Mel Martinez

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Right.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. That would be fine.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam President, I wanted to speak on the subject of the Dorgan amendment and maybe try to set the record straight on some things. It is obvious that there is a different point of view on the relative merits of this amendment and also on the situation our country faces today relative to labor. I come from a State where the unemployment rate is barely above 2.5 percent and where, frankly, there is a shortage of workers to do any number of jobs, from picking citrus to working in our hotels and many other tourist attractions. That is a fact of life. When you talk to the hospital administrators of our hospitals, they will tell us without a doubt there is a shortage of nurses. Our Governor very wisely has created some programs to enhance the number of nurses in our State by providing expanded educational opportunities. But the fact remains, we do have a problem. From time to time, there are needs for workers that our Nation simply cannot meet. To say otherwise simply would be ignoring the reality we face today. So as we speak to this issue, I wish to try to go through several aspects of the bill that I think are important to keep in mind as we talk about this guest worker program. The eligibility requirement for Y workers, this is what the workers must do. They have a valid labor certification issued within 180 days. They have to have eligibility to work. They must have a job offer from a U.S. petitioner employer, and they must also have the payment of a processing fee and the State impact fee. Whatever State they are going to be going to, there is going to be an impact on that State as it relates to health care and schools and whatever else, and that impact fee will be paid to the States. They have to have a medical examination and, very importantly for our national security, a complete criminal and terrorism-related background checks. They also must not be inadmissible or ineligible, meaning if we have deported you before, you need not apply. Here is something else. For the Y-3 visa, they must have a wage 150 percent above the poverty level for the household size, and if they come with their families, which Y-3s would be allowed to in very limited numbers, they also must have insurance for their family as they come. Now, if a worker fails to timely depart at the time that his temporary worker status is up, they will be barred from any future immigration benefit except where the applicant is seeking asylum. So it means that when the time is up, if you don't leave, you have quit playing the game, you are not coming back. Here are some of the requirements that are placed on the employer before they can bring in an employee to work under this program. The employer of the Y visa worker must file an application for labor certification and a copy of the job offer. They have to pay a processing fee, so that this is a pay-as-you-go program. They must also make efforts to recruit U.S. workers for the position for which the labor certification is sought. Now, they must start recruiting no later than 90 days before the filing day for the application to the Department of Labor, and they must also, as part of their requirements, advertise in the area where the job is sought to be filled. They advertise with labor unions, other labor organizations, and the Department of Labor Web site saying: Please come work for me, we have a job available. Then and only then, if there is a certification that the job goes unfilled, could a guest worker come to work on our shores. The Secretary of Labor and the employers must attest that it will not displace, nor adversely affect, the wages or working conditions of U.S. workers, and that the wages will be paid not less than the greater of the actual wage paid by the employer to all similarly situated workers or the prevailing competitive wage. We are doing this because there is a need, not because we simply want to. It is obvious that all of us would love to see American workers flourish first and foremost, but the facts are such that this is a necessary thing that we must have in our economy. As to the issue of whether it will help border security, I happen to believe if we have a legal means for people to come across the border to meet that same supply and demand we are talking about--there is a demand for workers, there is a ready and available supply--those two are going to meet one another, and we are going to enhance our border security. But would it not help border security if we also had a legal means by which people could come and work in this country? Of course, it will. That will give us a safety valve. It will give us an opportunity for legal workers to come to work for a period of time to fulfill a need when necessary--after certification, after advertising, and for the prevailing wage in that area. I think it is a reasonable thing to do. It is part of what our economy needs. I could get into all kinds of other issues, such as wage scale and foreign trade and issues such as that, but I don't know that they are relevant to the subject at hand. I do hope my colleagues will support defeating the Dorgan amendment because I believe this amendment would not only do great harm to the bill, it would be the end of this very comprehensive immigration bill. At the same time, in this bill I think we have, negotiated through this process, carefully balanced the needs of our economy with the rights of workers, as well as made sure that we are keeping a good balance between the needs of the economy and also that which is necessary to be fulfilled by a foreign workforce. I see the Senator from Massachusetts on the Senate floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam President, I am delighted we have come to this point where, after much hard work and discussion for days and weeks and even months, we can present to the Senate for its consideration an immigration reform bill that I believe seeks to serve the needs of this country. I have had the pleasure and the privilege of working with a number of colleagues from this body during the last many weeks as we sought to put together something that would serve the country's interests. We have worked bipartisanly, with help from very dedicated Cabinet members, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Commerce, in a very comprehensive and dedicated way over days and days of discussions and difficult negotiations that were oftentimes emotional and always, I think, with the idea that we would do something that was good for the country and that obviously was not going to be unanimously praised. Hearing the Senator from Vermont express misgivings about it and having earlier heard the Senator from Alabama equally express himself, each from different sides of the spectrum, it adds to the thought I have had that this is a bill which strikes it down the middle pretty well.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam President, it is a pleasure to be on the floor talking about this subject with the Senator from New Mexico. We did that last year, as I recall, as well, and the Senator has a rich immigrant history in his family that all of us in different ways share. I guess I should say, as the only person who has the privilege of serving in this body who is an immigrant and as truly someone who has come here having been born elsewhere, it is an incredible privilege for me to talk on this subject and have an opportunity to be a part of this debate. I really think it is a moment that brings us all to the roots of what our Nation is about. We understand that this is a nation of immigrants, a nation that through its history has had this tradition of welcoming people from all over the world, from all different lands, and manages in this magical way to bring people into the fullness of what it means to be an American. I have experienced it in my own life. I can speak about that for days. It has been that same kind of miracle I have seen happen to others. And I think that opportunity is still out there for many to enjoy, at the same time understanding we are a country that has a tradition of laws and they ought to be obeyed and observed. So it is in that tug between those two principles that are so ingrained in our country that we come to this very important moment and debate. I don't think there is any question that much has been said about this bill before people have had an opportunity to even know what is in it. I will say some things about it I think are important. I believe it is a product of a bipartisan compromise. Anytime you come together with people from different points of view, there are going to be those who will say it goes too much in one direction or the other. Here are some of the things it does do. It provides for border security. It will secure our borders in a way that will make Americans understand that the Government is serious about securing our borders. Before mentioning any of the other elements of this bill, I thank our colleague from Georgia, Senator Isakson, for the idea that we should have triggers in it. Before those other issues would be implemented, there will be an opportunity for a certification--not subjectively but objectively--with measurable results: How much fence has been built? How many border agents were hired? How many other promises were fulfilled toward the issue? One of the important ones is a tamperproof ID card that employees must have to present to employers so we can verify that they are working in America legally and that there are no phony Social Security numbers that can be used. That is a tamperproof, biometrically induced ID. We need to have those in place before the bill becomes a reality. Border security must and ought to be first and foremost. I have heard a lot of discussion from people who have not read the bill who suggest that 12 million illegal aliens are receiving a guaranteed, automatic right to remain in the United States. That is not the case. They are going to have an opportunity--after paying fines, after coming out of the shadows and registering, after background checks--to pay a fine for breaking the law and then go on probationary status. They will then have a card, which will become a visa, if they apply for it. It is a paradigm shift in what immigration is like in our country. It will require a new paradigm, which some find that, for a country that wants to be competitive in the 21st century, may be a wise thing. It is a merit-based system, without throwing aside the issue of family. It continues to involve family consideration, but it is not the only consideration. Illegal aliens who are here and wish to regularize their status should have an opportunity to become citizens, but it ought not be an automatic or direct path to citizenship. They will have to return to their home country under this bill and apply outside the country legally. It will be a long and difficult road, where they have to pay additional fines and other backgrounds checks will be done and, at the earliest, anybody who would be in this country illegally today, after having applied outside the country, it is going to be as lengthy as 13 to 15 years before they can become citizens of this country. The people in line and the people who have done it the right way will be first to become citizens, ahead of those who have come illegally. As to the guest worker program, this is truly a guest worker program. When somebody outside the country comes here to go to school, they ask for a student visa and they understand they are coming for a period of time to study and go to school and then they are to return to their country. The guest worker program will be much the same thing. They will come for 2 years, understanding it is a 2-year visa. At the end of that 2 years, they have to return home. They are not coming to immigrate; they are coming to work. That is the understanding. It is the understanding before they ever come here. As they do, they will have an opportunity to work and taste the American dream, but they also have an obligation to return to their country. At the end of 6 years, or three work periods, they will return home and not be allowed to return again as a guest worker. They could have a path to citizenship, if they so chose to apply for regular immigrant status. They could be considered for that, but at the same time there would be no guarantees by the fact that they were here. They will have earned points by working here, and it is going to be a merit-based system. So they will have an opportunity to be considered for citizenship. This is a problem that begs an answer. There are many who would say this is amnesty, and therefore it should not even be considered. I suggest to them they ought to read the bill so they understand the details and how it is not amnesty. So to those who dismiss it as something that is no good and not workable, I suggest this: What is your answer? What do you suggest? What is your solution to this problem that for over 20 years has been vexing our country? It is time to grapple with this and tackle it. We know how to solve problems in the United States. We can solve this problem if we continue to work together in the spirit of this group of ours, which at times has been quite contentious but is also forging ahead to solve a problem. The spirit that group has had is the spirit that the Senate and the Congress needs to tackle this issue. I commend the President for having had the steadfast support on the proposal. He has been there with criticism even for members of our own party. He has been terrific in terms of sticking to it, continuing to support it, having members of his Cabinet working with us day and night. We are at the threshold of a tremendous opportunity to do something truly good for the country. I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his interest. I will yield to him for his comment on this important legislation.

