Mel Martinez

Mr. MARTINEZ

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to address the Senate in morning business and the time be discounted from the minority's time.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a Cuban patriot--Mario Chanes de Armas. When we speak of individuals who have spent their lives fighting for the fundamental right of people to live in freedom, we often think of individuals like Nelson Mandela and Natan Sharansky. However, today I want to share with you the story of Mario Chanez de Armas. He spent 30 years as a prisoner of conscience in Castro's gulag. He was the longest serving political prisoner the world has known--30 years imprisoned for his political views. Sadly, Mr. Chanes died last week at the age of 80 before his one true dream could be fulfilled--freedom for the people of Cuba. I want to extend my condolences to the members of his family and his many friends. He was a man of great conviction and held a true love for humanity. Mario Chanes was a freedom fighter in the truest sense of the words. Originally a labor leader, Chanes de Armas demonstrated leadership and charisma and was an early ally of the then perceived ``reformer'' Fidel Castro. They had worked together for democracy and against the Batista dictatorship. He and Castro shared a cell in Batista's prison until they were both released. Shortly after the Castro take over Mario began to see the true nature of the individual that was his former cell mate. He realized that Castro did not care about civil liberties and human rights or democracy as he once claimed but rather Castro became what he remains today-- irrational, a devoted communist, and an enemy of freedom, a brutal dictator. For pointing out the danger Castro posed to Cubans, Chanes de Armas was jailed as a counter-revolutionary. He served for 30 years in deplorable conditions. Human Rights Watch reports that Cuban political prisoners spend months in isolation cells, sometimes without light or ventilation. They are often provided no beds--no mattresses. Their rations of food and water are barely enough to sustain life. Sanitation and medical conditions are so bad that inmates often leave prison with serious ailments--if they are allowed to leave at all. Chanes de Armas suffered these conditions. For his continued resistance against the dictatorship, he was put in tapiadas, steel isolation cells, and gavetas, ``drawers'' so narrow that he only had room to stand. And for what? For refusing to change his political beliefs and for rejecting communism. They never broke his spirit in spite of all the punishment. Mr. President, Today I want us to take a moment to remember Mario Chanes de Armas--to honor him, his legacy, our continued battle for freedom and the ideals in which he believed and tried so hard to bring to Cuba--liberty, democracy, human rights, rules of law. His dream lives on and his legacy lights the way. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I wish to speak this morning in favor of Feinstein-Cornyn amendment No. 335 and highlight how important it is that our homeland security grants be awarded on the basis of risk. As we have debated and discussed on the floor of this Chamber on numerous occasions, the smartest and most pragmatic approach to funding for homeland security grants is based on the level of risk faced by communities, not by some arbitrary formula. It is a simple approach. Places that face more risk and are more attractive targets to terrorist attacks should receive more funding. This was the approach articulated and supported by the 9/11 Commission, and it is one that this body should have approved. As we all know, the way homeland security funds are distributed now reflects a political compromise. It does not reflect a realistic assessment of our Nation's security needs. Some money will be based on risk, but all States are guaranteed of receiving some funding. It makes very good sense to create a structure whereby first responder funds are allocated based on risk of a terrorist attack. In my home State of Florida, we have ports, tourism, and population centers. We have major cities, such as Miami, Tampa, and Jacksonville, all with stadiums, professional sports franchises, and busy downtowns. As a former mayor of Orange County, I recognize the critical need for risk-based funding of homeland security grants. If you look at the population of Orlando, it appears to be a moderately sized city. However, if one considers the interests of the greater Orlando area with tourist attractions, amusement parks, and resorts, at any one time, there can be millions of Americans and foreign visitors in the Orlando area. According to the Orlando County Visitors Bureau, roughly 45 million visitors come to central Florida each year--45 million visitors. There is no way our current funding system accounts for this reality. Across Florida, we have significant roadways, railways, and some of the busiest ports in the world. We are told all are potential targets, but our current method of funding does not reflect the needs of my State or that of many other States. We need to correct this problem. The American people expect us to correct this problem. That is why I am supporting the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment. Following the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, this amendment would, first of all, ensure that homeland security grants are allocated on a risk-based formula built on assessment of threat, vulnerability, and consequence to the maximum extent practicable. Secondly, it would assure a guaranteed minimum funding for homeland security grants, without turning the program into another grant system for redistributing Federal funds arbitrarily. The amendment also directs the DHS Secretary to consider transient and tourist populations as risk targets for deciding the disbursal of funding for homeland security grants. Finally, it sets minimum performance requirements for homeland security grants and a 2-year audit cycle for grant recipients by the DHS inspector general. Under this amendment, every State would continue to receive some funding; it is just that now the cities and States most at risk would receive most of the funding. This amendment certainly makes sense to Florida's new Governor, Charlie Crist, who believes it to be the best option for Florida. I feel the same way. I know other Senate colleagues of mine believe Senators Feinstein and Cornyn have put together a commonsense amendment that helps the cities and States most at risk. I will vote in favor of this amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. Our Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, also thinks it a prudent move and said as much during a debate on the homeland security grants during 2005. Secretary Chertoff remarked then: Funding our first responders based on risk and need gives us the flexibility to ensure our finite resources are allocated in a prioritized and objective manner. What this means is communities across this Nation--whether they are large or small; whether or not they would appear to be high-risk terrorist targets--are receiving precious resources that are going to local law enforcement agencies so they can upgrade their equipment and other resources. We should not be allocating, in some formulaic method, the limited money set aside for first responders. We need to take a more direct approach. There is a reason terrorists struck New York and Washington on September 11: They wanted to strike two of our most powerful cities. They wanted to cripple our Government and sabotage our economy. It is for these reasons that cities such as New York and Washington should receive homeland security grants that are commensurate with that risk. A spending formula does not speak to this basic reality. I