Mel Martinez

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam President, Members on both sides of the aisle agree that any stimulus we pass must be timely, targeted, and temporary. We need to put our economy back on track. The key to putting the economy back on track is that the spending we do through this stimulus be targeted, temporary, and timely. Each of these principles is important and they each are loaded with meaning. It needs to be timely because it needs to be directed as soon as possible. As the President as early as this morning said, it is essential we get it out there. It also has to be targeted because it cannot just go to all the wonderful things upon which the Congress might spend money. It has to be targeted to that which the economy needs in order to create jobs at this moment in time. It must be also temporary because we well know at some point this economy is going to recover, and as it recovers, it would not be a good idea for Government spending to be out of control and be the beast that feeds inflation. We do not want to come out of this economic crisis only to be creating the next one, which would be an inflationary problem for our economy. Americans want and deserve solutions that will create jobs and support the American worker. I have joined a number of my colleagues in offering an alternative with the right incentives to foster job creation. While creating jobs is essential if we want to achieve economic recovery, it will not fix the problem with that alone. Our Nation is still in the midst of the worst housing slump in decades, and many American families face the frightening reality of foreclosure. To date, Congress and the White House and the private sector have put forth a number of programs to help struggling homeowners, but we have yet to see significant results from any of these various programs that have been out there. This is because at the core of the problem are privately securitized mortgages, which were originated without a guarantee from the government-sponsored enterprises. These are the privately securitized mortgages that are not Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or GSE sponsored. These mortgages account for only 15 percent of all outstanding mortgages, but they represent more than one-half of all the foreclosures that are taking place today. If left alone, the crisis will only continue to worsen. According to one expert, we can expect to see 1.7 million more foreclosures in the year of 2009 alone. It is a downward spiral that seems to find no bottom. Today I am proposing a plan that would provide troubled homeowners with options and incentivize participation from the private sector from these private securitizers who are out there in the private sector. Included in the plan is a loan modification program which will encourage mortgage servicers to help stem the tide of foreclosures. Currently, there are two primary factors hindering mortgage servicers from modifying loans: a lack of proper compensation, and second and equally important is the threat of litigation. The plan has a two-pronged approach that aims to address these concerns by the properly compensating mortgage servicers and removing the legal restraints that prevent modifications. Under the plan, the Federal Government would temporarily provide a monthly incentive fee to servicers who modify privately securitized mortgages. It also includes a safe harbor provision that removes the legal constraints currently inhibiting modifications. This plan also recognizes the integrity of contracts. There is always the potential that a relatively small number of junior investors could be harmed by the modifications permitted by the program. With this in mind, the proposed legislation eliminates the need for these junior investors to file suit by creating a small claims fund that the Treasury may use to resolve potential disputes. This will go a long way in protecting investors acting in good faith for the greater good--an incentive that is greatly needed if we want investors to be on board in helping to resolve this current crisis. The plan has been supported by a number of economists, including Columbia Business School Dean Glenn Hubbard and Vice Dean Christopher Mayer. According to a Columbia report, the plan could reduce up to 1 million foreclosures at a cost of about $11 billion--roughly 10 percent of the $100 billion required by other plans. I have been supportive of similar concepts, including the plan put forth by FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair, which is based on the model used to modify the loans the FDIC took over from IndyMac. I believe this plan is even more taxpayer friendly because future potential losses are shouldered by private investors, not the Government. As we continue talking about the stimulus, I urge my colleagues to consider the need to address the root cause of this crisis, which is the housing market. Americans are struggling, and unless we provide them with realistic alternatives to foreclosure, we will fail to fix the larger problem at hand. A lot of colleagues of mine have expressed support for this plan. I encourage Members on both sides of the aisle to please look at this plan carefully. Because as a result of what we are doing on stimulus, we need to also deal with the housing problem. The housing problem is what brought us into this problem. We will not get out of this economic mess until we once again resolve the housing problem. We need to tackle it in two ways, in my view. We need to tackle it in keeping families in their homes, avoiding foreclosure where possible. A huge number of today's inventory of unsold homes are homes that have been or are coming out of foreclosure. Those homes in and of themselves obviously tend to be sold at much lower prices. So it continues to drive the market down. It depresses values. It depresses the market. The second problem, obviously, is still the old law of economics of supply and demand. We have a huge inventory of unsold homes. This inventory of unsold homes also impacts price. So I support not only my proposal but the proposal my colleague from Georgia, the Senator from Georgia, Johnny Isakson, has proposed, which is to incentivize the purchase of homes by providing a $15,000 tax credit, over a year or 2 years, to anyone in America who purchases a home. The bottom line is, if we can get the market back again and people buying homes again and we draw down that inventory of unsold homes, if we slow down or can bring foreclosures to a halt, those two elements, working together, will be a greater way in which we can now begin to see the housing market stabilize in prices, which will also stabilize the foreclosures of the future. You see, families who are in trouble today were not the same families who were in trouble 2 years ago when this crisis began. Families who are in trouble today are people who increasingly find themselves upside down on their mortgage because of the continuing decline in home values. I hope my colleagues will carefully analyze these proposals--not only mine, amendment No. 159, but also Senator Isakson's proposal. I think these two proposals, hand in hand, will help us to make a difference in the current housing crisis. Many other things we can talk about in the stimulus, but fixing housing is at the core of what we must do. Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 159.

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

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, the amendment of the Senator from Texas allows the States with the highest percentage of uninsured children to be given priority for outreach and enrollment. Most importantly, it contains language that ensures the five States with the highest number of uninsured kids be given sufficient time to spend their current SCHIP allocations and will be given the flexibility for using these funds for outreach and enrollment. I yield to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, can I ask the Senate be in order?

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, this amendment is to reinstate the Mexico City policy which President Obama, just a couple of days ago, eliminated with the stroke of a pen. Much has been said in opposition to this amendment, which I think is erroneous. I think at the core of what this amendment is about is whether we want U.S. taxpayer dollars-- my taxes, as someone who finds abortion to not be something I can live with, which is not consistent with my faith and personal beliefs-- whether my tax dollars and those of other people similarly situated should be utilized to fund family planning that utilizes abortion as a means of family planning with organizations abroad. That, I think, is wrong. That, I think, is abhorrent. It is not about denying organizations family health assistance when they are simply looking after a person's health. It is not about those rare exceptions of rape and incest, which are dragged in to try to make what is unjustifiable justifiable. Abortion should not be utilized as a means of family planning. We talk about wanting to have fewer abortions not more, to have it be rare not frequent, but then we do things like this, and that is completely contrary to what is the avowed intent of what so often is portrayed as the position on this issue during political campaigns. This policy does not restrict foreign aid funding. It is to ensure that American taxpayer dollars will not go to promote nor support abortion or abortion-related services. I think it is that simple. I hope my colleagues will join in this effort. This is about what the taxpayer dollars of America should be funding overseas, in countries where very often we find that the culture and the religion of the host country is consistent with the Mexico City policy. This is a vote to reinstate the Mexico City policy which has been the policy of this country until last week. I hopefully urge my colleagues to support amendment No. 65.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to speak for 2 minutes to close on the amendment.

