Mel Martinez

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. I feel appreciative for all of the kind comments on the floor today, especially the latest from the Republican leader. I want to take a moment to speak about the item we will be voting on this afternoon. It may be my last vote, and one which is an issue I have been working on since I was mayor in Orange County, FL, a tourism destination in this tourism and travel promotion bill. Florida is a global tourist destination, as we all know, and tourism in Florida has suffered as so many other sectors of our economy have, including a 10-percent drop in the first quarter of 2009 in travelers to Florida. Florida continues to have 10.7 percent unemployment. Tourism bookings at places such as Walt Disney World are down 7 percent over the last year, all of which suggests that in order for us to move beyond this recessionary period and the 10.7 unemployment we see in Florida, it is incumbent upon us to do two things: No. 1 is quit blacklisting destinations such as Florida, Orlando, Miami, Las Vegas, by the government and others. It ought to be okay to travel to these great destinations. But the second would be to move and pass this travel and tourism bill, the Trade Promotion Act, which would establish an independent nonprofit corporation for U.S. travel promotion, governed by an 11- member board of individuals appointed by the Secretary of Commerce. It would be funded not by taxpayers but instead through the user fees paid by foreign tourists and in-kind contributions by corporate partners. It is something that is absolutely needed. Foreign tourism is a huge source of revenues to States such as Florida and the leader's State of Nevada. It is something that I think is long overdue. So passing this bill today will be a great accomplishment for our Nation, and it will be a tremendous boon to a tourism economy that is reeling in these recessionary times. It will make me awfully happy that this will be something I can sort of button up my Senate career with, a good bill for Florida and a good bill for the people of Florida today unemployed in the tourism industry. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ

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 I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. I thank the Senator from Illinois for his kindness and appreciate the opportunity to proceed with my final speech on the floor of the Senate, which is a unique moment in time for sure. The opportunity to serve in the Senate is really the culmination of what has to be an unlikely journey from the place of my birth in a small city in Cuba to having journeyed to the United States and having had the incredible opportunity to be in the Halls of the most cherished institution of democracy anywhere in the world. It has been, indeed, a privilege and an unlikely journey, as I say. I am really very grateful to the people of Florida for having given me the opportunity to represent them in the Senate, and I think of my time in the Senate as a culmination of my time in public service, the close of a fulfilling chapter in my own version of the American dream. Having lived through the onset of tyranny in one country and played a part in the proud democratic traditions of another, I leave here today with a tremendous sense of gratitude for the opportunity to give back to the Nation I love--the Nation not of my birth but the Nation of my choice, which is a significant difference. It is a great nation with a proud tradition throughout its history of welcoming immigrants to this country and, in addition to welcoming, it has given us the opportunity to do great things for all who are a part of this country. So that is why I consider serving my community, my State, and our Nation for the past 12 years a great privilege. It was a desire to give back, to make a contribution to this Nation that propelled me to enter a life of public service. As a mayor and Cabinet Secretary, and as a Senator, preserving opportunities for others to receive their own claim to the American dream has always been a mission for me. I have worked during all phases of my public life with a sincere desire to make a difference, and today I prepare to return home knowing that I have done my best to advance the things that make our Nation great, prosperous, and free. We truly live in the greatest Nation in the history of the world, and throughout my life in public service I have been humbled to play a proud role in this democratic history of our Nation. As mayor of Orange County, it was a real pleasure and privilege to lead the community that had done so much for me and for my family when we first arrived in this country. Then to have the opportunity to lead them as mayor was indeed a rare treat and a wonderful opportunity. We carried out an aggressive agenda and tried to do the that which would better the lives of everybody who lived in Orange County, and I am proud of some of the many things we accomplished there. Upon my service as mayor, I received a call from then-President-elect George W. Bush to serve my adopted Nation as the first Cuban American to serve in the Cabinet of a President, which was, again, a rare privilege and a wonderful opportunity. The call to serve as HUD Secretary was unexpected and not only a source of pride for me and my family but especially for the entirety of the Cuban American community. I will always be grateful to President Bush for giving me such a historic opportunity. My time of serving on the Cabinet was punctuated by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. These were sobering events. These were events that turned the focus of the Nation from a fairly carefree time dealing largely with domestic issues to a focus on the reality of what had occurred in New York and Pennsylvania and right here not far from this Capitol. It was part of my job as HUD Secretary to work on the reconstruction of Lower Manhattan. That and a number of other things were added as responsibilities for those of us in the administration at that time. Forevermore I will remember those days as having been a very significant part of my life in public service. There is no question that it was a privilege to serve the President, but there is no greater honor than to have the people of Florida send me to Washington to serve them as a Member of the Senate. Aside from the debates and the speeches and all the work that goes into turning ideas into law, one of the most rewarding experiences has been helping Floridians resolve issues they have in their everyday lives. In the short time I have been here, my office has assisted more than 36,000 Florida families through casework and written correspondence and countless more efforts. We made tremendous progress on many of the issues that face our State, including efforts to develop our natural energy resources while protecting the environment, seeking to modernize our military through increased shipbuilding and ensuring we meet the Navy's goal of strategic dispersal--very important to our country but also to Florida--and working to protect our Nation's home buyers from bad loans, bad investments, and predatory lending practices. It has also been rewarding to know our work can often impact the lives of those living outside our borders fighting for freedom and those things which we hold dear. I brought to my work a belief that it is always necessary to provide a voice for those who are silenced for attempting to advance the cause of freedom. Having lived under Cuba's repressive dictatorship, I have always recognized the struggle of those who fight for freedom. That has always been, and will continue to be, a lifelong passion. I have taken every opportunity to recognize those engaged in Cuba's peaceful civic struggle for democratic change and those who stand up for their human rights. There are names such as Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet, Antunez, the Damas de Blanco--the ``Ladies in White''--and also the victims of the Black Spring government crackdowns. It is my fervent hope that one day in the not too distant future the people in Cuba will live in freedom with dignity and hope for a better tomorrow. Freedom is their God-given right. Even though I will no longer hold public office, I will devote myself to seeing the day when the people of Cuba can live in freedom. The preservation of all freedoms, whether they be in Cuba or around the world, call us to stand up wherever and whenever it is threatened. One series of events will stand out in my mind as evidence of the power of an individual. A constituent of mine--a woman by the name of Cuc Foshee was falsely imprisoned in Ho Chi Minh's prison while she was visiting her family in Vietnam. This was a lady who fled Vietnam and who lived in Florida. She went back to Vietnam for a family wedding, and while she was there her views about the government of Vietnam were clear and well-known, so she was, for no particular reason, thrown in jail in Vietnam. When this matter came to my attention, she had been in detention for over a year. She was denied any of the basic rights that we understand and know. She had no opportunity to have contact with home, and she had no real hearing and no fair trial. Yet she was still in prison. One of the wonderful opportunities I have had in my time here was to work for her release. It so happened that, working with President Bush and then-Secretary of State Rice, we had before the Senate the Vietnamese Free Trade Agreement. President Bush was planning a visit to Vietnam upon the completion of that agreement. So utilizing the resources all of us have in the Senate to ensure the consideration of that free-trade agreement was somehow connected to the freedom of this innocent woman, I was able to work with Secretary Rice, leading our State Department at that time, as well as our President, to ensure that Cuc Foshee was freed. I have never been more proud than the day we were able to get a phone call that she was on her way to San Francisco, and then have a wonderful reunion with her and her family in Orlando, FL. It is something I will never forget. We did also strive mightily in this body to seek a solution to immigration reform, something I felt very strongly about. And being the only immigrant in this body, I believed I was dutybound to try to advance that cause. I am proud to say our efforts for immigration reform gave me the opportunity to work very closely with Senator Ted Kennedy, whom we are also honoring today, with nearly a half century of service in the Senate. I can recall reminiscing with him one day near his desk. He came to the Senate in 1962. That was the same year I came here from Cuba. It was also immediately after we had a very serious confrontation involving Cuba--the Cuban missile crisis. I remember discussing with him how his family will be tied to that period of time, to the history of Cuba, and how deeply that had touched my life as well. In addition to the many opportunities to reminisce about things such as that with him, I hold dear the opportunity to have sat at a table and negotiated with him what I thought would have been a very good immigration reform package--a bill which I believed would be good for our country and good for many people in our country. We didn't always agree. We didn't always have the same point of view. But we always found a way to get along and be very civil about our differences, and I admired greatly his ability to put differences aside and his desire to find consensus. What was most telling about working with Senator Kennedy is that he was committed to reaching an outcome. He wanted a solution, which then meant--and this might be a lesson for current issues today--that he could put aside the whole banana in order to get what he could. I believe in working with him and then some other colleagues