support the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment and ask my colleagues to support this amendment as well. As we continue this important debate, the heart of our efforts should be on making America safer, not rewarding particular communities or interest groups. It is disheartening to me that so much of the debate thus far has been about granting additional rights to unions. Is this going to make us any safer? Is it worth all the time we are spending on it? Of course not. Rather than debating all aspects of union rights associated with our national security, we should be considering some other proposals that have been offered, such as increasing penalties for those found to be financially supporting the families of suicide bombers or granting additional subpoena authority to Federal terrorism investigators so they can find individuals who wish to do us harm and then bring them to justice. This debate should be about strengthening our national security; it should not be about strengthening unions. This should not be about political payback; it should be about making America safer. Anything less would be a disservice to this body and do little to further the safety and security of those we are elected to represent. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I follow the remarks of my colleague from Texas regarding the situation in Iraq and our own situation as it relates to that effort. I wish to pick up on what he said, which is that for so long in the history of our Nation, politics ended at the water's edge. I wish we could go back to the days when we would look at our troops fighting overseas in an effort as significant as this is-- the current war against radical Islam--as something that could unite us all as Americans, where we might shed party labels and also shed personal political ambition. I cannot help but notice, as the Senator from Texas was recounting all of the various plans that have been proposed from the other side, that most of them seemed to come from those labeled as a Presidential candidate. It seems everybody tried to have a different nuance on yet another micromanaging strategy to satisfy their personal political goals. So how do we serve our national interests best? We should not be fighting a war from the political landscape of Washington. That is a recipe for defeat. We should follow the strategy of General Petraeus, who is in the field, who is the allied commander of our troops in Iraq, who does believe the current strategy we are following is one that has a reasonable chance for success. There is no guarantee, but it has a reasonable chance for success. That strategy has now been unfolding for several days. There has been a change on the ground. It is a strategy I know many forget, but it has multiprongs to it. It is not just the military reinforcements over Baghdad and the Iraqi forces taking the lead in Baghdad with our support, but it also has a political and an economic component. The political component--and I had to look for it because it was not on the front page--was that the Iraqi Cabinet approved yesterday an oil-sharing agreement for their country, which now goes to the Iraqi Parliament for their approval. That is one of the key cornerstones of beginning to achieve a political settlement-- reaching an accord on the sharing of oil revenue--so there can be a sense of nationhood, so there can be a coming together of the different factions within Iraq. It is a very important component of a political settlement. I know other settlements are being added to the military and, at the same time, we understand some of those folks we would not want to be partners with. There are elements from the old Baathist Army that can be incorporated. Most of these are Sunnis, which is leading to a greater sense of confidence in the Sunni population. We see shifting and changing on the ground. We see that al-Sadr is taking a slightly different approach. He is anti-American, but at the same time the streets of Baghdad seem to be a tad quieter. We have a long way to go, but we are making some progress. I believe it is important we note even the small measures of progress. I know our troops on the ground, our brave men and women fighting in Iraq, do notice these changes and understand they make a difference in the lives of the Iraqis. When our men and women who volunteer to serve our Nation are deployed and they go into battle, they should never for a moment have any hesitation in their minds or wonder whether they will have the tools they need to successfully perform their mission while defending themselves and the civilians they are working to protect. The concept of opposing the war but supporting our troops seems untenable, when part of that same plan is one that will not allow reinforcements into battle, will not allow the equipment necessary, and has been described as a slow-bleed strategy. That kind of a strategy accomplishes nothing toward victory, and it does damage our troops, their morale and their mission. Our President is the Commander in Chief. He is the leader of our Nation's military. Congress voted to authorize the President under the present circumstances. Resolutions in Washington of all flavors and varieties might make for good politics, but they do not make good sense as a military policy and a strategy for success. We only have one Commander in Chief at a time. Our Nation only has one Commander in Chief, and to micromanage our troops in the field is not what was ever intended by the constitutional responsibilities that divide the powers within our Government. My colleague from Texas talked about Chairman Levin's comments. He made other comments in that interview. This was Sunday on ``Meet The Press.'' He said: We are trying to tie the hands of the President and his policy. I will repeat that: We are trying to tie the hands of the President and his policy. We are trying to change the policy. And if someone wants to call that ``tying the hands'' instead of changing policy, yes, the President needs a check and balance. I don't think that is a check and balance that was envisioned by our Constitution and Founding Fathers--tying the hands of the Commander in Chief in a time of war, while our troops are deployed and are shedding blood in battle. That is not what our Constitution ever intended. Is it appropriate for Congress to tie the hands of the Commander in Chief in a time of war? I would say no. I believe most Floridians would agree with that--that this is not the time to tie the hands of the Commander in Chief. Should we keep the Commander in Chief from reinforcing our troops? In the judgment of military leaders, such as General Petraeus, the reinforcements are necessary, needed, and they are part of what will give us an opportunity for success. Should we keep the Commander in Chief from reinforcing these troops? The answer to that is also no. Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, with regard to the Armed Forces, Congress is given the power of the purse and only the power of the purse. We have the responsibility to fully provide funding for our military forces, especially when they are at war and in harm's way, defending our Nation. So what is the President's role in all of this? Article II, section 2, of the Constitution says the President is the ``Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.'' He has command over the Armed Forces. He has the power and authority to deploy troops. He has the power and authority to direct military campaigns during wartime. For the Congress to tie the President's hands is not the right thing to do. It is outside the scope of what the Congress is supposed to do. This is not the checks and balances intended by our Founding Fathers. In a time of war, the Congress should only support our President, try to unite behind our troops and unite behind our effort. Our job is not to micromanage the handling of a war. Another theory that has been advanced is we should continue to fight al-Qaida but not be involved in a civil war. I have not understood how we can have a strategy in a place that is as complex as Iraq is today to fight against one set of insurgents and not against another. We do know that a chaotic Iraq would be nothing but a haven for al-Qaida. We know that al-Qaida is resurging and reorganizing; our recent intelligence reports indicate that. Nothing would be more appealing or pleasing to them than to, first of all, validate their strategy, which is to create such an uproar in American politics through the deaths of our men and women in uniform and to end the resolve of our Nation so we would not continue to be steadfast in our resolve. This has been their avowed and professed strategy. I believe for us to do anything other than continue forward in this hopeful effort for a victorious outcome would be nothing short of giving in to al-Qaida's strategy--their professed strategy. There is only one option, which has to do with the funding of our troops. I go back to the Gregg resolution. Senator Gregg had a resolution, and it was simply that we would support our troops. Our troops are in battle; we are in a time of war. This Congress sent them into battle by allowing the President to have the authority to do so. So at this time, the only resolution that I think is appropriate is the Gregg resolution, which has been discussed but not debated on the floor of the Senate. I look forward to an opportunity to have a full debate on that resolution. Hopefully, the leadership will allow it to come to the floor for a full debate and a vote.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I am delighted to join my colleague Senator Nelson in advancing the nomination of Marcia Morales Howard as a Federal district court judge for the Middle District of Florida. This outstanding woman lawyer from Florida not only has a distinguished academic background, having graduated from the University of Florida College of Law, being an editor of the Law Review there, but she also has been an accomplished litigator for 13 years with two very fine law firms in the State of Florida, Foley & Lardner and McGuireWoods. In 2003, she became a Federal magistrate. As a magistrate, she has distinguished herself in the Middle District of Florida where she would be serving as a Federal district court judge. I know her and her family. I know what an outstanding American she is. I am very proud that with the magnitude of importance of a Federal appointment for a lifetime, we have someone of this competence, this dedication, and this quality to serve in this important post. I am delighted not only for the opportunity to advance the nomination but also to tell of the judicial nominating commission Senator Nelson and I have formed in the State of Florida, which I frankly believe is a model for bipartisan cooperation and also seeking the best and most qualified on the merits by positioning the nomination before a group of distinguished lawyers who then see the applicants, study their qualifications, and make recommendations. I am delighted to urge my colleagues to support the nomination of Marcia Morales Howard for Federal district judge for the Middle District of Florida.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam President, it is interesting that we would be preparing today to have a debate that will not be taking place, and it will not be taking place because it is the prerogative of the leadership to set the agenda of what we do discuss and debate. I agree with my colleagues who have requested an opportunity to have a full airing of the views, to have a full debate, to have an opportunity to express our support for the men and women in the field, in addition to whatever else we might want to debate on this topic of the most important issue facing our country today. But getting beyond the procedural and the tit for tat that so often signifies what Washington is about, what fundamentally is this debate about? It is about the global war on terror. It is about the events that unfolded in our country on the morning of September 11, 2001, and the aftermath of all of that, the things that have occurred as our Nation has responded to the attacks that were brought upon our shores, as we have sought to carry out this difficult mission, but one in which we must not waiver, which is this war on terror. As a result of this war on terror, our troops are in Iraq today, where they have removed a dictator from power and where they have confronted the enemy, which regardless of how someone might have felt about the original decision to go into Iraq, today we are there and we are engaging an enemy that is the very enemy that attacked us here on 9/11. It is known that in Al Anbar Province it is fundamentally an al-Qaida operation. So to send additional reinforcements to Al Anbar Province to defeat al-Qaida in Iraq is in the best interests of this Nation. It is in our national interest to pacify, to bring some peace to Baghdad, which is the capital city of Iraq, which is essential to the peace and security of that nation, of that budding democracy that is attempting to put itself on its feet, and to bring some stability to that capital city by additional reinforcements of American troops in a new plan I think is reasonable. We cannot get so focused on whether some in this body cannot work with this President, do not want to support any of his policies. But let's look at the people who are going to carry out this policy, the generals who are going to be in the field. In the past few days, as has been stated, we have approved by a near--well, I guess it was unanimous; it was 81 to 0, I believe--the sending of General Petraeus as our new commander of allied forces in Iraq. I recall his testimony in the Armed Services Committee where he clearly said he believed in this plan and thought it had a reasonable chance of success. Why would we not give a reasonable chance of success a chance to succeed? Why would we not stand behind our men and women who are willing to go into harm's way to carry out this plan and see if they have an opportunity to succeed? The goal of this new plan is threefold. First, we have to have some stability in Baghdad. We have to continue to defeat al-Qaida in Al Anbar Province. But then beyond that there are other elements to the plan. There obviously needs to be a political reconciliation. There needs to be a political settlement. But that will never take place if there is not some modicum of stability, if we do not bring down the sectarian violence and other violence in Iraq to a manageable level. We then have an opportunity for the political settlement to take place between the Shias and Sunnis, and the Kurds in the north, so they can all come together and begin to bind as a new nation, as a new country, as a new government--a government, by the way, that has only been in place about 9 months. In addition to that, we then have a third angle to this, which I think is so vitally important, which is the economic reconstruction, the economic development, the opportunity for there to be jobs, for there to be opportunities for folks to find a way to make a better life for themselves and their children, so they can reach their aspirations, and do it in an atmosphere of freedom, do it in an atmosphere of democracy and respect for one another. That is the goal. What would happen if we do not give this plan a chance, if we do not see if it has an opportunity to carry out and have an opportunity for success? What is the alternative? Well, we would then have failed in this test of wills. Our enemies have clearly stated they believe if they kill enough Americans, if they