Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions be discharged from further consideration of S. 2902, and the bill be referred to the Committee on Small Business.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 716, S. Res. 515.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. I move to reconsider the vote, and 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, the Veterans' Benefit Enhancement Act we are debating contains a number of important benefits to provide for our veterans. It would expand eligibility for traumatic injury insurance, provide job training, and help disabled veterans make their homes more accessible. That is all worthy. There is also another issue. In 1941, President Roosevelt called on the people of the Philippines to fight for their freedom and ours, and thousands of brave Filipinos answered the call. They carried out operations to liberate their homeland and joined us in support of our efforts in the Pacific theater. They fought and died at Corregidor, they were with us on the beaches of Bataan, and in the death marches. They were there when General MacArthur promised he would return, they fought using guerrilla tactics to tie down the Japanese, and they fought under General MacArthur when he came back and said, ``I have returned.'' Throughout the war, Filipino soldiers fought under the American flag, serving with valor, strength, and dignity. President Roosevelt guaranteed those brave soldiers that the United States would come to their aid in times of peace, just as they had come to our aid during times of war. He guaranteed them equal veterans' benefits--a fair promise, considering their service and considering the law of the land, as they were full members of the U.S. military. But in 1946 in one of the most misguided legislative actions at the time, Congress took away the benefits that the President of the United States had promised them, benefits they had rightfully earned. Of the approximately 250,000 Filipino veterans who fought for us in America, only 18,000 are still alive today. Many of them are searching for ways to pay for health care and struggling in ways they never should. These veterans have more yesterdays than tomorrows. They are well into their eighties, and in terms of our budget, what this bill would cost over the next 10 years we are spending in Iraq every 18 hours. Those who say it will cost too much are the same voices who said it would cost too much to do what Democrats did under the leadership of Senator Akaka when, for the first time, we fully funded the veterans independent budget. When we bring this bill to a vote, we will be answering a very simple but powerful question: Does our Nation keep its promises? We need to right an injustice of the past and show our allies, for future purposes as well, when we tell people to join us in our fight against terrorism, to join us in our fight against other challenges in the world, that America honors its obligations to those who fight for the values and principles we collectively share. This is a critical time to send a message to friends of freedom across the world that we remember our allies, and we pay our debts. Our distinguished colleagues in this Senate who have served during World War II have said this is not simply a question of budget, this is a question of honor. These individuals of honor put their lives on the line for our Nation, and now the honor of our Nation is on the line. Let's just show a fraction of the bravery they did and vote to restore to them what they were promised, what was the law, and what they rightfully earned. Now, like lawyers, there are some who are picking on points here or there to build a case against these benefits. In my mind it is a case made of sand. Let's vote to bring an honorable ending to this story and in however small a way let us pledge now to give them dignity in the twilight of their lives. I urge my colleagues to support Senator Akaka's bill as it is to be able to keep our word in the world. Mr. President, to reiterate, the Veterans' Benefits Enhancement Act that we are debating contains a number of important measures to provide for our veterans. It would expand eligibility for traumatic injury insurance, provide job training, help disabled veterans make their homes more accessible. And that is all worthy. But there is also another issue. In 1941, President Roosevelt called on the people of the Philippines to fight for their freedom and ours, and thousands of brave Filipinos answered the call. They carried out operations to liberate their homeland, and joined us in support of our efforts in the Pacific Theater. They fought and died at Corregidor. They were with us on the beaches at Bataan, and in the death marches. They were there when General MacArthur promised he would return, they fought using guerilla tactics to tie down the Japanese, and they fought under General MacArthur when he came back and said, ``I have returned.'' Throughout the war, Filipino soldiers fought under the American flag, serving with valor, strength, and dignity. President Roosevelt guaranteed those brave soldiers that the United States would come to their aid in times of peace just as they had come to our aid during times of war. He guaranteed them equal veterans' benefits--a fair promise, considering their service, and considering the law of the land, as they were full members of the U.S. military. But in 1946, in one of the most misguided legislative actions of the time, Congress took away the benefits that the President of the United States had promised them--benefits they had rightfully earned. Of the approximately 250,000 Filipino veterans who fought for us in America, only about 18,000 are still alive today. Many of them are searching for ways to pay for health care, and are struggling in ways they never should. These veterans have more yesterdays than tomorrows. They are all well into their eighties. In terms of our budget, what this bill would cost over the course of 10 years, we are spending in Iraq every 18 hours. So those who say it costs too much are the same voices who said that it would cost too much to do what Democrats did under the leadership of Senator Akaka, when for the first time we fully funded the veterans independent budget. When we bring this bill to a vote, we will be answering a very simple but powerful question: Does our Nation keep its promises? We need to right an injustice of the past and show our allies for future purposes as well; when we tell people join us in our fight against terrorism, join us in our fight against other challenges in the world that America honors its obligation to those who fight for the values and our principles that we collectively share. This is a critical time to send a message to friends of freedom across the world: we remember our allies and we pay our debts. Our distinguished colleagues in the Senate who have served during World War II have said, this is not simply a question of budget. This is a question of honor. These individuals of honor put their lives on the line for our Nation, and now the honor of our Nation is on the line. Let us show them just a fraction of the bravery they did, and vote to restore them what they were promised, what was the law and what they rightfully earned. Now, like lawyers there are some who are picking on points here and there to build a case against these benefits, in my mind is a case made of sand. Let us vote to bring an honorable ending to this story and in however small a way, let us pledge now to give them dignity in the twilight of their life. I really urge my colleagues to support Senator Akaka's bill as it is, and be able to keep our word in the world. If I have any remaining time, I yield it back to Senator Akaka.