who have become such good and dear friends, such as Senator Graham and Senator McCain and many others; Senator Kyl, who made an effort to get this legislation done--I must say I leave with a sense of regret that is not completed, but I do know that is an issue that will have to be addressed at some point in the future. I would also quote from President Reagan on that issue. He talked about the idea that America remains a beacon of freedom to the world, when he spoke about the ``shining city on the hill.'' In his farewell address to our Nation, he touched on the idea that the contributions of all individuals are what make our Nation great. He said: If there had to be city walls, the walls had doors, and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. I believe those words to be as true today as the day he said them. I do hope, in the not too distant future, this Congress will address itself to that very important issue. Whether it is immigration, budgets or Supreme Court Justices, I will also miss the debates. I thank my fellow Senators for their collegiality and their friendship. I know these friendships are going to be the hardest thing to leave here--on both sides of the aisle. I must say I have been very touched by the warm and gracious phone calls and other expressions I have received from my colleagues, as I say, on both sides of the aisle. It makes me feel good about my relationship with all of you, and I hope it will be a relationship that will continue. I wish to especially take a moment to thank Senator McConnell, Senator Kyl, Senator Alexander and the other members of our leadership team for their kindness and willingness to work with me and give me opportunities to participate in our great debates. I also wish to thank Senator Reid and Senator Durbin for their friendship and their willingness to work with me as well. I have had a very special and close working relationship with my colleague from Florida, Senator Bill Nelson. We have known each other for long time, long before we came to the Senate. It has been a real privilege and pleasure to work with him. We worked together well enough to give Florida an excellent team here, and I am pleased to not only have had this fine working relationship with him but also that our staffs have worked together well. I thank his Chief of Staff, Pete Mitchell, and others in his office for the wonderful way in which they worked with us. All of you have extended great kindness to Kitty and to me. I hope we will have an opportunity to see you in Florida, where we will continue to make our home. I wish to especially recognize some people in my staff who have made my office go. As all of you know, we rely on these folks to make us look good at times and always be dedicated to us. My State director has been Kevin Doyle, who has done a magnificent job; senior director Kate Bush; my communications director, Ken Lundberg; legislative director, Michael Zehr; my executive assistant, Terry Couch, who has been bouncing with me from mayor to Secretary to Senator, and I daresay may even continue to hang around with me in some way; my chief of staff and longtime friend Tom Weinberg, I thank him very especially. He worked with me as county administrator and then came to join me here. There are a few folks who were on my staff initially but have now moved on: my first chief of staff, John Little; Kerry Feehery; and my former State director, Matthew Hunter, were also very important in my work, and I appreciate them very much. I have to say one of the most singular honors I have had in my service has been to work with the men and women who serve in our Armed Forces and to get to know them--whether it is people in their leadership such as General Petraeus, who now is a Floridian in the Central Command in Tampa, or some Floridians serving in the National Guard, having lunch with them in Kabul or Baghdad or other places and here in Washington or around the world. They are an amazing group of people. They have my respect and my deep-felt gratitude for the work they do as they serve our Nation in foreign, distant places--and their families who, with them, are part of serving as well. While saying thank-yous, I also would like to say a thank you to my wife Kitty, who has been a wonderful partner and friend in my life of public service, as she has been in all phases of my life. I promise you, if it were not for Kitty, I would not have done half of what I have done in life so I am eternally grateful to the good Lord for the blessing of having a wonderful life companion. I wish to tell you all in George LeMieux you will have a very fine person. I hope you will give him the same warm welcome you gave to me and will be willing to work with him. I think he will serve the people of Florida well. I wish to extend a warm welcome to George LeMieux as he joins this wonderful body. I am humbled by the trust the people in Florida placed in me. It has not been easy to make a decision to move on, but it is a decision I have made and I do it with a heavy heart. I also particularly wish to address myself to the Cuban-American community throughout our country but especially in Florida, who have had such great pride in me, who have put so much of their faith and hopes in my public life. I simply wish to say to them: me hicieron suyos y creyeron en mi. Compartimos el orgullo en lo que somos y lo que hemos logrado. Su apoyo entusiasta ha tocado mi corazon, y atesorare estas memorias para siempre, which means simply that I am appreciative of the pride we share together and what we have accomplished. Your enthusiastic support has touched my heart and I will always carry that with me. My time of service is only a fraction of the nearly two and a half centuries that have passed since our Founders charted our course as a free people, but the opportunity for someone such as me to serve speaks volumes about the promise they made and one our Nation continues to keep, even to this day. I wish to close with a quote from Jose Marti, a Cuban patriot, a hero of mine and to all those who strive to further the cause of freedom. He said: Liberty is the essence of life. Whatever is done without it is imperfect. With that, I think I have tried to enjoy the fruits of this liberty that this country has to offer, but I have also tried to extend it to others in every way that I could. I am immensely grateful for the opportunity to have served in this body. I am humbled by this moment, and I am grateful to my colleagues for your friendship and support. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. I am happy to have this opportunity, for I view it as a historic moment in many ways. The confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee is one of the most solemn and unique duties in our constitutional system of government. The Framers, recognizing the risk of abuse inherent in a lifetime judicial appointment, created a process that brings together all three branches of the Federal Government. The Constitution, article II, section 2, requires that a nominee to the Federal court must be selected by the President and then ``with the advice and consent of the Senate.'' These moments must be appreciated and approached with a great deal of thoughtfulness and respect. This is all the more true when the appointment is to our highest Court, the Supreme Court. There was a time when Members of the Senate seemed to better understand their role, when Senators expected a President of the other party to pick a judge who would likely be different from someone they would have picked. There are a couple of examples I would like to use. Justice Ginsburg, a very talented person who served as general counsel to the ACLU, was not likely to have been someone selected by a Republican President. But yet she was confirmed with 95 votes. Republicans knew she would be a liberal Justice, but she was also well qualified for the job. There is another example; that is, Justice Antonin Scalia. He was picked by a Republican President and received 98 votes. Every Democrat knew or probably should have known that they were voting for a conservative, but they also understood that then- Judge Scalia was incredibly qualified and should be serving on the Supreme Court, given that he had been nominated by a President and had the requisite qualifications, which is really the essence of what this confirmation process is and should be about. But things have changed since those votes. They have changed from what is historically acceptable and what has been the long historic tradition of the Senate when it comes to Senate confirmations of judicial nominees. Over the past decade, I believe the Senate has lost sight of its role to advise and consent. I notice another example. The nominations of Miguel Estrada, Chief Justice Roberts, and Justice Alito--all three of these illustrate how partisan politics have been permitted to overwhelm the fundamental question posed to the Senate, which is, Is this nominee qualified? Do you give your advice and your consent? My colleagues will recall that Mr. Estrada was first nominated by President George W. Bush to the DC Circuit in May of 2001. He was unanimously rated ``well-qualified'' for the bench by the American Bar Association. Mr. Estrada was someone who had a very impressive history and personal story and resume. He was a native of Honduras. Mr. Estrada immigrated to this country at age 17, graduated magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from Columbia University. He received his law degree from Harvard in 1986, where he was a member of the Harvard Law Review, and went on to clerk on the Supreme Court for Justice Kennedy. Mr. Estrada then entered private practice and was a very well- respected lawyer working in a New York law firm and served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York, where I believe our nominee also served. But then Mr. Estrada took a job in the George H.W. Bush administration as an Assistant Solicitor General. What does an Assistant Solicitor General do? They prepare and argue cases before the Supreme Court. What could be a better training ground, in addition to having a prior clerkship for a Court member, than to be an Assistant Solicitor General? As a longtime attorney, I always admire greatly those who have served in that office because they are the very best of the very best. But politics intervened. He was branded a conservative. Through the course of an unprecedented seven cloture votes, Democrats in this body filibustered his nomination. Time and again, they filibustered his nomination. It lingered for 28 months, until he finally withdrew-- exhausted, wanting to get on with his life, knowing he needed to be able to continue to do work for clients, that he could not continue to be in this limbo where he had been for 28 months because of the misguided notion that he was just too conservative and so it was OK to filibuster him. For 28 months he was hanging, dangling in the wind. That was not right. It was not to the Supreme Court, but some feared that someday he might be a Supreme Court candidate, he might have been the first Hispanic serving in the Supreme Court, nominated, perhaps, by a Republican President. So while the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito ended quite differently from Mr. Estrada's, the record is, frankly, equally disturbing. During the debates on both Roberts and Alito, then-Senator Barack Obama declared each man to be qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. Of then-Judge John Roberts, Senator Obama said, right here on the Senate floor: There is absolutely no doubt in my mind Judge Roberts is qualified to sit on the highest court in the land. To which I would then say: So why won't you vote for him? He then said of then-Judge Alito: I have no doubt that Judge Alito has the training and qualifications necessary