cause enough grief to our mothers, if they cause enough harm to our troops, we will not stand up, we will move on, we will find an easier way, and we will not resist those who would bring the destruction of our country upon us. Their stated aims are very clear. They want us out of the Middle East. They want to be able to get America out of the Middle East. They do not want us there because they know we are what stands between them and the opportunity of creating a radical Islamic new caliphate in that region of the world, and the danger that would all bring about. The new intelligence estimate on Iraq we have seen gives a window into what would happen if we had a precipitous withdrawal over the next 12 to 18 months. It would not be a pretty picture. Sectarian violence would ensue. Unquestionably, we would have a Shia-dominated Middle East. Already they are, through their proxies, in Lebanon, in Syria. They have a strong alliance with them. They are trying to take over the Palestinian movement. Over the next 12 to 18 months, the assessments would be very dire of what would take place if we were to be out of the region: an escalation of violence, a diminished chance for stability, no chance for positive change. The estimates suggest that a key aim in Iraq is to stabilize the situation from the standpoint of violence, enough to let the political changes that have to happen take place. I am going to quote from the estimate. It says from the public version: If strengthened, Iraqi security forces more loyal to the government, supported by coalition forces, are able to reduce levels of violence and establish more effective security for Iraq's population, and Iraqi leaders can have an opportunity to begin the process of political compromise necessary for longer-term stability, political progress, and economic recovery. Isn't that a better way? Isn't that what we all want, what the Senate should be on record as supporting--this opportunity for our troops to be successful, and not only to be in harm's way fighting for our country, but also to know that the Senate stands behind them, will not cut off their funds, will stand with them as they go into battle, and will stand with them as they do the hard work of freedom--work done by many other generations of America any time they have been called upon to stand for freedom, stand for the rule of law, and to give this budding new democracy an opportunity to take hold and take root. Madam President, I am disappointed that today we will not have an opportunity to have a fuller debate, that I won't have the opportunity to be on record with a vote reflecting where I stand, which all of us should be willing to do--take a stand, take a position supporting our troops. I personally would also be in support of this plan which I believe gives us the best opportunity for success, which is the only plan out there. Those who would not give this plan a chance owe the American people an alterative but one that would have a reasonable chance for success. Success is what we are after. A victory in this part of the world would send a strong message to our enemies. So I am disappointed we will not vote today. I hope the majority leader will reconsider and come back to have an earnest debate and take the votes that are necessary to be taken. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, today I wish to discuss the power of volunteerism and how one person can--in the truest sense--make a lasting difference in the world. The volunteer spirit helps to keep society civil; volunteers give of themselves in a selfless manner. That spirit is exemplified by the acts of one of my own constituents, Mr. Garrett Walton. Garrett Walton and volunteerism seem to be synonymous with one another. When Hurricane Ivan ravaged northwest Florida in September of 2004, Walton, a former attorney-turned-developer put his career on hold, and took on a full-time volunteer role to help an entire region of our State recover. While the eye of the storm came ashore at Gulf Shores, AL, its most severe winds hit the Florida counties of Santa Rosa and Escambia. Those most damaging of winds, exceeding 140 miles per hour, were a part of a colossal hurricane that triggered more than 100 tornadoes, and also brought a 13-foot storm surge. Roughly 75,000 homes were damaged; 50,000 people were displaced; and of all of the damaged homes, 37,000 of them belonged to families whose household incomes totaled less than $30,000 a year. Garrett helped to lead a group of civic-minded citizens that met in each others' homes to discuss how they could rebuild the community. What grew out of that was a volunteer organization known as REBUILD Northwest Florida. It was a grassroots effort that grew into something extraordinary. More than 4,000 volunteers have contributed close to a quarter of a million hours of volunteer service. Garrett has himself contributed close to 5,000 hours of service. As of the first week of this year, REBUILD had completed more than 1,350 projects. And as recently as this month, January of 2007, Mr. Walton has continued his relentless quest to rebuild communities in northwest Florida. With the help of a few other volunteers, including Carolyn Appleyard, Miles Anderson, and Mark Ramos, this small contingent has taken it upon themselves to help many of their fellow Floridians pick up their lives after this awful natural disaster. Ivan caused widespread devastation; and as one of Florida's most deadly and costly storms, we knew the recovery effort would be long and arduous. I commend Garrett Walton for rising to the challenge. He put others ahead of himself--and not just for a day, a week, or a month, but for several years now. Thank you, Garrett, for your dedication to the people of Florida. You are an exemplar of the volunteer spirit, and make us all very proud to be called Floridians.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, today I honor the 25th anniversary of the Saint Photios National Shrine, the only Greek Orthodox National Shrine in the country, located in Saint Augustine, FL. As early as 1768 and under the leadership of Dr. Andrew Turnbull, Greek immigrants traveled to America to seek a better life in Florida. Many of these early Greek Americans migrated to Saint Augustine, where, over time, a strong Greek community has formed. Greek immigrants found refuge there as many gathered for solace, fellowship, and worship at the historic Averos House built in 1749 on Saint George Street. The Averos House was purchased by the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in 1965, and in 1982, was opened as a National Greek Orthodox Shrine named after Saint Photios the Great, Patriarch of Constantinople. The Saint Photios Greek Orthodox National Shrine gives honor to the memory of the first colony of Greeks in the Americas and the succeeding generations of Greek immigrants; it now serves as a connection and pilgrimage point for Greek Americans and the Greek Orthodox Church in America. It also serves to preserve, enhance, and promote the ethnic and cultural traditions of Greek heritage and the teachings of the Greek Orthodox Church in America. The Shrine continues to be faithful in maintaining and perpetuating the Greek Orthodox faith and Hellenic Heritage through its programs and activities to all who pass through its historic doors. Mr. President, February 4, 2007, will mark the 25th anniversary of the Saint Photios Greek Orthodox National Shrine, and I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the purposeful commitment and achievements of this religious and historical institution.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and I call up amendment No. 105 and ask for its immediate consideration. I ask that if it does not run afoul of what the bill managers were attempting to do at this time.