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I understand my distinguished colleague from Alabama has a colloquy with Senator Martinez for 5 minutes or so. I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized after the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I am here today to stand up for equal pay for women. Now, that is something we have been working toward for a long time, but we are still falling short of the goal. For decades we have come together across party lines to help men and women earn the same wage for the same work. The Senate voted overwhelming for equal pay when President Kennedy was in office. We gave our support to the Civil Rights Act under President Johnson. We renewed that support during President Reagan's term and during the term of the first President Bush. So we have had this history of supporting this proposal, this rule of law, under both Democratic and Republican Presidents. Even after all the progress we have made, we still have a long way to go. But last year, five conservative Supreme Court Justices threw a roadblock against fair pay for women. Here is what happened. A woman named Lilly Ledbetter was one of only a few supervisors at a tire plant. She worked 12-hour shifts and constantly had to endure insults from her male bosses just because she was a woman doing what was thought to be a man's job. It was not until late in her career that she discovered her company was cheating her, paying her up to 40 percent less--40 percent less-- than her male colleagues earned doing the same exact job. Lilly filed a claim, and a jury awarded her full benefits, full damages. But the Supreme Court said she was entitled to nothing--to nothing--simply because she did not discover the pay discrimination early enough. According to the Court, in the narrow 5 to 4 decision, if you do not discover that you are being discriminated against right after your employer starts doing it, you might have to suffer the consequences for your entire career, and not only for your career of being shortchanged fair pay for what, in fact, you were doing equal to anybody else, man or woman on that company's agenda, but at the same time having a consequence as it relates to your pension and your benefits and your Social Security because all of those were factored by the income you make. So when your income is discriminated against, even though you are doing the same job as anyone else in the company in that category, not only do you not receive the income during your working life, but you have a consequence for the rest of your life, in your retirement. It is a discrimination that keeps on discriminating. Today we have a chance to change that, to make things right. Discrimination is discrimination no matter when it happens. If someone breaks the law, they should be held accountable for it. This body must make it clear that women should be treated the same as men. We must make it undeniably clear that every worker should be paid fairly for their labor. We must proclaim in a unified voice the same types of voices that have previously held together in this body almost unanimously: that discrimination will not be accepted in the workplace, discrimination will not be tolerated in America. The idea behind the Fair Pay Restoration Act is simple. It would restate the rule that the clock for filing a wage discrimination claim starts running from the day a worker receives a discriminatory paycheck, not the day the employer first decides to discriminate. This is, in essence, what the law was before the Court decision. It was the law of the land for a long time. All we simply say is, the Court is wrong. And even one of the Justices from the bench in a dissenting opinion said: ``This is something that Congress needs to change.'' If a female worker sees her wages are continuously falling behind those of her male counterparts, she should be able to challenge her employer, even if the original decision to discriminate was made years ago. As long as the discrimination continues, the right of a worker to challenge it should continue as well. This does not only benefit women, it helps all in our country if they are getting cheated in their paycheck on account of their age, or their race, a disability, their national origin, or what religion they belong to. Now, as usual, there are those who are trying to defend the status quo and scare us into believing that this law would cause a flood of litigation and undercut corporations' bottom lines. Unfortunately for them, history is not on their side in terms of those false fears. We know this legislation is workable and fair because it was the law of the land for decades, for decades before the Supreme Court made its ruling. All this bill would do is make the law what it was before it was widely interpreted to be only 1 year ago. We simply want to return the standard to be able to protect an individual at the workplace from discrimination simply as the law was for decades before. And this is not exposing companies to unlimited damages either. The fact is, liability is still limited to 2 years of back pay following the standard set in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We will hear a lot of goblins here, but the reality is the legislation we are considering as it was limits a company's liability to 2 years of back pay. Now, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will ask why workers often cannot file their claim within 180 days from the first instance of discrimination. Well, there are good reasons. There are good reasons for that. To begin with, many workers have difficulty comparing their salaries to coworkers, with many businesses actually prohibiting it, prohibiting an employee from making or attempting to make these comparisons. Why would a company be concerned about the comparisons among people doing the same job within the context of a company? Why? What is it that they have to fear? What is it they have to hide? Even if a worker sees their pay is lower than their coworkers, they may not recognize it was a result of discrimination. If a worker does recognize it as discrimination, they often have to wait to contact the EEOC or decide not to due to feeling ashamed or, more often, they fear retaliation by their company, and that is a real fear. They fear the consequences of rocking the boat and figure a job in which they are discriminated against is better than being fired and having no job at all. Certainly, in this economy today, an economy that does not work for working families, those who are fortunate enough to have a job have to think about that extra burden of raising their voice against discrimination because they might, in fact, lose a job. So when people ask: Why can't they within 180 days go ahead and file their complaints, it is because it simply doesn't always work that way. I would ask those who raise the question: What happened during the decades of the standard of the law that existed? No one raised those concerns then. Here is what it comes down to. If you vote against this bill, you are going on record and telling an entire nation you want to make it harder for a woman to get paid the same as a man for the same work. It is not about working less. It is not about having a privileged role. It is about being able to achieve pay for doing the same exact job, with all the pressures, all the challenges, all the skills anyone else would have, male or female. These are challenging economic times, and the challenges are especially tough for women. For every dollar a man gets paid, women get paid 77 cents. Women's earnings have fallen six times as much as men as our economy began sliding toward a recession last year. The truth is, the glass ceiling might be a little higher than it was, but it is still there. I don't want my daughter, who is fortunate to have gone to a great university, graduated, incredibly smart, to realize less in her power to earn simply because she is a woman compared to those with whom she is competing. Yet if we let the law stand the way it is, that very well can be institutionalized as something that may happen. It is our responsibility as legislators, as Americans, as human beings to make sure this country holds the same promise for women as it does for men and that in the future our daughters have the same opportunities as our sons. Restoring a woman's opportunity to fight for fair pay is a big part of that. It has to be part of a broader strategy to get our economy back on track. We have to bring down the cost of health care, create green-collar jobs, and help workers get the training and education they need to succeed in a global environment in which intellect is the greatest asset the Nation is going to have, a world that has been transformed, where the boundaries of mankind have largely been erased in the pursuit of human capital so an engineer's report is created in India and sent back to the United States for a fraction of the cost, a radiologist's report is done in Pakistan and read in a local hospital by your doctor for a fraction of cost or, if you have a problem with your credit card, as I recently did, you end up in a call center in South Africa. The reality is that for the delivery of services created by an individual, we are globally challenged. For America to continue to be the leader economically, it needs to be at the apex of the curve of intellect, the most highly educated generation of Americans we have ever had. Even as we move toward achieving those educational goals, what is it worth if my daughter graduates from Harvard but still makes 77 cents on the dollar that a man makes? It is fundamentally wrong. If we are going to