Mr. MARTINEZ. That is right.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I wanted to have an opportunity to speak for a moment on this very timely issue of immigration. I heard my colleague from New Jersey speaking. I know how hard he has worked with us to try to achieve a solution to this very difficult problem the country has faced for now over 20 years. I am disappointed that what we did fell short of his hopes. I thought I would take a moment and respond to some of his comments, but also in the hopes of inviting him back into the process where his support would be so welcome and so vital. First, I should say there is nothing easy about this issue. There is nothing easy about the solution that we crafted, nor does it claim any sort of perfection associated with it because it is an imperfect bill. But it is a compromise. So what it implies by a compromise is that there are some things in it that I wholeheartedly support. There are some things that I might have liked to have seen differently. At the end of the day, that is how legislation is made. That is how it happens. We all give a little, and we end up someplace where we can move the country forward and provide the country with a way to resolve this very difficult issue that we call immigration. One of the notions I would appreciate dispelling is the fact that this is a White House bill. It is not. This is just as much a Senator Kennedy bill as it is a Senator Kyl bill, and a Senator Martinez bill as it is a Senator Salazar bill. I could name others: Senator Graham, Senator McCain, Senator Isakson. This bill has a great deal of balance because it not only enforces our borders first and foremost, which is what all Americans want at a time when our shores are threatened by potential terrorists, but it, secondly, does not do any of the other things that will be done in the bill until certain triggers are met, those triggers to have been in place as far as border security is concerned, the hiring of border agents, building the fencing, building of other physical and electronic barriers. Then we move into another phase which is to provide a tamper-proof ID. This will ensure that those who are working will work legally. It then moves into other areas such as a guest worker program. This is a guest worker program which is a temporary worker program. It is not intended as a vehicle to immigration. It is to provide the labor that America needs in certain places and also to provide a good-paying job to certain people in other parts of the world who want to work here, but with a clear understanding before ever coming that they are coming to work for a limited period of time, much as a student visa holder comes for 2 years to go to school, coming for 2 years to go to work. Then they go home. They can renew that visa a couple of times. Then a number of them will, if they acquire certain prerequisites, apply for permanent status here. Obviously, if they learned English, that would help them. If they learn a trade, that would help them. If their employer says they are a good worker, that would help them. That will be the basis for future immigration. There still is a family component to immigration. Husband, wife, children, can come, grandparents--40,000 a year of parents can come. What we are going to do is change the paradigm to one where more merit is included in the equation. There will be a point system. Family will often be a tiebreaker. That will be maintained. But the paradigm of immigration will shift to a different one. It will then give the 12 million people who are here today living in the shadows an opportunity to come out of the shadows. I don't know how anyone can overlook the significance of that act, the fact that this country of immigrants and this country of laws will be generous enough to say to those 12 million that are here, having come illegally to our country but who have worked, as long as they pay fines, as long as they obey the law and have not gotten in trouble, and as long as they are willing to learn the English language, they can have a path forward to stay here and continue to work. If they go back to their home country, they also can apply for permanent residence and get in back of the line as any fairness would dictate. Fines, of course there will be fines. They can be paid over a period of years. They are not exorbitant, and they are only to the head of household. In this bill is the DREAM Act, an incredible achievement for the dream of education. The 12 million people living in the shadows in this country today find oftentimes their future dreams of a college education truncated by the inability to pay the tuition and the out-of- State fees. The DREAM Act is in this bill. That is an important consideration. Part of this bill is going to take care of the agricultural needs of the country which is significant. I know in Florida, whether it is agricultural or hotel workers, whether it is theme park workers, in the tourism industry we desperately need workers. There are not enough there today. So the temporary worker program will help our economy while it helps people to have a good and decent job. I think there are some things here that are tremendously positive. It is a very exciting day, and I am delighted to be a part of the compromise. Obviously, there will be politics all over the place. The right and the left will be criticizing many of us for having taken what I think is a very strong bipartisan step forward. This is a coalition of many Senators working to pull something together that has been difficult, that is never going to be easy to do. I look forward to the debate in the Senate next week as we try to craft a solution for America going forward. I thank the President for his leadership on this issue, and Secretary Chertoff and Secretary Gutierrez, who have been here countless hours, and my other colleagues who have been in the room--Senator Menendez, who was finding it difficult to support the bill today but who has been there time and time again--and the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn, who has tried, also, and may not be completely satisfied, but they have been in the very dynamics of seeing good, dedicated servants, such as these two Senators who are finding it difficult. We see the difficulty of this bill. What I would hope is that a good nucleus of us will pull together, will come together. My hope is Senators Cornyn and Salazar and Menendez, and many others, will find it possible to support this bill as we go into the debate next week. There will be opportunities to offer amendments. There may be ways of making it better. There could also be ways to make it a lot worse. My hope is we can hang together on this nucleus of a compromise that will make America stronger, that will give some charity to people who are here, while at the same time giving America the assurance that our borders are going to be secured. It is not perfect. It is the best solution we could find today working together in good faith, in a bipartisan way. I hope the Senate will pass it. I hope it moves swiftly through the House, and we get it to the President's desk as soon as possible. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, this Saturday, May 19, is Armed Forces Day. Celebrated annually on the third Saturday of May, this is a day for all of us as Americans to rally around our military members-- wherever they are serving--and thank them for their patriotism and duty to country. This day has a long and proud history. With President Harry S. Truman leading the effort for this holiday, it came to fruition just a few years after the close of World War II. It was at the end of August 1949 that Secretary of Defense Louis Johnson announced the creation of Armed Forces Day to replace separate days of celebration for the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force. While the roots of this celebration may have resulted from the unification of the Armed Forces under the Department of Defense, it serves much more than a consolidative purpose. The account of the first Armed Forces Day is particularly riveting-- as recorded in a page on the official web site of the Department of Defense: ``The first Armed Forces Day was celebrated by parades, open houses, receptions, and air shows. In Washington DC, 10,000 troops of all branches of the military, cadets, and veterans marched pas[t] the President and his party. In Berlin, 1,000 U.S. troops paraded for the German citizens at Templehof Airfield. In New York City, an estimated 33,000 participants initiated Armed Forces Day ``under an air cover of 250 military planes of all types.'' In the harbors across the country were the famed mothballed ``battlewagons'' of World War II, the Missouri, the New Jersey, the North Carolina, and the Iowa, all open for public inspection. Precision flying teams dominated the skies as tracking radar [was] exhibited on the ground. All across the country, the American people joined together to honor the Armed Forces.'' It is that last sentence that stands out to me: ``All across the country, the American people joined together to honor the Armed Forces.'' Let this Saturday be another one of those days. Wherever our brave military men and women are this Saturday--be it on the front lines in Iraq or Afghanistan, stationed along the DMZ that divides North and South Korea, on the open sea across the globe, or training in the great American skies above, let's honor them. Let us not forget their service and dedication to protecting our freedoms and defending our way of life this Saturday and every Saturday, this day and every day. To all our brave men and women in uniform and your families: thank you for your selfless service and sacrifice.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I express my thanks to Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Inhofe for bringing this important bill to the floor, which sets a high priority for my State, and for giving it such strong support. I also note how important it is that we have a strong bipartisan effort. At a time when our country could rightly wonder if the Congress can get anything done or if, in fact, it is possible for bipartisan cooperation to exist, here is a good example of where Republicans and Democrats are working together for something that is very important for our country and significantly important for the State of Florida. This bill is something Senator Nelson and I have worked on side by side trying to bring to fruition. It is long overdue. It is time. My State of Florida is home to beautiful beaches, coastal estuaries, and 14 deepwater ports. No piece of legislation moving through Congress will have as much lasting improvement on Florida's fragile ecosystem as this bill. After a long delay, it is my hope my colleagues will support this bill and begin the Federal partnership for restoring the Everglades. For too long in our Nation's past, the Federal Government's water resources policies seemed to be in conflict with nature. In the not so distant past, the Army Corps of Engineers and even the elected congressional and State leadership of Florida were determined to drain the Everglades. One of our most colorful former governors, Napoleon Bonaparte Broward, famously proclaimed: ``Water will run downhill!'' At that time, draining and improving what was then thought to be ``useless swampland'' was the epitome of true conservation because opening the wetlands and marshes of Florida to farming and development was considered a better use of land because it could feed people, it could employ people, it was good for development, it was good for Florida. There is also a popular story of a man who moved to south Florida to make his fortune farming the rich soils around Lake Okeechobee. He was quoted as saying: I have bought land by the acre, I have bought land by the foot, but I have never before bought land by the bucket. There was still a large amount of what we called ``Old Florida'' back then with numerous hardwood hummocks and cypress domes that were prone to flooding. The idea that places should be protected for their environmental value, their intrinsic beauty, as a water resource, and for public enjoyment was an alien concept. Fortunately for our Nation and more importantly for Florida, the idea of conservation and restoration has an entirely different and more sophisticated meaning today than in the past. In the year 2000, Congress authorized the landmark Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, otherwise known as CERP, to repair and restore the natural sheet flow of water across the park and into Florida Bay. CERP projects will capture and store a great deal of the nearly 1.7 billion gallons of fresh water a day which is currently released into the Atlantic Ocean and into the Gulf of Mexico. This water will be stored in aboveground and underground reservoirs. When needed, it will be directed to wetlands, lakes, rivers, and estuaries in south Florida, providing abundant, clean, fresh water while also ensuring future urban and agricultural water supplies. Even though we get more rain than nearly anywhere else in the country, Florida is currently experiencing a severe drought. Evidence of that drought is the wildfires we are experiencing today as we speak, out-of-control wildfires because of drought, but also because what normally would be wetlands and marshes have been drained over years of development--careless development. So it is vital that we capture this fresh water so it can be used to meet our growing conservation and water use needs. Restoring the Everglades, this incredible undertaking, is the largest environmental restoration project in the world. I am proud to say the State of Florida has made historic and prolific financial commitments of over $3 billion to honor their commitment to the Everglades. The State of Florida has done its part. When I meet with our former Governor, when he was Governor, or our current Governor, or members of our legislature, I am reminded by them: Where is the Federal partnership? We have done our part. The Federal Government, on the other hand, has contributed around $3 million of their commitment. WRDA will help to address this inequity by authorizing major CERP projects such as the Indian River Lagoon and the Picayune Strand, which is such an important restoration effort, so they can begin to take shape. The Indian River Lagoon South Restoration Project in WRDA is critical to the success of the CERP and returning the St. Lucie estuary to a healthy status. Approximately 2,200 species have been identified in the lagoon system, with 35 of these species listed as threatened or endangered. According to the South Florida Water Management District, it has the greatest species diversity of any estuary in North America. Implementation