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

Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam President, I simply wished to call up this amendment. I think it is a rather important amendment and is of great interest to me personally. It is offered in order to assist charitable organizations that look after children who are in need of foster care. It is an attempt to not allow a raise in the minimum wage to work against the opportunity for single individuals to continue to work with these young children in ways that are helpful to them. I have been urged to move this amendment by a number of not-for- profit groups in Florida that care for children, groups such as the Children's Home Society. I think it is a rather important amendment, and I look forward to its consideration as we go forward. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, the amendment that I called up earlier, amendment No. 105, is one that touches on a little different issue. I had hoped there would be a bipartisan consensus base. It involves children and youth in our foster care system. Inconsistencies in our Federal wage laws, coupled with increases in the minimum wage, are financially crippling nonprofit organizations and institutions that make up a necessary part of our communities' support systems for the most vulnerable in our society--the children. More than 500,000 children are in America's foster care system at any given time because their own families are in crisis or unable to provide for their essential well-being--most because they have been subject to abuse and neglect. Thankfully, most are able to be placed with individual caring families. But for children without a suitable or available foster family, they are placed in one of the many group homes associated with our foster care system. Many of these group homes are specially tailored with the specific needs of foster care children, offering unique programs and onsite education to help heal the emotional scarring they have experienced. These homes--often run by private, nonprofit organizations--are dedicated to providing residential care and treatment for the so-called orphans of the living, and they have long been a vital part of the social service networks in America's communities. An essential component of the foster care network is the presence of caring parents in a family-like situation. And as in traditional parenting, the house parents of group foster homes seek to provide the same love, care, and supervision of a traditional family for the five to eight children who reside with them. House parents volunteer to permanently reside at a group home in order to create a family-like environment for those without a true sense of home, one that offers a structured atmosphere where these most vulnerable youth can heal, grow, and become productive members of society. Foster care alumni studies show us that it is the consistent and lifelong connection of caring foster parents that plays the biggest role in helping foster children transition into society. However, our current laws are working against this cause, forcing group homes to move away from what they know is best for the children and preventing them from providing the most consistent care. These youth so desperately need the stability that a family-like situation can provide, and that is what my amendment seeks to address. Traditionally, in addition to a modest, fixed salary, house parents have received food, lodging, insurance, and transportation free of charge. In 1974, Congress recognized and confirmed the unique role house parents serve when it passed the Hershey exemption. This amended the Fair Labor Standards Act to preserve the appropriate method of compensation for house parents and allowed the lodging and food provided them to be considered when determining an appropriate salary for married house parents serving with their spouse at nonprofit educational institutions. Through this exemption, Congress supplied a way for these vital social services to continue to be provided by nonprofit organizations in a way that is cost-effective and at the same time appropriate and meaningful to both the children and the house parents. However, since the addition of this exemption, the demographics of America and of America's foster children have changed. Research now shows that due to the negative experiences some youth have faced, they may find a better environment for growth and healing in having a single house parent of the same sex. Our labor standards for these group homes have not kept pace with the ever-changing needs of these children. Because the Hershey exemption was only extended to married couples, group homes are now forced to choose between what is cheaper and what is best for the children. Unfortunately, the financial realities of the situation place these facilities in a compromising situation. You see, when a group home employs a single house parent for a home, they are required to pay them as an hourly employee, whereas married house parents serving together are allowed to be paid as salaried employees. As a result, it costs a facility in Florida more than $74,000 annually at the current minimum wage rate to provide a full-time single house parent using the traditional live-in model. In response, most facilities have resorted to teams of house parents who work in 8-to-12-hour shifts just to avoid the additional cost of overtime pay. Yet even this team model is pricey and means tough coordination and inconsistencies in care for these children. It also destroys the family-like arrangement of the home. If the minimum wage bill, to which I am offering this amendment, passes, it would cost facilities across the United States in excess of $84,000 annually to house and employ a single, full-time house parent in a foster care or educational group home. However, if it were a married couple serving in the same environment, it would only require minimum wage guidelines be met. Can you see, Mr. President, how this inconsistency in our labor laws is, and will continue to be, crippling for the private, nonprofit facilities? In order to enable group homes to provide the most appropriate and consistent care for foster and emotionally scarred youth, my amendment will extend the Hershey exemption to single house parents, allowing them to be treated as salaried employees when free lodge and board are provided. Voting in favor of my amendment will enable private, nonprofit group homes to continue providing these vital services for our communities with a stronger atmosphere of love and growth for the children. Voting against this amendment--that is, allowing it not to be adopted--will mean that the already heavy financial burden for these facilities will continue to grow. Homes will be forced to close or have to scale back on the number of children they can help. To vote against this amendment--or to not allow it to be adopted--is to turn children out on the street at a time when they need us most. As a loving parent and grandparent, I want what is best for my children. I want to make sure they have whatever they need to overcome all the obstacles life may throw at them. And I also know what it means to be a foster child. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute in which to conclude my remarks.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I conclude with this. I had the experience in life of being a child in foster care for 4 years. I was fortunate to have had two different loving families that cared for me. During that time, I also had the benefit of two parents working to help me. I have maintained, until their deaths, relationships with three of these four loving foster parents, and one of them today struggles for life in a hospital in Tampa, FL, Eileen Young. I pray for her speedy recovery. However, these people made a difference in my life at a time when it mattered. I hope we are not going to deny today those children who need that care of a foster environment to have their lives complicated by what the unintended effect of the minimum wage will be. I urge the adoption of amendment No. 105 so we can continue this type of loving foster care relationship for the children of Florida and throughout the United States who so desperately need it. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, today I rise to discuss an issue that is near and dear to my heart, because it involves children and youth in our foster care system. Inconsistencies in our Federal wage laws, coupled with increases in the minimum wage, are financially crippling the private, non-profit organizations and institutions that make up a necessary part of our communities' support systems for the most vulnerable in our society, the children. More than 500,000 children are in America's foster care system at any given time, because their own families are in crisis or unable to provide for their essential well-being--most because they have been subject to abuse and neglect. Thankfully, most of these children are able to be placed with individual caring families. But for those children without a suitable or available foster family, they are placed in one of the many group homes associated with our foster care system. Many of these group homes are specially tailored to the specific needs of foster care children by offering unique programs and on-site education to help heal the emotional scarring they have experienced. These homes--often run by private, non-profit organizations--are dedicated to providing residential care and treatment for the ``orphans of the living,'' and they have long been a vital part of the social service networks in America's communities. An essential component of the foster care network is the presence of caring parents in a family-like situation. And as in traditional parenting, the houseparents of group foster homes seek to provide the same love, care, and supervision of a traditional family for the five to eight children that reside with them. Houseparents volunteer to permanently reside at the group home in order to create a family- like environment for those without a true sense of home--one that offers a structured atmosphere where these most vulnerable youth can heal, grow, and become productive members of society. Foster care alumni studies show us that it is the consistent and life-long connection of caring foster parents that plays the biggest role in helping foster children transition into society. However, our current laws are working against this cause, forcing group homes to move away from what they know is best for the children and preventing them from providing the most appropriate and consistent care. These youth so desperately need the