to serve. He's an intelligent man and an accomplished jurist. And there's no indication he's not a man of great character. But despite these emphatic statements of confidence, then-Senator Obama voted against confirmation. Why? Because of his perception that their philosophy would not allow him to vote for them. Given this record, some of my colleagues conclude that what is good for the goose is good for the gander; that because of these recent precedents, and despite her qualifications, they may still vote against Judge Sotomayor's confirmation. I could not disagree more heartily. It is my hope that starting today, we will no longer do what was done to Miguel Estrada; that beginning today, no Member will pursue a course and come to the floor of this Chamber to argue against the confirmation of a qualified nominee. So what about our current nominee? What makes her qualified? Well, first, I think we do have in Judge Sotomayor a very historic moment, an opportunity. It will be the first Hispanic to serve on the highest Court of this land. It is a momentous and historic opportunity. But that is not good enough. What makes her qualified? Well, I think experience, knowledge of the law, temperament, the ability to apply the law without bias--these qualifications should override all other considerations when the Senate fulfills its role to advise and consent to the President's nominee, as dictated by the constitutional charge we have. These are really the standards by which we as a body should determine who is qualified to serve on any Federal court, including the highest Court of the land. These are the standards I have used in evaluating Judge Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court. She has the experience. She knows the law. She has the proper temperament. Here is something that is very important: Her 17-year judicial record overwhelmingly indicates she will apply the law without bias. That is very important because we could find someone who really is facially qualified but whose views might be, for some reason, so outside the mainstream, so different from what the norm of our jurisprudence would be, that it might render them, while facially qualified, truly unqualified--that they really could not be relied on to look at a case and apply the facts and the evidence and apply the law to the evidence presented, that they would not follow the law, that they would not be faithful to their oath because their views would be so extreme, so outside the mainstream, so completely beyond what would be the norm or considered to be the norm. But here in this person we have a 17-year record. She has written thousands of opinions. These opinions provide the body of law of what she does as a judge--not what she said to a group of students one day, trying to encourage them in their lives and what they might be doing, not what someone might gain from reading an opinion that perhaps they would not agree with. It is not about whether we agree with her outcomes, it is whether her opinions were reasoned, whether they had a foundation in law, whether they were reasonable decisions, whether she reached them on the basis of law and evidence that are supported by sound legal thinking. Her worst critics cannot cite a single instance where she strayed from sound judicial thinking. I believe she will serve as an outstanding Associate Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, and she will be a terrific role model for many young people in this country. Were I to have had my opportunity to pick, I may have chosen someone different than Judge Sotomayor. But that is not my job. I do not get to select judges. I get to give advice and consent. We sometimes confuse the role of the Senate. Elections have their consequences. Some of her writings and her statements indicate that her philosophy might be more liberal than mine, but that is what happens in elections. When I was campaigning for my colleague and dear friend John McCain, I knew it was going to be important because there would be vacancies to the Court. I knew I would be much more comfortable with a nominee whom John McCain would nominate than one my former colleague and friend, President Barack Obama, might nominate. The President has the prerogative, the obligation, the responsibility to choose his own nominees. Our job is to give advice and consent. The President has chosen a nominee, and my vote for her confirmation will be based solely and wholly on relevant qualifications. Judge Sotomayor is well qualified. She has been a Federal judge for 17 years. She has the most experience of any person--on-the-bench judicial experience of any person--nominated for the Court in a century. In 100 years, there has not been anyone who has been on the bench with such a distinguished record for such a long period of time. That is why, by the way, her record is really her judicial decisions. We do not have to wonder. We do not have to sit around and try to divine whether someday she will answer the siren call to judicial activism, as I have heard someone say on the floor of the Senate. You do not have to wonder. You can wonder, and it might give you an excuse to vote against someone who is otherwise qualified, but the fact is, with a 17-year record, you should have a pretty good idea whether that siren call would have been answered by now. To my estimation, it has not been. She received the highest possible rating from the American Bar Association for a judicial candidate--equal to that of Miguel Estrada, equal to that of Chief Justice Roberts, and equal to that of Justice Alito. She has been a prosecutor. She has been, throughout her career, an outstanding lawyer. As a prosecutor, she was a pretty tough one too. With less than a handful of exceptions, her 17-year judicial record reflects that while she may be left of center, she is certainly well within the mainstream of legal thinking. Her mainstream approach is so mainstream that it has earned her the support of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as well as the endorsement of several law enforcement and criminal justice organizations. She has been endorsed by the National Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association, and the International Association of Chiefs of Police. I daresay she will be a strong voice for law and order in our country. I disagree with Judge Sotomayor about several issues. I would expect to have disagreements with many judicial nominees of the Obama administration but probably fewer with her than some I might see in the future. Although I might disagree with some of her rulings, we know she has a commitment to well-reasoned decisions--decisions that seek, with restraint, to apply the law as written. I do believe she will rule with restraint. That has been her judicial history and philosophy. For instance, I believe her view as expressed in her panel's Maloney v. Cuomo opinion of whether the second amendment applies against State and local governments is too narrow and contrary to the Founders' intent. But I also know there is significant and well-reasoned disagreement among the Nation's appellate courts on this issue. In other words, it is not out of the mainstream. On this issue, I accept the idea that reasonable people may differ. This debate raises critical and difficult issues regarding the role of federalism in the application of fundamental constitutional rights. But the confirmation process is not the proper place to relitigate this question, nor is Judge Sotomayor's judicial record on this issue outside the mainstream. I believe her statements on the role of international law in American jurisprudence reflect a view that is too expansive. Yet her judicial record indicates that, in practice, she has given only limited, if any, weight to foreign court decisions. For example, in Croll v. Croll, a 2000 international child custody case involving the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction, Judge Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion in which she concluded that the holdings of the courts of foreign nations interpreting the same convention were ``not essential'' to her reasoning. I believe some of the statements she has made in her speeches about the role of one's personal experience are inconsistent with the judicial oath's requirement that judges set aside their personal bias when making those decisions. There are several of my colleagues who say these statements demonstrate that Judge Sotomayor is a judicial activist in hiding. This assertion, however, is not supported by the facts. We can throw it out there, but it is not supported by the facts. The relevant facts--her 17-year judicial record--show she has not allowed her personal biases to influence her jurisprudence. They can talk about her speeches, but they cannot talk about a single solitary opinion in 17 years on the bench where that type of a view has been given life, where that type of a view has found itself into the pages of a single one of her opinions. I would rather put my trust and my expectations for the future on her 17-year record of judicial decisions than I would on one or two speeches she might have given over 10 or 15 years. Those who oppose Judge Sotomayor have yet to produce any objective evidence that she has allowed her personal bias to influence her judicial decisionmaking. Moreover, in her testimony before the Judiciary Committee, she reiterated her fidelity to the law, that as a Justice she would adhere to the law regardless of the outcome it required. So based on my review of her judicial record and her testimony before the Judiciary Committee, I am satisfied Judge Sotomayor is well qualified to sit on our Nation's highest Court. I intend to vote for her confirmation. I intend to also be very proud of her service on the Supreme Court of the United States where I think, again, she will serve a very historic and unique role to many people in this Nation who I know will look to her with great pride. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I am here this morning to speak about my good friend and former colleague, Norm Coleman. Norm and I first met when I was Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and Norm had been the mayor of St. Paul--I had been the mayor of Orange County, FL--and immediately we established a bond. We kind of spoke the same language, if you will. We understood each other. We had both been involved in the milieu of urban politics as well as the challenges and responsibilities of being a big city urban center mayor. I remember our discussions about the problems of the cities and about the opportunities. Norm had been very successful in creating a new arena for the hockey team in St. Paul, and this was, I know, a tremendously proud thing for him, an accomplishment he had. Little did I know our paths would again cross here in the Senate. I remember being in Miami at a radio station and there was a TV monitor on the screen during the election of 2002, and I remember it was a debate between Norm Coleman and former Vice President and Senator Walter Mondale. I remember being detained there watching him and thinking what a tough spot he landed in, what a complicated race it had been through the tragic death of Senator Wellstone, and how proud I was of him, of this fellow whom I did not know that well but whom I had met on a couple of occasions, and he was handling himself quite well. It turned out he was successful in that race. Then, only a couple years later, we were reunited here in the Senate as colleagues. We both immediately found one another on the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate. Norm, at that time, was the chair of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee. I found in Norm someone who was uncommonly knowledgeable about the Western Hemisphere and carried out those responsibilities