prosper as a nation, that prosperity must be shared. I have said it before and it is as true as it ever was: Only a society with no second- class citizens can be a first-class society. Today it is time to act on that principle. It is time to vote for fair pay and ease the way to prosperity and justice for all. That is our choice. That is our opportunity. That is the responsibility of the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, today I talk about public health. As I hope many of my colleagues are aware, this week is National Public Health Week, and this year's goal is to increase the Nation's awareness of the serious effects of global warming on the public's health. When I say global warming, people think of many things. You might think of polar bears, vanishing glaciers, or rising sea levels, but you are not likely to think of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This is unfortunate because there is a direct connection between global warming and the health of our Nation. A warming planet will affect food, water, shelter, and the spread of infectious diseases. At the same time, we will face more extreme weather events. Storms, floods, droughts, and heat waves will have an acute impact, particularly on hundreds of millions of people in the developing world. Climate change is very much a public health issue. The science behind global warming is no longer debatable. Scientists from around the globe have stated in the strongest possible terms that the climate is changing, and human activity is to blame. These changes are already dramatically affecting human health around the world. The World Health Organization reported that the climate change which occurred from 1961 to 1990 may already be causing over 150,000 deaths or the loss of over 5.5 million disability-adjusted life years annually starting in 2000. These numbers are staggering, but they should not be surprising: climate change influences our living environment on the most fundamental level, which means it affects the basic biological functions critical to life. It impacts the air we breathe and the food available for us to eat. It impacts the availability of our drinking water and the spread of diseases that can make us sick. Last year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, report on climate change put to rest the arguments of many skeptics. But the frequently cited report of Working Group One is just one of three separate IPCC reports. Working Group Two simultaneously issued a sobering report on the impacts of climate change. They predicted that up to 250 million people across Africa could face water shortages by 2020, and that agriculture fed by rainfall could drop by 50 percent. Crop yields in central and South Asia could drop by 30 percent. People everywhere who depend on glaciers or snow pack for their drinking water will be forced to find new supplies. This is not speculation. These effects are already measurable. The World Health Organization predicts that asthma deaths will rise by 20 percent over the next 10 years, and that climate change is causing greater outbreaks of Rift Valley fever and the spread of malaria in higher elevations in Africa, and more frequent cholera epidemics in Bangladesh. The CDC is preparing for more heat-wave planning and forecasting. The public health costs of global climate change are likely to be greatest to the nations of the world who have contributed least to the problem. As the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, we have a moral obligation to help these countries, which are also least likely to have the resources to prepare or respond themselves. Any strategies for managing climate change impacts must address this unequal burden, and to take into account their unique challenges and needs. These impacts are different in different parts of the world--and equally troubling, they are disproportionately burdensome for the world's more vulnerable populations. Children, the elderly, the poor, and those with chronic and other health conditions are the most vulnerable to the negative health impacts of climate change. There is growing recognition that we must act, and we must act now. Fortunately, many of the choices individuals should make for the sake of their health--and the health of their communities--are the same choices that benefit the health of the planet. Making the climate change issue real means helping people understand how the way they live affects themselves and others, whether through their transportation choices, their use of water and electricity or the types of goods they purchase and consume. What is good to reduce global warming is good for public health, and the shift away from fossil fuels and a movement toward general environmental awareness aligns with existing public health goals. Clean, renewable energy means less dependence on fossil fuels. The combination of less coal and cleaner coal leads to a host of health benefits. Fewer particulate emissions mean less asthma. Reduced mercury emissions could lead to fewer developmental disorders. The transportation sector is one of the largest sources of greenhouse gases. Encouraging and enabling people to walk, bicycle, or use public transportation reduces vehicle greenhouse gas emissions and improves urban air quality. But it simultaneously improves an individual's health by increasing physical activity. Improving community design to reduce reliance on cars also means less obesity and diabetes. We should be encouraging States to design and create healthy communities. We cannot wait to act. We should all continue to work toward national and international policies which fight global warming. And we will make sure that we act justly and help the poorest countries, which are hardest hit by this problem. And we can start now. Now is the time to prepare our water, agricultural, and disease prevention systems for a warmer planet. Now is also the time to invest in renewable energy and to build pedestrian and bicycle friendly cities. What is good for the planet is good for public health, and I encourage everyone to remember that solutions to a global problem can have immediate, individual benefits.

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak as in morning business.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to express my concern about the Chinese Government's continued human rights violations and to urge President Bush not to attend the opening ceremonies at the Olympic Games in Beijing this summer. The Chinese Government's unwillingness to acknowledge or address their record of human rights violations is in direct conflict to the spirit of the Olympic Games, and the United States should not accede to the Chinese Government with our attendance. The recent developments in Tibet, in which Buddhist monks and other ethnic Tibetans were violently punished, and in some cases killed, for participating in protests, are disturbing and should be unacceptable to anyone who believes in basic human freedoms. Furthermore, these developments also seem to confirm that the Chinese Government, which has long disrespected the rights of its citizens, under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, has failed to sufficiently improve its conduct when confronted with citizens who happen to voice a difference in opinion. We believe--I think many of us believe--that the President's attendance at the opening ceremonies, rightly or not, would send the implicit message to the world that the United States condones the intolerance that has been demonstrated by these actions of the Chinese Government. The Chinese Government was awarded the Olympic Games on the understanding that it would work to significantly improve its human rights record. Clearly--clearly--it has not. In fact, its actions are completely contradictory to the Olympic spirit. Let me highlight two specific points in the Olympic Charter's Fundamental Principles of Olympism. It says: The goal of Olympism is to place sport at the service of the harmonious development of man, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity. The other principle that is on point here: Any form of discrimination with regard to a country or a person on grounds of race, religion, politics, gender or otherwise is incompatible with belonging to the Olympic Movement. ``Incompatible with belonging to the Olympic Movement.'' The Chinese Government blatantly violates both of these points. Some have made the argument that the President's attendance at the opening ceremonies is more about support for the Games themselves than for the host country. I believe it is all to the contrary. It would show tremendous support and respect for the Games and the spirit