Mel Martinez

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. If I can make an inquiry.

Mr. MARTINEZ. My understanding is the Senator from Arizona was going to be recognized during this timeframe for his remarks.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I would like to be recognized as well in the ensuing sequence. My understanding is it has been going back and forth between the sides. The Senator from Connecticut spoke, and then the Senator from Maryland spoke. That caused us to have a little bit of a scheduling issue, so I would like to continue on that schedule and then allow myself to be recognized.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2566, which was received from the House.

Mr. MARTINEZ. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I rise to strongly support the nomination of John Bolton to be the United States next permanent representative to the United Nations. I do so because I believe this is a man of great integrity who has dedicated himself to serve this Nation in various different posts over the course of his life. I want to try hard not to repeat a lot of what has been said already because it is, I know, at times repetitious. But I do believe it is important we recognize and know this gentleman has been previously confirmed by the Senate in four prior Presidential appointments, and three of those in the area of diplomacy. I am intrigued by the comments of the Senator from Illinois about Mr. Bolton's diminished stature. It appears that now we are going to find him unqualified by what has transpired over the last 60 days to this good man, as his record has been trashed repeatedly, oftentimes with scant or little evidence. So let me say I believe this is a good man who has earned the right and has been chosen by the President of the United States to represent our Nation at this very important post. The Senator from Arizona spoke about elections having consequences. The fact is, President Bush not only has made this choice but has made a choice of someone who he believes is the right person to lead our efforts at this time at the United Nations. Mr. Bolton is someone who has sometimes been called blunt speaking. At the same time, our President at times has irked people because of the directness of his language, because of the fact that sometimes he calls a spade a spade. I do recall, as a member of his Cabinet, sitting in a joint session of the Congress when a great deal of talk was generated about him speaking about an ``axis of evil.'' The President has chosen this direct man to be at the United Nations, and at a time when we need direct talk. There is a great tradition at the United Nations of people who have been plain spoken. I have had the pleasure and honor of knowing Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick. No one has ever suggested that Ambassador Kirkpatrick was shy, retiring or unclear about her views. I also had the honor of knowing someone who was ambassador to the United Nations, Vernon Walters. I know Vernon Walters embarked on many diplomatic missions, usually to set the record straight with some foreign leader, usually to tell him bluntly what needed to be done or said. If there is any doubt about that, there is a wonderful book he wrote about his life called ``Silent Missions'' that provides good evidence. We hold up Adlai Stevenson as someone who should be emulated. The fact is, Ambassador Stevenson, who was a wonderful public servant as well, at times used rather blunt language. I can remember as a child being glued to the TV set during the missile crisis with Cuba and the Soviet Union, and Adlai Stevenson demanding: Don't wait for the translation. He was prepared to use blunt language. It is in our national interest, at times, to have direct, blunt-speaking people, particularly at a place like the United Nations. We have heard, in the course of the debate, that Mr. Bolton should not be qualified for this job because he spoke of the fact that out of the 38 stories at the U.N. building, perhaps 10 could be done away with. Who here does not, in a serious way, believe that the United Nations bureaucracy could use some streamlining? More interesting than that, Mr. Bolton has been speaking about this for over a decade. He wrote some very interesting articles, which I took the time to read, about United Nations reform, about streamlining that bureaucracy, about better budgetary management. Sadly, although his writings are 8 or 10 years old, even longer, little has been done to move the ball forward, to change that stymied bureaucracy that continues not to use taxpayer dollars appropriately and who has engaged in some condemnable practices in recent days. One of the charges I find most unfair--and its repetition does not add to its credibility--is the charge that Mr. Bolton has politicized intelligence, has massaged intelligence, has not used intelligence adequately. There is no evidence, for those of us who sat in the Foreign Relations Committee meetings and heard the evidence of those who spoke, that Mr. Bolton ever massaged intelligence. There is evidence that Mr. Bolton acted swiftly to try to explain to those who worked for him how they should approach the clearance of his speeches. And he did react strongly to those who tried to go around him and attempted to impact or influence that which would be clear for him to say. It is, in fact, at times difficult to study intelligence and analyze it in a way that gives it clear and complete clarity. So what do we do? We have intelligence analysts. We have human beings who are, similar to historians and journalists and all of us in life, given to the proclivities of their own bias, their own life experience, their own political views. Through that filter, comes the intelligence which comes not in a clear package but as a mosaic, something that comes in bits and pieces and dribs and drabs. Out of that, we have to make a whole cloth. We have to create a judgment. That is where judgment comes in. Those who are in politically appointed positions have the responsibility to challenge the professionals in the intelligence community as they seek to put together the ultimate judgments about what the pieces of information tell them concerning the truth of that intelligence. In that instance, at times, maybe Mr. Bolton has had differences, but in every single instance that could be overturned--and believe me, his record has been combed carefully--there was never a time when