stability that a family- like situation can provide. And this is what my amendment seeks to address. Traditionally, in addition to a modest, fixed salary, houseparents have received food, lodging, insurance, and transportation free of charge. In 1974, Congress recognized and confirmed the unique role houseparents serve when it passed the Hershey Exemption. This amended the Fair Labor Standards Act to preserve the appropriate method of compensation for houseparents--and allowed the lodging and food provided them to be considered when determining an appropriate salary for married houseparents serving with their spouse at nonprofit educational institutions. Through this exemption, Congress supplied a way for these vital social services to continue to be provided by non-profit organizations in a way that is cost-effective, and at the same time appropriate and meaningful to both the children and the houseparents. However, since the addition of this exemption, the demographics of America and of America's foster children have changed. Research now shows that due to the negative experiences some youth have faced, they may find a better environment for growth and healing in having a single houseparent of the same sex. Our labor standards for these group homes have not kept pace with the ever-changing needs of these children. Because the Hershey Exemption was only extended to married couples, group homes are now forced to choose between what is cheaper and what is best for the children. Unfortunately, the financial realities of the situation place these facilities in a compromising situation. You see, when a group home employs a single houseparent for a home, they are required to pay them as an hourly employee, whereas married houseparents serving together are allowed to be paid as salaried employees. As a result, it costs a facility in Florida more than $74,000 annually at the current minimum wage rate to provide a full-time, single houseparent using the traditional live-in model. In response, most facilities have resorted to teams of houseparents that work in 8 or 12 hour shifts--just to avoid the additional costs of overtime pay. Yet even this team model is pricey and means tough coordination and inconsistencies in care for these children. It also destroys the family-like arrangement of the home. If the minimum wage bill--to which I am offering this bill as an amendment--passes, it will cost facilities across the U.S. in excess of $84,000 annually to house and employ a single, full-time houseparent in a foster care or educational group home. However, if it were a married couple serving in the same environment it would only require minimum wage guidelines being met. Can you see how this inconsistency in our labor laws is, and will continue to be, crippling for the private, non-profit facilities? In order to enable group homes to provide the most appropriate and consistent care for foster and emotionally scarred youth, my amendment will extend the Hershey Exemption to single houseparents, allowing them to be treated as salaried employees when free lodging and board are provided. Voting in favor of my amendment will enable private, non-profit group homes to continue providing these vital services for our communities, with a stronger atmosphere of love and growth for the children. Voting against this amendment will--that is, allowing it not to pass--will mean that the already heavy financial burden for these facilities will continue to grow. Homes will be forced to close or have to scale back on the number of children they can help. To vote against this amendment is to turn children out on the street at a time when they need us most. As a loving parent and grandparent, I want what is best for my children and for my grandchildren--I want to make sure they have whatever they need to overcome the obstacles of life and succeed. This is also what we should seek for foster children and the hurting youth in our communities--to provide the loving homes and facilities for them that provide what they need most and in the most appropriate and consistent way possible. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, today I rise to discuss an issue that is near and dear to my heart, because it involves children and youth in our foster care system. Inconsistencies in our Federal wage laws, coupled with increases in the minimum wage, are financially crippling the private, non-profit organizations and institutions that make up a necessary part of our communities' support systems for the most vulnerable in our society, the children. More than 500,000 children are in America's foster care system at any given time, because their own families are in crisis or unable to provide for their essential well-being--most because they have been subject to abuse and neglect. Thankfully, most of these children are able to be placed with individual caring families. But for those children without a suitable or available foster family, they are placed in one of the many group homes associated with our foster care system. Many of these group homes are specially tailored to the specific needs of foster care children by offering unique programs and on-site education to help heal the emotional scarring they have experienced. These homes--often run by private, non-profit organizations--are dedicated to providing residential care and treatment for the ``orphans of the living,'' and they have long been a vital part of the social service networks in America's communities. An essential component of the foster care network is the presence of caring parents in a family-like situation. And as in traditional parenting, the houseparents of group foster homes seek to provide the same love, care, and supervision of a traditional family for the five to eight children that reside with them. Houseparents volunteer to permanently reside at the group home in order to create a family- like environment for those without a true sense of home--one that offers a structured atmosphere where these most vulnerable youth can heal, grow, and become productive members of society. Foster care alumni studies show us that it is the consistent and life-long connection of caring foster parents that plays the biggest role in helping foster children transition into society. However, our current laws are working against this cause, forcing group homes to move away from what they know is best for the children and preventing them from providing the most appropriate and consistent care. These youth so desperately need the stability that a family- like situation can provide. And this is what my amendment seeks to address. Traditionally, in addition to a modest, fixed salary, houseparents have received food, lodging, insurance, and transportation free of charge. In 1974, Congress recognized and confirmed the unique role houseparents serve when it passed the Hershey Exemption. This amended the Fair Labor Standards Act to preserve the appropriate method of compensation for houseparents--and allowed the lodging and food provided them to be considered when determining an appropriate salary for married houseparents serving with their spouse at nonprofit educational institutions. Through this exemption, Congress supplied a way for these vital social services to continue to be provided by non-profit organizations in a way that is cost-effective, and at the same time appropriate and meaningful to both the children and the houseparents. However, since the addition of this exemption, the demographics of America and of America's foster children have changed. Research now shows that due to the negative experiences some youth have faced, they may find a better environment for growth and healing in having a single houseparent of the same sex. Our labor standards for these group homes have not kept pace with the ever-changing needs of these children. Because the Hershey Exemption was only extended to married couples, group homes are now forced to choose between what is cheaper and what is best for the children. Unfortunately, the financial realities of the situation place these facilities in a compromising situation. You see, when a group home employs a single houseparent for a home, they are required to pay them as an hourly employee, whereas married houseparents serving together are allowed to be paid as salaried employees. As a result, it costs a facility in Florida more than $74,000 annually at the current minimum wage rate to provide a full-time, single houseparent using the traditional live-in model. In response, most facilities have resorted to teams of houseparents that work in 8 or 12 hour shifts--just to avoid the additional costs of overtime pay. Yet even this team model is pricey and means tough coordination and inconsistencies in care for these children. It also destroys the family-like arrangement of the home. If the minimum wage bill--to which I am offering this bill as an amendment--passes, it will cost facilities across the U.S. in excess of $84,000 annually to house and employ a single, full-time houseparent in a foster care or educational group home. However, if it were a married couple serving in the same environment it would only require minimum wage guidelines being met. Can you see how this inconsistency in our labor laws is, and will continue to be, crippling for the private, non-profit facilities? In order to enable group homes to provide the most appropriate and consistent care for foster and emotionally scarred youth, my amendment will extend the Hershey Exemption to single houseparents, allowing them to be treated as salaried employees when free lodging and board are provided. Voting in favor of my amendment will enable private, non-profit group homes to continue providing these vital services for our communities, with a stronger atmosphere of love and growth for the children. Voting against this amendment will--that is, allowing it not to pass--will mean that the already heavy financial burden for these facilities will continue to grow. Homes will be forced to close or have to scale back on the number of children they can help. To vote against this amendment is to turn children out on the street at a time when they need us most. As a loving parent and grandparent, I want what is best for my children and for my grandchildren--I want to make sure they have whatever they need to overcome the obstacles of life and succeed. This is also what we should seek for foster children and the hurting youth in our communities--to provide the loving homes and facilities for them that provide what they need most and in the most appropriate and consistent way possible. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 6344, which was received from the House.