of the South Restoration Project will feature more than 12,000 acres of aboveground water reservoirs, 9,000 acres of manmade wetlands, and 90,000 acres of natural storage and water quality acres, including 53,000 acres of restored wetlands. All of these areas provide additional water storage and management capabilities for approximately 44 billion gallons of runoff water storage. Also included is the removal of more than 7 million cubic yards of muck sediments from the St. Lucie River, with a corresponding restoration of 2,650 acres of habitat, 922 acres of sea grass, and 889 acres of oyster habitat. All of these project features will cooperatively achieve a targeted reduction of 41 percent of the phosphorus and 26 percent of the overall nitrogen loadings in the estuary from these basins in the long term, restoring the system to a more balanced and natural state. Another very important Everglades restoration project included in WRDA is the authorization of the Picayune Strand project. This area was originally planned as the largest subdivision in the United States. It was called Golden Gate Estates. In the early 1960s, the Gulf American Corporation dredged 48 miles of canals, built 290 miles of roads, and sold thousands of lots before going bankrupt. At that time there were no Federal or State laws setting drainage standards or regulating the development of wetlands. WRDA will help the State of Florida in restoring this degraded area back to the cypress wetland it was before by removing the harmful drainage canals that have made this area prone to wildfires and invasive species such as Old World climbing fern, maleluca, and Brazilian pepper. In addition, the project will restore and enhance habitat for fish and wildlife resources, including threatened or endangered species such as the Florida panther, the Florida black bear, red-cockaded woodpecker, and wood stork, as well as rare habitat such as tropical hummocks and plant species, including orchids and bromeliads. The habitat and water recharge benefits will provide a boon for the Big Cypress National Preserve. Also, it will provide a boon to the 10,000 Islands National Wildlife Refuge and the Florida Panther Wildlife Refuge. This bill also contains an important study approved by the EPW Committee to direct the Army Corps of Engineers to examine the structural integrity of the Hoover Dike. This is a critically important step in trying to ensure the structural integrity of this dike. The dike around Lake Okeechobee was constructed in response to the 1928 hurricane which struck and caused Lake Okeechobee to overflow, killing over 2,500 people in the Belle Glade area. A study was performed in 2006 by the Florida Water Management District, and this study found the dike's protective capability had been severely eroded in several areas. This study will direct the Corps to examine the findings and make recommendations for the State of Florida. The WRDA bill also means greater jobs and improved transportation for coastal communities and ports in Florida. It authorizes additional passing lanes, increased safety at Florida's largest port, the Port of Tampa, which is where half of the State's seaborne tonnage moves through. In addition, WRDA provides navigation improvements for the Miami Harbor, which is widely regarded as one of the world's major cruise and shipping destinations. It will also help with beach renourishment, which will also help restore some of the critically eroded beach areas from the devastating storms of 2004 and 2005. In conclusion, I thank Chairman Boxer, Senator Inhofe, Senator Bond, and Senator Isakson for including these vital restoration and economic development projects in WRDA. This legislation is long overdue. I urge my colleagues to support it. I hope for the swift conclusion of this legislation so the people of Florida can begin to see the benefits that are going to come to our State as a result of this farsighted legislation that will have impacts on our State long after most of us have parted from these halls of Congress. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, today I rise with my colleagues, Senators Bingaman, Nelson of Florida, Hutchison, Domenici, Feinstein, and Dole, to introduce the Spaceport Equality Act of 2007, a bill to help bring additional investment to the space transportation industry. Last summer, Kazakhstan launched its first satellite, catapulting them into the space transportation industry. Also joining the race for space launch capacity are Singapore, Australia, Canada, and the United Arab Emirates, with seven new commercial spaceports proposed between the four countries. With new entrants being added to the space transportation marketplace, is the U.S. falling behind in the race for access to space? The U.S. once dominated the commercial satellilte-manufacturing field with an average market share of 83 percent; however, that market share has since declined to below 50 percent. The U.S. satellite industry faces increasing pressure to consider the use of foreign launch vehicles and launch sites, due to the lack of sufficient domestic launch capability. An even smaller share of U.S. manufactured satellites is actually launched from U.S. spaceports. This past year, only 2 of the 21 commercial launches worldwide were launched from locations in the United States, that is less than 10 percent of the market share. This comes at a loss of billions of dollars to the U.S. economy. These are just some of the many reasons why my colleagues and I are introducing the Spaceport Equality Act. The space economy is made up of manufacturers, service providers, and technologists in both the government and private sector that deploy and operate launch vehicles, satellites, and space platforms. Many everyday goods and services rely on space infrastructure, including: broadcast, cable, and satellite television; global Internet services; satellite radio; and cellular and international phone calls. Satellites are also used global positioning systems, known as GPS, which enables us to have hands-on directions in our cars and other vehicles. GPS is also influential in the trucking, aviation, and maritime industries for day-to-day operations, and for our Nation's military operations. Thousands of gas stations use inexpensive small satellite dishes to connect to credit card networks so customers can pay instantly at the pump. Satellites also generate 90 percent of the weather forecasting data in the U.S., and are used to track hurricanes, tsunamis, and other weather phenomenon. These satellites are launched vertically atop of rockets, propelling them into orbit in space. Because most U.S. space-launch facilities are operated by NASA and the Air Force, priority for launches at these facilities is given to government projects. This means our commercial satellite needs take a backseat to Government operations. This often leaves U.S. commercial satellite ventures without reliable launch availability. This in turn has forced many companies seeking manufacturing and launch services toward our international competitors. Commercial spaceports are subdivisions of State governments that provide additional launch infrastructure than that which is available at Federal facilities. They attract and promote the U.S. commercial space transportation industry. Spaceport authorities function much like airport and port authorities by providing economic and transportation incentives to the industry, which in turn benefits the surrounding communities. Many States are forming space authorities to pursue ways of developing space transportation infrastructure. The Florida Space Authority, now known as ``Space Florida,'' was the first such entity, and was created as a subdivision of the Florida State Government by Florida's Governor and State legislature in 1989. Space Florida focuses on expanding and strengthening my state's space industry through partnering with the commercial space industry to improve space transportation and to provide innovative, forward- thinking solutions to the challenges facing this evolving industry. The last few years have begun a new phase in space exploration. Spaceports presently operate in Florida, California, Virginia, and Alaska, and efforts are currently underway in New Mexico and Oklahoma to establish spaceports for the new emerging space tourism industry. Still additional commercial spaceports have been considered in the following states: Alabama, California, Montana, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin. The commercial space transportation industry includes not only spaceports themselves, but also companies that develop the needed infrastructure for testing and servicing launch vehicles. When including these industry partners with spaceports, at least 23 States are directly affected by the commercial space transportation industry. Both spaceports and industry partners face increasing pressure from Government sponsored or subsidized competitors in various countries across Europe, and also in China, Japan, India, and Russia. And soon they will face new competitors in Australia, Canada, Singapore, and the United Arab Emirates. Commercial space transportation is a growing part of the U.S. economy. In 2004, this industry alone generated a total of nearly $98.1 billion in economic activity, more than $25 billion in earnings, and over 550,000 jobs. The Federal Aviation Administration, FAA, recently issued a report on 2006 launch activities, in that report, it was noted that in 2006, U.S. launches generated approximately $140 million in revenues. A 2004 Gallup poll shows overwhelming public support for space exploration. Roughly 80 percent of Americans agree that ``America's space program helps give America the scientific and technological edge it needs to compete in the international marketplace.'' and 76 percent agree that our space program ``benefits the nation's economy'' and inspires ``students to pursue careers in technical fields.'' The space industry has also led to a number of ``spin-off'' technologies, those influenced by space technology research and development. Home roof insulation and air filtration, anti-lock brakes, athletic shoes, vehicle protective airbags, cellular phones, and Lasik surgery all owe their development to space-based research and technology. The list of space ``spin-off'' technologies is estimated to exceed 40,000. These related technologies have helped employ tens of millions of Americans. Encouraging commercial investment in the space industry and increasing U.S. market share in this industry will certainly lead to additional innovation and technology that will positively influence other fields. As you can see, this once Government-dominated industry is now becoming a diverse mix of Government and commercial entities, also leading the way into future avenues of commercial space transportation, such as space tourism. The increase in recent commercial launches includes the debut of the first commercial crewed suborbital launches of SpaceShipOne, the beginnings of public space travel. ``Space tourism,'' as public space travel is now referred to, has the potential to become a major growth industry. Recent market studies have shown that, within 20 years, space tourism has the potential to become a multibillion-dollar industry. Even though the average American may not be able to participate in public space travel, its potential impact on our economy and international competitiveness is something to be appreciated. Space tourism industry players expect there to be a market demand of at least 15,000 Americans per year to travel into suborbit and orbital flights. This would require an estimated 665 launches per year by 2010. If the U.S. continues as is, we will only be able to capture a 10- percent market share, at best, of this emerging industry. If needed infrastructure is added, however, the U.S. could potentially pick up 60 to 70 percent of space flight demand by 2010. Every launch that we do not provide for in the U.S. means a loss to our economy, and a gain for our international competitors. The Federal Aviation Administration's Commercial Space Transportation division expects a $3 billion dollar loss to our economy if we do not meet the rising demand for space tourism. Currently, U.S. launch facilities are few and most are owned and operated by the Federal Government, putting commercial users in direct competition with the U.S. military, NASA, and other Government entities that, as I mentioned earlier, receive priority over commercial projects. Recently, the U.S. Air Force provided license to Space Exploration Technologies, known as SpaceX, to utilize one of the decommissioned launch complexes at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station for its commercial launch ventures. The utilization of existing Federal resources by commercial ventures will open up opportunity for further commercial launches, but this alone will not afford America the resources it needs to remain competitive internationally. If the U.S. is to remain competitive in the commercial space industry, added and improved infrastructure will be needed to support this growing industry. On a more local note, my own State of Florida could stand to gain much by way of economic development from increased investment in Spaceport infrastructure. According to recent studies, increased spaceport infrastructure and activity in Florida could mean as much as $29.7 million in additional economic activity by the year 2015, this does not include the economic activity generated from increased tourism, secondary contracts, and spin-off technologies. Other modes of transportation, highways, airports, and seaports, currently enjoy a tax incentive for meeting their infrastructure needs, so why not spaceports? Perhaps this policy made sense in the past, when space did not have the enormous potential for commercial growth that it now does. Our ability to utilize space is more apparent than ever before; we need to acknowledge this emerging reality. This Spaceport Equality Act of 2007 would provide spaceports with the same tax incentives granted to airports, seaports, rail, and other transit projects under the exempt facility bond rules. With international competition on the rise, our Nation's spaceports are a vital component of the infrastructure needed to expand and enhance the U.S. role in the international space arena. The Spaceport Equality Act is an important step to increasing our competitiveness in this field, because it will stimulate investment in expanding and modernizing our space launch facilities and lower the costs of financing spaceport projects. Since 1968, tax-exempt bonds have played a crucial role in meeting airport investment needs, with 50 percent or more of major airport projects being financed through municipal