Mr. Bolton went outside that which was approved and that which was cleared. It is important to me that the record be clear about Mr. Bolton's statements on the issue of bioweapons capabilities by Cuba. In his speech at the Heritage Foundation, which has caused so much controversy and interest, he used the very same language that 3 months earlier one of his accusers, Carl Ford, had used before a Senatorial committee. That language, which stands to this day, reads: The United States believes that Cuba has at least a limited developmental offensive biological warfare research and development effort. Cuba has provided dual use bio-technology to rogue states. We're concerned that such technology could support [bioweapons] programs in those states. We call on Cuba to cease all [bioweapons] applicable cooperation with rogue states and to fully comply with all its obligations under the Biological Weapons Convention. I believe those are responsible remarks. I believe those are timely remarks. I believe those are remarks that are intended to make the world safer and to make America safer from terrorism by bioweapons. Sharing bioweapons technology with rogue states is not a good thing. The fact that Mr. Bolton would dare to call their hand on it is not a bad thing. We should be grateful to Mr. Bolton for his directness, for his bluntness, for his willingness to take on this issue and speak about it clearly. It has also been said that Mr. Bolton may not have done a good job at his last assignment. I repeat, again, that this is the fourth time the Senate, after a Presidential appointment, has sought to confirm Mr. Bolton, most recently as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. A number of states around the world pose great danger and concern. We spoke about Cuba. It is one of those. But there is also Iran. As to Iran, on Under Secretary Bolton's watch, Iran's formerly covert nuclear program has been exposed and has been described in detail in seven public reports by the IAEA director general. The IAEA board of directors has adopted six resolutions calling on Iran to suspend its nuclear fuels cycle activities and fully cooperate with IAEA inspections. The EU--particularly UK, France, and Germany--the United States, and Russia are working closely to suspend and reverse Iran's nuclear program and to develop a complete absence of any further nuclear testing by them. Today we had some encouraging news. We hope we can build on that. That is a success that, in no small measure, is due to Mr. Bolton's work. In addition, we have talked about North Korea. I find it terribly interesting that the irrational behavior of the North Korean Government, which we all know to be irrational and unconventional, would be laid at the feet of this nominee. North Korea has had nuclear aspirations for decades. And it began an active effort to acquire nuclear weapons years before the Bush administration came into office, years before Mr. Bolton was in the position he holds. The 1994 agreed framework was doomed to fail and was only a short-term Band-Aid to the resolution of this problem. It was akin to looking down a soda straw and at a plutonium facility and ignoring the fact that North Korea began cheating, almost as the ink was drying, by embarking on a covert uranium enrichment program. The Bush administration changed tracks. The Bush administration took a different policy approach. I understand there may be some on the other side of the aisle who disagree with that policy approach, and much has been said about that. In fact, in the Presidential debate, there was discussion of this very issue. Again, elections have consequences. President Bush's approach to proceeding with the six-party approach to negotiations with North Korea is what is continuing today. We cannot blame Mr. Bolton for those instances where foreign policy issues have not gone as we wished and then refuse to give him credit for those that have been successful. That is the height of unfairness and the height of hypocrisy. In Libya, our policies have met with success. Negotiations on Libya's weapons of mass destruction dismantling effort were conducted at a senior level by the CIA and White House negotiators. Mr. Bolton was not a part of that process, as often is the case for diplomats. I can recall a distinguished ambassador to the United Nations, Adlai Stevenson, when President Kennedy received information, with photographs by our reconnaissance airplanes, that there were offensive missiles hidden in Cuba, Adlai Stevenson did not have that information. We know now, from the books that have been written about that, he was highly offended that he was not included in or given that information until later when it had been made public. The fact is, sometimes diplomacy has to be conducted in serious and closed circles. Mr. Bolton successfully oversaw WMD dismantling and removal from Libya. In addition, I believe there have been a number of other unfair accusations about Mr. Bolton's conduct in terms of his relationship with subordinates. The fact is, some of these allegations have been found to be completely devoid of any merit. In fact, the majority report on the Melody Townsel case--one of those that was so sensational, that caused the Foreign Relations Committee to defer consideration of his nomination until 3 weeks later--the investigation on page 315 of the report says: The investigation was not able to establish conclusively that the alleged events even occurred. The fact is that, along with many of these other allegations that have really nothing to do with the qualifications and competence of Mr. Bolton, has been found to be either without merit or with very little merit. Mr. President, in conclusion, it is time that we move forward with this good man's nomination. I find it, as a fairly new Member of the Senate, a little disturbing and disappointing how easily and with little hard evidence a person's reputation can be tarnished. The fact is, there have been bits and pieces that were either exaggerated or simply not found to have merit that have been now utilized to try to derail this good man's nomination. I look forward to Mr. Bolton's service at the U.N. I think he will be a good and effective reformer in an institution that is in desperate need of reform and an institution where he has taken the time, over the history of his work, to talk about those issues of reform--management reform and budgetary reform. Our Nation contributes a