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

Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 65 and send it to the desk.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam President, while we are debating SCHIP and considering the best ways to promote healthy children in our country, we are going to look at many amendments covering a wide range of topics. Whether we support extending this program or not, everyone wants children to have the best health care available. Into this broad- ranging debate, I have also introduced an amendment to reinstate the Mexico City policy--a policy that prohibits U.S. foreign assistance from going to groups in foreign countries that support or perform abortions. The fact is, we often talk about promoting a culture of life. We talk during political campaigns about how we wish we had fewer abortions and how we wish to promote other alternatives such as adoption, and, in fact, that we want abortions to be rare. However, actions do matter, and last Friday President Obama changed the tone of this conversation by approving the use of taxpayer dollars to fund international organizations responsible for performing and promoting abortions in every corner of the world. Today, I am proposing an amendment to H.R. 2, the SCHIP bill, that would return this policy to its original intent, which is to restrict the use of taxpayer money to family planning organizations that are known to perform and promote abortion. This policy, known as the Mexico City policy, was first signed into Executive order by President Ronald Reagan in 1984. Over the years, the policy has been wrongly attacked and falsely characterized as a restriction on foreign aid for family planning. This policy is not about reducing aid, but it is instead about ensuring that family planning funds are given to organizations dedicated to reducing abortions, instead of promoting them. Reversing this policy means there is no longer a clear line between funding organizations that aim to reduce abortions and those that promote abortions as a means of contraception. If not reversed, the funding would enable organizations to perform and promote abortions in regions such as Latin America, countries in the Middle East, and Africa, where the sanctity of life is not only respected but, in many instances, is the law of the land and, in fact, where strong religious convictions make this practice abhorrent. The United States is a generous country. We give to countries around the world for many reasons and for many purposes. At the same time, we also want to be on the positive side of respecting the culture of so many of the countries that would be impacted by this dramatic change in what has been the U.S. policy abroad. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment restoring the Mexico City policy first enacted by President Ronald Reagan and then reenacted again by our last President. It is necessary--if we want to continue fostering a culture of life where every life is sacred, every child is celebrated, and life at all stages is given the dignity it deserves--that we support this amendment in promoting life, in standing for the things we say we believe in during campaigns, which is promoting a culture of life and looking for abortions to be rare and to be the last option and to not be something that comes into the picture as a result of a desire to use it as a family planning tool and not with the understanding that it is disrespecting the very sanctity of life we all believe ought to be observed from the moment of conception until the end of life. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, today marks the 36th year since the Supreme Court issued its decision in the case of Roe v. Wade, a court decision that evokes strong emotions all across America. Today, thousands of Americans who support life have taken time out of their busy schedules to travel to Washington to take part in the ``March for Life,'' an annual event on the National Mall. I share their hope for seeing the day where the sanctity of life is cherished, valued, and affirmed under the law. This morning, I had the opportunity to meet with some of these individuals, students from Cardinal Newman High School in West Palm Beach, and I expressed my gratitude for their steadfast commitment to protecting innocent human life. As a Nation, we have made significant progress in creating a culture that respects life in recent years. As someone who believes that every life is sacred, I encourage President Obama to follow the lead of his predecessor, and continue to restrict the use of taxpayer funding for organizations that perform abortion services or refer patients to abortion providers. This policy, known as the Mexico City Agreement, was first signed into order by President Ronald Reagan in 1984. Over the years, the policy has been wrongly attacked and falsely characterized as a restriction on foreign aid for family planning. The truth is that the policy has not reduced aid at all. Instead, it has ensured that family planning funds are given to organizations dedicated to reducing abortions instead of promoting them. If the policy were to be reversed, it would blur the line that has been drawn between funding organizations that aim to reduce abortions, and those that promote abortion as a means of contraception. President Obama should make the right choice in keeping the Mexico City Agreement in place. In conclusion, on this 36th year since the Supreme Court handed down its decision, I commend the leaders of ``March for Life.'' Supporters are in Washington today, marching down Pennsylvania Avenue, reminding lawmakers of the importance of preserving and protecting life. Their voices are heard. They are heard year after year. I hope there is a day when their voices are heard in celebration that life is preserved and protected by the rule of law.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, lawyers have a saying: ``Bad facts make bad law.'' In my opinion, bad facts make even worse legislation. The proposal before the Senate, S. 181, assumes a number of erroneous facts directly related to the case of Ms. Lilly Ledbetter and how current law treats those wishing to file discrimination claims. I believe improvements are in order to the current law, but S. 181 goes well beyond what is reasonable and equitable. Ms. Ledbetter was not prevented from asserting claims because she wasn't aware of her employer's alleged discrimination. She was prevented from asserting her claims because, as Ms. Ledbetter testified under oath in the case, she knew about the alleged discrimination for nearly 6 years before bringing her lawsuit. While it is essential that employees be given an adequate period of time to press a discrimination claim, employers must also be protected from endless litigation. Statutes of limitation serve an important function in our judicial system. By effectively eliminating the statute of limitation in employment discrimination cases, S. 181 would make it very difficult for an employer to mount a credible defense to a discrimination claim. Both small business owners and employees deserve a fair process. Although I support fair pay for equal work and oppose workplace discrimination of any kind, I oppose S. 181 and I am hopeful a balance can be reached before it becomes law. (At the request of Mr. REID, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I am pleased to know the Navy has finalized its decision to make Naval Station Mayport a homeport for a nuclear carrier a key element in furthering the Navy's longstanding strategy of strategic dispersal. Strategic dispersal has guided our Navy in protecting our fleet for more than 150 years. Creating greater flexibility and additional safeguards for these capital ships is necessary in ensuring continuity in our Navy's efforts to tactically position our naval assets. Currently, the Pacific fleet has three nuclear carrier homeports and maintenance facilities at San Diego, Pearl Harbor, and Bremerton; while the Atlantic Fleet has only one at Norfolk. As you might imagine, this not only places a tremendous burden on Norfolk, but it also creates a tremendous liability. Last year, all five of the East Coast's nuclear aircraft carriers were in port simultaneously for 35 days. Two or more carriers were in port or undergoing routine maintenance in the sole east coast facility 81 percent of the time. If, Heaven forbid, tragedy should strike or Norfolk were to become inoperative, the impact on the Atlantic fleet's ability to meet our national security needs would decrease immensely. Sixty-seven years ago, more than 2,400 brave men and women in uniform were tragically killed while another 1,200 were wounded in the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor. The attack taught our Nation an important lesson: assets and resources should not be concentrated in one place. Mayport has been the home to conventional aircraft carriers for more than 50 years and is proud to be playing a role as the Navy continues transitioning to an all-nuclear powered fleet. The Navy's decision to make Mayport nuclear-ready has been given careful consideration. The former Chief of Naval Operations, ADM Vernon Clark, told the Armed Services Committee in February 2005 that in his view, ``over-centralization of the [carrier] port structure is not a good strategic move . . . the Navy should have two carrier-capable homeports on each coast.'' Admiral Clark went on to say, ``. . . it is my belief that it would be a serious strategic mistake to have all of those key assets of our Navy tied up in one port.'' In another Armed Services Committee hearing, I had the opportunity to