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

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, later today we will be considering the Vietnamese proposal for permanent normalized trade relations. Before consideration of that issue, I wanted to take a few moments to discuss what I believe to be the beauty of freedom and the power that just one individual can have in personifying a truly transcendent value. Recently I had the opportunity to come to know a young woman in Orlando, FL, a constituent of mine named Liz McCausland. She contacted my office some months ago with a seemingly simple request. She wanted to see her mother. Her mother is Thuong Nguyen Foshee. She goes by ``Cuc.'' At the time of the request, Mrs. Foshee, a U.S. citizen, born in Vietnam, was sitting in a Vietnamese jail. She had been in that jail for some period of time and she had not been charged with a crime. She had not had the benefit of counsel. She had not been informed of the charges against her in any way, shape or form. For several weeks immediately after her arrest, her family didn't even know where she was. This ordeal began in September 2005. She had no hope for due process. She had the need for some medical care and attention, and this went wanting for several weeks, if not months. She finally began to have contact with the U.S. consul, and it was a 20- minute visit once a month. At the time of her arrest, Mrs. Foshee had gone to Vietnam, her native country, as a U.S. citizen to attend a nephew's wedding. The Vietnamese Government, at some point or another, finally said she was suspected of terrorist activity. The fact is that it should not come as a surprise that the Vietnamese Government was not fond of Mrs. Foshee because she was one of those people, whom I can certainly identify with, who believes it is the right of every person, no matter where they live, to elect their leaders--something as simple as what we did on November 7 in this country, which we take for granted. There are still people around the world who are denied such a right. The Vietnamese people today cannot elect their leaders. Cuc Foshee believes that a Vietnam that is free to elect their leadership is a Vietnam that would respect also the rights of all of its people. So because she was someone who was vocal in the Vietnamese-American community and spoke freely of her hope and wishes for her native land, she actually became an obvious target to a government that felt threatened by the voice of a common citizen who believed she should speak out. For that, Cuc Foshee and several other Americans, in fact, were arrested, interrogated, and sent to jail, without the knowledge of when or if they would ever be released or allowed to return to the United States. Many people went to work on this problem. Today, I thank our Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, for her interest in this matter, and I particularly thank U.S. Ambassador to Vietnam, Michael Marine, and the staff of the U.S. State Department, and others, whether in Vietnam or in the State Department here, who worked on her case. Volunteers came to help. The law firm of Holland & Knight offered their services pro bono. In addition to that, I particularly note and thank members of my staff who worked diligently and passionately to seek the release of Mrs. Foshee. Melissa Hernandez, in my office in Florida, and John Goetchius, here in Washington, worked hand-in-glove with Mrs. Foshee's daughter, Liz McCausland, and others, to see that Mrs. Foshee came safely back to the United States. She has been returned to the United States, and it has been a wonderful blessing to her family. We recently celebrated, in Orlando, her return home. Congressman Ric Keller was also there, my colleague, who also step-by-step was a partner for me in seeking the release of Mrs. Foshee. So when the permanent normal trade relations between the U.S. and Vietnam came to be considered, I objected to the legislation being considered until I was confident that Mrs. Foshee would be able to receive the kind of due process that we expect as a matter of course, which she deserves under any observance of human rights, and until she would be back with her family in Orlando. That has now occurred. Mrs. Foshee's freedom has allowed me to lift any objections to consideration of the PNTR status as it relates to Vietnam. While I will vote for that today, I must say that concerns remain. Vietnam's disregard for the rule of law is something that is not only troubling, but it will make normal trade relations difficult with free societies. It would be good for the Government of Vietnam to understand that tolerance, as it relates to people's willingness to practice religion as they see fit, is important in order to join the family of nations in a full and complete way. I appreciate the cooperation of the Government of Vietnam in allowing Mrs. Foshee to come back to America and be free. But I must suggest that, at the same time, it is hollow if it is only for Mrs. Foshee because of the pressure brought to bear her case. The right of people to freely speak, elect their leaders, and to live in a democratic system is the only way for the people of Vietnam to fulfill the promise that they have, to fulfill the promise that can come through normalized trade relations with the United States. The people of Vietnam not only can have normal trade relations, they must live it. They will find that the rule of law will be a troubling matter if it is not observed. Whether it is foreign businesspeople traveling to Vietnam, whether it is the rule of law as it applies to contracts, it is a fundamental, essential, integral part of normal trade relations. Mrs. Foshee's hope was that others in Vietnam would have the opportunity to live in freedom such as she has tasted in America. I hope that day will come as well. My career as a public servant has been irrevocably influenced by this experience. I believe I will never do anything greater than to have played a part in securing the freedom of one individual. I know what it means. I understand what it is like to live under oppression. I believe that all people, no matter where they are, are entitled to live with the dignity and the hope that comes from understanding that there is freedom and there are human rights that are observed. Each of us owes a debt of gratitude to Mrs. Foshee for taking a stand for freedom and, in her own example, leading us to know that it has a value, even if at times a price must be paid for it.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 6345, which was received from the House.