very sizable percentage of the U.N. budget. It is our taxpayer dollars that are being wasted at the U.N. and that are oftentimes not only not serving our national interests but are, in fact, harming our national interests. We have a person with Mr. Bolton's experience, and it has been suggested that he is someone who is simply not going to be effective at the U.N., and he is not going to be effective because it keeps being repeated that he will not be effective there. Mr. Bolton has a strong record of accomplishment. I point to the repeal of the Zionism as racism resolution, on which Mr. Bolton led the effort that was so important in establishing a dynamic paradigm so the Middle Eastern peace process could move forward, so that fundamental fairness toward Israel could also prevail at the U.N., a place that has been so incredibly harsh on Israel and its right to exist. I am delighted and it is with great pleasure that I support the nomination of John Bolton to be the next Permanent Representative at the U.N. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a very important sense-of-the-Senate resolution pending before the Senate. This resolution expresses support for a historic meeting taking place in Havana, Cuba, this Friday, May 20. It is called the Assembly to Promote the Civil Society in Cuba. This resolution expresses support for the courageous individuals who continue to fight for and advance liberty and democracy for the Cuban people. I thank my colleague from Florida, Senator Bill Nelson, for partnering with me on this important effort. I also thank and commend the 23 other colleagues who have signed on to this bipartisan effort in cosponsoring this resolution. For too long, the Cuban people have been starved of the precious freedoms so dearly cherished in the United States and in democracies around the world. This year, May 20 provides us with a unique opportunity to highlight and support efforts to advance liberty and democracy in Cuba. I stress to my colleagues the tremendous valor and bravery of these prodemocracy advocates who are risking their lives pursuing their natural God-given freedoms that they continue to be denied. Already there have been reports of disappearances, state security intimidation, and of infrastructure interruptions by the regime in order to stop this gathering. For someone to travel from one part of Cuba to another, within their country, citizens must seek the government's permission before doing so. Transportation is made more difficult and the ever-present Committees for the Defense of Revolution, which stand as government watchdogs in every neighborhood and on every street corner, provide even more intimidation and fear to those who seek to attend this gathering. May 20 has long marked an important day for the Cuban people. It was on this day in 1902 that the island first gained its independence. This is a particularly poignant moment in history, when the United States fought side by side with the Cuban people as they sought to throw off the yoke of colonialism. After 4 years of building a governmental structure and helping the Cuban people to gain its governance, in 1902 the United States ceded independence to the people of Cuba. It was on May 20, 1902, that took place. This is what we currently are looking for, for the Cuban people to be allowed to celebrate. The current Cuban Government prefers to celebrate other dates more in keeping with the beginnings of the dictatorship. But this day ought to be remembered because of the importance it carries. This year's Cuban Independence Day is historic. The people of Cuba are on the road to transition. The historic gathering this week of prodemocracy advocates demonstrates that Cubans are increasingly losing their fear and vocalizing their desire to be architects of their own destinies and of their own future. This peaceful demonstration, a simple display of freedom of assembly and speech, represents an unprecedented partnership for over 360 prodemocracy and civil society organizations from all walks of life. Their focus will be on bringing democracy, liberty, and a respect for basic human rights to this island nation. The fact is, the Cuban Government has one of the worst human rights records in the world. There is a complete lack of human rights available to the Cuban people under the tyranny of this repressive regime. They continue to deny universally recognized civil liberties, including freedom of speech, association, movement, and of the press. Freedom of religion is also denied. As the recently released State Department report, ``Supporting Human Rights and Democracy, The U.S. Record 2004-2005,'' relates: [T]he Cuban Government ignored or violated virtually all of its citizens' rights, including the fundamental right to change their government. Indeed, the Government has quashed all efforts to initiate a public debate on how Cuba can prepare for a peaceful transition. Just last month the United Nations Human Rights Commission once again condemned Cuba for its human rights record. Let's begin with labor rights. The Cuban Government has been cited by the International Labor Organization and scores of governmental and nongovernmental organizations worldwide for its gross violations of human rights. With a state-controlled economy, the Government is the only source of jobs, and it exercises very strict control over labor policies. Specifically, as the 2004 human rights report relates: The foreign investment law denies all workers except those with special government permission the right to contract with foreign companies investing in the country. Further: [The] government required foreign investors and diplomatic missions to contract workers through state employment agencies, which were paid in foreign currency, but which in turn pay workers very low wages-- In the local currency. Typically, these workers receive 5 percent of the salary paid by the companies to the State, and the workers receive worthless pesos while the company pays the governor in dollars. In 2003, average salaries, for those lucky enough to be employed, equal about $10 a month. Yet within the last year these salaries have fallen even further. In an attempt to reassert stricter control, the Castro regime has outlawed use of the U.S. dollar, thereby diminishing the value of Cuban wages even further. New directives have also been issued regarding the tourism industry, so as to impose additional control over the actions of tourism