ask the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staffs ADM Mike Mullen his thoughts on the viability of Mayport as a nuclear-ready port. In response, Admiral Mullen said, ``I also consider the King's Bay, Mayport, Jacksonville hub a vital part of our both strategic interests--strategic interests and key for not just capability but for our people for the future. . . .'' In addition to the Navy, the decision is preferred by the Department of Defense, Department of Commerce, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Environmental Protection Agency. In November, the Navy released an Environmental Impact Study identifying why expanding Mayport is critical to our Navy's future. In the report, the Navy expressed concern over Norfolk's current physical capacity, which is at its peak. In order to ensure capacity for future ships, the report recommended utilizing the space available at Mayport. Another concern is the risk posed by hurricanes. In the Navy's report, it was determined that, historically, the hurricane risk at Norfolk is statistically identical to Jacksonville. Given the statistical similarities between these two ports and reality of hurricanes to any city on the east coast, having the flexibility of a second nuclear-ready homeport on the Eastern Seaboard is essential in mitigating the risk these storms pose to our naval assets. The report also addressed the impact an expansion at Mayport would have on the local habitat. The report found that an expansion at Mayport would not pose a risk to the marine mammals or the local essential fish habitat. Perhaps most importantly, the report determined that expanding Mayport serves our national security interests. The report's findings indicated, ``the most compelling strategic rationale to homeport a nuclear carrier in Mayport is as a hedge against a catastrophic event at Norfolk.'' So I want to commend the Navy's leadership for making this important decision--a decision they admit is long overdue. I also want to recognize Navy Secretary Donald Winter and Chief of Naval Operations, ADM Gary Roughead for working tirelessly toward making a nuclear-ready Mayport a reality. The decision is a tremendous step forward for our Navy and a critical component to our future national security efforts.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam President, today it gives me great pleasure to pay tribute to an outstanding leader and tremendous public servant, Navy Secretary Donald C. Winter. When Donald Winter was sworn in as Secretary of the Navy on January 3, 2006, he was charged with training, equipping, and organizing our sailors and marines in a time of war. He assumed these responsibilities at a time when the U.S. Navy was in the midst of an ambitious modernization program across the board. A new class of destroyers, aircraft carriers, submarines, cruisers, and others was in the production pipeline. It would take an extraordinarily talented, knowledgeable, and energetic leader to navigate the Department of the Navy through these transitions. We were fortunate to find such a person in Donald Winter. He was that kind of a leader. He immediately outlined his priorities and then set to work on implementing them: Prosecute the global war on terror; build the future fleet; take care of our wounded and their families. Those were his priorities, and each day he drove the Department to focus on these areas. With 25,000 marines and 36,000 sailors in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the Central Command's area of responsibility, the Navy and Marine Corps have been playing a critical role in fighting this war. From providing maritime security in the Northern Arabian Gulf, to turning around a seemingly hopeless situation in al-Anbar Province, to providing individual augmentees on the ground in Iraq, our sailors and marines have been on the front lines and have been performing superbly. These sailors and marines have always been foremost in Secretary Winter's mind, and they are the ones he has worked tirelessly to support in every way possible on Capitol Hill, within the Pentagon, and throughout the Department of the Navy. While supporting our brave warriors in harm's way, Secretary Winter also focused on building the future fleet by instituting the most far- reaching acquisition reforms in decades. I had the pleasure of traveling with Secretary Winter to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba in May 2007. It was my second time returning to this island since my arrival here in 1962. What I saw was the tremendous leadership ability he possesses and his firm commitment to the men and women of the U.S. Navy. I would also commend Secretary Winter for his tireless efforts to ensure that our Nation is doing everything in our power to take care of our wounded. Secretary Winter has been an outspoken and relentless advocate for our wounded warriors, insisting on the highest possible standards for every sailor and every marine. So on behalf of the men and women serving under him in my home State of Florida, I salute Secretary Winter for his superior performance in leading the Navy and Marine Corps over the past 3 years. We wish him Godspeed in his future endeavors, and we thank him for his service to our Nation. situation in israel Mr. President, the first and most sacred duty of any government is providing for the safety and security of its citizens. Hamas's repeated rocket attacks on the Israeli people created a situation that required an Israeli response. I was pleased to join my colleagues in cosponsoring S. Res. 10, which recognizes Israel's right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza. While diplomacy is always a preferable alternative, at some point any legitimate government must take the necessary actions to safeguard its people from acts of terrorism against an unarmed civilian population. With more than 6,000 rocket attacks launched into Israel from Gaza, the Israeli government acted reasonably in an effort to end the attacks against civilian targets. These attacks are Hamas' latest attempts to advance their cruel and murderous agenda. Hamas first began as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist group responsible for the assassination of Egypt's President Anwar Sadat. As you might recall, Sadat was the first Arab President willing to make peace with Israel. Hamas has since claimed the lives of countless others throughout the region. In 2002, a Hamas suicide bomber killed five Americans and four Israelis who were eating lunch in the cafeteria at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. The bomb was smuggled in a backpack loaded with shrapnel, which maximized damage to the cafeteria and inflicted severe injuries on more than 80 students. Since coming to power politically in 2006, the terrorist organization has hijacked the Palestinian people's agenda. They have cynically used their own people as civilian shields and brought harm to those who do not share their radical views. During the June 2007 coup in Gaza, Hamas operatives killed a cook of Palestinian National Authority President Mahmoud Abbas by throwing him from the roof of a 15-story building with his hands and feet tied. In the current conflict, they have fired rockets at their own people. On December 26, two Palestinian girls aged 5 and 13 were killed when a rocket fell short of reaching an Israeli target. Hamas openly admits it uses women and children as human shields. One Hamas leader described this appalling practice by saying, ``For the Palestinian people, death has become an industry. . . . This is why they have formed human shields of the women, the children, [and] the elderly.'' Instead of investing in their own people's well-being, in roads, schools, and hospitals, they have instead invested in the cache of weapons they are using to cause death and destruction in Israel. As a result, Palestinians are suffering. They have limited access to basic needs such as food and medicine. Their free speech has been suppressed through violence. And their right to freely practice religion has been replaced by a strong-armed enforcement of a radical brand of Islam. The largest beneficiary of Hamas's weapons purchases has been Iran, which has aided Hamas by training terrorists and offering advice in making deadly explosives and long-range rockets. Throughout the conflict, Hamas has turned into a Hezbollah-like Iranian proxy by threatening Israel from the south. Iran's willingness to embolden terrorist organizations like Hamas poses a serious threat not only to Israel, but also the United States. While Iran's influence has been plainly apparent across the Middle East, they have surreptitiously worked to advance their anti-American agenda in our own hemisphere. In recent years, Iran has aggressively increased its Latin American presence by working with the leaders who have found a commonality in the Iranian President's radical ways. Iran and the regimes of nations like Venezuela and Cuba may not share a common border, but they share an anti-American agenda that poses a tremendous risk to our Nation's security. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad first visited Venezuela in 2006 and has since returned to visit the leaders of Cuba, Nicaragua, and Bolivia. He has also hosted Latin American leaders in Tehran. As a result of these meetings, Iran has entered into several economic and political agreements, including plans to finance new progovernment television and radio stations in Bolivia and countries throughout the region. These agreements help to fan the flames of anti-Americanism, which persists throughout the region. The government of Argentina recently revealed they received $1 million from the Cuban regime to pay for anti-American protests during President Bush's visit there in 2005. Cuban families could have used that money for food, but instead it was wasted on furthering the regime's anti-American agenda. What has been lost on these Latin American leaders is the larger conflict at hand. Iran is heavily invested in a conflict that has claimed the lives of countless innocent civilians, and they will stop at no cost, continuing to aid in the destruction of American allies. For our Nation, the next few weeks will be historic, but critical. I am anxious to hear about President-elect Obama's plan to address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and I am hopeful his administration will continue to reaffirm the U.S.'s historic commitment to the people of Israel. I am also hopeful the administration will continue efforts to persuade Syria to stop yielding to Iran's devious demands. Syria must understand that Iran's interests do not serve the interests of the people of the Middle East. Egypt has taken significant measures in trying to stop Hamas's smuggling of weapons and militants from Egypt into Gaza, but they must do more. One proposal I support deploys an international force of military engineers to monitor and destroy the tunnels along the Egyptian border near Gaza. I would also encourage the new administration to continue working vigorously with the European Union, Russia, and the United Nations on the U.N.-sanctioned ``Annapolis Process'' to achieve a final status agreement between Arabs and Israelis that includes a viable, democratic Palestinian state living in peace with Israel and its neighbors. And finally, I hope to see further progress in our efforts to train the Palestinian Presidential Guard led by U.S. General Keith Dayton. Although the recent outbreak of violence in Israel is troubling, I am hopeful a new cease-fire agreement can be reached very soon. A true cease-fire with Hamas should include a guarantee for no more rockets and safeguards against rearming. Both sides will soon realize that further loss of innocent life is too great a cost, and peace and security is the only viable way forward. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee and the new administration to find a way forward in Israel and ensure a plan for peace in the future. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill.) Without objection, it is so ordered. Tribute to Navy Secretary Donald C. Winter

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of S. 22, the public lands omnibus bill. This legislation contains several important provisions for the State of Florida that will protect its natural treasures and expand understanding of our rich history. These bills are bipartisan, and I am proud to have worked with my colleague Senator Bill Nelson in support of the Everglades provisions and the commission for the 450th anniversary of St. Augustine's founding. Congressman John Mica has introduced a companion version of this bill in the House of Representatives and I wanted to recognize his efforts as well. In addition, I thank the hard work of Senator Jeff Bingaman, the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and ranking member, Senator Murkowski, and their staff, for including these bills in S. 22 and bringing it to expected floor passage. The public lands package contains an authorization for the St. Augustine 450th Commemoration Commission, which is critical in assisting the National Park Service, the State of Florida, as well as all local stakeholders in organizing the historic celebration of the city's founding. St. Augustine's old and complex history mirrors much of the American experience. It was the birthplace of Christianity in the New World and it was truly the first blending-pot of cultures that included peoples of Spanish, English, French, Native American, and African descent. Many do not know that St. Augustine is the location of the first parish mass in the United States and it was the location of the first free black settlement in North America. Nearly a century before the founding of Jamestown, Spanish explorer Juan Ponce de Leon landed off the coast of St. Augustine looking for the fabled Fountain of Youth but instead founded a colony known as La Florida. He discovered very favorable currents that would later be known as the Gulf Stream, which would serve as trade routes for European explorers to discover other parts of the New World. Because of St. Augustine's location along strategic trade routes, Spain constructed the Castillo de San Marcos in 1672 to protect the capital of La Florida from French and British interests. The Castillo de San Marcos is built on the ruins of the original fort that was burned to the ground by British sailor and explorer Sir Francis Drake. The fort still stands today and has had six different flags fly above its ramparts. It is the oldest surviving European fortification in the United States. The St. Augustine Commemoration Commission is necessary to help organize the tremendous amount of historical and cultural events that will take place in the first coast area. The commission will encompass a broad array of members from Federal, State, local, and academic backgrounds to ensure that it has a diverse make-up of professionals to assist the city of St. Augustine in celebrating its founding. The intent of the St. Augustine commission bill is to assist the NPS and local stakeholders in building upon the experiences of the Jamestown celebration in 2007. In addition, the commission would provide the necessary framework to navigate the significant logistical challenges facing the city of St. Augustine, the State of Florida, and the National Park Service. Restoration of the Everglades, especially Everglades National Park, will be enhanced by enactment of the public lands bills package, S. 22. One such provision included is section 7107, which would expand the boundaries of Everglades National Park by nearly 600 acres and help protect a critical part of Florida's ecological heritage. I am proud to have cosponsored this legislation with my colleague Bill Nelson, and it is supported by a broad group. of stakeholders including the Monroe County government in the Florida Keys, the Nature Conservancy, and the National Park Service. The passage of this bill would protect coastal wetlands and habitat for a myriad of endangered species including the American crocodile, the West Indian manatee, the wood stork, the roseate spoonbill, and other migrating birds. The citizens of Florida have long treasured the Everglades, and the addition of this property within the park's boundaries will help preserve the unique beauty that makes the keys such a special place. The addition of the Tarpon Basin property will not place new management or administrative burdens on our park's staff, but instead would enhance and preserve a part of Old Florida for years to come. Another provision included in S. 22, which Senator Nelson and I support would facilitate an important land exchange to allow the National Park Service to acquire the last significant private inholding in the Everglades and clear the way to finally implement the federally approved Modified Waters Delivery Project or ``Mod Waters.'' Mod Waters will help restore natural water flows into Everglades National Park, and although authorized nearly 20 years ago in 1989, it has experienced substantial delays. The land trade provided for in the pending, measure enables the Park Service to acquire Florida Power and Light's, FPL, 7-mile long, utility corridor that now bisects the expanded Everglades National Park. This corridor runs north-south through the heart of the East Everglades and Shark River Slough, which provides the primary water flows into the park. Under the exchange, FPL would give this 320 acre inholding to the park and would receive roughly 260 acres on the eastern boundary of the park adjacent to the existing L 31 canal and levee. FPL would also receive a vegetative management easement to help control nonnative exotic plants. Public acquisition of the FPL inholding would eliminate the last significant private inholding delaying Mod Waters. No funds will be needed for this inholding acquisition and appraisals indicate that the park receives more value than FPL. Since so much preliminary work has been put into identifying the precise lands and interests involved in the exchange, the Park Service should be able to promptly complete the appraisal approval process. Expeditious review is critical to facilitate Mod Waters and ensure that the exchange is executed so taxpayers are spared the multimillion-dollar costs of purchasing the FPL corridor. Substantial work has already been completed and all evaluations indicate that relocating the utility corridor away from the Everglades National Park will provide a wide array of environmental benefits to the park. The exchange and relocation ensures that there will be no electric transmission lines constructed on the existing private right- of-way. In addition, moving the utility corridor to the periphery of the park to developed property will lessen impacts on resources, endangered and threatened species, and other park-related values. The bill also provides the NPS with the authority to relocate the Everglades Park boundary to ensure that the lands conveyed to FPL are outside of the park. The intent is that the relocated utility corridor not be within Everglades Park. Since an environmental assessment needs to focus only on those factors arising from the land exchange itself, it is expected that the Park Service will move quickly to complete the assessment. Any effects that may arise from future proposed development of the relocated corridor would be subject to full environmental review at that time by appropriate Federal and State agencies. Because of these protections and oversight, there should be no undue regulatory delay in the completion of this important land exchange, which could further delay Mod Waters. Accordingly, the NPS should act in a timely manner to render a suitability finding for lands adjacent to the park used for transmission to meet the power needs of south Florida. I again thank Chairman Bingaman and Senator Murkowski for including these bills in S. 22. I also want to thank our outgoing ranking member, Pete Domenici, for his hard work in helping move these bills through the Energy and Natural Resources Committee last year. We have a chance at the beginning of a new Congress to show the American people that Washington is not all about politics and gridlock. I urge my colleagues to vote for S. 22 to help facilitate the completion of Mod Waters and enhance the protection of Florida's fragile ecosystem.