tax-exempt bonds. By extending this favorable tax treatment to spaceports, this bill will help meet spaceport needs and increase our Nation's ability to compete with expanded international interests in space exploration and technology. Similar legislation has been considered since the 1980s, and we cannot afford to wait any longer to address the needs of this important sector. This proposal does not provide direct Federal spending to our commercial space transportation industry, but rather, it creates the conditions necessary to stimulate private capital investment in industry infrastructure. By issuing tax-free bonds to finance spaceport infrastructure, space authorities could provide site-specific and vehicle-specific tailoring to promote the competition and innovation necessary to maintain the U.S. competitive edge in the space transportation industry. This is an efficient means for achieving our space transportation needs, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join us in this most important effort by cosponsoring this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, today I rise with my colleagues, Senators Bingaman, Nelson of Florida, Hutchison, Domenici, Feinstein, and Dole, to introduce the Spaceport Equality Act of 2007, a bill to help bring additional investment to the space transportation industry. Last summer, Kazakhstan launched its first satellite, catapulting them into the space transportation industry. Also joining the race for space launch capacity are Singapore, Australia, Canada, and the United Arab Emirates, with seven new commercial spaceports proposed between the four countries. With new entrants being added to the space transportation marketplace, is the U.S. falling behind in the race for access to space? The U.S. once dominated the commercial satellilte-manufacturing field with an average market share of 83 percent; however, that market share has since declined to below 50 percent. The U.S. satellite industry faces increasing pressure to consider the use of foreign launch vehicles and launch sites, due to the lack of sufficient domestic launch capability. An even smaller share of U.S. manufactured satellites is actually launched from U.S. spaceports. This past year, only 2 of the 21 commercial launches worldwide were launched from locations in the United States, that is less than 10 percent of the market share. This comes at a loss of billions of dollars to the U.S. economy. These are just some of the many reasons why my colleagues and I are introducing the Spaceport Equality Act. The space economy is made up of manufacturers, service providers, and technologists in both the government and private sector that deploy and operate launch vehicles, satellites, and space platforms. Many everyday goods and services rely on space infrastructure, including: broadcast, cable, and satellite television; global Internet services; satellite radio; and cellular and international phone calls. Satellites are also used global positioning systems, known as GPS, which enables us to have hands-on directions in our cars and other vehicles. GPS is also influential in the trucking, aviation, and maritime industries for day-to-day operations, and for our Nation's military operations. Thousands of gas stations use inexpensive small satellite dishes to connect to credit card networks so customers can pay instantly at the pump. Satellites also generate 90 percent of the weather forecasting data in the U.S., and are used to track hurricanes, tsunamis, and other weather phenomenon. These satellites are launched vertically atop of rockets, propelling them into orbit in space. Because most U.S. space-launch facilities are operated by NASA and the Air Force, priority for launches at these facilities is given to government projects. This means our commercial satellite needs take a backseat to Government operations. This often leaves U.S. commercial satellite ventures without reliable launch availability. This in turn has forced many companies seeking manufacturing and launch services toward our international competitors. Commercial spaceports are subdivisions of State governments that provide additional launch infrastructure than that which is available at Federal facilities. They attract and promote the U.S. commercial space transportation industry. Spaceport authorities function much like airport and port authorities by providing economic and transportation incentives to the industry, which in turn benefits the surrounding communities. Many States are forming space authorities to pursue ways of developing space transportation infrastructure. The Florida Space Authority, now known as ``Space Florida,'' was the first such entity, and was created as a subdivision of the Florida State Government by Florida's Governor and State legislature in 1989. Space Florida focuses on expanding and strengthening my state's space industry through partnering with the commercial space industry to improve space transportation and to provide innovative, forward- thinking solutions to the challenges facing this evolving industry. The last few years have begun a new phase in space exploration. Spaceports presently operate in Florida, California, Virginia, and Alaska, and efforts are currently underway in New Mexico and Oklahoma to establish spaceports for the new emerging space tourism industry. Still additional commercial spaceports have been considered in the following states: Alabama, California, Montana, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin. The commercial space transportation industry includes not only spaceports themselves, but also companies that develop the needed infrastructure for testing and servicing launch vehicles. When including these industry partners with spaceports, at least 23 States are directly affected by the commercial space transportation industry. Both spaceports and industry partners face increasing pressure from Government sponsored or subsidized competitors in various countries across Europe, and also in China, Japan, India, and Russia. And soon they will face new competitors in Australia, Canada, Singapore, and the United Arab Emirates. Commercial space transportation is a growing part of the U.S. economy. In 2004, this industry alone generated a total of nearly $98.1 billion in economic activity, more than $25 billion in earnings, and over 550,000 jobs. The Federal Aviation Administration, FAA, recently issued a report on 2006 launch activities, in that report, it was noted that in 2006, U.S. launches generated approximately $140 million in revenues. A 2004 Gallup poll shows overwhelming public support for space exploration. Roughly 80 percent of Americans agree that ``America's space program helps give America the scientific and technological edge it needs to compete in the international marketplace.'' and 76 percent agree that our space program ``benefits the nation's economy'' and inspires ``students to pursue careers in technical fields.'' The space industry has also led to a number of ``spin-off'' technologies, those influenced by space technology research and development. Home roof insulation and air filtration, anti-lock brakes, athletic shoes, vehicle protective airbags, cellular phones, and Lasik surgery all owe their development to space-based research and technology. The list of space ``spin-off'' technologies is estimated to exceed 40,000. These related technologies have helped employ tens of millions of Americans. Encouraging commercial investment in the space industry and increasing U.S. market share in this industry will certainly lead to additional innovation and technology that will positively influence other fields. As you can see, this once Government-dominated industry is now becoming a diverse mix of Government and commercial entities, also leading the way into future avenues of commercial space transportation, such as space tourism. The increase in recent commercial launches includes the debut of the first commercial crewed suborbital launches of SpaceShipOne, the beginnings of public space travel. ``Space tourism,'' as public space travel is now referred to, has the potential to become a major growth industry. Recent market studies have shown that, within 20 years, space tourism has the potential to become a multibillion-dollar industry. Even though the average American may not be able to participate in public space travel, its potential impact on our economy and international competitiveness is something to be appreciated. Space tourism industry players expect there to be a market demand of at least 15,000 Americans per year to travel into suborbit and orbital flights. This would require an estimated 665 launches per year by 2010. If the U.S. continues as is, we will only be able to capture a 10- percent market share, at best, of this emerging industry. If needed infrastructure is added, however, the U.S. could potentially pick up 60 to 70 percent of space flight demand by 2010. Every launch that we do not provide for in the U.S. means a loss to our economy, and a gain for our international competitors. The Federal Aviation Administration's Commercial Space Transportation division expects a $3 billion dollar loss to our economy if we do not meet the rising demand for space tourism. Currently, U.S. launch facilities are few and most are owned and operated by the Federal Government, putting commercial users in direct competition with the U.S. military, NASA, and other Government entities that, as I mentioned earlier, receive priority over commercial projects. Recently, the U.S. Air Force provided license to Space Exploration Technologies, known as SpaceX, to utilize one of the decommissioned launch complexes at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station for its commercial launch ventures. The utilization of existing Federal resources by commercial ventures will open up opportunity for further commercial launches, but this alone will not afford America the resources it needs to remain competitive internationally. If the U.S. is to remain competitive in the commercial space industry, added and improved infrastructure will be needed to support this growing industry. On a more local note, my own State of Florida could stand to gain much by way of economic development from increased investment in Spaceport infrastructure. According to recent studies, increased spaceport infrastructure and activity in Florida could mean as much as $29.7 million in additional economic activity by the year 2015, this does not include the economic activity generated from increased tourism, secondary contracts, and spin-off technologies. Other modes of transportation, highways, airports, and seaports, currently enjoy a tax incentive for meeting their infrastructure needs, so why not spaceports? Perhaps this policy made sense in the past, when space did not have the enormous potential for commercial growth that it now does. Our ability to utilize space is more apparent than ever before; we need to acknowledge this emerging reality. This Spaceport Equality Act of 2007 would provide spaceports with the same tax incentives granted to airports, seaports, rail, and other transit projects under the exempt facility bond rules. With international competition on the rise, our Nation's spaceports are a vital component of the infrastructure needed to expand and enhance the U.S. role in the international space arena. The Spaceport Equality Act is an important step to increasing our competitiveness in this field, because it will stimulate investment in expanding and modernizing our space launch facilities and lower the costs of financing spaceport projects. Since 1968, tax-exempt bonds have played a crucial role in meeting airport investment needs, with 50 percent or more of major airport projects being financed through municipal tax-exempt bonds. By extending this favorable tax treatment to spaceports, this bill will help meet spaceport needs and increase our Nation's ability to compete with expanded international interests in space exploration and technology. Similar legislation has been considered since the 1980s, and we cannot afford to wait any longer to address the needs of this important sector. This proposal does not provide direct Federal spending to our commercial space transportation industry, but rather, it creates the conditions necessary to stimulate private capital investment in industry infrastructure. By issuing tax-free bonds to finance spaceport infrastructure, space authorities could provide site-specific and vehicle-specific tailoring to promote the competition and innovation necessary to maintain the U.S. competitive edge in the space transportation industry. This is an efficient means for achieving our space transportation needs, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join us in this most important effort by cosponsoring this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I want to commend a great American, Astronaut Walter M. ``Wally'' Schirra, who passed away today. Captain Schirra leaves behind a praiseworthy legacy as a Navy veteran, a pioneer for NASA and of outer-space exploration, a television commentator, and a devoted husband and father. Captain Schirra began his distinguished career in the U.S. Navy when he arrived in Annapolis in the early days of World War II; he graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1945 and soon became a pilot through Naval Flight Training in Pensacola, FL. Through an exchange program with the Air Force during the Korean war, he proudly served our Nation as a pilot of F-86 Sabres. He carried this dedicated service to America into the stratosphere and beyond, making history as one of the ``Original Seven'' astronauts named by NASA to the Mercury program. On October 3, 1962, Captain Schirra became the first person ever to orbit the Earth 6 times. He is unique in that he is the only astronaut to have flown in NASA's first 3 space programs: Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo. After retiring from NASA, he later served with distinction as a widely known television commentator for CBS. The passion that Wally Schirra had for space exploration and his accomplishments as a pioneer astronaut underscore the importance of our continuing to strengthen the NASA space program. The Apollo 7 mission-- under the command of Schirra--proved to those at NASA that they had the ability to send a spacecraft into orbit around the moon. Since then, NASA has taken many giant leaps. We must continue the exploration, research, and discovery that have all constituted NASA's trademark for decades. Exploration into outer space helps us to better understand the world in which we live. NASA understood this well when they sent Captain Wally Schirra into outers pace nearly 45 years ago; I am hopeful that this vision and reach will only continue to grow with time. On behalf of Florida and the people of the United States, I thank Captain Schirra for his service to country and the science he helped to advance. He will be missed.