workers. At the same time, the Cuban Government has steadfastly rejected international human rights monitoring. As the 2004 State Department human rights report says: The Government steadfastly rejected the human rights monitoring. Since 1992, the Government has refused to recognize the mandated UNCHR on Cuba, and despite being a UNCHR member, refused to acknowledge requests by Christine Chanet, the Personal Representative of the Commissioner on Human Rights to visit the country. It is critical we offer our bipartisan support to the patriotic participants of the May 20 gathering on the island, as well as to the many brave men, women, and children who continue to challenge tyranny and oppression. They need and deserve our support. These past few weeks alone, the news is reporting that the regime has begun rounding up young people for preventive security measures. The median age is 18, and 95 percent are Afro-Cuban. Specifically, our resolution includes four principal messages: First, that the Senate extend its support in solidarity to the participants of this historic meeting in Havana; second, that the Senate urges the international community to support the assembly and its mission to bring democracy and human rights to Cuba; third, that the Senate encourages the international community to oppose any attempts by the Cuban Government to repress, punish, or intimidate the organizers or participants of the assembly; and fourth, that the Senate shares the prodemocracy ideals of the assembly to promote civil society in Cuba and believes that the assembly and its mission will advance freedom and democracy for the people of Cuba. The international community plays a very large role in helping prodemocracy movements, much as it did in Eastern Europe. As President Bush recently remarked in his Second Inaugural Address: All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know the United States will not ignore your oppression or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for liberty, we will stand with you. That is what this resolution is all about--standing with the participants of the May 20 assembly and standing with the brave men and women who continue to live in tyranny and hopelessness. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you. Our country's history has allowed us to observe the struggle of impatient patriots such as Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, and Martin Luther King and the mission they undertook to bring us closer to our democratic ideals. These prodemocracy advocates today, these Cuban heroes, are today's patriots, and I have faith in them and the important mission they have undertaken. I stress to my colleagues the tremendous valor of those folks who are today struggling for the God-given freedoms they continue to be denied. The new democracies around the world are standing for freedom and are eager to be a voice in the struggle for transition in Cuba. Our eyes should all be on Havana this Friday to witness this historic event. It is a hopeful time for the Cuban people. I am inspired by their efforts and their bravery. We applaud their strength and their unity as they gather to fight for freedom and basic human rights. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Warner's amendment. I believe it is of crucial importance to our Nation that we maintain the readiness of our carrier force. I thank my colleagues from Virginia, and also the senior Senator from my State, Mr. Nelson, who has been so dogged in his fight in this effort. I believe we have made a lot of progress since we began to talk about keeping the Kennedy and keeping 12 carriers in the fleet. The thing that has impressed me as this discussion has proceeded is a commentary from the Secretary of the Navy, as well as the Chief of Naval Operations as they have discussed the need for readiness of 12 carriers, as well as the fact there is a need for maintaining operations on the east coast of the United States with two ports available to our Navy. I believe as this debate and this discussion has ensued, it has become increasingly clear that at a time of great stress upon our Armed Forces, at a time when we expect our global reach to be just that, global, we cannot make do with 11 carriers to satisfy short-term budgetary goals. The fact is our Nation is best served by a 12-carrier force. Our Nation is also best served by having two ports on the east coast that can handle nuclear carriers. I believe we should move forward in that regard as well to allow that diversity and that opportunity. I yield the remainder of my time and thank the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the amendment. It is interesting that just a few minutes ago we were at the other end of this building in the House of Representatives in a joint session of Congress hearing from President Yushchenko speaking of freedom and the value of freedom and the unique opportunity freedom presents to a people. In order to ensure the ability of folks to raise a family, to conduct their lives, to conduct free commerce, all of these exciting things spark and begin with a flame of freedom. There is no more important way in which the flame of freedom can be conveyed than by information and communication. We know that today the world of information transforms lives, transforms people around this Earth. We also know that there are still people across the world who do not have the opportunity to hear the free and unfettered bits of information that we so take for granted. Let me take a moment to describe for you a little bit about what Cuba is like. Cuba is a country today where there is only one source of information: the Cuban Government. Cuba is a country where anyone who would dare to use the Internet without authorization from the Cuban Government, without oversight by the Cuban Government, would have their freedom threatened and taken away. In addition, we also know there is within Cuba a tremendous and growing movement of folks who believe that it is time for Cuba to be free as well and a dissident movement within Cuba. Those people who dare to risk their lives and freedom each and every day, those people who today suffer in Cuba's prison camps because of their desire to seek freedom, those people are emboldened and encouraged by what they can hear and see in the voices and sounds of freedom. For a long time the United States has had a long and valued tradition of standing with people who are oppressed and