with a great sense of urgency. Norm and I traveled in Latin America together. We traveled to Chile and to Colombia and perhaps a couple of other places where we conducted meetings trying to advance the United States agenda, promoting the rule of law, fighting against narcotrafficking that is such a blight upon our cities and our communities, and trying to improve the conditions of democratic rule in the region. I have no doubt that if Norm Coleman were in the Senate this week, he would have been side by side with us as we have watched closely the events in Honduras and have tried to promote a reasonable, fair, and democratic outcome to that country's troubled current moments of their living. He was the original sponsor of efforts to build stronger relations with our neighbors to the south. I had the opportunity, as I said, to travel with him. Part of our traveling took us to Colombia where a tremendous challenge lies ahead for the people of Colombia as they fight for the rule of law and against the narcoterrorists in that country. I remember our meeting with President Uribe that he and I had. Norm was also very committed and concerned about a stable Middle East, about advancing the peace process in the Middle East, but also about the security of Israel. He was a very strong voice for a strong United States-Israel relationship. He was a clear voice on the need for us to stop and not allow Iran to develop a capability that is nuclear and that would invite the opportunity for Iran to carry out the stated wishes of destroying the state of Israel. He was a friend of Israel. He was also a friend of Cuban freedom. I remember when Norm was first in the Senate. He came to the Senate 2 years before I did. During that time, I was still Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. I heard that Norm Coleman was traveling to Cuba. I said to Norm: As you travel to Cuba, as a now sitting Senator, I hope you will remember there is a large and growing dissident movement on that island and they deserve the same recognition you would have given to Lech Walesa or Vaclav Havel had you been traveling to Eastern Europe in the 1980s. Norm heard my voice and sought the opportunity to meet with the Cuban dissidents while he was on the island. This came as a great surprise to his host because the Cuban Government frowns upon visiting dignitaries meeting with anyone who would present the potential for a democratic opposition to a country that has not known democracy now for half a century. But, in any event, Norm Coleman met with them, and not only met with them but while in Cuba made some very strong statements about the need for a democratic solution to the Cuban situation, about the need for the people of Cuba to have an opportunity to live in freedom, and he spoke highly about the dissidents. Needless to say, that is the last time Norm Coleman has been invited to visit Cuba by the Cuban Government. But I knew then I had found a friend who clearly understood the difference between freedom and oppression and who would clearly stand on the side of freedom. Norm, as has been expressed here this morning, with great grace and courage, fought through a very difficult election, and that is in addition to the ups and downs of all that went on in the recount and the legal challenges that followed. Norm, with great grace, moved aside. When the time was right, and when the legal challenges had been exhausted, he did so with the grace and dignity that is the hallmark of Norm Coleman. Norm and Laurie are my friends. I wish them the very best as they go forward in their lives. I know they will find other opportunities to be of service to the people of Minnesota and to the people of the United States, and I might daresay also to the people of Florida because Norm has a great affection for my State, where he has spent a lot of his time--I would daresay particularly in the cold and bitter months when maybe it is a little more pleasant around my neck of the woods than it would be in Minnesota. But we always welcome Norm to Florida. We hope he will continue to visit us frequently, where he has a multitude of friends and a multitude of people who love him, who appreciate him, and who thank him for his great service to our Nation and our State, and who thank him for the great concern he has demonstrated about people who are oppressed, as well as those who seek to live in freedom and peace without threat from their neighbors. Madam President, I thank you and yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. I thank the Senator from Arizona for his kind comments. But it also brings up one more point. Honduras has been by our side. There is no more important country, in terms of military relations in Central America, than Honduras, where we have a presence of our military, where we work together in partnership to try to stem the flow of drugs and narcotics into our country, and where we conduct not only training missions but other important training missions with the Honduran military, where we are very involved in providing aid and assistance. I think it would be well for us to hold back any declaration that a coup has taken place that would then trigger other events. This is not your traditional military coup where a military group decides to set up a junta. These are military people who, while maybe they acted a little too strongly, the fact is, they did not seek power for themselves but they established a congressional order. So it is important.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I rise, though, to speak about the events in Honduras. The events that are taking place in Honduras right now are the unfortunate result of the silence of both the United States and the inter-American community to the assault on Honduras' democratic institutions. It is difficult for Hondurans and other democrats within the region to understand the full significance of President Zelaya's expulsion from Honduras. Up until this point, there has not been any significant voice in the opposition to the dismantling of democratic institutions and free societies in Venezuela, Bolivia--and as Honduras was going down the path, you might also add Nicaragua to that, to name only a few of the most visible cases. It is also hard to explain why there was this silence in the face of President Zelaya's earlier unconstitutional actions, especially the event that appeared to precipitate his ousting: the storming of a military base to seize and distribute ballots for a referendum that previously had been declared unconstitutional by the Honduran Supreme Court. A fundamental tenet of democracy is the separation of powers. You have a President in the executive branch and then you have the judicial branch of government, a coequal and separate branch, and that branch told the President the referendum he was seeking to have to extend his rule beyond the constitutional term was illegal, it should not be done. He was undeterred and he was completely unrepentant as he sought to continue his plan to have a referendum, even though the Congress, even though the judiciary had already told him that was in contravention of the Constitution of their country. Where was the region's outrage over Hugo Chavez's support for Mr. Zelaya's unconstitutional actions in Honduras? Mr. Chavez supported Mr. Zelaya because they are kindred spirits, because Mr. Chavez had already been able to usurp every institution of democracy within his country of Venezuela and now rules as an autocrat. He wanted to have the same playbook applied in Honduras as he coached and shepherded to do some of the same things in Bolivia and to some degree in Nicaragua as well--and Nicaragua coming along. The Honduran people decided this was not going to happen in their country, and the people in the Honduran Congress and in the Honduran Supreme Court decided it was not going to happen on their watch. But the region's silence toward the assault on democracy in Honduras followed a pattern of acquiescence of Chavez's dismantling of democratic institutions and civil liberties in Venezuela. For instance, the OAS has said absolutely nothing about Chavez's closing of independent media, his manipulation of elections, his erosion of independent branches of government, and his usurping of the authority of local elected officials. Leaders like Chavez, Ortega, and Zelaya have cloaked themselves in the language of democracy when it was convenient for them. Yet their actions ignored it when it did not further their personal ambitions. This situation was compounded by the actions of the United States, including work behind the scenes to keep the Honduran Congress and Supreme Court from using the clearly legal means of Presidential impeachment. Some of us have wondered why wasn't he impeached? Why didn't the Congress go ahead and impeach President Zelaya? Our Embassy in Tegucigalpa counseled that the Hondurans should not use the tools of impeachment. Having stood on sidelines while Mr. Zelaya overstepped his nation's Constitution, the United States and the inter-American community only speak now. Protecting a sitting President, regardless of his illegal acts, sets a dangerous precedent. Instead, U.S. policy should be focused on only supporting efforts that uphold the integrity of constitutional order and democratic institutions. In fairness to the Obama administration, this distorted policy is not new. Through advice from the State Department, former President George W. Bush was talked out of having the United States stand visibly with democratic advocates in Latin America. The advice was based on the belief that by not making the United States an issue, this would allow the region to stand up for democratic activists. Unfortunately, no country or leader did so, and most significant of all, the leader of the OAS has sat idly by, year after year, as democracy after democracy was dismantled, one piece at a time, one election at a time, one institution at a time, saying absolutely nothing. The OAS has a responsibility to condemn and sanction Presidential abuses, not just abuses against Presidents. Because of the OAS failure to uphold the checks and balances within democracies, it has become an enabler of authoritarian leaders throughout the region. The result of this has been a signal of acceptance to antidemocratic actions and abandonment of those fighting for democracy in Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Ecuador, and elsewhere. This silence was compounded by the recent repudiation of the application of the Inter-American Democratic Charter to the Cuban dictatorship. Ironically, it was in Honduras, with Mr. Zelaya taking a leading role, where the OAS General Assembly decided against any clear democratic standards for Cuba retaking its seat in that organization. So here is what occurred: The OAS, filled with a desire to reincorporate Cuba into the family of nations, completely ignored that for 50 years Cuba has been a military dictatorship without even the vestiges of a free and fair election, and they invited Cuba to be readmitted without setting up a standard by which they would have to live. President Zelaya, with his partner Hugo Chavez, was leading the charge in saying Cuba should be welcomed back and there should be no conditions, no conditions of democratic rule like the ones he is now relying upon to try to get his Presidency back. It is Mr. Zelaya now seeking the very protection of the Democratic Charter of the OAS which he thinks applies to him but which he felt was unimportant to apply the rights and opportunities to the Cuban people to try to claim the democratic future for themselves. The crisis in Honduras stems from the failure of its leaders to live within constitutional boundaries and from the earlier silence of the United States and the international community regarding the abuse of power by the Honduran