they embody, and these principles that are part of the Olympic Charter, to take a stand against a host nation that flagrantly disrespects that spirit. We remind the President that the recent developments in Tibet are only the latest chapter in a long history of Chinese human rights concerns. Even in the midst of the latest atrocities against Tibetans, we should not forget the Chinese Government's continued unwillingness to use all of its unique leverage--unique leverage--with the Sudanese regime to assist the international effort to bring an end to the genocide in Darfur. This issue remains of serious concern to us and many others who have not seen the improvements in Darfur that we had hoped would have happened long ago. If we were languishing in the camps in Darfur, as the world watches genocide, if we see human rights violations in China against the Tibetans, if we see prison camp labor, child labor, forced abortions, the exiling of the Dalai Lama, and so, so much more, who among us, if we were in their position, would be content with the counsels of patience and delay? Who among us would be content with the silence that exists in this respect? And who among us would not want to see a world leader, a leader of the free world, make a very powerful statement to ensure that we move in a different direction? If the Chinese Government is ever to treat its people with basic human rights, it must be sent a bold and clear message that its record of violence and suppression is completely unacceptable. Few actions can speak louder than if the President of the United States were to condemn the Chinese human rights record with the entire world watching. It is at the moment of the opening ceremonies where the world's attention is riveted on the Olympic Games--it is at the opening ceremonies where the world's attention is riveted on the Olympic Games--and not attending, refusing to attend, the opening ceremonies would accomplish exactly that: a clear condemnation of China's human rights record. We hope the President will agree with us, that the Chinese Government's actions are unacceptable, and that we must send a bold message now while the world--while the world--is focused on China. China wanted the Olympic Games. It got it with the understanding that, in fact, it would dramatically improve its human rights record. It has not. The world has seen its repressive nature. If we go on as if nothing had happened, we will send a message that impunity is, in fact, something that is tolerated by the rest of the world. I do not believe Americans want to see that happen. I believe the principle of the Olympic Charter that clearly says, ``Any form of discrimination with regard to a country or a person on grounds of [their] race, religion, politics, gender . . . is incompatible with belonging to the Olympic Movement'' is something worthy of sustaining, and this is an opportunity in time and history to make that principle ring loudly and clearly. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, it is critical that the Senate extend renewable tax credits now so that capital for next year's wind and solar projects do not dry up. Unfortunately my friends on the other side of the aisle have blocked every previous attempt to extend these much-needed tax credits. Why have they decided to block something as popular as renewable energy tax credits? One can only wonder if it's because they prefer to defend something as unpopular as record oil company profits over reducing record family energy costs. Every single time we have attempted to fund a renewable energy tax credit by rolling back completely unnecessary oil subsidies, the other side of the aisle has sided with Big Oil over the American people. Well now it is time to try another strategy. We have been blocked from taking the financially responsible path of paying for the renewable energy tax credits. But we simply cannot afford to stand by and do nothing as our economy continues to slump and energy prices continue to put more unnecessary financial stress on New Jersey families. We must find a way forward. Anyone who is not living under a rock understands three things: Our economy is in serious trouble; the climate crisis is getting worse and we must act immediately to avert the worst affects of global warming; and energy prices are rising through the roof. The majority has repeatedly offered to extend the renewable energy tax credits which would go a long way toward fixing all three of these serious problems. If we let the renewable energy tax credits expire we will set back the tremendous growth in renewables at least a couple of years. This setback would cost the U.S. economy the creation of roughly 100,000 jobs and billions in economic development. In my home State of New Jersey, letting these tax credits lapse would cost the State over 3000 good, high paying jobs. We cannot let the economy suffer this kind of hit at this critical juncture. Of course setting back renewables a couple of years will also be devastating to our environment. In the face of global warming we simply do not have 2 years to waste. We are in the midst of a climate crisis in which we must do everything we can to reduce our dependence on carbon. Delays like this one simply do not make any sense. One last economic point makes this an easy call in my view. Electricity prices are skyrocketing because the price of coal and natural gas are skyrocketing. For every watt of energy we make from renewables, demand is eased on our natural gas and coal markets. If we suddenly pull the rug out from the renewable industry, wind and solar production will plummet, demand for coal and natural gas will spike and our families' electricity bills will get even higher. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting Senator Cantwell's and Senator Ensign's amendment to provide an extension of the renewable energy tax credits and help deliver a stronger, greener economy for our country. (Ms. CANTWELL assumed the chair.)

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, a month ago I came to the floor to speak on behalf of America's homeowners. Since then, tens of thousands of families have lost their homes. Since then, we have been watching home prices fall, we have been watching foreclosure rates skyrocket, and we have been watching tens of thousands of Americans lose their jobs. In my home State of New Jersey, over the next 2 years, we expect more than 57,000 homes to be lost to foreclosure. That means 57,000 families who will have to hand over the keys to their home, 57,000 families who will be forced to say goodbye to the place where they were nurtured and comforted, a place where they lived during good and bad times, places they came home to every night, a place they celebrated birthdays and wept over losses. In the words of families, we know what it feels like to lose their home. They will feel as if they have lost everything. Nationwide, the number of foreclosures that is going to happen if we don't act is unfathomable. Two million American families are in line to lose their homes over the next 2 years, and everyone stands to lose from foreclosures. Lenders report losing tens of thousands of dollars on each foreclosure. Neighbors see the value of their own homes drop. When we see that 63,000 Americans lost their jobs a month ago, when we see weak earnings reports from businesses, wild swings in the stock market, and the collapse of a major firm on Wall Street, we can see this housing crisis is truly shaking the entire economy to its core. It clearly has a major ripple effect. We all know at the heart of this economic downturn is the housing crisis. So the question is: How long are we going to watch before we realize it is time to take action? I marvel when a year ago this past March I said at a Senate Banking Committee hearing that we are going to have a tsunami of foreclosures and the Bush administration said: Oh, no, that is an overdramatization. I said then: I hope you are right and I am wrong. The reality is, we have not even seen the crest of that tsunami take place. Not only did they say it was not real, but they refused to act in any meaningful way. But when it was clear that a major investment bank on Wall Street was in trouble, the Bush administration rushed to the scene like firefighters responding to a five-alarm blaze with $30 billion put up to ensure that JP Morgan Chase could buy Bear Stearns. Regardless--and we will be reviewing both the propriety and the way and the standards that were used to pursue that, whether that is the appropriate standard, the way Bear Stearns ultimately was priced--a full year into the subprime mortgage crisis, they have done nothing but hit the snooze button