suppressed. Mr. Yushchenko spoke this morning eloquently of the words of Ronald Reagan when he said ``tear down this wall'' and what a profound impact that had in beginning the change that occurred in the eastern European nations. In addition to that, we know the words of Vaclav Havel, other leaders of the ``Velvet Revolution,'' and also the people of Poland, Lech Walesa. And they have said that without a doubt, the thing that made a difference in their lives was Radio Free Europe. I have never heard any one of these patriots of liberty of the modern day say in any public setting that the difference was made for them in seeking freedom when more tourists came and drank rum in their country or when they had the opportunity to see foodstuff in stores that they couldn't buy. But I have heard repeatedly said how valuable was the information and the opportunity to pierce that government control over the people. You see the control of information is not just about the exchange of news and information, valuable as that is. It is about showing the people who dare to rise in opposition to tyranny that the tyrannical regime that controls their lives is not all powerful, is not omnipresent, but that they, in fact, have the right and opportunity to hear the message of freedom and liberty. Let me talk specifically about TV Marti. The fact is that while we might mock in commentary what happens with the TV Marti broadcast to Cuba, I have a little different story. Around the time of my ascension to the U.S. Senate, when I had this awesome and unique privilege, the first Cuban American, the first person born in the island of Cuba to ever have the honor to speak from this floor, to be a part of this longest serving democratic institution in the history of mankind, the people of Cuba were rightfully proud and excited by that moment. I want to tell you that about the time of my taking my oath, I did an interview for TV Marti. I spoke of my thrill and my pride and my hopes and aspirations as I came to the Senate. That interview was broadcast by Commando Solo. That interview was broadcast in the only way in which they can pierce Castro's control over his people about information: by flying this airplane over international waters in a way that can and does, in fact, pierce Castro's blockade and jamming. That information that got through that night, that interview was seen by people in the hometown where I grew up, Sagua La Grande, Cuba. It is a small city on the northern coast of Cuba where I had the joy of growing up as a small child and where today there are people who still remember me and my family, and where there were people who, unbelievably to me, heard the broadcast and were able to communicate through telephone and otherwise about what they had seen and heard on TV that day, about the images of me taking my oath on this very floor, about the images of me celebrating with other people who supported my candidacy, who came from Florida, many of them Cuban Americans who rode on a bus for 18 hours to come here and join with me and celebrate. They joined with me here, but those people in Cuba had the opportunity to see those images in my very hometown where I was born, to see me take the oath of office from Vice President Cheney, President of the Senate. That happened because of the Commando Solo flights. It was a moving experience to the people in this little town, the people who I know sometimes seem unimportant and are not very well known but who, in fact, have the rare opportunity to see that blockade pierced. So what is our hope? Our hope is we can expand that, that we can do more of it, that we can transfer the technology we now have and the ability to pierce the information blockade so that more and more people can have this information. Too often we talk about an economic blockade with Cuba. The greatest blockade that exists in Cuba, in the words of some of Cuba's dissidents, is the blockade of the Cuban Government against its own people, whether it be for economic opportunity, the rights of the individual, or just to perceive and hear information that comes across the airwaves. I believe that while imperfect and while still a work in progress, for us to turn our backs on those people in Cuba who depend today on the little bit of information they can get through Radio and TV Marti would be a step away from the long and proud tradition of this country to stand by people who are oppressed. To harken back to the words of President Bush, to the words he gave upon taking office for his second term, if you are oppressed, we stand with you. If you seek freedom, we will be by your side. That wave of democracy that President Bush has begun in places such as the Middle East, that is the very hope that we have. The President's policy toward Cuba began on May 10 of last year. It is a dynamic policy. It is not just about what we don't do; it is about what we do, about the proactive measures such as the Commando Solo flights, the opportunity for TV Marti to, in fact, be seen by the Cuban people, the opportunity for us to help the dissident movements, for us to proactively help the people of Cuba to remove the yoke of tyranny from their backs. I believe that when the facts are examined, we would also know that the Interests Section Survey in Havana monitors the ability of the Commando Solo flights to be seen by the Cuban people. There is no such thing in Cuba as a Gallup poll or the ability to even speak freely about what you watch on TV, but 16 percent of those surveyed responded in the affirmative to the U.S. Interests Section in Havana that they were, in fact, seeing TV Marti and that it reached an audience. It does not cover the entire island. It doesn't cover as much as we would like. But each and every day, we make more happen with it. I am proud to be a supporter of the efforts of TV Marti, and I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment which would end the little glimmer of light that is available to the people of Cuba today and that otherwise would not be there for them. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question? I wonder if the Senator has considered why the Cuban Government would spend all the money and make all the effort that it takes for them to jam these broadcasts. If it is not insignificant, if it is not important, why does the Senator think the Cuban Government goes on day after day jamming at great cost and expense each and every time we have broadcasts to Cuba?