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam President, I begin by expressing my thanks to Chairman Dodd, for his leadership in this effort, his tireless work, and my colleague Senator Judd Gregg who has done a tremendous job stepping in and also providing a tremendous amount of leadership. I thank both of them for the work they have done to bring us to the point. I also thank Secretary Paulson. I heard recently people expressing perhaps this is some sort of a power grab by the Secretary of the Treasury. This man will be out of office in 3 months or so after the next President is sworn into office. That is the last thing, I know, on his mind. He has worked tirelessly. He deserves our thanks for his patience, for explaining to some of us at all hours what it is he thinks is necessary we do. This is important to all Americans, but I also understand their anger and frustration. While I was in Florida over the last 24 hours, I was speaking with an old friend, a schoolteacher. He is not someone who is involved in banking and finance. He said: This bothers me. I pay my bills. All my life, if I borrow money from a bank, nobody bails me out. What is going on? What are we going to do? We talked about it. I explained to him the difficulties of our financial markets at this point in time. His last words to me were: Go up there and do something. Get something done. He understood, as I hope all Americans will come to understand, this is a very difficult moment, but it is a moment from which we cannot shrink. How we got here, we could talk about that for hours, and we will. When we come back in January, we have to pick the bones. We have to go over how we got to this position and what we can do to revamp the regulatory scheme to make sure we don't get into a situation such as this again, and do what we can to revamp the regulatory situation which dates back to almost now a century. It needs to be reanalyzed and put in place in a different way. There is something important this bill mentions too, which is mark to market. I spoke with many local bankers in Florida, small bankers, guys lending money to keep small businesses in business. They were very concerned about the mark-to-market accounting rules. We know that is in the purview of the SEC. Here it is talked about and encouraged to reassert the authority of the SEC to look into it. I know it will be a big difference to small banks struggling in Florida with liquidity to have the capital that every-day Floridians need to make their lives work. I am also encouraged that we have strong oversight over the Secretary of the Treasury. There is an oversight board. I also understand and agree with Chairman Dodd that, in fact, there are strong provisions in this bill that are going to prevent executive compensation abuses that none of us want to see happen as a result of what we are doing today. The fact is, whether it is floor plans for car dealers, whether it is the car loans for those who would buy the cars, whether it is someone who is there to purchase a house but cannot get the money, we cannot get the housing market going again if there is no liquidity, if there is no credit; whether it is a line of credit for a small business. I have another anecdote. A small businessman said: I always paid my bills. I was never late with a payment. I go to the bank to exercise my line of credit, and they tell me I can't. He now has to stop his plans. He can't do what he was planning to do in his business to expand it, grow it, buy new equipment, simply because the bank said you have done everything right; we just can't lend you the money because we don't have it ourselves. That is the situation with which we are dealing, providing the safeguards the American people expect us to do. We have to come back in January to do regulatory reform, to do oversight of what we are doing now, which needs to be done repeatedly, congressional oversight over how this is being implemented, to make sure we provide the American people the confidence and the comfort of knowing that while we got into a real mess and while Wall Street got us into this mess, the fact is this is impacting every-day Americans, this is impacting Floridians of every walk of life. To fulfill our responsibilities every now and then, a tough vote has to be taken. This is a tough vote. It isn't easy. A lot of people have great angst about it. I understand their angst, and I share their anger. At the same time, we are here to solve problems and get business done, working in a bipartisan manner, coming together. This is a great country. We are going to come through this crisis, through this moment, and we will be stronger for it. In the meantime, we have to do the right thing. The bill may not be perfect, but the times will not wait for tomorrow. The times will not wait for us to have a perfect bill. We have no choice but to act, and we need to act now. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill. We need a strong bipartisan vote to send a message to the House of Representatives, to send a message to America, that the Senate is going to stand strong and do the right thing for the American people. I yield back my time.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. If I may add a followup, now that the chairman of the committee is here, I wish to repeat my thanks to Chairman Leahy for the cooperative way in which we have been able to accomplish these judgeships, not only the ones for Florida but the ones throughout the country that are so very important. We still have a U.S. attorney that we are hoping in the next 24 hours we might be able to get into a package: Mr. Albritton for the Middle District, a longstanding vacancy in the U.S. Attorney's Office that needs to be filled. The point is to say thank you to the chairman. We appreciate his work. Senator Nelson and I both appreciate Judge Scriven's confirmation. She will serve with great distinction.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I share with my colleague, Senator Nelson, great gratitude for the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, as well as Ranking Member Specter, for moving forward with judicial nominations. One of those is of great importance to the State of Florida and deals with the Middle District of Florida, where there have been a couple of vacancies. This is a district that continues to grow in population but does not have a commensurate growth in judges on the bench. I am delighted that we have moved the confirmation of Mary Scriven to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Magistrate Judge Mary Scriven is an outstanding attorney and a terrific public servant. She has been serving with great distinction as a magistrate judge and will serve with great distinction as a U.S. district judge. In 1987, after earning her undergraduate degree from Duke University, she then went on to Florida State University College of Law, where I happened to have gone to law school myself. I am delighted that Judge Scriven and I share that bit of heritage. She then entered the private practice of law in Tampa with the law firm of Carlton Fields. There is no finer firm in Florida than Carlton Fields. Judge Scriven eventually became a partner there before going on to a life of public service, becoming a magistrate in 1997. In December of 1997, Judge Scriven was selected to serve an 8-year term as a Federal magistrate judge. She was reappointed to another 8- year term in 2005. In her 11 years as a magistrate judge, Judge Scriven has proven herself to be a committed public servant. She has a tremendous amount of courtroom experience, both in civil and criminal matters, and she has put in the time and effort necessary to understand and fairly decide issues with little glamour but often of a critical nature, not only to the litigants but to the people of the State. I know that I echo the sentiments of those who know Judge Scriven when I say she reflects the necessary attributes of a jurist-- intelligence, honesty, and evenhandedness. I congratulate her on this great accomplishment. To her and the members of her family I met when she came up for her hearing--her mother, father, husband, and children--I congratulate the entire family on this tremendous accomplishment. We know the President made a good choice in nominating Judge Scriven to the bench. I am pleased her confirmation has now been accomplished. I also thank Senator Nelson for the cooperative way our office has worked on nominations. Every day, I am more and more proud of the Judicial Nominating Commission that our good friend Mickey Grindstaff chaired and of all of the fine people, lawyers and nonlawyers, from throughout the State who give of their time to review candidates and to make recommendations in a bipartisan way, trying not only to put somebody on the bench but to make sure we get the very best in the legal profession to then rise to this honored position of a Federal district court judge.