executive. Tragically, the United States and the OAS have put Honduras and the region in a position where democracy is the loser once again. The return of Mr. Zelaya will signal the approval of his unconstitutional acts. If he is not allowed to return, then the unacceptable behavior of forcibly exiling a leader elected by the people would be given tacit approval. This is what happens when principles are sacrificed for a policy that can only be described as the appeasement of authoritarians. In the current crisis, neither the United States nor other countries in the region or the international community should be taking sides in a constitutional dispute but, rather, encouraging a resolution through dialog among Hondurans. To this end, efforts should be focused on helping Hondurans form a reconciliation government that would include representatives not associated with either the Zelaya administration or the current interim government. The objective should be to keep Hondurans on track to hold currently scheduled Presidential elections in November, with the inauguration of a new President in January as mandated in the Honduran Constitution. The newly elected President, with an electoral mandate, then can decide whether and how to deal with Mr. Zelaya and those involved in his ouster. As the Senate takes up President Obama's nominees for key State Department positions in Latin America, it is time to question the acceptance by the United States and the inter-American community of the sustained dismantling of democratic institutions in free societies by Presidents seeking to consolidate personal power at any cost. This is the larger challenge in Latin America, and Honduras is only the latest symptom. The United States must no longer remain silent when democratic institutions are undermined. Any disruption of the constitutional order is unacceptable, regardless of who commits it. It would be well for us to remember that as we look forward to what may come next, the Presidential succession ought to be honored, however, institutions of democracy ought to also be equally honored. Secretary of State Clinton met today at 1 o'clock with deposed President Zelaya. It appears she is seeking to align the United States with the mediation that is about to be undertaken by President Oscar Arias, a Nobel Prize-winning, well-regarded man from Costa Rica, and that President Arias might take this opportunity to see how we can bring this process back together again. It seems to me that the elections in Honduras ought to take place as scheduled and a new democratically elected government ought to go forward. The real question is, Will Mr. Zelaya be allowed to return to the office of President? It seems to be fairly unanimous that all Honduran institutions oppose such an outcome. They do not want Mr. Zelaya back. They have seen the dark movie of what life can be like in a Cuba-type situation. They have seen the dark movie of what life can be like in a Cuba-type situation. They have seen the erosion of democracy with the complete erosion of freedoms, so much made a dear part of what we in this country believe in that has taken place in Venezuela. They have seen the continued erosion of democratic values in Nicaragua and they do not want to see it happen in their country, and one cannot blame them. It would only be fitting that they should find comfort by those of us in this country who not only value democracy for us but believe it should be shared by others around the world no matter their circumstances. It isn't good enough to be elected democratically but then rule as a dictator and in the process of being an elected President, then move to erode all of the institutions of democracy--the courts, the congresses, even the military as an institution; they ought to be respected. Their independence ought to be valued. The playbook of Mr. Chavez, which is to dismantle the military leadership and bring in cronies of his, the efforts to then discredit the courts and bring in judges that he would also approve--this has been the playbook by which Chavez has operated and one that Mr. Zelaya was attempting to put into play. So let's hope President Arias from Costa Rica will be able to lead a mediation effort that will bring together all of the disparate groups so that there can be a free and fair election and there can be a resolution to this crisis of democracy. But let this also be a wake-up call to the rest of us who have sat silently by as this erosion of democracy takes place one country at a time in Latin America. We ought to say: Enough is enough. Let's stand for the rule of law, let's stand for democracy, not only on election day but each and every day thereafter as we seek leaders who not only are elected democratically but govern democratically. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, let me begin by thanking my dear friend from the State of Arizona for once again reminding us of this egregious practice of earmark spending that continues to not only grow but continues to be a dark mark on our record as Members of the Congress. I think, as he rightly pointed out, at a time of serious economic distress in places such as Arizona--and I certainly could say as well in Florida--it is a bit out of sync for us to continue the spending as usual just for the mere fact that there is a member of the Appropriations Committee who can, in fact, command something be done only because it would benefit a narrow interest in their State, within their district, and which, in fact, may not be requested and which may not be needed. Honduras

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to speak as in morning business for a period of about 10 minutes.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to honor an individual who lived in pursuit of a free Cuba and a better America, COL Ramon M. Barquin, who died at the age of 93 on March 3, 2008. Colonel Barquin was an accomplished military leader, an educator, a diplomat, and an entrepreneur. Although Cuba was his native home, he made our Nation a better place during the years he lived in exile. Ramon Barquin was born in Cienfuegos, Cuba, on May 12, 1914. At the age of 19, he joined the Cuban army, served his country, and graduated from the Cuban Military Academy in 1941. During his years of military service, Colonel Barquin attended various U.S. Army schools here in the United States. Following a distinguished career in the military, Colonel Barquin found his passion in military education. In the classroom, he worked to instill a culture of civic awareness within the military's ranks, founded the Cuban National War College, and eventually was promoted to director of Cuba's military schools. Following his career in Cuban military education, Barquin was appointed as Cuba's military attache to the United States and delegate to the Inter- American Defense Board, where he was elected vice chair and led the team that developed the plan for a joint defense of the Western Hemisphere. For his work, Colonel Barquin was honored in 1955 by our government with the Legion of Merit, Grade of Commander. While serving as attache, he learned of the shifting political winds in Cuba and conspired to prevent freedom from losing a foothold in his native land. I can remember as a young boy in Cuba living through tumultuous times. But I also remember my father often remarking that in Colonel Barquin, Cuba had its best hope for democracy. It was the colonel's concerns that led him to participate in a failed military revolt against the Batista dictatorship and later to actively work against Castro's totalitarian regime. When Castro came to power, he asked Barquin to serve as defense minister. Concerned with the regime's repressive nature, Colonel Barquin refused and instead chose to serve in an ambassadorial post in Europe. As a result of that, he was able to flee to the United States and begin a new life, now in exile. After briefly living in Miami, Barquin rekindled his passion for education by establishing a consortium of educational institutions in Puerto Rico. They included a K-12 school called the American Military Academy, summer camps, a university--Atlantic College--and an institute for civic education known as Instituto de Democratica. He was recognized for his hard work and enterpreneurism by the Puerto Rican government as the 1995 Educator of the Year. Graduates of the K-12 academy he founded had kind words of appreciation for the colonel's work and character. One student remarked: ``From the Colonel, I learned to love my country and he taught me the values that lead my life today.'' As a Cuban American, a Floridian, and a Senator, it gives me great pleasure to pay tribute to an individual with a legacy as awe inspiring as that of COL Ramon M. Barquin. His unwavering commitment to freedom and democracy, his generosity, and his zeal for serving others is, and will be, sorely missed. I also know that probably one of his proudest accomplishments was a wonderful family. I am privileged to know his son Ramon, who also carries his name, and also some of his grandchildren. I know that is, without a doubt, what I am sure he feels was his greatest legacy while he lived among us. I know that history would have been very different if he had had an opportunity to follow through on some of his ideas and some of his hopes. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to recognize the Orlando Magic on a tremendous 2008-09 season; which ended on Sunday as the Los Angeles Lakers won a hard fought victory to win the NBA Finals. Although the Magic didn't end up taking home the championship trophy, they still turned in an inspiring performance throughout their improbable postseason run. Four years ago, few would have imagined the Orlando Magic would be the 2008-2009 Eastern Conference Champions. During the 2003-2004 season, the Magic finished last in the league with a record of 21 wins and 61 losses. Since that time, the Magic organization has assembled a team that has made the Orlando community and now all of Florida proud. I commend coach Stan Van Gundy for leading his team to their third consecutive postseason and the team's second NBA Finals appearance. Whether it was overcoming long odds to beat the defending champion Boston Celtics or defeating LeBron James and the Cleveland Cavaliers, the team proved that when ``Blue and White Ignite,'' it is tough to beat the Orlando Magic. For their hard work and sportsmanship, I would like to recognize Dwight Howard, Hedo Turkoglu, Rashard Lewis, rookie Courtney Lee and the rest of the team for setting a tremendous example. Today, all Floridians are proud of the Orlando Magic for having such a memorable season. I congratulate the Magic organization and their fans on a great season and look forward to the next season as the team builds on this year's success.