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, this morning, as the world has taken notice of the passing of Pope John Paul II, I rise to speak. I know the Senate today will be taking a resolution to speak to the issue of the Pope's passing. As a person of the Roman Catholic faith myself, I thought it important and appropriate that this morning I take a few moments to speak to the greatness of this man and the contributions he made not only to enriching the faith life of those of us who practice the Roman Catholic faith, but to the people of the world as a great statesman and moral leader. Pope John Paul was one of the remarkable people of our times. His papacy lasted 26 years, which is the third longest in the over 2,000- year history of our church. But it was during tumultuous and difficult times. Pope John Paul was prepared for this papacy, prepared for this mantle of leadership through tremendous hardships in his life. As a young person, he lost his mother very early in life, only to be followed by the very dramatic loss of his only brother, and only a very few years later the loss of his beloved father. So at a very young age, as a very young man, Pope John Paul was left alone in the world without any close family. He developed a long and strong network of friendships that he maintained all through his life, and even through the days of his papacy. In addition, the Pope's youth was tempered by living under tyranny, by the fact that in his youth he had to be subjected to the tyrannical occupation by Germany of his Polish homeland and the persecution of people such as himself--people of faith. In addition, once that was over and he began to seek his vocational pursuit in the priesthood, he had to do so underground, because subsequent to the German occupation and the Nazi regimes, and immediately thereafter, it was followed by the Communist takeover of Poland. Eastern Europe, as we all know, became engulfed and contained by what came to be known, in the words of Sir Winston Churchill, as the Iron Curtain, with Poland falling behind the walls of that Iron Curtain, where religion was suppressed, faith was not to be practiced openly, and where he could not attend seminary openly. He would have to do it in an underground fashion. The Pope's preparation for his priesthood and his papacy was forged in the difficult times that he faced not only personally but also in his life as a citizen of Poland. It then fell upon him to be Pope at a time when the world was undergoing change, and at a time when the people of his beloved Poland were energized as no other in history by his papacy and his theme of ``be not afraid.'' His trip back to Poland in the early years of his papacy was punctuated by his remarkable reception by the people of Poland--people thirsty for freedom, thirsty for an opportunity to end the yoke of tyranny and communism. So the papal visit was a transcending moment in the history of Poland. As we now know, it was a transcending moment in the history of our world because it did signal the beginning of the end of Communist rule in Eastern Europe. We know Pope John Paul worked closely with several U.S. Presidents but none more closely than President Ronald Reagan, in those crucial years when the Cold War came to a head, and when we saw the beginning of the fraying of what was a failed system, a system that had only been maintained through terror and fear. His theme of ``be not afraid'' began to be heard and responded to, and the people of Poland began that surge toward freedom, which was inevitable in all of Eastern Europe. So the Pope's contribution there was crucial, critical, and was something that I think we all saw as a tremendous contribution. Of course, the Pope also visited the United States on many occasions. I believe I have heard over the last several days it was the second most visited country after his beloved Poland. It was with great significance that we received him here, and it made a tremendous difference in the life of our own country. More recently, he visited Cuba 8 years ago. Cuba is an imprisoned land where there had never been a papal visit. Also, it is a country ruled under the same tyrannical communism he saw in his native Poland during his youth and he battled all during his adult life being suppressed in his ability to worship freely. Cuba happens to be the place where I was born, where I began my life, and where the principles of the Catholic faith were taught to me early in life by my family and my church. It was in that same land that I came to understand the meaning of oppression, tyranny, and the lack of religious freedom the Pope had experienced in his youth. He and I, in different parts of the world, in a sense shared a common experience and understanding of the limitations of freedom that are sometimes placed upon people by governments that do not respect what we find so basic and so rightful, which is the right of free speech and the right of practicing one's religion freely. The Pope's trip to Cuba was a monumental thing because it helped the people to begin again to practice their faith in a more open way. His theme of ``be not afraid'' was heard by Cuba, and thousands of Cubans were for the first time expressing their faith in an open way, in a way they had not been permitted to do before, but which now they dare to do. The Pope's visit did not have the same galvanizing political effect it had in Poland, where it also led to political change, but it did have a strong pastoral theme, a message that the people of Cuba welcomed with open arms. It also inspired the archbishop in Santiago, Cuba, the second largest city in Cuba, to speak forcefully about oppression in Cuba, the lack of religious freedom, and continuation of oppression--the kind of religious oppression I felt in my life that led me to seek freedom in the United States, with the very help of the same church the Pope came to lead, the Catholic Church. His fight against atheists and communism over the years also led him to conduct a program called Operation Peter Pan, which took 14,000 young people from Cuba to freedom in the United States. I was lucky enough to be among them, so my life