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam President, for 219 years, the U.S. Marshals Service has helped to bring some of America's worst criminals to justice, and our Nation is a safer place because of their service. On their anniversary, I would like to offer my many thanks for their commitment to upholding the rule of law and their willingness to protect and serve Americans. During their 219 years of service, the marshals have executed warrants, distributed Presidential proclamations, registered enemy aliens in a time of war, and helped conduct the national census. They have also ensured the safe conduct of judicial proceedings and protected Federal judges and jurors and other members of the Federal judiciary. They lead the Witness Security Program; serving nearly 18,000 Government witnesses and their family members whose lives are in danger as a result of the witnesses' testimony against gangs, drug traffickers, terrorists, organized crime members, and other criminals. Recently, the State of Florida enlisted the marshals' services to help combat rising instances of violent crime. During the 3-month effort, known as Operation Orange Crush, the Marshals' Regional Fugitive Task Force was responsible for arresting more than 2,400 violent criminal fugitives in Florida. The operation was an overwhelming success, and Florida is grateful for the men and women of the U.S. Marshals Service for helping to make it possible. I would like to offer my special thanks to a few of the officials who made Operation Orange Crush so successful: U.S. Marshal Service Director John F. Clark; U.S. Marshal for the Northern District of Florida, Dennis A. Williamson; U.S. Marshal for the Middle District of Florida Thomas D. Hurlburt, Jr.; and U.S. Marshal for the Southern District of Florida Christina Pharo. As Americans, we are fortunate to have such a highly specialized law enforcement agency dedicated to protecting our personal freedoms and keeping criminals behind bars. I offer my heartiest congratulations to the U.S. Marshals Service on 219 good years and wish for many more to come.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, let's now talk about the moment at hand. The seriousness of the moment could not be more overstated or understated. This Congress is about to consider the most important legislation affecting our financial markets, I would say for a generation and possibly in the history of our country. The American people must understand exactly what is at stake as we begin to consider this legislation. This is something we have to do, putting aside partisan rhetoric, putting aside the fact that in 40 days we have a Presidential election. We have to put aside the partisanship and shed ourselves of that rhetoric. That rhetoric just invites more and more acrimony. The fact is, we have to come together not as politicians but maybe in a rare moment of statesmanship to look at this legislation and this serious and sober moment that our country faces. What happened is that the credit markets have quit functioning. Credit cards, car loans, home equity loans, home mortgages, business loans--all of these loans are impacted. Business loans, which keep large and small businesses operating, have ceased to exist. They cannot get the credit that is necessary to operate their businesses. The financial markets are not functioning, putting in jeopardy our entire economy. The entirety of our economy is at stake in what we are dealing with now. Without timely Government intervention, the financial system as we know it no longer will exist. This will impact each and every American family, and it will impact them not just for the next month but for years to come. This isn't a Wall Street versus Main Street argument. This isn't about dividing us and trying to gain political advantage by the division it creates. This is about every American's ability to pursue his or her American dream. Without liquidity in the marketplace, financial transactions just come to a halt. That will create a complete collapse of our financial system as we know it. So the need to act has become clear. Treasury Secretary Paulson has asked for the authority to purchase illiquid assets from financial institutions in an attempt to get the markets functioning again. With that authority comes great responsibility, and Congress has an obligation to the U.S. taxpayers to ensure that any program is crafted and carried out with appropriate oversight. Congress should consider limiting executive compensation in any package we discuss. Congress will have to engage in active oversight of Treasury as they implement whatever plan we ultimately approve. So there should be no blank check, and there will be no blank check. Let me also mention I am very pleased to learn of ongoing investigations into the activities of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, and Lehman Brothers. This is the worst financial crisis our country has encountered in recent history, and we owe it to the taxpayers to get to the bottom of any wrongdoing that may have occurred. That is welcome news. The American people ought to be reassured by the fact that there is not going to be any whitewashing of wrongdoing when it comes to this very serious crisis. We need to prosecute any inappropriate behavior on the part of these companies to the fullest extent of the law. If we are going to have to fix this problem, those who created it need to be held accountable. After the dust clears, Congress cannot lose sight of one of the main reasons we are so heavily encumbered by this crisis--why our financial system is so deeply troubled at this moment in time. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were huge contributors to the problem because of their thin capitalization, ever-expanding portfolios, and risky practices. I add to that, that was made possible by weak regulation, by the kind of regulatory scheme designed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac so they could keep doing business as usual, so they could continue to make the political contributions and continue to run the Congress as they wished. I recall on more than one occasion we were trying to push that legislation that Senator Dole originally sponsored, which I was proud to cosponsor with John McCain, so that we would have an effective regulator over Fannie and Freddie. It was really about Fannie Mae was not going to go for that, so that meant it was dead on arrival and we could not get it done. As they were able to have their say in terms of the type of regulator they wanted, then they were able to create the kind of crisis we have come to today. They fueled and funneled the risky securities that Wall Street bought and sold and made lots of money, while ignoring the systemic risk that move posed to the financial system. In 2003, when I was HUD Secretary, I came before the Congress with Treasury Secretary Snow and warned of the loose regulation of the GSEs and the risk posed by their undercapitalization. We asked Congress to create a world-class regulator to properly provide oversight to these financial entities that had become so large that they had an implied guarantee of the Federal Government, and they were deemed too big to be allowed to fail. In 2005, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan told the Congress how urgent it was for it to act, and he said in the clearest possible terms, if Fannie and Freddie ``continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road.'' Well, we are now at the end of that road. As we go forward, not only will Congress have to determine the future role of these entities, we need to take a very close look at the practices that brought us to this place. Throughout all of this work, we cannot lose sight of the root cause of this financial debacle--the housing crisis. What are we going to do to avert an ever-deepening housing crisis? When we ask Secretary Paulson what is the reason we are where we are, obviously, the lack of regulatory scheme appropriate for Fannie and Freddie is part of it, but they say that mortgage-backed securities continue to have no value. The markets for mortgage-backed securities, which has essentially locked down the entire lending system of our country--and I daresay the world--came about as a result of the deepening crisis in home prices, the fact that home values continue to decline, so mortgage-backed securities continue to have little or no value. So what are we doing in this scheme that we are discussing to avert an ever-deepening housing crisis? How are we going to try to put a floor on those declining home values that are creating the type of crises in mortgage-backed securities that brought us to this brink of complete financial collapse of our financial system? Floridians are among the hardest hit in the Nation. Our State is suffering mightily because of the deepening housing crisis. I have, for a long time, been saying, as we talked about a stimulus package some months ago--and we got them out the door and a lot of families have been helped by that, and I voted for that package--I said then: What are we doing not to treat what is apparent in our economy, which is that people are hurting, but the root cause of the pain, which was the housing economy? The fact is, folks who work in home construction are out of work, homebuilders are not