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to address S. 761, the America COMPETES Act. This is an effort to help prepare our children to enter the fields of math, science, engineering, and technology and the ultimate goal is to keep the United States at the forefront of these fields on the increasingly competitive global stage. I congratulate Senators Lamar Alexander and Jeff Bingaman for posing the questions they did to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and for working the panel's recommendations into legislation. And I agree with the findings that basically say if we don't do a better job of teaching our children in the areas of math, science, and technology, other countries will surpass us in a way that we might never overcome. I commend the Academies' full report to all of you, and I think they are on the right track. We need to take some significant and comprehensive steps to better prepare our young people to enter the Information Age workforce. It is critical to our Nation's future and it is critical that we approve this legislation and start preparing our children of today for the future of tomorrow. And it is critically important we start preparing for tomorrow today. In a 2003 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, fourth graders in three countries--Chinese Taipei, Japan, and Singapore--outperformed U.S. fourth graders in both mathematics and science. In the new world marketplace, the United States will have to make an even greater effort to keep our high standard of living, to remain competitive. People in India, China, Singapore, Finland, and Ireland know very well that brainpower is universal, it is valuable, and it is the secret weapon to producing good jobs and a good quality of life. Given that physical barriers such as distance have been torn down by the World Wide Web and the benefits of free trade, our foreign competitors know there is no reason that they can't have a standard of living more like the United States. So they are working hard to develop better trained citizens and create their own stream of discoveries. The challenge of our generation is to change these troubling trends. Our commitment needs to be redoubled. I am a great believer in the transforming power of education. Coming from Cuba at age 15, not knowing the language of this country, not knowing how my future would unfold, I relied heavily on the power of education to survive. My father was the first person in our family to earn a college degree, and he would always remind us that the only thing the Communists could not take from him was his education. That concept of an education became a valued treasure in our family. So that is why I worry so greatly about the education of our next generation. According to recent statistics compiled by the U.S. Department of Education, our nationwide graduation rate in public schools is about 74 percent. That means one out of every four children who starts out as a freshman, does not get a high school degree. In Florida, the graduation rate drops to 71 percent. Nationally, if you look at young people between the ages of 16 and 24 who don't have a high school diploma, the numbers are alarming: Hispanics, 25 percent, Blacks, 11 percent, Whites, 6 percent. These are rates that have been virtually static over the last decade. They forecast a tragic pattern that we must change, for the good of these children, but also as a matter of national competitiveness in a shrinking but competitive world. We as a country are falling behind. We are losing the opportunity to remain competitive on a global scale unless we address these percentages and change them. So when we talk about improving education, we, as individuals, parents, community leaders and elected officials, need to focus on quality education. We need to encourage our young people to seek that diploma and degree, and we need to help those who might otherwise not have access to a higher education. And we need to remember that America has been the global leader in innovative technologies, and as those technologies grow and expand and proliferate throughout the world, we have to become even more prepared to compete in a global market. All young Americans, no matter their race, creed, or ethnicity deserve the opportunity to gain not just an education, but the best quality education. This is our obligation and our national imperative. We are a great nation, but that greatness will not be enjoyed by the next generations if we fail to properly educate that next generation. That is why the America COMPETES Act is so very critical. This bill will improve teacher training in math and science by creating summer programs hosted by the National Science Foundation. This bill will increase the support for Advanced Placement Programs to expand access for low income students so they might perform better in college preparatory courses. Over the next decade, this bill doubles the investment in basic research at our Nation's leading Federal scientific research facilities so that we can take research out of the classrooms and put it into real-world applications. That last point is equally important as the previous two. Yes, we should expand the math, science and engineering training for teachers, but we also need to focus now on the kinds of research that will elevate the production of technological innovation. I am certain all of us come into contact with a computer every day, and it is a safe bet that many of those computers have an Intel chip inside. One of the people who worked on the Academies report, Craig Barrett, the chairman of Intel, points out that 90 percent of the products his company delivers on December 31 did not even exist on January 1 of that same year. That is an amazing pace of change. Handheld computers, Blackberrys, flash drives, the iPhone--these kinds of advancements create opportunity and demand for human capital. Human capital can harness science and opportunity--and keep our Nation at the cutting edge of global innovation. So the challenge is clear we need to ensure our young people have the tools they need to harness their brainpower and keep up with the rate of innovation. That's going to take a greater commitment to public education in the areas of math, science, and engineering. And I can tell you that if our children can't, won't, or don't take advantage of these opportunities, the children of other countries will. Our task is to commit to their success and this legislation does just that. To conclude, I will say that the Federal Government alone will not solve these problems, and I don't believe Congress has a magic bullet to address all--or even most--of the challenges mentioned here today. I do, however, believe we can all support the legislation before us today. The report by the National Academies panel is a fair and realistic assessment of how we ought to proceed. Who could argue that we shouldn't look at ways to increase the pool of qualified math and science teachers, strengthen the Nation's commitment to research, make the United States the most attractive place to the Nation's and world's brightest minds, and ensure we protect intellectual property while allowing the freedom to innovate? These issues deserve the attention of our Nation. I know--working together--we can and will adopt initiatives that will provide the best education for our future generations.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I want to follow on the remarks of my dear friend from Colorado related to the current situation in Iraq. It appears some movement has been made on the war supplemental. Unfortunately, it is a flawed piece of legislation, one the crafters of it well know will be vetoed by the President. It will be vetoed for good reasons--because it contains completely unacceptable language, as was just being pointed out. It is impossible for us to micromanage what is happening in the field. It is a bad idea for politicians in Washington to tell generals when and how they can move forces in a battle. It is a bad idea for us to slow-bleed our military as they face an unrelenting enemy. It is a bad idea for us to simply not have the wherewithal to stick with the fight at a time when it is difficult. The President this week again reiterated his commitment that he would veto a bill that had artificial timetables for withdrawal and that would empower the enemy. It gives the enemy hope and an opportunity to wait us out. There is no question about that. A deadline simply tells the enemy by what date they need to know that the American commitment is over. Imagine the confusion for someone in Iraq trying to make a decision whether to cast their lot which, in fact, may mean the death of himself or herself, and their family, to support our effort there toward a democratic country. If they had no anticipation that our commitment was equal to theirs, they might simply wait it out. So how can we ever turn the political tide in our favor in Iraq if we don't show the commitment the people of Iraq must have in order to make a commitment to our stated goals? General Petraeus is here. He met with the President yesterday; he will be meeting with Members of Congress. It is important that we ask him his assessment of the current situation. I know there are many who would be ready to suggest that the surge is not working. In fact, the full surge is not in place because all of the troops are yet to be deployed for the surge, but some who already said it wouldn't work are now saying it hasn't worked. I wish to have General Petraeus's assessment of it. I want to know what the general on the ground--not a politician in Washington--thinks about the effort of success we are meeting with our effort at this point in time. The Iraq Study Group has been mentioned. Congress should drop fixed deadlines for withdrawals of U.S. forces. As Commander in Chief, the President needs flexibility on draft deployments. This is from the cochair of the Iraq Study Group, Democrat Lee Hamilton. It is important that we recognize the Iraq Study Group not only when it is convenient but also when it might be inconvenient. I think it is very important that we not sound the voice of defeat. Imagine the surprise that must have come to our enemies--and whether we like it or not, we have enemies--imagine the delight that must have come when, from the halls of the Congress, from the leader of the Senate, they were told that they had, in fact, won; that the war was lost. This is not the right thing to say at a time when our troops are engaged in battle. Nine U.S. soldiers lost their lives in the last 24 hours alone. This is a difficult time. It is not a pleasant time. It is not an easy assignment. So for us to simply tell our troops in the field they have been defeated when they in fact have not, and for us to tell our enemies that in fact they have won when in fact they have not, is not a good idea. I believe it is terribly important that we attempt somehow in the midst of this rancor and debate that is so classic of modern day Washington that we find it within ourselves to look beyond the current moment of politics, beyond the political advantage that might be gained at any one moment or another, and seek within the depths of our souls the opportunity for us to begin to work together to try to find a solution to this very difficult problem. It is a sure thing that we, in fact, have a problem on our hands, that Iraq is a difficult situation. There is no question they must reach a political settlement. There is no question that they must do-- the Iraqis themselves--the hard work of peace. However, as we do that, we need to also find it within ourselves to find a way of shaping a political consensus, for us to find a way to begin to talk to one another, not past one another, about how we resolve the issues in Iraq in a way that will enhance America's strength. It is not about defeating a point of view. It is not about defeating President Bush. A loss in Iraq would be a defeat for the United States of America. So how do we find a way to empower America to be a stronger country, to be a united country as we seek to defeat the enemies of our country, which surely are there, continuing to fight against us, wishing us to be unsuccessful, and wishing for our country to be defeated? We should pull together, Republicans and Democrats all, to try to find the common ground that will bring us to a sensible solution, to a sensible outcome, so America is not defeated, but the enemies of America are defeated. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Will the Senator yield for a moment?

Mr. MARTINEZ. I appreciate the Senator's comments, and I so much value our relationship and our ability to work across the aisle, because we seem to get a lot done when we do that. It is an encouraging sign on one of the very difficult issues of our day, which is immigration, that we do seem to be working in a bipartisan way, and it is amazing what can be accomplished when we do work bipartisanly. I can't help but be shaped by my own life experience, and I remember as I came to America and was learning the ways of this country, and I admired so much this new land of mine, that I would marvel at the phrase: ``Politics ends at the water's edge.'' That used to be the standard. There were these towering giants of another day who occupied these very desks we now use as ours who seemed to find it within themselves to reach a little higher to work across party lines in those postwar years, in the Cold War years when it was so essential. I think what we need to adopt as a country is the understanding that this struggle against this enemy is long term, that we are going to be in this fight for a long time, probably the time of your service and mine. I hope not, but perhaps. If we are going to be successful in that endeavor, we have to set politics aside. We have to find a way that we can think of America first and whatever label we wear in a secondary way. I am not preaching to my colleague from Florida or anyone in particular. Frankly, the blame lies on both sides of the aisle, with Republicans as well as Democrats. We have to find a way we can move beyond the momentary gain we might make over a 24-hour news cycle for the longer term good of the Nation and the longer term good of what America stands for to the world. Anyway, maybe the Senator and I began a rare moment here this morning in talking about Iraq where we are not yelling at each other and we are actually talking about how we can bridge our differences and find consensus as something that will help the American people.

