as the ``committee's report.'' It is the staff trip report, and I respect that it has some value, but it is not the full committee's undertaking and approval. The memo suggests some of the very things we see in this omnibus. But instead, in my view of a responsible report, this document presents a loose set of recommendations based upon a few days of observations on the island by a single source, and none of it quotes the fact that there was an engagement with one human rights activist, with one political dissident, with one democracy activist, with one independent journalist--not one. Now I ask my colleagues: Does it make any sense that we would see such a basis for a report based upon what are clearly superficial observations, followed by sweeping and untested recommendations about how we should engage with the last totalitarian dictatorship in the Western Hemisphere? Let me point out a few of the main contradictions in that report. First, the lack of focus on democracy and human rights in the memo was astonishing to me. In a literal and in a legal sense, support for Cuba's prodemocracy movement is at the core of United States policy toward Cuba. It is represented in law under the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996. The report doesn't even mention the centrality of representative democracy in United States policy toward Cuba and the entire hemisphere. By the same token, the memo does not even mention that the United States of America is the world's--the world's--largest provider of humanitarian assistance to the people of Cuba through both individual assistance and nongovernmental organizations. This fact makes it indisputably clear: The focus of United States policy is the Cuban people--not its regime--advocating for their freedom and empowering them to bring change. The way the memo addresses the economic situation on the island is no less of an enormous flaw. On the one hand, this memo claims that economic sanctions have been ineffective, but on the other hand, it says: ``Popular dissatisfaction with Cuba's economic situation is the regime's vulnerability.'' What a contradiction. But it would be even more of a contradiction for the United States to do anything to rescue the regime by improving its economic portion, therefore neutralizing its vulnerability. This report says that ``popular dissatisfaction [that people's dissatisfaction] with Cuba's economic situation is the regime's vulnerability.'' But it would be even more of a contradiction for the U.S. to do anything to rescue the regime by improving its economic fortunes, therefore neutralizing its vulnerability. Yet that is exactly what one of the recommendations in the memo that is included in the omnibus would do. That suggested policy change would give the Cuban regime financial credit to purchase agricultural products from the United States. On its face, that would seem like a concession to American farmers. We certainly want to see American farmers sell all over the world. But let's think about this for a moment. Anyone applying for even a small loan in our country right now has to undergo--if their credit record is poor, they would be rejected for that loan. Well, Cuba's credit history is horrible. The Paris Club of creditor nations recently announced that Cuba has failed to pay almost $30 billion in debt. Among poor nations, that is the worst credit record in the world. So I ask: If the Cuban Government has put off paying those it already owes $30 billion, why does anybody think it would meet new financial obligations to American farmers? Considering the serious economic crisis we are facing right now, we need to focus on solutions for hard-working Americans, not subsidies for brutal dictatorships. We should evaluate how to encourage the regime to allow a legitimate opening--not in terms of cell phones and hotel rooms that Cubans can't afford to own, but in terms of the right to organize, the right to think and speak what they believe. However, what we are doing with this omnibus bill is far from evaluation. The process by which these changes have been forced upon this body is so deeply offensive to me and so deeply undemocratic that it puts the Omnibus appropriations package in jeopardy, despite all the other tremendously important funding this bill would provide. The real reason why so many--and we have seen this barrage of reports that come particularly from outside of this body, whose work, by the way, is often subsidized by business interests--advocate Cuba policy change is about money and commerce; it is not about freedom and democracy. It makes me wonder why those who spend hours and hours in Havana listening to Fidel Castro's soliloquies cannot find minutes for human rights and democracy advocates. It makes me wonder why those who go and enjoy the sun of Cuba will not shine the light of freedom on its jails full of political prisoners. It makes me wonder how they advocate for labor rights in the United States but are willing to accept forced labor in Cuba. They talk about democracy in Burma, but they are willing to sip rum with Cuba's dictators. There is another report that came out last week, which I hope this body does not vote on the omnibus bill without reading. It is the State Department's 2008 Human Rights Report. I want to read from it at length, in case my colleagues don't have the opportunity. It says, referring to Cuba's human rights situation: The government continued to deny its citizens their basic human rights and committed numerous, serious abuses. The government denied citizens the right to change their government. . . . As many as 5,000 citizens served sentences for ``dangerousness,'' without