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam President, this week the Senate will be considering the Travel Promotion Act, which is an important bill for my home State of Florida. Every year, millions of tourists travel to the United States from overseas, helping our economy, generating revenues for States and communities, and creating job opportunities for millions of Americans. But for most of this last decade there has been a huge dropoff in visitors to the United States from other countries. Between 2000 and 2008, the U.S. tourism industry has experienced an estimated 58 million lost arrivals, $182 billion in lost spending, $27 billion in lost tax receipts, and $47 billion in lost payroll. We have also lost 245,000 jobs. One in eight Americans is directly or indirectly employed by the travel industry. The industry contributes $1.3 trillion to the U.S. economy, and the industry contributes $115 billion in tax revenue. In Florida, home to Walt Disney World, Universal Studios, many beautiful beaches, the Everglades, some of the best fishing and snorkeling in the world, and the oldest settlements in North America, the tourism industry employs no less than 750,000 Floridians and accounts for nearly 25 percent of all of the State's sales tax collections. Last year, the United States had 633,000 fewer international travelers than we had in the year 2000. Florida has taken a harder hit, losing 1.3 million visitors over that same period of time. Numbers do not lie. Our lack of attention to self-promotion is costing us money, jobs, and opportunities. And it is not that people are not traveling. The fact is, people are traveling to some destinations other than the United States. The world competition for the travel dollar is keen. Countries all over the world are doing all they can to attract visitors to their countries. We are competing in a world marketplace. This is an alarming trend we are seeing in the United States, and it clearly hurts our economy. But it also has an impact on our image around the world. Studies show a person's opinion of our country is greatly improved when they visit our country. We are our own best ambassadors. But when fewer people visit here, there are fewer opportunities for others to see what our Nation has to offer and what we are all about. So increased travel to the United States is not only good for our Nation, it is also good for the way in which we portray ourselves to the world. One of the best ways to address this is to create a comprehensive campaign to promote the United States as a travel destination. This is a way of reversing this current trend. This is a way of bringing back some of the declines to a better day so we can increase jobs and opportunities in our country. Here is an example of what other nations spend to promote themselves in the tourism market around the world. Here is what we are competing against. This is what the United States is up against as we look to compete for the travel dollar. Our close neighbor of Mexico spent $149 million promoting travel to Mexico. Our other close neighbor, Canada, spent $58 million in promoting travel to its country. China spent $60 million in promoting travel to its country. Australia spent $113 million. The countries of the European Union collectively spent $800 million on self-promotion. How much has the United States spent? We have spent absolutely nothing. We spend nothing in promoting our tourism. For years, sectors within the agricultural industry have used so- called checkoff programs to promote their products. We have heard the slogans: ``Pork, the other white meat.'' ``Beef, it's what's for dinner.'' ``Milk, it does a body good.'' These are familiar slogans created by industry-sponsored campaigns. Producers kick in their own money to create a marketing campaign that benefits all producers. We need the same thing for our tourism, which is why I urge my colleagues to support moving forward on the Travel Promotion Act. It will benefit our economy, it will complement our Nation's diplomatic efforts and, perhaps most importantly, it will help to create new jobs. The Travel Promotion Act will enable the United States to become its own ambassador by establishing a public-private campaign to promote tourism abroad. The campaign would be led by an independent, not-for- profit corporation governed by an 11-member board of individuals appointed by the Secretary of Commerce. Each would represent the various regions around the Nation and bring their expertise in promoting international travel. The program will not use taxpayer money but will instead rely on user fees paid by foreign tourists and in-kind contributions from corporate partners. Additionally, the act will increase coordination among the Commerce, State, and Homeland Security Departments to streamline the entry and departure procedures for our foreign tourists. You see, not only are we not promoting ourselves, we are also doing a lot to complicate travel to our country. Because of those things which were done as a necessity post-9/11, we have created a lot of layers of complication for foreign travelers to visit our country. We have to continue to have the kind of protection about who visits our land to protect our homeland, but at the same time we need to use some common sense about how this is done and incorporate some modern technologies to ensure that the travel experience to the United States is not cumbersome, is not complicated, and that it is transparent and enjoyable for those who come to visit us. In today's economy, every visitor counts. In the competitive world we live in, every competitive dollar that can be spent out there promoting travel to the United States will inure to the benefit of the job creation we will see in places such as my home State. When you consider that visitors from overseas spend an estimated $4,500 every time they visit the United States, more visitors will mean more jobs for Americans at a time when unemployment continues to rise. So I truly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill as we work toward increasing our Nation's presence as a tourist destination around the world. I hope, as the week unfolds, we will have an opportunity to engage in conversation and discussion and debate about this very important tourism bill, which will help most States of this country. The fact is we want Florida to be a significant tourism destination. We are proud of that in our State, but the fact is that States around the country all can benefit and do benefit greatly from foreign tourists visiting our country. It is a great, green way of promoting jobs and opportunities in our country and one I think is long overdue. If we are going to compete effectively with countries abroad, we must, in fact, also be competitive in how we promote and advertise ourselves to the world. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ

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

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, this week, we pay tribute to those who fought for freedom's cause during World War II. Two monumental efforts occurred that resulted in turning the war efforts in favor of the Allied Forces. These events are D-day and the Battle of Midway. Each was a demonstration of our nation's commitment to freedom, a blow against tyranny, and the tremendous sacrifice everyday Americans are willing to make for peace and security. This Saturday marks the 65th anniversary of D-day, the day the tide began to turn against totalitarianism in World War II. On that day, Allied troops stormed a Normandy beachhead to claim a foothold on the edge of Nazi-occupied Europe. More than 1,400 Americans sacrificed their lives during the invasion, including 130 Floridians. As the largest land, air, and sea invasion in history, D-day brought together Allied forces and unprecedented military resources, including more than 150,000 servicemen, 13,000 aircraft, and 5,000 ships. By the day's end, more than 9,000 Allied warriors had sacrificed life and limb so that others could begin the perilous journey into Europe to defeat the forces commanded by Adolf Hitler. D-day tested the courage and character of every American involved in the invasion. Like those who came before them, the soldiers who fought that day fought courageously for a freedom the men and women of our military still fight to defend. Coinciding with the anniversary D-day is the 67th anniversary of the Battle of Midway, another turning point in the war. The battle claimed the lives of more than 300 Americans and helped to slow Japan's advance across the Pacific. America's forces executed the mission with tremendous skill and helped deliver one of the war's most decisive and crucial victories. On these anniversaries, let us remember and recognize the courage of those who sacrificed their lives to restore hope through the liberation of those in occupied territories. Let us honor and thank those veterans that continue to share their unique stories from these extraordinary battles. May God bless the men and women of the U.S. military, and continue to bless our great Nation.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, for Americans, Independence Day is the day we celebrate our freedom and the ideals on which our Nation was founded. Today is a special day for Cubans who won their formal independence, with help from the United States, 107 years ago today. Today is independence day in Cuba, which serves as a reminder that there are those still struggling to exercise their fundamental rights, having spent the past 50 years under the repressive rule of a one-family regime. Last month, 17 peaceful Cuban activists wrote to President Obama, noting that: A great majority of Cubans . . . desire profound democratic change in Cuba. The shining example of the civil rights movement in the United States is a beacon of hope so that full dignity for each Cuban can be restored. We want to determine our future through a democratic process. His administration has taken actions with the well-being of Cubans in mind. While I appreciate the President's willingness to address some of the challenges facing the Cuban people, I also ask that he consider implementing policies that will empower the Cuban people, not empower the regime. Wholesale change in Cuba won't come from Washington. It can only come from Havana. The Cuban people will not truly be free until all prisoners of conscience are freed from prison. Additionally, the regime must end the practice of harassing and detaining those who exercise their fundamental human rights. The Cuban people are also entitled to freedom of the press, freedom to assemble, and freedom to worship. Finally, the Cuban people must be given the right to freely choose who governs them and how they will be governed. On the day we recognize Cuba's independence from Spain 107 years ago, we should also recognize the Cuban people's right to independence from the repressive regime that currently denies them these fundamental freedoms. Mr. President, 107 years ago, as the United States and those freedom fighters in Cuba who struggled mightily for more than a quarter of a century, by that time, to free themselves from the yoke of colonialism, the United States and Cuba, after freeing Cuba from Spain, sat together to form the new Cuban Republic. And 107 years ago on a day like today, the United States ceded to the Cuban people their right to be an independent nation. It is amazing how nurtured and closely bound the history of our Nation is with the history of the nation that saw my birth. It is with that in mind that this unique role and the fact that only a very small body of water, called the Florida Straits, separates us, has created this entangled web of history between these two nations that have so much been a part of my life. As we look to the future, it is right that we continue to be the greatest single beacon of hope, as these dissidents expressed to President Obama, for those in Cuba who look for freedom, who look for the opportunity to have a democratic government they can elect. Today the Cuban people continue to be ruled by the tyrannical hand of two brothers who seized power in 1959 on January 1. That is a long time ago. Since that day until today, there has not been a legitimate election, there has never been the opportunity for the Cuban people to freely express themselves without the fear of repression or political prison. Today there are dozens of Cuban people who are in prison merely for expressing the ideas that this country has so nurtured over the time of its existence--freedom, democracy, and rule of law. It is with that hope that today I have come to the Senate floor to commemorate this very important date on the calendar in history that intertwines Cuba and the United States. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 5 minutes as in morning business.