on the alarm as millions of Americans have watched their dream of home ownership go up in smoke. It is time we react with the same urgency and seriousness, no matter if the people who are in financial trouble are occupying a suburban home in Madison or a rowhouse in Newark or Camden. I hope today finally there is a glimmer of hope for homeowners who have been left to fight this battle alone. It is clear that Members on both sides of the aisle have gotten the message that it is time to act. And it is clear what our goal has to be: helping families keep their homes and in doing so helping our economy, which affects all of us. I am pleased that we have made what seems to be an important breakthrough in the Chamber. I have the utmost faith in Chairman Dodd and Ranking Member Shelby that they understand the urgency at hand, that they will do their best to put forward a workable solution we can all support, and I certainly hope it is one I can support as well. I strongly support Majority Leader Reid's bill as it is. I understand the nature of compromise and negotiation, so I know it will change, but I hope that bipartisanship will not mean we will stray far from providing the direct assistance that homeowners need--to stop foreclosures. Here are a few key steps the final bill has to take. First, we need to provide funding for counseling in order to reach families at risk of losing their homes. Many American families--I saw it during the recess when we were working back in our States--many American families are sitting around their kitchen tables looking through their mortgage bills, their finances, and, yes, their bank notices, and they don't know where to turn. They don't know exactly what to do. It is not as if they have a pot of money sitting in the bank. They do not. They are trying to keep it together, keep their families together, keep their hopes and dreams and aspirations together. These counselors could offer them real solutions and options to avoid receiving that foreclosure notice or, even worse, foreclosure itself. The Reid bill puts forward $200 million to make sure counseling reaches those who need it the most, and I think that is incredibly important. Secondly, we need to provide funding to allow communities with high foreclosure rates to access community development block grants. Communities can use these funds to purchase foreclosed properties for rehabilitation, rent, or resale. Having a foreclosed home sit abandoned in a community does not benefit anyone. This is one of the key points I always make when I talk about this issue because a lot of people say that is not about me. I got the right mortgage; I am paying for it; this is about some people who made the wrong choices, and I don't want to pay for their wrong choices. The problem with that is, first of all--and I will talk about it in a moment--people were led to choices where maybe they did not have financial literacy, maybe they didn't have the wherewithal to fully understand the nature of what they, in many cases, were being misled into--a mortgage product in which they should never have been. Even looking at it in that respect, the bottom line is it affects us all. Why? Because a foreclosed home that sits abandoned in a community does not benefit anyone. It decreases surrounding home values and it can attract crime and vandalism. The bottom line is that foreclosures destabilize neighborhoods. The funds in this bill allow communities to stop that death spiral before it starts. Some argue that stepping in to help our communities recover from the housing crisis would somehow be a blow to the concept of personal responsibility because some homeowners, as I said, made bad choices in signing up for subprime mortgages. First of all, let me say, don't get me wrong, personal responsibility is important, and that is why we need greater support for homeowner education, for foreclosure counseling, and financial literacy so anyone thinking about buying a home will be able to understand the terms of their mortgage, even the fine print, and have the tools to protect themselves. What I have a problem with, as I listen to so many in the Chamber, is it seems that personal responsibility is always talked about as it relates to the consumer. Personal responsibility is not just important for homeowners, however. Every participant in the life of a loan needs to step up and take real responsibility and action. What got us to where we are today? In my mind, unbridled free market extremes, excesses without appropriate regulation or without the attention of regulators has brought us to where we are. I believe in the free market, but when it is unbridled, this is what happens. Every broker, lender, realtor, every appraiser, regulator, credit rating agency, and investing firm needs to make changes if we have any hope of quieting the storm and not reliving it. The time for blame games is over. The time for action has come. Third, I hope this body looks carefully at a provision that can help more than 600,000 families stuck in bad loans keep their homes. I know some of my colleagues are very concerned about this provision which would give judges in bankruptcy proceedings the discretion to modify loan terms. But the fact is, this provision is very narrowly tailored, it is a one-time limited fix, and in the end it is a win-win not only for borrowers but lenders alike. This provision alone would help over 14,000 families in my State of New Jersey avoid foreclosure. That would be a savings of about $5 billion in home values alone. My good friend Senator Durbin has done an excellent job at hammering out a compromise, and I hope my colleagues will give it careful consideration. It is interesting, under the existing bankruptcy law, if you happen to have the good fortune of having a second home, a vacation home, a leisure home, guess what. The bankruptcy judge can go ahead and change your financial obligations on that home, but the very essence of the American dream, which is the home in which you live, to raise your family, to go through good and bad times, no, that cannot be renegotiated. What an interesting set of values. For a leisure home, we can go ahead and a bankruptcy judge can change the terms, but for those who were sucked into a subprime mortgage who should never have been in those types of mortgages and for which the regulation was not there to ensure there was transparency and ensure there was oversight, oh, no, we cannot touch that. In a place that talks so much about values, I don't understand that set of values. As we in the Congress debate how best to help homeowners, how best to end the housing crisis and how best to get this economy back on track, we have to see the bigger picture. There is a lot at stake. No matter who you are, no matter whether we have a subprime mortgage, no matter whether we are making our obligations meet or whether we are finding ourselves in distress, we are all in this together. When the house next to ours gets boarded up, it affects the value of our property, too, and how safe we feel walking around our neighborhood at night. When that value goes down, it reduces the equity we have in our home upon which we can borrow to put our kids through college, to take care of an uncovered medical bill or emergency, or even for the resources we will have for our retirement. No one is immune. So this sense of personal responsibility, yes, but understand that we all have a stake. When a neighbor of ours has to declare bankruptcy and is forever saddled with debt they cannot pay, they shop less at our stores, purchase fewer of the services our community offers, and, obviously, the more foreclosures we see in a neighborhood, property values decline. When those property values decline, rateable bases go down--and that is the way municipalities ultimately receive their resources which means, what? Either taxes have to go up to cover existing services of police, firefighters, education, whatever, or we cut the services. We are all in this together. When a nonprofit organization in Jersey City is close to finishing the building of its new arts center so it can give kids an opportunity to do something productive after school and stay away from gangs and they cannot get the last bit of money they need because of this credit crunch and housing crisis, it affects us all. Dr. Martin Luther King reminded us that ``we are all tied in a single garment of destiny'' and that ``we cannot walk alone.'' This is a crisis we are all in together as a nation. And there is no reason we can't all work together to end it. It is in America's interest to do so, and I hope the Senate, which has shown a moment of a possibility of what can be done, seizes that moment on behalf of our fellow citizens but also on behalf of our collective interest, on behalf of our economy, and, in doing so, on behalf of our Nation. Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, my amendment creates a deficit reserve fund to support increased border security and enforcement of immigration laws. But instead of going down the same old tired way that has not created results, as you will be asked to do in the amendment from Senator Sessions, what we do is actually go after the magnet that brings people to this country; that is, jobs and those who employ them illegally. So we have the ability, under this amendment, to pursue civil penalties against bad-actor employers, to render them ineligible to receive Federal contracts; to also go after criminal aliens in Federal, State, and local prisons to make sure we deport them; and finally, to implement the exit data portion of the US-VISIT entry and exit data system so we know who is coming into this country and how to track them. These are the ways we will begin to address some of our immigration challenges. Finally, we make sure we allow the National Guard to go to the border but not until we have it declared that it will not impede or render unsafe our troops abroad, which the National Guard are supporting. For all those reasons, I urge my colleagues to support our amendment and oppose the amendment from Senator Sessions.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. The Senate, in a significant vote, voted to get to the heart of the matter, the draw of jobs and those who offer them illegally. That is where the whole issue is. The Senate acted intelligently in that respect. It was tough and smart. But under the Sessions amendment, we are going to deploy another 6,000 National Guard, without conditions, to the border at a time in which we are overstretched with the National Guard in Iraq, Afghanistan, and for challenges that States have for emergencies in their own States. We are going to go ahead and deputize local police in local departments. I believe that is a mistake. We have had these before. They have not succeeded. We succeeded in passing an amendment that is going to be tough and smart and deal with the heart of the matter--employers who illegally hire people. It will make sure they get sanctioned, make sure we proceed against those who have Federal contracts doing this and makes sure we get rid of criminal aliens in the jails--local, State and Federal. That is the way to pursue it. Vote against the Sessions amendment.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I oppose this amendment because what this will do, as Senator Nelson said, is undo a quarter century of bipartisan agreement where there is a moratorium on the Outer Continental Shelf, both west and east. If we want to end our addiction and if we care about prices, then don't do it by striking another vein, ultimately, of the same energy resource. You do it by considering alternatives. This amendment does nothing about that, but it does undermine the moratorium in the Outer Continental Shelf. I yield to my colleague from Colorado.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Reserving the right to object, if the Senator will amend his request for a minute on each side, I would be happy not to object. I would like to talk about it too.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today for two purposes. One is to shed light on the serious problem of gun violence that afflicts our Nation, and the other is to introduce legislation which would assist law enforcement in their efforts to address this growing scourge that affects countless Americans every day. Each and every year, tens of thousands of Americans have their lives senselessly cut short because of gun violence. In 2004, 29,569 Americans were killed by guns. This figure is higher than the number of deaths our military has suffered in any year of any war since World War II--and it translates to over 81 gun deaths per day--over 3 deaths per hour. Tragically, statistics show that by the time I finish this speech, another American will have lost his or her life to gun violence. Gun violence does not discriminate; it affects rich and poor, young and old, the innocent and guilty alike. It is not a red or blue State issue, but an American crisis that concerns our Nation as a whole. Not a single American is immune to the tragic reach of gun violence. Our brave law enforcement officers risk their lives every day to stop gun violence before it occurs, but they cannot do it alone. They need resources--not just funding and equipment although those are critically important--but also information and intelligence. That is why the ATF collects and compiles gun trace data--to provide crime gun information to law enforcement agencies, federally firearm licensees, FFL, the public, Congress, and State and local authorities so they may better understand and prevent gun violence. It goes without saying that the more we understand a problem and its sources, the more proficient we will be in our ability to solve it. That is particularly true when talking about guns that are used to commit crimes. In fact, one study has shown that 1.2 percent of gun dealers sell 57 percent of guns later traced to criminal investigations. My home State of New Jersey has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, yet hundreds, if not thousands, of off-limit customers, such as those under age or those with violent criminal records, wind up with such weapons each month. And the overwhelming majority of guns used to commit crimes in our State's cities were originally sold in compliance with the law in other States. In fact, a large majority of the guns used to commit crimes in Jersey City, Newark, and Camden traveled up the east coast along I-95--the ``Iron Pipeline''--and therefore don't fall under New Jersey's gun laws. This is truly a paradox that has not only frustrated law enforcement agents, but elected officials too. According to ATF reports released in July 2002, 85 percent of the traced guns used to commit crimes in Jersey City and Newark, and 77 percent of those used in Camden, were originally purchased outside of New Jersey. And more than 67 percent of crime guns recovered in Jersey City were originally purchased more than 250 miles away, with 20 percent originating in South Carolina. This is exactly the type of information that assists law enforcement officials in placing local crime guns in a regional and national strategic enforcement context and would allow Federal, State, and local elected officials to develop national, regional, and local strategic responses to gun crime. Unfortunately, every year for the past few years some of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle have slipped a provision into law to prohibit the release of this information to anyone other than `` a Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency or a prosecutor solely in a criminal investigation or prosecution.'' This amendment effectively prohibits information from reaching Congress, and State and local authorities, and the public. The practical impact of the Tiahrt amendment is that gun trace data is rarely shared and an important law enforcement tool goes largely unused. The Tiahrt amendment also limits how Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies can use crime gun trace data they are able to obtain. The Tiahrt provisions restrict use of the information to retroactively investigate crimes that have already been committed. Using the data to proactively prevent gun crimes from happening is not permitted. This makes no sense. We should be using every tool we have to prevent the deaths and injuries that result from gun violence--not waiting until they happen and then figuring out the hows and whys. Unfortunately, here in Washington, every year the Republican Congress and President Bush bow to the gun lobby in Washington and sacrifice the safety of our streets. They do this by including the Tiahrt provisions. Denying police access to critical information about crime gun traces helps no one but the bad guys. Our families' safety should never take a backseat to the demands of radical interest groups seeking only to further their own narrow agenda. Congress needs to pass my legislation--instead we need to stand up to President Bush and the gun lobby, and stand up for our families. Far too often in this country, innocent Americans, including children, are tragically caught in the crossfire of gun violence. Far too often these crimes may have been prevented with stricter gun control regulations. As a Senator, it is my solemn duty to do everything within my power to protect the American people from the ravages of gun violence. Addressing this grave issue should not be hampered by divisive, partisan bickering. We must undertake a bipartisan approach to reach an effective solution to this problem that is concerned solely with the welfare and safety of the public. That is why I am introducing legislation to make this gun crime data public again. It will not only help law enforcement prosecute gun crimes, but will also increase public awareness about where these guns originated. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation.