being charged with any specific crime. The following human rights problems were reported: beatings and abuse of detainees and prisoners, including human rights activists, carried out with impunity; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions, including denial of medical care; harassment, beatings, and threats against political opponents by government-recruited mobs, police, and State security officials; arbitrary arrest and detention of human rights advocates and members of independent professional organizations; denials of fair trials; and interference with privacy, including pervasive monitoring of all private communications. It goes on to say: There were also severe limitations on freedom of speech and press; denial of peaceful assembly and association; restrictions on freedom of movement, including selective denial of exit permits to citizens and the forcible removal of persons from Havana to their hometowns; restrictions on freedom of religion; and refusal to recognize domestic human rights groups or permit them to function legally. Discrimination against persons of African descent, domestic violence, underage prostitution, trafficking in persons, and severe restrictions on worker rights, including the right to form independent unions, were also a problem. That is the end of the quote from the latest State Department Report on Human Rights--in this case talking about Cuba. President Obama often repeats what Martin Luther King understood-- that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. The people of Cuba have never given up on their aspirations for democracy and economic freedom. Now is not the time to give up on them. Because we can't do everything doesn't mean we should not do everything we can. A new American President does mean an opportunity for change. President Obama, who saw repression in Indonesia when he was a child, promises us this. He said this in a speech in Florida as a candidate: My policy toward Cuba will be guided by one word: libertad [that means freedom]. And the road to freedom for all Cubans must begin with justice for Cuba's political prisoners, the rights of free speech, a free press and freedom of assembly; and it must lead to elections that are free and fair. So here is what I think we can do to help that happen. Much has been written about seeking change in our policy. Let me offer some changes as well, as someone who has followed this his whole life. In exchange for more liberal remittances to Cuban families, let us insist that the Cuban regime not charge 20 percent of every dollar sent to Cuba. Say I have family in Cuba and I want to send them money to help them out in desperate times, and I send them $100. The Cuban regime takes $20 of that. Why? If you go to Western Union and send money anyplace in the world, it's maybe 3, 4, or 5 percent--not 20. The regime is taking money for itself, denying Cuban families the very opportunity to have more. Let us also allow remittances, via license, to human rights activists, democracy activists, and other civil society advocates. Some suggest that there be cooperation with Cuba on narcotics trafficking. Well, let them hand over the 200 fugitives from the United States that the FBI knows are in Cuba, including JoAnne Chesimard, the convicted killer of New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster. Let her come back to the United States and face justice. There are 200 of them. In exchange for more frequent visits from Cuban-American families who bring money and resources to the island, let us insist that the Cuban regime permit those who want to travel to Cuba and visit human rights activists, democracy activists, independent journalists, and other civil society advocates, be given visas as well. Today, Members of Congress and others who want to promote democracy and human rights in Cuba, as we do in organizations throughout the world, are routinely denied entrance into Cuba. Those who want to sit with Castro and let him speak for hours about the revolution get a visa. Those who want to go talk to these people in the photos, who languish inside either Cuba's jails or are detained in their homes and are struggling to create democracy, no, you cannot get a visa. They are happy to accept those who bring dollars but not those who speak truth to power. Let us have the United States offer more visitor and student visas for eligible Cubans to come to the United States to see and live our way of life. Having Americans travel to Cuba could never be as powerful as having Cuban youth see the greatness of our country and its pluralistic, diverse representative democracy. That taste of freedom would be infectious. In return, we simply seek a commitment from Cuba to accept their citizens' return, and to guarantee the issuance of exit permits for all qualified migrants. Cuba is one of the few countries in the world that will not permit its citizens to travel even when they have a legitimate visa to do so. And when they give them license to leave, they must pay to do so. If we want to facilitate the sales of food to Cuba, let us insist they be sold in open markets, available to all Cubans, without it being part of Castro's food rationing plan--a plan meant to further control the Cuban people. For those who disagree with our policies toward Cuba, let them ask themselves: What are they doing to promote democracy, human rights, and civil society in Cuba? What are they doing to support Antunez, Oswaldo Paya, Marta Beatriz Roque, and Oscar Elias Biscet? What are they doing to cast an international spotlight on Cuba's valiant human rights activists, Cuba's equivalents of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Vaclav