being able to keep their employees going and give them the health insurance they provided for them, and we have that entire cycle in the homebuilding industry that is, today, not working as it should, which is providing us with the kind of economic pain so many Floridians are feeling. In addition, we have people now in foreclosure or are facing it. That will continue, as will the decline of neighborhoods. As the neighborhoods decline, the communities decline. How are we going to help that situation? I believe it is inevitable that, whether we do it now or later, we have to seriously address the issue of the declining home values. One way of doing it would be to provide a healthy $15,000 tax credit to those who would invest in a new home and help them with the downpayment by that particular means. That is a solution that I have been advocating that may be of significant help in bringing down the huge inventory of unused homes that we have, particularly in places such as Florida. Housing prices continue to fall, inventories continue to rise, and a growing number of homeowners are facing their own personal foreclosure crisis. To find the bottom of the housing crisis, to stabilize prices, we need Congress to act. We can approve home-buying incentives. Congress can approve a tax credit for downpayments. That would at least encourage people to enter the marketplace, would reduce housing inventories, and get the money flowing back into the market. As Congress debates this package, let's remember whom we work for-- the American taxpayer. Our priority should be making decisions that serve their best interests. No blank check, strict oversight, accountability, and taxpayer recourse. It is in every American's best interest that we act. I look forward to creating the right legislation that averts a financial crisis that will affect every single American--a financial crisis perhaps bigger than the Great Depression. That is what is at stake today. So this is a moment when we have to get away from the usual partisan rancor. We have to get away from thinking about how we might gain a political advantage over the other side. The fact is, we need to put aside the fact that we have an election coming up, put aside all of our differences, and we have to come together--Republicans and Democrats, liberal and conservative--for the good of our country. This is a moment that doesn't call for politics as usual. I believe it is a moment that calls for something a little bigger than that, a little greater than that. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come up with the best ideas that we can. But at the end of the day, I believe the failure to act would be so cataclysmic, so devastating to our country that we have but only one course, which is to find the best way to get this done, with the right oversight and the right checks and balances, but act we must. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I have some remarks I wish to make about the pending matter of the financial crisis we are facing, but before I do I guess I have to make some comments about some of the things my distinguished colleague from Ohio had to say. It was a great speech for a Presidential race, but I don't think it touched on some of the very important issues our country is facing right here and now, the big decisions we have to make and that we have to do in a bipartisan way. We cannot rewrite history because it sounds good. We cannot rewrite history because it helps the Presidential campaign that one might want to see succeed in the next 40 days. The fact is we had a regulation bill before the Senate: S. 190. I was a cosponsor of it. Senator John McCain was a cosponsor of that bill. That bill could have regulated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It got nowhere. The silence on the other side of the aisle was deafening. This was in 2005. It wasn't that long ago. There was an opportunity then for all to come around the idea that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were at the heart of the problem we have faced in this financial crisis, and they should have a strong, world-class regulator. I wish to talk more about that in a moment. When we talk about a betrayal of the middle class, wouldn't it have been a good idea if we had rallied around John McCain, Elizabeth Dole, John Sununu, Mel Martinez, and others who were supporting the idea that we needed a strong regulator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; that they were undercapitalized, and until they had a world-class regulator, it would be business as usual, and they would continue to pass their largesse around the Congress among their favorites. The fact is we did not get that bill passed in 2005, when it might have made a difference. It is also easy to talk about this administration and attempt to rewrite history. It is probably more politically expedient not to defend this administration, but I was a part of it. From 2001 to 2003 I served as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. I came before the Congress and I testified before the House and the Senate Banking and Financial Services Committees, respectively. I had on my side the Secretary of the Treasury, John Snow, who was the Secretary at the time. What did we tell the Congress? We told Congress that we thought Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac needed a strong regulator, that they were thinly capitalized, and that they posed a systemic risk to our economy. I don't know if Senator Brown, at the time a Member of the House, had an opportunity to hear or read our testimony, but if he had, he would have known that this administration was for a stronger regulatory scheme for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I would also say to the Senator from Ohio, when he talks about deregulatory schemes and tax cuts, the fact is the tax cuts we have had in place brought us out of a recession which we were in in 2001. We have short memories, I know. I know we have a 30-second sitcom memory, but we should remember that in 2001, when President Bush came into office, this country was in a recession. We came out of that recession as a result of a lesser tax burden on the American people that created jobs and that got this country moving again. One last thing I will say before I go to my remarks that I planned to make. When we talk about trade agreements that lose jobs, stalling a trade agreement with the country of Colombia, in addition to not serving our security interests, is costing jobs in Miami, in Port Everglades, in the Port of Tampa. These are good-paying jobs. These are the kinds of jobs that people today in Florida, with unemployment over 6 percent, would stand in line to be able to have. These are good- paying jobs at the ports--ports that would trade with Colombia. The No. 4 trading port in America with Colombia is in Tampa. Jobs would be created in Tampa, FL, if we were to trade with Colombia and if we were to have a free-trade agreement with Colombia. Over $1 billion in increased trade, in increased jobs, in increased dollars flowing into Florida's economy would be created if we would pass that free-trade agreement, which is stalled because we are doing the bidding of the big labor unions that don't want to see it happen.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I wish to talk about another matter which has to do with the public safety of our people. Public safety is among the highest priorities of Government. Americans should feel--and have a right to feel--safe in their homes, their neighborhoods, and their communities. Although the national violent crime rate has dropped substantially since 2000, we know any crime is too much crime. As elected officials, we ought to do what we can to prevent criminal acts. In recent years, my home State of Florida has, unfortunately, seen a rise in violent crime--a very sharp increase. If we look at the numbers in recent years, there is a clear trend: The murder rate in Florida rose more than 28 percent in 2006 and another 6.5 percent in 2007. Instances of armed robbery increased by 13.4 percent in 2006 and nearly 12 percent in 2007. So while the overall crime rate rose only 1.4 percent--and it was the first time in more than a decade--we did see a rise in violent crime. Many of the crimes committed in Florida are being committed by those with prior records and those who are already fugitives from justice. A U.S. Marshal--a good friend--told me fugitives from justice posed the most risk to society because they have to keep committing crimes in order to keep going and crime then becomes their livelihood. So that is why, since the creation of the U.S. Marshals Service, their priority has been to capture fugitives. They work closely with local and State law enforcement agencies, they devote the resources necessary to track fugitives across State lines, and they have several regional task forces set up specifically to go after the worst of the worst criminals. Currently, my State of Florida falls under the purview of the Southeast Regional Fugitive Task Force based in Atlanta, GA. Given Florida's size, its population, and the escalation of violent crimes, we need a special focus to more effectively target those responsible for the most serious of crimes. Last year, I requested the resources necessary to establish a regional Fugitive Task Force in Florida. We secured $2.8 million, and while not enough to establish a task force, it did provide the resources to increase the Marshals' presence in my State. Over the past 10 weeks, the Marshals Service put those resources to work in an effort that they call ``Operation Orange Crush.'' In