began under the care of the Catholic church. I understand fully the religious oppression the people of Cuba have suffered, which continues to this day but which the Pope made a little better. He gave them a window, an opening, a moment, for the first time in over 35 years. Christmas was celebrated in anticipation of the papal visit. Unfortunately, Cuba now has fallen back into a more repressive practice, and freedom of religion is curtailed even more today. As we look at the Pope's life, at this moment in history, as we reflect on this remarkable man, his remarkable life, and the contributions he made, we also must continue to understand there is work still to be done. There are people in the world who still are hungry and suffer, and there are those who still lack the religious freedoms to openly practice their faith, much as the Pope in his youth was curtailed. People today in Cuba and other places around the world still yearn for that opportunity to freely worship and to do what we do. As we began our proceedings this morning, the Chaplain of the Senate offered a word of prayer. I conclude by simply saying that we have been touched in our lives by this remarkable man, this life which has shaped the world in which we live. It is a life well lived. As he has come to the end of his journey, I hope those of us who share in his faith and in his ideals of the respect of every human life and every human being will continue to carry on the wonderful legacy he left for us.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes.

Mr. MARTINEZ. To close, I thank the leadership of the minority and majority. I never anticipated that my first legal measure on the floor of the Senate would be something such as this. I am very pleased that we have had the cooperation we have had. I thank Senators Harkin and Conrad and so many others on our side of the aisle who have worked with me tirelessly to get to this point and the encouragement they provided me. By voting for this bill, we will simply be allowing the Federal judge to give one last review, one last look in a case that has so many questions, that has so many anxieties, and that will provide us the kind of assurance before the ultimate fate of this woman is decided to know that we did all we could do and that every last measure of review was given her, just like it would have been given to a death row inmate convicted and sentenced to die. I ask for a vote in support of the measure that we might keep Terry Schiavo alive and give her a chance to have a Federal review of her case.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. MARTINEZ. The language is at the desk.

Mr. MARTINEZ. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 653, which is at the desk, that relates to Terri Marie Schiavo; that there be 15 minutes of debate on the bill equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; provided further no amendments be in order; following that debate the bill be read the third time, and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the bill, with no further intervening action or debate.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to Senator Santorum from Pennsylvania.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the majority leader.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, in 1990, at the age of 27, Theresa Marie Schiavo, a Florida resident, suffered a heart attack which resulted in brain damage from a lack of oxygen. As a result, she was taken to the hospital and a feeding tube was inserted at that time to provide nutrition and hydration to keep her alive. Over the last 15 years, there has been a very difficult and long protracted legal struggle in Florida over whether the parents' wishes should prevail, who wish for her to continue to receive food and hydration, or the husband's wishes. A court order has been entered. The effect of that court order is that tomorrow, on March 18 of this year, the food and hydration would be withdrawn from this woman. The effort of our bill is very narrowly tailored to provide relief to this young woman so that a Federal judge in Florida will have the opportunity to do a de novo review of all that pertains to this case to ensure that her constitutional rights have been protected, to ensure that under the 14th amendment due process has been exhausted, and to ensure, without precluding either outcome in the case, that the Federal review of this case could provide the same type of relief that we would provide to any other person in the State of Florida who might be put to death as a result of a court order, including those who might be doing so because of criminal conduct. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. I ask unanimous consent the call for the quorum be rescinded.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for the incredible work he has been doing on behalf of this woman in Florida. His guidance and leadership have been a great sign to me of how effective a Senate can be and how compassionate a heart can be as well. I echo his comments in terms of the cooperation in the Senate. I believe today Members of both parties came together to pass a bill that is designed to ensure this woman has an opportunity to have a review of her case by a Federal judge in the hopes that maybe her parents may prevail, but whatever the outcome may be, so she may have and we may be assured that every last measure of justice has been given to her. I also am very pleased the House of Representatives acted swiftly outside normal procedure in order to make this happen. I am very grateful for their work. I am grateful for what they did. It is unfortunate we came at it because of the rush of business over the last several days, the very shortened period of time we had available to end up with two versions of this bill that differ. Their approach, which is a removal of approach, is not specific to any one individual. I know the House, for very good reasons, for historical reasons of good faith and for very good reasons, has had a reticence to do a private or individual bill. I understand that concern. I also know how difficult it was for some Members on the other side of the