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

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. The issue before the Senate includes the question of Guantanamo, and I know there has been some recent activity on this legislation. Addressing this issue, the Federal Government has no higher responsibility than ensuring the safety and security of every American. Since 9/11, our Nation has taken a number of steps to safeguard us from the threat of terrorism, including the development of a facility to detain enemy combatants at U.S. Naval Station Guantanamo Bay. Over the course of our campaign against terrorism, that detention facility came under harsh scrutiny; doing great harm to our stature around the world. In June of 2005, I told a group of newspaper editors that the detention facility at U.S. Naval Station Guantanamo Bay had become a lightning rod for global criticism, and at some point a country has to reexamine the cost-benefit ratio of operating a facility that has such a poor public face. As a lawyer, I noted that it wasn't very American to be holding people indefinitely with no system in place to process and grant review of the detention and some form of due process. Suspected enemy combatants had essentially become akin to POWs; but because of the unique nature of the ongoing war on terror, they could not be released. What I knew then, and what I know now is that though many wanted to close Guantanamo--a view that would eventually be shared publicly by President Bush and both candidates for President Senators John McCain and Barack Obama--we did not have a good plan for how to legally advance beyond that wish. So we had an idea--to close Guantanamo--but no good path to achieve that without endangering Americans. The world has changed since 2005. Since then, a military commission system was established, prisoners were processed; the trying of unlawful enemy combatants began; trials concluded; and in some cases former Guantanamo Bay detainees were convicted of their charges, while others were acquitted and released. But now, we have gone from the rhetoric of the campaign to the very real pronouncement by the President that Guantanamo shall be closed down by January 2010. I agree, we need to close Guantanamo, but not before we have a concrete plan in place that holds captured enemy combatants accountable for their actions, while also not endangering the American public. President Obama's Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Dennis Blair clearly laid out that: The guiding principles for closing the center should be protecting our national security, respecting the Geneva Conventions and the rule of law, and respecting the existing institutions of justice in this country. I also believe we should revitalize efforts to transfer detainees to their countries of origin or other countries whenever that would be consistent with these principles. Closing this center and satisfying these principles will take time, and is the work of many departments and agencies. So again, we have the idea that we can all agree on, but in practice there is no plan; there is no clear path to achieving these goals. When choosing a path, we need to act very carefully and consider this decision in the context of our ability to continue processing prisoners under the Military Commissions Act; we need to consider whether and how habeas corpus would apply to detainees transferred to U.S. facilities; and we need to know the implications of trying Gitmo detainees in Federal Court. Today, some 240 individuals are held at Gitmo's detention center. Of these, eighty detainees potentially face prosecution for war crimes before Military Commissions at Guantanamo and two individuals have already been convicted of war crimes before the Commissions. These Commissions were created by Congress under the Detainee Treatment Act and the Military Commissions Act as a means for prosecuting the unique type of enemy we confront in this new type of warfare. But then came the Supreme Court's opinion in Boumediene v. Bush. In that opinion, authored by Justice Kennedy on behalf of the five- member majority, the Court did something that has never been done in the history of our Nation. The Court extended the constitutional writ of habeas corpus to foreigners detained in foreign lands. That means the Court extended to foreign terror suspects detained at Guantanamo Bay the same constitutional rights and privileges that U.S. citizens enjoy in U.S. courts. Seizing on this unprecedented constitutional interpretation, the lawyers of several Gitmo detainees quickly filed motions in Federal district courts seeking to have their clients brought into the U.S., and in some cases, asked that their clients be released or ``paroled'' onto the streets of American cities and communities. This is the world we live in given the Court's decision in Boumediene--a world in which foreigners, who have been trained at terrorist camps in Afghanistan, have been granted the right to be released onto the streets of American cities. It was against this backdrop that President Obama decided on his first day in office to halt further Military Commission trials and to mandate the closing of Gitmo by January of next year. Let's be clear about what we are dealing with here. These detainees are not accused of shoplifting; they are not accused of robbing a bank; they are not accused of organizing a single or double homicide. They are accused of working as unlawful enemy combatants with the aim of killing as many Americans as they can kill, most of them completely committed to their goal, they are ``irreconcilables.'' We are still in the midst of a global war on terror against an enemy bent on attacking Americans wherever and whenever it can. There is no question that this war is unprecedented. There is no question we face unique and difficult choices. But one thing is very clear: We should never allow alleged enemy combatants to enter or be released in the United States. No court, civilian or military, should ever be asked to decide whether the foreign terrorist trainee before it is ``safe enough'' to be brought into the United States and released into our streets. The American people deserve greater protections from us than that would warrant them, and we must remember that their personal safety and our national security is our No. 1 priority. Guantanamo is a world-class facility that is well-suited for the unique circumstances of the global war on terror. Even Attorney General Holder has declared the facility to be ``well run'' and noted that Gitmo personnel conduct themselves in an appropriate way. I myself have visited there, and I understand what he is saying, because it is a good example of a fine detention facility. It is good that the military commissions were working and were achieving fair results and may be coming back. For example, Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's personal driver and body man, was convicted of providing material support to al-Qaida and sentenced to a mere 5\1/2\ years by a jury of military officers. This result demonstrates the effectiveness and the type of justice provided by the military commissions. This is why they should resume immediately at the only venue in the world that has been built to facilitate them, and that is the facility at Gitmo. One thing I do want to make clear as we continue to have debate over the facility's future, I remind my colleagues that when we talk about Gitmo's future, we are referencing the detention center, not the U.S. Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay. That naval base is the landlord to the detention center, but it also serves as a vital base for our Navy and is a key strategic place. The overall facility is the U.S. Naval Station providing fleet support, ship replenishment, and refueling for the U.S. Navy and also for the Coast Guard as well as allied and friendly nations. It is a key processing center for Haitians and Cubans seeking asylum. The U.S. Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay is home to more than 8,500 active-duty servicemembers and their families and civilian support contractors. We cannot lose sight of the important role the base plays in our national security, and the continued need for infrastructure improvements and enhancements, all that have absolutely nothing to do with the detention facility. As we continue to debate the facility's future, I want to underscore the importance of making a thoughtful and careful decision rather than one that may be what is expedient, for the moment. We need a plan on how to move forward given the considerations I have discussed today. So I hope as the discussion goes forward, we will put the interests and the safety of the American people first. I know the portion of this bill before us which dealt with the Guantanamo facility and the allocation of $80 million to close down the facility may be removed from the bill or considered in a different form. I would be encouraged if we are not at the moment funding the closing of this facility until we have a game plan in mind of what we are going to do with the facility and the detainees who are there. We still have not addressed what we are going to do between now and January of 2010. There still is no plan. There still is no future for what will happen to the 240 detainees who currently reside at the detention facility at the United States Naval Station in Guantanamo, Cuba. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich.) The Senator from Alabama.