Mr. MARTINEZ. I thank the Senator.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I add a word of encouragement to our colleagues to support both of these good amendments. I agree wholeheartedly with my colleague from South Carolina that it is time we take action. It is time we act. I have heard untold stories for years now as a candidate for the Senate and as a Senator of the problems that small companies of America are facing over the burdens imposed upon them by section 404, unfair burdens that disproportionately fall on small businesses than they do on large. A recent GAO study requested by our colleague Senator Snowe found the cost of compliance for small public companies to comply with Sarbanes-Oxley has been disproportionately higher for small businesses than it was for larger companies. Small businesses are vital to the growth of business in America. They are where most of our jobs are created in this day and time. The fact is for us to idly sit by and hope the regulators will do the right thing, hope they go far enough, isn't good enough for me. I want to act now. I want to make sure we support the amendment by Senators Dodd and Shelby, but I also want to encourage support for our amendment, because ours will take action and will do it now. What it does is it exempts smaller companies with market capitalization of less than $700 million, with revenues of less than $125 million, and with fewer than 1,500 shareholders from the onerous burdens of section 404. There are a number of ways to maintain investor protections while lowering the cost of Sarbanes-Oxley compliance, but we should start by exempting small companies from having to comply with section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley, the section that requires the double audit. Oftentimes small business cannot even find an accounting firm willing to perform the audit, let alone afford to take a significant percentage of revenue to conduct a duplicate audit. The fact is this is strangling America's business. It is, as Senator DeMint pointed out, not allowing us to play the role we have traditionally played in the capital market. Mayor Bloomberg conducted a study in New York about why we were losing our competitive edge vis-a-vis other foreign markets. One of the reasons that was found for that, among several others--but it is a significant reason--was Sarbanes-Oxley compliance. It is time we act. We passed the law and it was a good thing to do; it has done a lot of good. But aspects of it are now hurting American business and we need to pull those back. That is what the DeMint amendment does. I encourage my colleagues to do that as well.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I want to use some of the minority time in morning business this morning to discuss H.R. 1591, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2007. We are here now, some 73 days after the President sent us the emergency wartime spending request, and 73 days later we are still waiting to send to our troops the resources they desperately need while they are in harm's way. On March 23 the House passed their version of the bill, and on March 29 the Senate did as well. We are now in the middle of April and the two bodies have yet to meet to work out their differences. More distressing still, the House has yet to even name conferees. I know yesterday the leaders of the Congress had a meeting with the President to discuss the progress, or maybe the lack of progress, on this bill. In the 10 weeks since the Congress began consideration, we have turned a bill intended to fund troops into a bill that seeks to put a hasty and misguided withdrawal deadline from Iraq. In addition to that, not only does it not prioritize the war funding and leave it at that, but it also contains about $20 billion in projects that are neither emergencies and, most of all, are not related to the war effort. In addition to that, it is clear from the conversations that leaders have had with the President that in this current form this bill will be vetoed. So where are we today then? We clearly have a bill that is going to be unacceptable to the Executive. We still have not even conferenced on the bill. And worse yet, the Democratic leadership shows no signs of changing the path on which they are set, which is one that attempts to put an artificial deadline on the commanders on the ground and attempts to put other restrictions on their ability to fight the war from the ground as they best see fit. So at the end of the day, we should not be using a war supplemental, at a time of war, when our troops are in harm's way, to do things such as put $25 million for spinach farmers--that is not an emergency, that does not relate to the war effort, $75 million for peanut storage. Again, I am sure peanuts being stored is an important thing, but is it a wartime supplemental issue? Is it an emergency? No. And $250 million for a dairy subsidy. We all enjoy ice cream, but do we need to have an emergency appropriation in order to subsidize diary farmers? Do we need to have an emergency appropriation for the war with bin Ladin now with this kind of special interest pork? There is $3.5 million in this bill for Capitol tours. They are important, too. They are not an emergency. They certainly do not relate to the war. And $2 million for the University of Vermont. The President has said: The longer Congress delays, the worse the impact on the men and women of the armed forces [will be]. Our troops, [the President said] should not be trapped in the middle. I think that is true. I think it is very important that we move this process forward and that we allow for the troops on the ground to receive the kind of funding they desperately need to continue the fight forward. There is something here we must recognize. Whenever the Congress does not timely fund an agency or department of the Federal Government, then we need to find ways in which to get the job done. I can remember, during my days in the Cabinet, that as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, it is very disruptive for a stream of funding for a given project to be disrupted, because then you have to make amends in order to continue to pay your bills, bills you are obligated to pay, while at the same time having to rob Peter to pay Paul. It is the most inefficient way to run Government. It is more costly than any other way of doing it and, most of all, when you are dealing with our Armed Forces, it has dire consequences. Here are a couple of things that are wrong with the situation we are in today: We are delaying for no good reason. Secondly, we are attempting to impose a political deadline on a bill that is intended to provide the troops the resources they need to continue to fight the war. The Iraq Study Group has been cited as having some good guidance on the way forward. The experts in that group, the Iraq Study Group--I know they are quoted frequently by my friends on the other side of the aisle, but we can't be too selective about what we choose to like from the Iraq Study Group and what we don't. The Iraq Study Group says that: Near-term results--and this is referring to an untimely or an early withdrawal--would result in a significant power vacuum. Unquestionably, if we withdraw untimely, there will be a power vacuum in Iraq. There will be greater human suffering, and the region will be destabilized, and a threat to the global economy would also be a part of what the Iraq Study Group found would be the result of a hasty withdrawal. Al Qaeda would depict our withdrawal as a historic victory. Make no mistake about that. The Iraq Study Group said: Our premature departure from Iraq, leaving a power vacuum, will provide al-Qaida with a victory of historic proportions. If we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range consequences could eventually require the United States to return. This is the Iraq Study Group. This is what they are saying about an untimely and hasty withdrawal from Iraq. There is no question there would be a power vacuum left, not only within Iraq but also in the region. And as a result of that, only those who do not wish us well and who are, frankly, the enemies of our country today would find this vacuum a great opportunity as a way that they could then descend. So there would be a power vacuum within the country, which would surely be filled by the radical elements of the society, who are not the ones who were elected by the people but are the ones who will have the ability, through their own thuggery and armed intervention, by their own militias, to take over the country. The factional killings would rise even higher than they are today, and then the region will be destabilized, because there is no question that Iran would move into this power vacuum created by the hasty departure of the United States, the only stabilizing force in that area at the moment. In addition, we would find the other countries in the region, the Sunni states, the moderate Sunni states that are friendly to us, would find this situation untenable. They would then have to act. I think the whole region would be in greater chaos than it is today. This would then necessitate a return of the United States into Iraq in a way that would be, frankly, undesirable. So what are we doing today? Well, I am not one of those who believes we owe a commitment for the end of time and to all time. But I do not think we are at the point in time when retreat is the only option. Retreat will be followed by defeat, and all of those consequences are not what we want to see. At this point in time we have two top-rated commanding officers in the field. General Petraeus has been on site a scant couple of months. His plan for this surge, his plan to try to pacify Baghdad, is underway, and while there are daily setbacks, and last night, this morning, we received the news of yet more fighting and more killing and more bombs, the fact is there are some overall trends that seem to be moving in a more positive direction. Lieutenant General Odierno, who is the commanding general of the Multinational Corps in Iraq, reported on a number of aspects of military progress. He said: ``We are seeing a drop in sectarian murders in Baghdad and some displaced families are returning to the city.'' Again, these are modest signs of something going in the right direction. The number of caches we are finding per week has doubled since February. All of the troops of this reinforcement action that many choose to call a surge have yet to be on the ground. The capacity of the Iraq security forces continues to grow. There are currently 10 Iraqi divisions, 8 of which have transitioned to Iraqi control. I believe yesterday another province was turned over to Iraqi control, the Iraqi forces. Security across Al Anbar has dramatically improved. The people of Al Anbar are fighting back and winning against al-Qaida. And I think that is true. We are receiving unparalleled and unprecedented cooperation from the locals in that area to help us defeat al-Qaida. This, make no mistake about it, is a fight with al-Qaida. There may be sectarian and factional fighting in Iraq, and certainly in Baghdad, but in Al Anbar we are fighting al-Qaida. Last week in Ramadi, there were nine attacks in total. During this same week a year ago there were 84 attacks. In the north, petroleum products from the Baiji oil refinery have increased 20 percent in the last 6 weeks alone, due to the Iraq security force's effort to protect the distribution tankers. The bottom line is, there is a drop in murders, there is an increase in finding arms caches, there is an increase in the Iraqi forces continuing to take control of their own country, there is a decrease in attacks, and there is an increase in oil production. It is a perfect picture but certainly something that seems to be moving in a direction that is more desirable. The emergency supplemental is vital to the troops and vital to our national security. The operations in Iraq over the next several months will determine our future efforts in Iraq and in that part of the world. We do not have the luxury of delaying these funds. You see, it would be a self-fulfilling prophecy not to properly fund the troops, to require that the rotations that are planned not take place; that the National Guard--we value so much the training. And I keep hearing in the Armed Services Committee repeated questions: Are our troops properly trained before they are sent into battle? Well, we find that right now home State training of National Guard units had to be suspended because of the supplemental not being funded, and deployment of all military units is going to have to be slowed. In other words, there are people who are part of our Armed Forces who have been in Iraq, who have served their time, who are expecting to come home. Their time of coming home is going to be delayed because their replacement will not have the resources to get back into the fight. The administration's position on the bill is that the war supplemental should remain focused on the needs of the troops and should not be used as a vehicle for adding on emergency spending, and also for policy proposals that I find are more destined to make a difference in the political fight than they are in the fight against the enemies of our country. Mr. President, I conclude by reading a letter that was written by Army LTC Charles P. Ferry, regarding the death of his comrade, his follow soldier, Army Ranger SSG Joshua Hager, a young man who died in the service of his country. The lieutenant colonel wrote: On February 22, 2007, the Scout Platoon and I were conducting a vehicle movement at night along a route we had traveled many times before. Joshua and the rest of the Scouts had every inch of this road memorized. About halfway to our destination, Joshua's vehicle was struck by a large, deeply buried improvised explosive device (IED). Joshua was instantly killed by the blast, and the two other Scouts in the vehicle were wounded. The lieutenant colonel continues to write: I have been in the Army for about 23 years and served in numerous Infantry, Special Forces, and Ranger Battalions. I have served about three years collectively in combat in Somalia, Afghanistan, and Iraq, and Staff Sergeant Joshua Hager is one of the best Sergeants I have ever served with and I trusted my life with him. He was the consummate professional and the absolute standard bearer for his platoon. He died doing what he loved and what he was very good at and I was proud to serve with him. I hope and pray that our Nation will always appreciate the ultimate sacrifice he and his family have made. I will never forget Joshua and I carry his memory burned into my heart as we continue to fight in the city of Ramadi. I have spoken with the father of Sergeant Hager. We talked a number of times about his son and his son's beliefs. I cannot imagine the pain Mr. Hager feels, but I can tell you what he did say to me. The message from Joshua's father that he wanted me to relay here was Joshua understood his mission. He understood what he was over there fighting for. He knew this was a war worth fighting, and worth winning. Young Joshua Hager told his dad these things and added: I'll stay in Iraq for another year or however long it takes to defeat the enemy--so that my son won't have to fight this battle when he grows up. That statement, I believe, embodies the spirit of our soldiers in the field. They get it. They know their mission. We should know ours as well. We ought to get to work. We ought to strip out of this bill the timelines that would constrain and tie the hands of our military commanders. We should strip the pork, the unnecessary, nonemergency, nonwar-related pork that is in the bill, and send a clean bill to the President that he might sign it and get the resources to the troops they so desperately need, not only in Iraq but just as well as back here at home as we continue to attempt to keep our National Guard properly trained and properly prepared. This is a difficult issue. I know very much how much this issue can divide our country. But I also know how very important it is to those of us who I believe clearly understand the threat our country faces in the global war on terror, the issues that relate to the security of this Nation, and the very difficult situation we find ourselves in. We should not make this situation more difficult by injecting domestic politics into the atmosphere. I do believe it is very important that we continue to fund the troops, that we give the troops our support and our backing, and we do so in a timely manner. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, today I wish to discuss an issue that is on the minds of millions of seniors--prescription drug access and pricing. I am here to defend Medicare Part D and the importance of competitive drug pricing, because it works. Prescription drugs play a vital role in our health care system. Thanks to technological and scientific breakthroughs in pharmaceuticals, Americans are living longer and more productive lives than ever before. There has been a remarkable rise in pharmaceutical drug access to our Nation's citizens. A generation ago, there were nowhere near as many prescription drugs available--today, there are effective drugs on the market that help people do just about anything. From drugs that reduce blood pressure and fight uncommon bacterial infections, to others that lower stress and protect immune systems in the fight against cancer, there has never been a time in history like this. Members of Congress have--over the last decade or so--made many efforts to extend prescription drug access to as many Americans as possible, specifically seniors. The expense has been significant, but so have the results. This improvement to prescription drug access is due in large part to Medicare Part D. The Medicare Part D prescription drug program has been successfully reducing drug costs for seniors, and as long as we leave it alone and let it run as it was intended to, millions of Americans will continue to benefit--this was the goal and the goal is being met. I strongly oppose any efforts to repeal the noninterference clause, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, however, are moving to eliminate the noninterference clause--written into the Medicare Modernization Act, MMA--which, in layman's terms, means that some Members of Congress would like to give the Government the ability to negotiate drug prices on behalf of consumers. Proponents of this move believe that Government negotiation of drug prices would lead to lower prices for the millions of Americans in need of prescription drugs. Yet that is not the full picture. The reality is that there is no proof that eliminating noninterference would reduce costs for seniors in need of low-cost prescription drugs; in fact, there is a chance that this approach could limit senior access to certain types of prescription drugs--this is because, in Government negotiating of drug prices, competition will be eliminated. This is to say that certain drug companies will simply back away from the table and choose not to participate. As you can see, Government negotiation will not benefit the consumer. It actually hurts the consumer because it limits what prescription drugs are available to them. For that reason, I feel strongly that moving in this direction and having this debate is not the best use of the Senate's time. Why are we debating a program that has been successful in providing drug coverage for our seniors and has done so while costing less than anticipated? Our seniors have a choice in their plans, and they are pleased with those options. We should be using this time to focus on those who lack any healthcare options. I am talking about the millions of uninsured people in this country. My colleagues and I should be talking about ways to give these individuals a chance for health care coverage. We need to further examine the Tax Code and fix its glaring inequities. The Tax Code needs to be unbiased; where you work should not affect how much you pay for health care coverage or what kind of health care options you have. Why can't all American workers--whether they work for a Fortune 500 company or the local bakery they started from scratch--have the ability to purchase health insurance with pretax dollars? My bill, the TEA Act, will allow just that. Why aren't we talking about that? What about Senator Coburn's Universal Health Care Choice and Access Act--why aren't we talking about that? His bill will help transform our health care system to one that focuses on prevention and helps to reestablish the doctor-patient relationship, while also empowering individuals to choose where their care is delivered. I encourage us to get past this time-consuming and unnecessary Part D debate and turn toward issues that are in need of solutions. From the uninsured, to future budget insolvency, to the global war on terror, there is plenty--of substance--to discuss.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, this is indeed a difficult issue and debate. I respect so much my colleague from Oregon. I know he speaks with passion and heart as he deals with these contentious but important issues. I must express some disagreement with him, while I agree with most of what he said. The issue of stem cells is a vital and emotional one, and we need to deal with it carefully as we move forward in the Senate. The embryonic stem cell debate stimulates some of us to defend the inherent human desire to make discoveries and to build on them; likewise, this debate galvanizes others of us who defend human life and believe it should be valued in all its forms. The engineered creation or destruction of a human embryo for the sake of scientific advancement cannot be the answer to any of our ever-growing challenges. In this great country of ours, and around the world, there are many suffering from debilitating conditions and ravaging diseases such as multiple sclerosis, diabetes, and Alzheimer's. These people are in need of medical treatment. Thanks to the brilliant minds and innovative ways of doctors and scientists across the globe, many medical treatments are now available. We can credit advances in stem cell research with this expanding treatment. Stem cell research holds tremendous opportunities for our society to help treat and cure people's diseases and illnesses; and some would like to extend the success found through federally funded adult stem cell research to embryonic research. They have proposed that we harvest these human embryos--which were created with the knowledge that many of them would be destroyed--to be used for research. While I, and others, understand the great need, we also know that there has to be a better way. In fact, I know there is. That is what I want to discuss today. The legislation currently being considered will direct Federal taxpayer dollars specifically for the destruction of human embryos to develop cells that might lead to treatments for various health problems. This raises moral objections with me because of my deeply held religious beliefs. We are currently funding research on nonembryonic stem cells derived from adult stem cells, amniotic cord blood or placenta sources. These have proven their ability to target many, if not eventually all, of the conditions expected to be addressed through embryonic stem cell research. The University of Florida has one of the top five adult stem cell research centers in the world and their findings are already making a difference. At the University of Florida, researchers are making great headway with stem cell research. They have in the works treatments for heart disease, a cure for diabetes, and preventions for diabetic eye diseases. Additionally, researchers at the University of Florida are making significant strides on the path toward reversing adult blindness, treating neurological conditions, and rebuilding human brain cells. Researchers in Gainesville are also leading the world in identifying cancer stem cells a primary step toward identifying therapies to cure various forms of cancer. It is worth noting that all of these advances have a vital common thread; each of the aforementioned breakthroughs came about thanks to nonembryonic stem cells. At the end of 2005, President Bush signed a bill that aims to further develop our Nation's cord blood inventory to allow for increased availability of existing and future stem cell treatments; and I was very proud to have supported this legislation. As my colleagues know, this legislation made its way through Congress with tremendous success. The House of Representatives passed it with only one dissenting vote, and in the Senate it passed it unanimously. The Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005 created a new Federal program to collect and store cord blood. In addition, the law expands the existing bone marrow registry to include cord blood. New programs utilizing cord blood, such as the recently created CORD:USE Center at the Winnie Palmer Hospital in my own home State of Florida, are building on this valuable and expanding foundation. These programs are advancing science without compromising morality. Winnie Palmer Hospital for Women and Babies in Orlando is now able to contribute a diverse and increased supply of cord blood. This is reassuring news for the thousands of people who would otherwise die unnecessarily each and every year were it not for the large, genetically-diversified stem cell bank that is now available. The uses of cord blood are fascinating and they speak of breakthroughs. Stephen Sprague, one of the first adults to receive a stem cell transplant from umbilical cord blood, recently visited Winnie Palmer Hospital and its cord blood bank to express his gratitude for what they are doing. Stephen was diagnosed with chronic myelogenous leukemia in 1995, and when chemotherapy and other treatments did not work, and a match for a bone marrow transplant could not be found, he was informed that essentially nothing more could be done. Luckily, Stephen's oncologist was able to enroll him in one of the first clinical trials using umbilical cord blood. A wonderful mother agreed to donate her placenta; from that, the lifesaving cord blood was collected. Ten years after receiving the stem cell transplant, Stephen remains completely cancer-free. Not only this, but before his cord blood transplant, Stephen was an insulin-dependent diabetic. Following the transplant, Stephen has not needed to use insulin; through taking only oral diabetic medications, his sugar levels have remained normal. So, not only was Stephen's life saved by the transplant, his quality of life was improved. It is no wonder that Stephen has now dedicated his life to telling his cord blood story of hope to patients and mothers who can also give the gift of life through the donation of their cord blood. Umbilical cord blood stems cells have now been used in thousands of patients requiring a potentially lifesaving stem cell transplant and with good results. The collection of these cells from the delivery of a healthy newborn baby can result in a stem cell transplant desperately needed to save someone else's life. Essentially, new life is helping to stimulate more life. This allows us to help countless people in need without the moral dilemma presented by the embryonic alternative which, from my perspective, is no true alternative. Cord blood is currently being used to treat nearly 80 diseases. Adult stem cells have made, and will continue to make, a recognizable contribution to helping those with leukemia, sickle cell disease, and other potentially fatal illnesses and conditions. Proponents of embryonic stem cell research say they want to make available for research only those embryos that are, in their words, ``unwanted.'' One of my colleagues recently asserted, ``If these embryos were going to create life, we wouldn't be supporting research on them. Yet, there is proof that these embryos are living things and that they are wanted. Yes, these embryos can, and are, growing into fully formed babies. Known as ``snowflake babies,'' these babies are born from adopted embryos--excess embryos from successful in vitro fertilization parents that are donated and adopted by a couple where fertilization techniques were forgone or unsuccessful. To date, 133 snowflake babies have been born, with nearly another two dozen on the way. Had these--in the words of the critics, ``unwanted'' embryos--been tossed aside, human life would have literally been discarded. Many Americans agree that we need to move forward on this issue with prudence, and in a way that respects and values human life. As we stand to balance our interests in helping those in need without destroying human life, there is a good piece of legislation being considered that I want my colleagues to consider. Under the HOPE Act, no living embryo would be damaged or harmed for the sake of research. What the HOPE Act would do is allow scientists for the first time to apply for Federal funds to perform research on embryos that have died naturally during the in vitro process. For those hoping to find a cure through embryonic stem cell research, this would be a modest and principled step toward achieving that goal. It would also be the right step to take, because it is the only option that opens up new frontiers without damaging human life; a move in this direction would not detract from the real results we have seen through federally-sponsored adult stem cell research. I encourage my colleagues to strongly consider voting in favor of the HOPE Act. We must be dedicated only to research which preserves and protects lives. Adult stem cells hold great promise, have had more proven success in lab trials and actual applications, and they do not require the destruction of human life. This is where our Federal funding should remain focused. At this time, efforts to federally fund a different area would siphon money from proven research. If it is possible to simultaneously defend human life and help others in need, why on earth would we not do it? Why wouldn't that be the better option? We know it is possible to do both at the same time. It seems to me to be the reasonable thing to do. That is why I urge my colleagues today to support the HOPE Act, to support a way of continuing to advance the frontiers of research while at the same time avoiding the troublesome and meddlesome moral dilemmas that funding for embryonic stem cells would present. There is an option. There is an alternative. There is an opportunity to advance stem cell research of the embryonic type, knowing we have already had great success with adult stem cells, with cord blood, and all of the other usages, but at the same time not tampering with the moral dilemma we would have to cross if we are destroying embryonic life in order to have stem cell research in that direction. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I am here to discuss a topic of great meaning to American families: educating our children. We all want what is best for our children, and to provide them with the tools they need to succeed in tomorrow's workforce. Today, I want to concentrate on one particular program that can play a key role in ensuring our children are meeting their educational goals. I rise, along with Senator John Cornyn of Texas, to once again introduce the Raising Achievement Through Improving Supplemental Education Act, or the RAISE Act for short. The RAISE Act seeks to improve the Supplemental Educational Services program--a tutoring program under No Child Left Behind--to help it become well-known, widely available, and easily accessible to eligible students. It seeks to broaden eligibility requirements and prioritization of the program to target all low-performing students regardless of income status. The Supplemental Educational Services program--also known as SES--was implemented as part of No Child Left Behind and designed to be an innovative tool to help meet the academic needs of low-income students attending continuously failing schools. Under the program, low-income parents can elect to have free private after-school tutoring for their children. To pay the providers of this tutoring service, school districts would need only to use a required 20 percent allocation of their Federal funds. By providing direct tutoring after school, the SES program can help those students who are behind catch up with their peers. This, in turn, also improves the overall performance of the school. But, due to the lack of strong implementation, there have been numerous shortfalls nationwide. This is a troubling development that the RAISE Act seeks to correct. For example, in the 2005-2006 school year, just 20 percent of the eligible 2\1/2\ million students participated in SES programs. That translates into hundreds of thousands of eligible children not being provided with tutoring help. The funding has already been set aside-- there are children across the Nation who could benefit from this after-school tutoring program--but they have to know about it to benefit from it. Parents and State agencies are reporting that poor communication, delayed notification, and lack of transportation have become barriers to their children participating in the program. Also, there were some conflicts with other, better established after-school programs. In Florida, we have already implemented SES improvements. As a result, Florida is seeing stronger guidelines, better State oversight, and consequently, higher SES program participation rate. Many of the provisions of the RAISE Act are modeled after the successes already occurring in my home State. And it is notable that States such as Maryland and Indiana--where similar guidelines have been in place longer--they are seeing a remarkable 64 to 68 percent participation rate in their SES programs. In our school districts where SES programs are thriving, good communication with both parents and providers has been emphasized, as well as access to on-site tutoring at school facilities. Another important component of the RAISE Act is eligibility for SES. Currently, SES targets low-income, low-performing students. I think we should be targeting all low-performing students, regardless of income status. By overlooking many middle-class families who do not have the money to put their children into private tutoring or after-school programs, many of those children are falling through the cracks. How can we ensure that no child is being left behind unless we specifically focus programs on those students who need the most help? The RAISE Act was developed in consultation with school administrators, State education officials, and non-profit and research groups. This is a nationwide imperative and I urge my colleagues to support this innovative set of reforms. The RAISE Act aims to help every child in the schoolyard have an equal opportunity for scholastic growth and achievement--this also happens to be the fundamental purpose of No Child Left Behind. Together, all of us in this Chamber can make the RAISE Act a reality, and improve the academic lives of countless American schoolchildren in need.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I am here to discuss a topic of great meaning to American families: educating our children. We all want what is best for our children, and to provide them with the tools they need to succeed in tomorrow's workforce. Today, I want to concentrate on one particular program that can play a key role in ensuring our children are meeting their educational goals. I rise, along with Senator John Cornyn of Texas, to once again introduce the Raising Achievement Through Improving Supplemental Education Act, or the RAISE Act for short. The RAISE Act seeks to improve the Supplemental Educational Services program--a tutoring program under No Child Left Behind--to help it become well-known, widely available, and easily accessible to eligible students. It seeks to broaden eligibility requirements and prioritization of the program to target all low-performing students regardless of income status. The Supplemental Educational Services program--also known as SES--was implemented as part of No Child Left Behind and designed to be an innovative tool to help meet the academic needs of low-income students attending continuously failing schools. Under the program, low-income parents can elect to have free private after-school tutoring for their children. To pay the providers of this tutoring service, school districts would need only to use a required 20 percent allocation of their Federal funds. By providing direct tutoring after school, the SES program can help those students who are behind catch up with their peers. This, in turn, also improves the overall performance of the school. But, due to the lack of strong implementation, there have been numerous shortfalls nationwide. This is a troubling development that the RAISE Act seeks to correct. For example, in the 2005-2006 school year, just 20 percent of the eligible 2\1/2\ million students participated in SES programs. That translates into hundreds of thousands of eligible children not being provided with tutoring help. The funding has already been set aside-- there are children across the Nation who could benefit from this after-school tutoring program--but they have to know about it to benefit from it. Parents and State agencies are reporting that poor communication, delayed notification, and lack of transportation have become barriers to their children participating in the program. Also, there were some conflicts with other, better established after-school programs. In Florida, we have already implemented SES improvements. As a result, Florida is seeing stronger guidelines, better State oversight, and consequently, higher SES program participation rate. Many of the provisions of the RAISE Act are modeled after the successes already occurring in my home State. And it is notable that States such as Maryland and Indiana--where similar guidelines have been in place longer--they are seeing a remarkable 64 to 68 percent participation rate in their SES programs. In our school districts where SES programs are thriving, good communication with both parents and providers has been emphasized, as well as access to on-site tutoring at school facilities. Another important component of the RAISE Act is eligibility for SES. Currently, SES targets low-income, low-performing students. I think we should be targeting all low-performing students, regardless of income status. By overlooking many middle-class families who do not have the money to put their children into private tutoring or after-school programs, many of those children are falling through the cracks. How can we ensure that no child is being left behind unless we specifically focus programs on those students who need the most help? The RAISE Act was developed in consultation with school administrators, State education officials, and non-profit and research groups. This is a nationwide imperative and I urge my colleagues to support this innovative set of reforms. The RAISE Act aims to help every child in the schoolyard have an equal opportunity for scholastic growth and achievement--this also happens to be the fundamental purpose of No Child Left Behind. Together, all of us in this Chamber can make the RAISE Act a reality, and improve the academic lives of countless American schoolchildren in need.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, we have been discussing this topic now for some time, and it seems that there are a succession of ways in which to fail. The Democratic leadership in the Senate is looking to persuade the American people that our national security would improve if we immediately withdrew U.S. forces from Iraq and provided our enemies with a timetable and roadmap for our withdrawal. This is exactly what S. Res. 9 would do. It would require the beginning of the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq within 120 days. The distinguished Senator from Connecticut said he didn't even think that was acceptable; that it should be even less than 120 days. So the underlying goal is to remove all U.S. combat forces by March 31, 2008. There will be exceptions for those who will stay to protect personnel and to do the training of Iraqi forces, but the overall premise is to diminish the U.S. presence in Iraq. To that end, I ask: What is the goal, just withdrawal or success? If all we are about is withdrawing, there are many ways to do that. This timetable might be appropriate, if that were the only goal. But if the goal is success, if the goal is the opportunity for Iraq to succeed in its effort at democracy, a different plan must be followed. Setting artificial, arbitrary timelines for withdrawal has been opposed by Republicans, Democrats, our military leaders, and the Iraq Study Group. In the words of the Democratic leader on January 31, 2005: As far as setting a timeline, as we learned in the Balkans, that is not a wise decision, because it only empowers those who don't want us there, and it doesn't work well to do that. In the words of the current chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, in June of 2005: A deadline for pulling out will only encourage our enemies to wait us out. Let me repeat that: It will only encourage our enemies to wait us out if we give a deadline. Democrats are trying to bring before us the 17th version of how we would manage the war in Iraq. Seventeen plans in less than 2 months and none lead to victory. Can you imagine if the commanders on the ground actually had to take orders from the Senate? Thankfully, in our scheme of Government and the way our Government was set up, we only have one Commander in Chief, one person giving the orders to our armed services so that they might succeed at our endeavors. This attempt to micromanage the war at every level by Senate resolutions is not what our Government should do at a time of war. The President put together a new plan and a new team. General Petraeus is on the ground as the Iraq allied commander, and Admiral Fallon with the Central Command. Both of these distinguished military leaders testified they supported the current plan, and this Senate confirmed General Petraeus by a vote of 81 to 0. So now what is our message? We send you to war but we don't want you to execute your plan? We are so fond of this whole atmosphere of anti-Bush and the President that we forget that this is a plan that General Petraeus, our military leader on the ground in Iraq, has said he believed was a plan that had a reasonable chance for success. So I say give General Petraeus and his plan a chance for success on the field. Our forces have not suffered a single military defeat in this entire episode. Obviously, we have had some losses, and a high cost in lives and injuries and treasure, but we have not had a single military defeat. The sacrifice of our troops, their sacrifice, must be for a purpose: a state of Iraq that is not a failed state. In hearing after hearing in the Armed Services Committee, I have listened to our military leaders, as well as intelligence experts, give us the same message, and their message is clear: A precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would almost surely result in a failed state, and a failed Iraqi state would be a disaster for the Middle East and our own national security. I would suggest a rapid exit from Iraq is not in America's best national interest. I urge my Democratic colleagues to articulate how exiting Iraq, allowing chaos to reign, allowing thugs to rule the streets, and fear to rule the hearts of the Iraqi people will make America safer. For years, my Democratic colleagues have been calling for a change of course. Well, President Bush provided one, a way forward politically, economically, and militarily. The new team, a new commander, and our commanders in the field, have said we need more troops, and the President provided them. By the way, early indications are that things are a little encouraging. American and Iraqi forces, side by side, are walking in the streets of Sadr City as we speak. It is too soon to tell, but so far, I, for one, am encouraged. This may just work. Why not give it a chance? The Democrats have provided 17 plans. None will give Iraq a chance to succeed. I have a plan. Let's support our troops by providing them the funding they need and allowing those responsible for executing the war to do their job. Let the generals on the field run the war. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle try every day to equate this global war on terror to Vietnam. I do not believe there are many similarities, but I believe there is one. That war, Vietnam, was lost in Washington, and this one can be, too. Let's not do that. The distinguished junior Senator from New York said it best on September of 2005: I don't believe it is smart to set a date for withdrawal. I don't think you should ever telegraph your intentions to the enemy so they can await you. That statement was true then, and I believe it to be true today. During this debate, I want to hear how nonbinding resolutions, dragged out over several weeks, Saturdays included, resolutions with the sole purpose to undermine our Commander in Chief, will do anything but confuse our troops, embolden our enemy, and complicate our efforts to combat terrorism and support this young democracy in the heart of the Middle East. I oppose S. Res. 9. It is wrong for Iraq, it is wrong for the Iraqi people, it is wrong for the stability of the Middle East, and it is wrong for the national security of the United States. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.