aisle particularly to go along with that measure because it was interpreted by some to maybe be too broad. We are acting in good faith, and their concerns were, again, reasonable, while maybe I would disagree with them. Unfortunately, the only vehicle we could find in this very short timeframe was to utilize the bill we had in the Senate which found favor enough for there to be unanimous consent to proceed. A number of inquiries have been made whether this is over. It is not. We continue to work diligently. We continue to work toward a solution, toward bringing the two bodies together so we can get a bill to the President. I am encouraged the President today has made it clear he will sign a bill if we get it to him. We must continue to work in this spirit of cooperation, not only among both sides of the aisle, majority and minority in the Senate, but also across this building, one end to the other, House and Senate, all intent on a result that will give this final review by a Federal court the opportunity for this woman to have that final measure of compassion, and at the end I am hopeful we will reach a solution. As my colleague from Pennsylvania stated, we will be in session on Monday, and we will continue to work and negotiate on this over the weekend, tomorrow, and I am very hopeful we will find a solution. I am an optimist, and I am of the belief that we will be able to prevail in this matter. I am very grateful for the help and cooperation from our leader, who has been working very diligently, who did the research medically, who became convinced about this case. I have had Members from both sides of the aisle say all day there is something about this case, that it seems like it ought to have one more review. That is the spirit in which we say this. I am happy to yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from North Carolina to speak about our great loss, the loss of a great friend, the passing of Congresswoman Tillie Fowler of Jacksonville. Tillie was taken from us suddenly yesterday, passing from this Earth to a better life, and we are sad and shocked by this terrific loss that the State and the Nation has suffered. In every way, Tillie was a great lady. She had such a unique combination of strengths that she has been referred to as a ``steel magnolia.'' She was ever gracious and kind and a gentle soul, but at the same time she was firm in her convictions. Even though Tillie had left the House of Representatives, people in the highest levels of Government, as pointed out by my colleague from North Carolina, continually sought her advice and counsel. Most recently she had served on the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, which provides counsel to Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld on policy and strategy. I relied often on her sound judgment and advice. Most recently we were talking about the Mayport Naval Base in Florida and the USS Kennedy, and what the Florida delegation should do in order to ensure the long-term viability of Mayport. She was an instrumental adviser to Governor Jeb Bush on the BRAC and BRAC process. Tillie was a great friend and personal counselor to me. It was only about this time a year ago that she and I were standing near the St. John's River in Jacksonville and she announced her support for my candidacy for the Senate. I am so grateful for her support, and so proud to have had the faith of Tillie Fowler in my candidacy. Her wisdom will be missed, but her legacy is firmly in place. Tillie Fowler began her life as a public servant shortly after earning her law degree from Emory University. She came to Washington to work for 3 years as a legislative assistant to Representative Robert Stephens of Georgia, and shortly thereafter she went to work at the Nixon White House in the Office of Consumer Affairs. At the White House, Tillie made one of her dearest lifelong friends, our colleague Senator Elizabeth Dole. Tillie and her husband Buck even named one of their daughters Elizabeth in honor of that wonderful friendship. Tillie looked to Elizabeth Dole as a role model for working women, as someone who could be strong without being hard edged, and she followed that example of success. I extend to my colleague my deepest condolences on the loss of your good and dear friend. After her tenure at the White House, she and Buck moved back to Jacksonville, FL, where they settled down to raise a family. She became active in a number of community organizations including the American Red Cross and the Jacksonville Junior League. She eventually ran for the city council in the 1980s, and served for 7 years, the last year as council president. She was the first female, and the first Republican, to serve as the president of the Jacksonville city council. In 1992 Tillie Fowler became Congresswoman Tillie Fowler and quickly rose to be one of the top ranking women in the House of Representatives. She became vice chairwoman of the House Republican Conference and, for 6 years, chief deputy whip. Congresswoman Fowler served on the House Armed Services Committee and the House Committee on Transportation as well. Both committees allowed her to become a successful advocate for the city of Jacksonville and for the State of Florida. But I think Tillie will always be remembered for her great grasp of defense policy, her impassioned advocacy on behalf of the U.S. military. In the year 2000, Congresswoman Fowler voluntarily stepped down to honor a pledge she had made to self-limit and return to private life. Without a doubt, the most important legacy left behind by our friend Tillie Fowler is her family--her husband Buck, and their two daughters Elizabeth and Tillie. Our hearts are with you. Our thoughts and prayers go out to you during this difficult time. We will miss her greatly and may God bless her.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess until 2 p.m. today.

Mr. MARTINEZ

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

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, good morning. I ask unanimous consent to deliver a portion of my remarks in Spanish, and that a copy of my speech in English and in Spanish appear in the Record.