Miami, Jacksonville, Orlando, Tampa, Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach, and other places, the Marshals Service linked up with other State and local law enforcement agencies and targeted the worst of the worst fugitive criminals. They went after murderers, rapists, child sex offenders, and gang members, and they very specifically went after violent offenders. The results were absolutely astonishing. Nearly 2,500 fugitives were apprehended. More than 2,900 warrants were cleared, 113 homicide suspects were arrested, and 255 sex offenders were also captured. They also took in 76 firearms and about 100 pounds of illicit narcotics. Among those captured in Operation Orange Crush was fugitive David Lee Green, an escapee listed on the Marshals' 15 Most Wanted list, and a criminal who has been on the run since the year 2000, out there committing more and more crime. Green was found in Titusville after escaping from a Federal correctional institution in Elkton, OH, where he was serving a 235-month sentence for cocaine distribution. In addition, he was wanted for machinegun possession. Another captured fugitive, Rosalino Yanez, was arrested in Okeechobee County. Authorities in Fort Pierce wanted him for a 2003 murder, when he apparently used a shotgun to fire and kill two men. He is also wanted in Georgia for attempting to commit murder there. Another arrested was Nolan Woods, who was captured in Miami on a warrant for sexual assault of a minor. So this man was also captured and put behind bars. These are some of the more than 2,400 arrests that were made. These were made possible because of the additional resources this Congress made available to the U.S. Marshals Service. Given these statistics and what the Marshals Service was able to do in a 10-week period--in just 10 weeks in my State--demonstrates that there needs to be a permanent Regional Fugitive Task Force in Florida. Rising violent crime rates pose a serious threat to our children, our families, and our communities. These results demonstrate that Florida has a need, and the resources used will yield the desired results. Establishing a permanent Regional Fugitive Task Force in Florida will require Congress's support through the fiscal year 2009 and beyond. But given the results of Operation Orange Crush and the outstanding commitment of the U.S. Marshals Service, I am very hopeful we can take the results of this task force and make this be a reality in the coming days. So I am very pleased, and I wish to give a word of thanks not only to the Marshals Service but also to all law enforcement in the State of Florida who worked together cooperatively to make this terrific result happen. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New Hampshire. His remarks are right on point. I appreciate the tenor of what he is saying, and I thank him very much for his mature and sober judgment. This is a moment when we should be talking about solutions. This is a serious moment in America. We have hit a very serious financial crisis in this country. The fact is--well, this morning, I was speaking to a group of bankers, a group of business people, and their concern is heightened. What they are seeking is for Government to, first of all, try to provide a backdrop of assurance to the American people. One of the gentlemen I was speaking with was saying his office is getting deluged with phone calls from concerned investors who are wondering if their lifetime of savings is going to be eroded and go away. So what should we do at a moment such as this? Should we heighten the level of tension and crisis or should we talk in mature, serious tones about the need to come together as Americans first, Republicans and Democrats second--as Americans first--to try to find solutions? I have seen a lot of finger-pointing. I have heard a lot of blame assessing. Much of it I find as logical as blaming President Bush for hurricanes, and sometimes I wonder when that will begin to occur. Obviously, there have been things that have been done that have not been right. Maybe now we recognize and we can all come together around the idea that we do need a new regulatory framework for our Nation's financial institutions. We have been going on the same ones that were existing since the Great Depression and days after that. So this has now focused our attention on the need for finding ways in which we can find a way of better regulating financial institutions so we can avoid systemic risk--systemic risk--a risk to the financial system. For those who are playing the partisan game, the big charge seems to be that somehow this administration was against regulation. Well, not to take the other side and become partisan, but let me try to set the record straight a little bit and talk about what happened. I was a part of this administration for the first 3 years of it. During that time, I and other members of the administration, including the then Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary Snow, and others made a mighty effort to try to get the Congress's attention to begin the process of regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Now, anyone who looked at that situation-- and it was part of my responsibility as HUD Secretary to partially regulate those entities--knew I did not have the authority to regulate them; that the laws were written in such a way that it made it impossible to have an effective regulator over these two giant and growing entities, and their growth has been dramatic, or was dramatic, from the time after I left HUD until the time of their collapse and Government intervention took place. They continued to grow tremendously. It is very clear there were efforts by Republicans to try to regulate these entities and there was equally strong and better constructed efforts by Democrats to not regulate them and to allow Fannie and Freddie to continue business as usual. Finally, this year, we came together--and I commend Chairman Dodd and Chairman Frank for leading both committees of the House and Senate so we could come together in a bipartisan effort to regulate these two entities. Now, if I had had it my way, that regulator would have been stronger and even more capable than the one we put in place, but thank goodness we did act and we created a regulatory scheme. It was a little late to save them because by then the horse was out of the barn. Had we regulated them back in 2003, when I testified before the Banking Committee of the Senate, the Financial Services Committee of the House, maybe we could have begun a new regulatory scheme then, and we could have today perhaps been in a position where those entities would not have had the problems that they ran into. Our efforts were not taken very seriously at the time, and the record is pretty clear about who was in favor of regulation and who was absolutely dead set against it. The fact is it does no good for us to today, in the midst of this enormous crisis, to be sitting around finger-pointing and trying to score points. The bottom line is we have a problem ahead of us, and the best thing we can do is to utilize sober judgment to try to come together, as I said, as Americans--not Republicans, not Democrats but Members of the Congress, Members of the Senate who have taken an oath of office--to try to do the right thing by the people whom we represent. How can we address this problem? What can we do? In fact, it may not be that there is much we can do. This is not a governmental problem at this moment in time. There is a need for us to look and see what the future of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is going to be. Do they belong as a half private, half governmental agency? Does it make any real sense for them to be partially beholden to their shareholders and partially beholden to the taxpayers? I am not sure it does. So we will need to legislate on that issue in a serious manner as to what the future of those entities should be. Here is one suggestion I would make today as to how we might begin to ameliorate the problem and how we might begin to work together, bipartisanly, to try to find an answer. I believe, from talking to people in the financial world, that one of the serious needs of today's problem, that would begin to ease all these problems, is for us to begin to look to ending the enormous surplus of unsold homes. The fact is people are not buying houses. The fact is there is an oversupply. The fact is supply and demand is out of whack. So perhaps we could, through tax credits, encourage people to buy homes, to purchase homes, providing them with essentially a tax credit that would encourage them, through the tax system, to purchase a home at this moment in time. If the inventory were to be drawn down, if we had fewer unsold homes sitting in the market, it would make it much easier for the marketplace to then begin to find a bottom--a price floor--that could then begin to ease the burden on all these financial institutions that are holding paper that today is not worth what they thought it would be. I wish to shift subjects, but before I do, I would make a call that we try to temper a little bit our desire to score a point today on the backs of the American people who are frightened and who are concerned-- and rightfully so--about a very difficult problem and try to, rather than finger-point, join hands; rather than finger-point, let's put our hands together, Republicans and Democrats, to work together toward a solution, toward some honest-to-goodness effort. That is what the American people expect of us. That is why they sent us here, to work together to solve problems; not to try to assess blame and not to try to score political points.