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

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, today I acknowledge and honor my colleague, Senator Paul Sarbanes of Maryland. As Maryland's longest serving U.S. Senator, Senator Sarbanes, leaves our great Halls with a legacy of distinction and an undying dedication to his State and this country. I have tremendous respect for Paul Sarbanes, and the statesmanlike ethics he has brought to this institution. Though his three decades of service contain many significant achievements, none stand out more for me--on a personal level--than when Senator Sarbanes assisted in my confirmation process to become the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. I greatly appreciate the opportunity I had to serve this country in that capacity, and Senator Sarbanes played no small role in allowing me to do so. Thank you, Senator Sarbanes, for your meaningful work and lifelong commitment to public service.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, today, I rise to acknowledge and honor the good work and service of my colleague from Tennessee, Senator Bill Frist. As a Senator for the past dozen years, and majority leader for the past four, Senator Frist has been a leader of strong resolve on behalf of his home State and our entire Nation. His work in the U.S. Senate will be remembered for a long time to come, and I personally owe Senator Frist a debt of gratitude. He has been an advocate of the offshore drilling agreement that would benefit not only the people of my home State of Florida, but millions of Americans living in the gulf coast region--this plan would reduce America's reliance on foreign sources of energy and is vital to our future. I applaud Senator Frist for recognizing and acting so decisively on this important issue. Senator Frist has also been a dedicated leader on immigration reform and I thank him for taking on this divisive, yet necessary issue with such a keen understanding of what our Nation needs. I also know how passionate Senator Frist is about national security and defense. We were able to travel to and around Iraq together, and while there, we had the opportunity to personally thank some of our troops for their courage and incredible sacrifice. I was appreciative to have that experience with someone who certainly knows the meaning of service. On a personal note, Senator Frist made sure that I would be able to pay my respects to Pope John Paul II--and I cannot say enough about how much that has meant to me and to my family. Thank you for that and for your relentless leadership. Thank you for your time and for your counsel. Thank you for your friendship. Senator Frist is a fine senator and a true gentleman. We will miss him a great deal here Washington. Yet, all of us know how well he will do as he returns to his long and distinguished career in medicine. The people of Tennessee are fortunate to have back their revered Dr. Frist. I wish my best to Senator Frist and his family always. Rick Santorum Mr. President, today, I commend Senator Rick Santorum for his dedication to public service and accomplishments as a legislator. Above all, I admire the Senator's commitment to the people of his home State, Pennsylvania, and to his family. Throughout his 12-year tenure in the U.S. Senate, he relentlessly fought to pass legislation benefiting the welfare of, not only his constituents, but Americans everywhere. In addition, Senator Santorum has been a great advocate in the effort to find a cure for the Global HIV/AIDS pandemic and a strong supporter of the war on terror. He has represented the American people well. As a colleague, I would also like to thank Senator Santorum for his strong leadership as chairman of the Senate Republican Conference. During his time in Washington, Rick has always maintained the importance of family, a value that I admire and share. He has also provided valuable guidance to me in the past and will be missed. I wish my colleague from Pennsylvania, his wife, and children all the best in the future. Thank you for your service. George Allen Mr. President, today, I recognize the service of Senator George Allen. The citizens of Commonwealth of Virginia and the American people are losing a great patriot in the U.S. Senate. Senator Allen will be leaving the Senate after 6 years of service to his home State constituents and to this country. He has been an important member of the Republican Party and the Senate, always striving to better America's defense and homeland security. He has worked to ensure good-paying jobs for the people of Virginia, and to guarantee that every person in Virginia receives a quality education. It is disappointing that a strong leader like Senator Allen is leaving the Senate; he will be missed. Senator Allen was one of the people who helped convince me to run for the United States Senate, and without his support and his guidance, I might not be here today. I wish my colleague from Virginia and his family all the best, and thank them for the service that they have given to our country. Thank you, Senator Allen. Rick Santorum

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, today, I honor an important Floridian and a proud American. Virginia Scott Thomas was a loving wife and mother, a passionate volunteer, and a trailblazer for women in Republican politics--I am very thankful that she was a constituent of mine. Sadly, she died this past month--but her legacy of hard work and dedication to good lives on. Virginia Thomas should be commended for the work she put into creating the Bay County Republican Women's Club. As part of her volunteer work for the Republican Party, Virginia Thomas opened her home to numerous GOP candidates--many of them to kick off their campaigns. Her energy and hospitality were well known, and Republicans from Ronald Reagan to Charlie Crist had the pleasure of being welcomed into her home. Candidates always spoke about their ideas and vision in front of her now-famous raised fireplace hearth and her warm hospitality made her many friends. Before calling Florida home, Virginia Thomas, a Birmingham, AL, native, made history in her State. In 1943, she joined and became part of the first group of women Marines in the State of Alabama. She completed basic training in both South Carolina and Georgia and was then sent to the U.S. Marine Corps base in El Centro, CA, to serve as a supply officer. There in California, she met her future husband, Marine L.E. ``Tommy'' Thomas, and after the war ended, they headed for Birmingham. Eventually, she and her family moved to Florida, where Virginia Thomas became very active in their community. Virginia Thomas will not be forgotten by the generations of Floridians that came to know her and her lively spirit. And because of her volunteerism and good work throughout more than 40 years in the Bay County area, she will be remembered long into the future. We will miss this good Floridian. Yet we know that her legacy will be carried on by her family and friends. The good works of Virginia Scott Thomas will live on.

Mr. MARTINEZ

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