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

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, every day, law enforcement officers across the Nation make tremendous sacrifices to fight crime and keep our communities safe. On November 22, 2008, one of those officers tragically lost his life while serving in the line of duty. The officer was 31-year-old Alex Del Rio, a Florida native, a loving son, and an outstanding member of the Hollywood, FL, police department. Although Alex's life ended just 2 months short of his 32nd birthday, he lived his life to the fullest. He was born in Miami and attended Winston Park Elementary in Miami and McMillian Middle School in Kendall. At the MAST Academy High School in Miami, Alex was a tremendous student, a member of the JROTC Color Guard, and known by his friends as someone who always did the right thing. After joining the Hollywood Police Department in 1996, Alex began his career as a part-time community service aide and earned a full-time position on the force in 1999. He held positions in patrol, special operations motors and special operations for DUI traffic homicide. He was named Hollywood Police Department's ``Officer of the Month'' in October of 2003 and a finalist for the 2003 ``Officer of the Year.'' His colleagues knew him for his sense of humor, his likability, and his love for the job. Alex's mother Miriam Fernandez has turned her personal tragedy into opportunities for others by establishing the Alex Del Rio Foundation. The foundation aims to enrich the lives of children in south Florida by providing scholarships and promoting the ideals Alex embodied. His commitment to serving others has touched not only those in Hollywood but also those who work in law enforcement in other States. Officer James E. Manley from the town of Lloyd, NY, was so inspired by Alex's story that he has decided to ride more than 300 miles to be here in Washington in Alex's honor. Officer Manley will join Alex's family and others this week in a candlelight vigil and memorial service for fallen officers at the National Law Enforcement Memorial. I join them in honoring Alex and the many other men and women of our nation's law enforcement agencies who have given their lives protecting and serving our communities.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to honor an individual who lived in pursuit of a free Cuba and a better America--Colonel Ramon M. Barquin, who died at the age of 93 on March 3, 2008. Colonel Barquin was an accomplished military leader, an educator, a diplomat, and an entrepreneur. Although Cuba was his native home, he made our Nation a better place during the years he lived in exile. Ramon was born in Cienfuegos, Cuba, on May 12, 1914. At the age of 19, he joined the Cuban Army, served his country, and graduated from the Cuban Military Academy in 1941. During his years of military service, Colonel Barquin attended the U.S. Strategic Intelligence School here in the U.S. Following a distinguished career in the military, Colonel Barquin found his passion in teaching. In the classroom, he worked to instill a culture of civic awareness within the military's ranks and eventually was promoted as director of Cuba's military schools. Following his career in Cuban military education, Barquin was selected to serve as Chief of Intelligence of the Cuban Army. As an attache to the United States, Colonel Barquin was honored in 1955 with the Legion of Merit for his military acumen. While serving as an attache, he learned of the shifting political winds in Cuba and conspired to prevent freedom from losing its foothold in his native home. I can remember as a young boy living through tumultuous times, my father often remarking that in Colonel Barquin, Cuba had the best hope for democracy. His concerns led him to participate in a failed military revolt against the Batista dictatorship and actively work against Castro's totalitarian regime. When Castro came to power, he asked Barquin to serve in the regime's army. Knowing the regime's repressive nature, Colonel Barquin instead chose to serve in an ambassadorial post in Europe, where he was able to flee to the United States to live in exile. After briefly living in Miami, Barquin rekindled his passion for education by establishing a consortium of schools in Puerto Rico. The consortium consists of several educational institutions, including a K- 12 military school, summer camps and an institute for civic education now known as Instituto de Formacion Democratica. He was recognized for his hard work and entrepreneurism by the Puerto Rican government as the 1995 Educator of the Year. Graduates of the K-12 academy he founded had kind words of appreciation for the Colonel's work and character. According to one student, ``with the Colonel, I learned to love my country and he taught me the values that lead my life today.'' As a Cuban-American, a Floridian, and a U.S. Senator, it gives me great pleasure to pay tribute to an individual with a legacy as awe- inspiring as that of Colonel Ramon M. Barquin. His unwavering commitment to freedom and democracy, his generosity, and his zeal for serving others is sorely missed.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I wish to conclude and follow up on something the chairman said. The situation we are in is critical. Striking some balance that reduces foreclosures is worth the risk. The corrosive effect of foreclosures--and all of the things we have tried have nipped at the issue but have not fixed it. The corrosive effect of foreclosures continues this downward spiral of home prices, which escalates the problem the banks have. Assets were becoming toxic yesterday, and are today and tomorrow, because of the decline in home values. There is a dramatic decline in my State, and the biggest reason for that is foreclosures. The foreclosures set a new floor on what the prices in the neighborhoods are, and that floor then begins to be what other purchasers are willing to pay. That, in effect, then reduces home equities, reduces the opportunities for folks to stay in their homes, and it is a downward spiral we have to stop. This is an effort to try to stop it. I am delighted to hear the Senator say that the House may take our language. I think their language is very broad, frankly. What Senator Corker has raised in his concerns would be heightened by the House language. I think our language, in its imperfection, strikes a decent balance among the interests of all parties and perhaps will increase the number of workouts and reduce the number of foreclosures. I also speak in opposition to the Corker amendment, and I would be excited to see our bill move forward with this provision and the many others that are helpful. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I did not want the opportunity to pass to be heard on this issue, and I would be pleased to have the Senator from Tennessee make a rebuttal after I make my comments. But at some point I did wish to have an opportunity to express my point of view on this issue. Here is the situation we are in. As the chairman of the Banking Committee has said, this is not a perfect world. We are in a heck of a mess. The people in Florida, by the thousands, are having their homes foreclosed. Unemployment is almost 10 percent because about 25 percent of Florida's economy is dependent on building homes and on the construction industry, which is completely stopped, for the most part. We are in a situation now where if I hold a forum in a city such as Fort Myers, 450 people show up desperate for a solution to their problem to stay in their home. We have some banks there, and we have some people from HUD, from HOPE for Homeowners--all these people coming together--to try to work things out, and many times it happens. It is not nearly keeping up with the rate of foreclosures going on across the country, but some are getting worked out. How many more would be worked out if we had a safe harbor provision-- balanced--that keeps the investor community from being able to bring legal action against the servicers? I think we would have thousands more. Would the country be better off? Absolutely. Would the homeowner be better off? Absolutely. Would everyone involved in the business of housing and housing finance be better off? I submit to you it would be so. One of the reasons many of these loan modification programs we have had--and they began in the Bush administration; they have continued now in the Obama administration but they have not worked because of the safe harbor need, because of the legal ramifications once a servicer perceives the threat of litigation. The safe harbor provisions of this legislation remove that perceived risk. This bill, which includes a safe harbor that is lots narrower than the one in the House version of this bill, makes it clear that so long as a mortgage servicer concludes that, from the perspective of the investors, an approved loan modification is better than foreclosure; that is, modification will yield greater value than foreclosure--in other words, the investor is protected to a degree--then the servicer cannot be held liable for choosing to modify the loan and not foreclose. This legislation strengthens the current Federal loan modification guidelines to assure that only deserving homeowners benefit from a modification. Individuals with a net worth of more than $1 million cannot qualify for a modification. Individuals who have been convicted of fraud would also be barred. Any participant must certify that he or she has not intentionally defaulted on any other debt before a modification is going to be permitted. Unlike the safe harbor provision in the House bill, this bill's safe harbor would still permit investors to hold a servicer liable if the servicer acts unreasonably or improperly fails to maximize investor value through instigating a foreclosure. In other words, there will still be a foreclosure if, in fact, it is in the best interest of the investor. The safe harbor provisions in this bill would help to strike the proper balance between the future health of residential mortgage credit in this country and the rights of investors. I think what we need to understand a little better is that the intent of the Corker amendment--while it is good; and I hate to disagree with the Senator from Tennessee, whom I so often find myself in full agreement with, but in this instance, I must because he requires that all potential alternatives to foreclosure be evaluated and to select the one that is best for the investor, regardless of whether that is in the best interest of the homeowner, before the safe harbor litigation protections are triggered. So before the safe harbor litigation protections are triggered, all other options would have to be reviewed and considered. Basically, there is no safe harbor at all. I do not think, if the Corker amendment was adopted, we would see a lesser number of foreclosures. There are two problems with this amendment. The language of the amendment appears to fail to achieve its stated intent. The current language appears to require that a servicer evaluate all possible alternatives to foreclosure but only provides a safe harbor if the servicer chooses a government-sponsored loan modification. The second problem is it fails to strike the proper balance among the interests of the servicers, the investors, and the homeowners. We tried to strike a balance among all these competing interests in what we acknowledge is an imperfect world. The current language of the bill is better because it forces servicers to make a reasonable determination about whether an investor would be better off with a loan modification or foreclosure. It allows the current loan modification efforts--that allow homeowners to remain in their homes--an opportunity to actually work. This allows investors to benefit from a modification, where it is appropriate, while decreasing the number of foreclosures and increasing the number of families who can remain in their homes. Some have alleged constitutional concerns about this legislation, and I have to tell you, in these kinds of moments, I think we do not want to violate our Constitution, but it is necessary sometimes we step outside a comfort zone, and it is undisputed Congress has the power to regulate the residential mortgage industry. We believe we are on safe legal grounds in that and that this does not constitute a taking or even come close to that. I believe the well-intended Corker amendment would not improve the current situation as it relates to the number of workouts that are taking place, and foreclosure would still be the rule of the day. I believe the language in the bill is superior. It strikes a better balance. It is not as broad as the House language, it is not as restrictive as the Corker language, but it hits it just about right. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I would like to be heard and have an opportunity to join in the discussion regarding this very important issue. I appreciate the fact that the Senator from Tennessee has spoken, rebutted, and wants to speak again. I appreciate that. But I would like to have an opportunity to express my point of view at some point. If the Chair could keep that in mind, I would like to do that at some appropriate point.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, if I could inquire of the Chair----