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise today to offer an amendment, an alternative to the amendment offered by Senator Sessions, an alternative that I think actually has a chance to help fix our broken immigration system. My amendment would increase border security and enforce immigration laws without wasting our resources in unnecessary and potentially even dangerous ways. We have to be smart when we think about solutions to the immigration problem. We have to enact measures that do more than sound tough. They have to be tough. We have to consider the impact our legislation will have on other programs and other priorities, and we cannot just throw money and personnel at the border without thinking carefully about the consequences. My amendment gets to the real heart of the problem. It provides for increased border security and increased enforcement of immigration laws. It gives us the manpower we need to address our immigration problems by providing for greater staffing for the Department of Homeland Security because the Department can't do its job if it simply doesn't have sufficient staff. My amendment addresses the real root of the immigration problem: the incentive--the incentive for crossing the border without a visa. It helps eliminate this incentive by getting tough on employers who hire undocumented immigrants. We know undocumented immigrants come to the United States--for what? They come looking for a job. They want a better life. They see an American paycheck as the means to get it. Well, without the draw of the job, without the draw of income, the motivation to risk it all to cross the border illegally dries up. Building a bigger, stronger, taller fence simply doesn't cut it because, as we all know, if there is a will, there is generally a way. Rather than create new obstacles that undocumented immigrants are going to try to figure out how to get around, we need to address the underlying motivation that is the magnet that drives them to migrate in the first place. The way to do this is to come down harder on the employers who provide them the incentive. My amendment would do this by increasing criminal and civil penalties against employers who hire undocumented immigrants. It seems clear that today's penalties are not a sufficient deterrent for these companies. So my amendment sends them a clear message: we are going to hold you accountable for your actions. There are going to be real consequences for breaking the law. My amendment would also prohibit employers who hire undocumented immigrants from receiving Federal contracts. There is simply no reason any company that receives a Federal contract should be breaking the law by hiring undocumented immigrants. It is interesting that there are some news stories about those who are actually building the wall doing exactly that. Isn't that ironic? The amendment I am offering isn't just about getting tough; it is about getting smart. Senator Sessions and others on the other side of the aisle would not only build a bigger, longer, taller fence along the border--something we have seen which simply will not work on its own--they also want to deploy a significant number of our National Guard to help support the Border Patrol. Let me say from the outset I am not at all opposed to sending reinforcements for the Border Patrol. I voted for those increases in the Border Patrol agents. They are understaffed and underfunded, and they need all the help they can get. What I am opposed to is taking one resource away from a desperate situation in order to give that resource to another allegedly desperate situation. Just like our Border Patrol, our National Guard is stretched thin. Right now, there are over 15,500 members of the National Guard deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the time between September of 2001 and November 30, 2007, close to 255,000 National Guard troops have been deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. This year, my home State of New Jersey, by way of example, will witness the largest deployment of National Guard personnel since World War II. So before we rush to act, we should know what the impact of moving the National Guard would have on the safety of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan in terms of those needs. That is why my amendment would prohibit deployment of the National Guard--would ensure, I shouldn't say prohibit--would ensure that deployment of the National Guard to the borders could take place, but two important things would have to happen first. First, the Secretary of Defense would have to certify that the deployment would not negatively impact the safety of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Second, the Governor of the home State of the National Guard must certify that the deployment would not have a negative impact on the safety and security of that home State. After all, protecting the people of the home State is the whole reason States have National Guard units in the first place. We cannot endorse a policy that robs Peter to pay Paul. We have to think long and hard about the impact of taking resources away from Iraq or Afghanistan, taking resources away from the States that face the risk of natural disasters as big and as devastating as Hurricane Katrina. We have to know that taking these resources away will not hurt us more than it helps us. My amendment makes sure that before we act, we know what we are getting into. Now, I do not disagree with every aspect of my colleague's amendments. In fact, there are two provisions in the Sessions amendment that I wholeheartedly support and they are in my amendment as well. I, as Senator Sessions, believe we can do more to remove those undocumented immigrants in our prison system who should be removed. That is why my amendment would evaluate the Federal, State, and local prison populations that are noncitizens in order to identify removable, undocumented immigrants. I also believe, as Senator Sessions does, that we need to do more to implement the US-VISIT entry and exit data system to make sure we are keeping track of those who actually exit our country once their visas expire. That is why my amendment would help to implement the exit data portion of that program. So I will close on this issue by simply saying it is interesting to see some of those who have some of the harshest rhetoric, as well as some of the harshest legislative initiatives, then come and say: But while I am doing this, we need ag workers, we need H-1B high-tech workers, or we need H-2B lower skilled workers. So they want their piece of the immigration pie, but they also want to portray themselves as sentries at the border. It just doesn't quite work that way. It just doesn't quite work that way. Immigration is a difficult problem to tackle. That is something I think we can all agree on. Any solution needs to be smart, it needs to be tough, and it needs to be effective. That is what my amendment is-- smart, tough, and effective. It provides for enhanced, improved border security and enhanced enforcement of immigration laws, while allowing the Department of Homeland Security and the States to determine how best to use Federal resources. It provides support for our Border Patrol without threatening the safety or security of our troops serving overseas, or for that matter, people of our States. It gets to the root of the immigration problem by beefing up enforcement against employers acting illegally by hiring undocumented immigrants, the very essence-- the magnet--of what drives people to this country. So I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment when we have the opportunity tomorrow rather than the amendment offered by Senator Sessions. I think it gets to the heart of the problem that all of us are challenged to achieve. Very briefly, let me move to one other issue while I still have time. I have said before that our debate over this budget is a fight for the economic future of America. The core of our economy is America's middle class: How productively they work, how much they save, how much they spend. It is clear as day, clear from the tsunami of foreclosures, clear from