Havel, or Lech Walesa? Do they sit back as they languish in jail or are harassed or do they invite them to their embassies in Cuba, to speak in their countries about their struggles for freedom? Do they raise the issue of human rights in Cuba with the Castro regime? Do they cast a spotlight on these people, as we did in Poland with Lech Walesa, or in the former Czechoslovakia with Vaclav Havel, and with Solzhenitsyn? In pursuing any proposal or policy change, we have to recognize, as President Obama made clear to repressive regimes throughout the world in his inaugural address, that we extend a hand if they are willing to unclench their fist. However, if the omnibus bill is signed by the President as is, he will be extending a hand while the Castro regime maintains its iron-handed clenched fist. During his Presidential campaign, then-Senator Obama promised this. He said: I will maintain the embargo. It provides us with the leverage to present the regime with a clear choice: If you take significant steps toward democracy, beginning with the freeing of all political prisoners, we will take steps to begin normalizing relations. He said: That's the way to bring about real change in Cuba--through strong, smart and principled diplomacy. That was the policy that Americans understood he would pursue when they voted for him. I believed then that Candidate Obama meant what he said, and I believe now that President Obama intends to remain true to his word. Following our conscience and our laws, we simply cannot let up our pressure on the regime without seeing symbols of progress. The United States and the international community must continue to work diligently to help bring freedom to Cuba. But we cannot forget how many valiant efforts have come within Cuba itself, how decades of fear and repression have also led to acts of courage. I stand here today in solidarity with all of those brave Cubans who have sacrificed and shown remarkable courage so that one day the Cuban people will finally know the basic blessings of liberty that we are entitled to as human beings and that we in this Nation enjoy. Just days ago, 130 Cubans kept vigil outside of the Placetas Hospital, waiting for news about the condition of a young activist, Iris Tamara Perez Aguilara, who had gone into hypoglycemic shock after a hunger strike to protest the regime. This is not the best picture, but it is what we got out of Cuba. It is a picture of some of them talking about: In this home live those who are having a hunger strike for peaceful change and for respect for human rights and specifically talking against the torture of one of their colleagues. She has been joined in her hunger strike by her husband Jorge Luis Garcia Perez ``Antunez,'' along with Segundo Rey Cabrera and Diosiris Santana Perez. They have avowed to continue their protest until the torture of political prisoner Mario Alberto Perez Aguilera, held at the Santa Clara Provincial Prison, ceases immediately. They will continue their protest until he is taken out of a tiny solitary confinement cell, until he is no longer beaten and forced to starve, until the regime allows Antunez's sister, Caridad Garcia Perez, to rebuild her home destroyed by the hurricanes last year, which they have not allowed as further punishment to these activists. Imagine that: Your home is lost in a hurricane. You want to rebuild it, and the regime stops you from being able to rebuild the home as further punishment because of your peaceful efforts to try to create change and respect for human rights in the country. When Iris emerged from the hospital the other day, the Cuban citizens waiting outside surrounded her to express their thanks and support for what she was doing. They hoped she would keep up her work for an organization named after an American pioneer they deeply admire. It is called the el Movimiento Feminista de Derechos Civiles Rosa Parks--the Rosa Parks women's civil rights movement. The hundreds of political prisoners and all Cubans who live with the daily chains of political repression have shown their commitment that Cuba will change, and this change will come from within, from the Cuban people. But they need our help. We must continue to fight here to do what we can to empower them. We must continue to acknowledge them when they empower themselves. Let me close with what President Obama has quoted. He quoted Jose Marti who once wrote: It is not enough to come to the defense of freedom with epic and intermittent efforts when it is threatened at moments that appear critical. Every moment is critical for the defense of freedom. This year, 50 years later, Cuba is still in the cold winter of poverty and oppression. But I hold up hope that people all around the world, and most importantly within Cuba itself, will use this remarkable moment and every moment, as they are doing, as these men and women are doing, to bring about a new birth of freedom, to rise up in a groundswell that will thaw the frost of tyranny and bring about a spring of hope and change--change the Cuban people can believe in, change that they are praying for. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I wish to thank the distinguished majority leader for his longtime support for the Cuban people, for taking the votes and positions when it is not within the popular mainstream. And I appreciate his expression of support today as a continuation of that long history. He has my personal admiration. More importantly, those who are struggling for freedom and democracy inside Cuba appreciate it as well.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, will the majority leader yield for a moment?