the reports that are coming in about thousands of people losing their jobs, clear from rising gas prices and health care bills and college tuition, it is clear that the middle class needs help. What the middle class does not need is another round of tax giveaways for some of the richest members of our society in which their collective taxes are being used in a way that is disproportionate to those who least need it. Budgets are about priorities; they are about choices. We have to choose. Are we going to do what many of my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle are advocating and spend the people's money helping a billionaire avoid taxes when he bequeaths his mansion to his child or are we going to help out two parents who are struggling with the mortgage payments on a house for them and their children? When Senate Democrats put together this budget, we made the choice to put middle-class families first. I am proud to join Senator Baucus in offering a responsible plan for expanded middle-class tax relief. The amendment he is offering will take some of the pressure off the families who are most in need of help by providing $300 billion in tax relief for working families. First, it provides tax benefits to members of America's armed services. It is up to us to make sure that when our men and women in uniform risk their lives overseas, they have some measure of financial security at home. This amendment would help those servicemembers in need by allowing combat pay to count toward eligibility for the earned income tax credit. It would also provide additional relief to small businesses that continue to pay the salaries of National Guard and Reserve members who are called to duty. The amendment extends relief to parents and married couples. It would expand the child tax credit to provide relief to more families, provide permanent relief for married couples from the marriage penalty, and make the 10-percent tax bracket permanent. I am also especially pleased that this amendment includes a provision that I have worked closely in the past with Senator Baucus on expanding Federal tax relief for property taxes. It is a provision that would be welcome news to thousands of New Jersey families since property taxes are always a top concern. We would create a new standard deduction for property taxes that could benefit more than a half million New Jersey taxpayers alone, and could send $86 million to the people across the State. So that is only one example of how it is replicated across the country. So I say to my colleagues: remember that American families are all watching us right now to see what we are going to do. Are we going to spend $51 billion to hand out tax breaks to Americans who are earning over $1 million a year? Or are we going to focus our resources, spend them wisely, to put tax breaks in the hands of those who need it: families, service men and women, and Americans who are working hard every day to achieve the American dream? Are we going to do the same on the amendment on immigration? Are we going to focus our resources against the very essence--the magnet--of what drives people to come to this country in an undocumented fashion and to make sure that our National Guard and Reserves are used the right way and to pursue the assistance of the Border Patrol where they ultimately need the help? Those are our choices. That is what we will have tomorrow. I hope we will join together to give this responsible tax relief to middle-class families in America who need it most. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise with my colleague and friend, Senator Martinez, in strong support of our resolution to recommend Cuban dissident and political prisoner Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet for the Congressional Gold Medal. This medal is the Nation's highest and most distinguished civilian award, and I can think of few who are more deserving than this man. For his courageous commitment to democracy, for his unwavering defense of human rights, for his lifetime of working for peaceful change on an island where freedom dares not speak its name, Dr. Biscet has earned the admiration of his community, and he has earned the recognition of this Congress. Just over 4 months ago, both Senator Martinez and I, along with Senators Nelson and Salazar, stood on this floor and declared our solidarity with about 70 Cuban youths who had just been thrown in jail. Their crime was nothing more than wearing this simple white bracelet that says one word, ``cambio,'' change. This one simple gesture was strong enough to have them held as prisoners. This one simple gesture was strong enough to have them detained and harassed. But as I said on the floor 4 months ago, I also hoped this one gesture would be strong enough to inspire us and to inspire those who love freedom and democracy and have respect for human rights around the globe. Today we stand here once again, in solidarity, to recognize someone who has shown courage over and over again--courage in defense of human rights and democracy courage to speak out about the future he wants to see on the island of Cuba. When I last came to the floor to speak of Dr. Biscet, it was 1 week before he received the Presidential Medal Freedom, the highest civilian award bestowed by the President. Unfortunately, he received the award in absentia. He received it this way because has been languishing in the jails of the Castro regime, serving a 25-year prison sentence. And he continues to languish there today. His crime? Seeking peaceful change in his country. His crime? Hanging a flag sideways. His crime? Fighting against a repressive regime. By awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to Dr. Biscet, we would create a physical representation of so many years of political bravery. In that medal, we will see a shining image of his courage and accomplishments. In that medal, we will see the patient suffering of Dr. Biscet's wife, the fellow democracy advocate, Elsa Morjeon Hernandez, and the patient suffering of his two children who have had to grow up with their father in jail. In that medal, we will see the 3 years Dr. Biscet spent in prison, 3 years, after hanging the national flag sideways at a press conference. In that medal, we will see that once he was released, Dr. Biscet organized engaged organizing seminars on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and continued to fight every day to bring democracy and justice to Cuba. And in that medal, we will see a solid beacon of hope for the people of that island, recognition that people inspired by Dr. Biscet will eventually bring democracy and justice to Cuba. What Dr. Biscet and those young people arrested 4 months ago show us is inspiring: Cuba can change and will change. And this change will come from within Cuba, from the Cuban people themselves. Raul Castro has said, ``Fidel is irreplaceable, unless we all replace him together.'' Now is the time to show that this can happen, that Fidel can, in fact, be replaced not by one man but by a government of, by, and for the people of Cuba. Dr. Biscet himself in a letter 10 days ago said, ``Fidel Castro has left power. He should have done it 20 years ago when Mikhail Gorbachev traveled to the island. He wisely recommended it to him, that way it would have reduced the years of misery, lack of freedom and cruel suffering of the Cuban people under a prolonged, unnecessary and poorly run government . . . '' The Cuban people can bring change. But they need our help. We must continue to fight here to do what we can to empower them and to support them when they empower themselves as the United States did with dissidents from Lech Walesa to Vaclav Havel to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, so should it do with Oscar Elias Biscet. Here in the United States, this is a time to further nurture the human rights activists, political dissidents, and independent-minded journalists inside of Cuba who have the capability to stoke the movement toward freedom. The Cuban people are speaking. In America, this is not the time for silence. This is the time to speak out. Awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to Dr. Biscet will allow the American people to speak out, not only to condemn the dark injustices of the Cuban regime but, more importantly, to praise the efforts of one hero who has spent his life standing for the values that unite the free peoples of the world, values that we know are more precious than gold.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, pursuant to a previous unanimous consent agreement, I ask that the pending amendment be set aside and that amendment No. 4259, which is at the desk, be reported.