Mel Martinez

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, it is a real honor to follow the Senator from Utah on an issue of constitutionality, where I know he has had a great impact in the life of our Nation through the distinguished history he has had as a Senator. I know from his many years of serving in the Judiciary Committee that he is one who jealously guards and understands the importance and the meaning of our Constitution. Mr. President, I wish to speak on this issue of the amendment to protect the flag of the United States, and I wish to begin by speaking about it in a slightly different angle, as someone who, as a young boy in school--I think it was when I reached the fifth grade--was charged with the responsibility of raising the flag in the morning and then bringing it down and protecting it and moving it into a safe place for the evening, until the next school day. I did that for the entire school year. It was with great reverence and ceremony that this took place. I was, I remember, empowered with this responsibility as a young boy, which was one of the first I had, and I took it very seriously. The interesting thing is, it was in another place, in another land, and it was another flag. It was not the flag we honor and revere today, but it was the flag of the country of my birth, Cuba. But what I noticed then and came to notice here is that people place great importance in symbols of national unity. No matter what country or where we are, there are very special symbols that from time to time touch a cord within the nation. No greater evidence of the importance of this symbol can be given than through the history of our country, the stories we have heard and come to know of great heroism in battle, such as that of a soldier, perhaps at great risk to his own life, who would go to save the flag, go to save the colors--the symbol of the Nation he was fighting for and representing. And many soldiers in the history of our Nation have done just that. So it seems almost odd there should be a heated debate. I understand the reason for the debate. It is rooted in the principles of constitutional freedom. It is rooted in the desire to honor those first 10 amendments to the Constitution, which are really what we call the Bill of Rights and the right of free speech. But I do recall, early in law school, studying constitutional law, learning that all rights enshrined in the Constitution have certain limits within them, that they all have certain boundaries, that there is no such thing as unlimited rights. Although we treasure and value our right of free speech, I do believe it is important we understand there are some things that ought to be protected. We protect our national monuments, not just because they are pieces of property that are beautiful and what they represent, but it is really more about the symbol of what they are. The national monuments are protected because they are a symbol of something special in our Nation, and it might be a person, it might be a historical moment in time. Likewise, this very special symbol of our Nation, our flag, is one I believe we should also protect. It is protected in a simple way. It is about the balance of power within our Nation. It is about the difference between those things which are reserved for the judicial branch and others which are placed in the hands of the legislative branch. What the Congress seeks to do in proposing this amendment to the American people, in placing it in a place where it can now enshrine forever what was attempted to be done legislatively a number of times, which the courts have chosen to strike down, is to say the legislative branch of Government, that branch closest to the people, elected by the people, shall have the right and the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. That is what the article would say: The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. When I was young, another life experience, now being shared by my youngest son, was being a Boy Scout. We see Boy Scouts through the halls of our Congress, visiting here, seeing our sacred monuments, seeing our places where this Republic has been a beacon of hope, the ``shining city on a hill'' to many people around the world. When they come and relish what they see, they come with a certain pride. They have learned also, as young boys, to protect the flag, to defend the flag, to honor the flag, and to treat it with that very special respect which is expected for something as important as a symbol of national unity. So I am an encouraged supporter of this amendment because I believe it is important that as our Nation goes forward we always respect and honor the opportunity and the right of those who disagree with the policies of our Government to freely express themselves, to have no place where they cannot speak. I understand the meaning of freedom, the meaning of the right of free speech. However, I do also understand the very special nature of what the flag represents. In that situation, I believe there are many opportunities available to those who wish to protest, to those who wish to express a point of view different from the Government, that can be expressed in ways that do not afront, that do not offend, and do not destroy that very important symbol of national unity which we have made our flag and which our flag has been. So I am proud today to support this amendment. I believe it is important that it be a constitutional amendment because we know that past efforts to legislatively fix the problem--to legislatively say to all that this symbol of national unity is so important that we deem it important enough to protect in a very special way--have been frustrated by the inability of the courts to agree with a clear direction the legislative branch has imposed on this. So then it is upon us to allow the people of this country to vote on this issue and to allow the various State legislative bodies to move on this issue and to seek to preserve for evermore this symbol of national unity. This amendment seeks to prevent the physical abuse of a symbol that has served our country in many valuable ways through its history. It does not do so by restricting anyone's speech but by addressing their physical conduct. We are a free and vibrant people, and we owe that to those who have gone before us, and to those who serve us now, in protecting our national interests. Desecrating the flag does nothing to celebrate or enhance our expressive freedoms, while it clearly dishonors those who have seen the flag as a basis for their service and sacrifice. So I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment and protect the most prominent and visible symbol of the freedom that America represents to the world. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, today I wish to share with you the story of a remarkable young man from Milton, FL. William Christopher Villar, by all surface accounts, was your typical 22-year- old. He was attending community college with the hopes of one day obtaining a degree in business. He was working at a job that he loved, and he had recently gotten engaged to his long time sweetheart, Heather Dieterich. His life was unfolding the way we hope that all of our children's lives will eventually unfold. Certainly, it was not these things or even the fact that, as a young man, he was actively involved with his church that made him atypical. And it was not the fact that he was a star on the basketball court-- making the All-Conference and All-State teams his senior year at Central High School in Santa Rosa County--a high school he entered after being home schooled for a number of years. Quite simply, it was his selflessness and his unyielding love for his family that set him apart. Chris was the oldest of three boys. As such, he was fiercely protective of his younger brothers. There is a story the family tells about an accident that happened 12 years ago that illustrates this best: Chris and Jacob, his youngest brother, were riding in the back seat of their father's car when the driver of a large recreational vehicle, coming over the peak of the I-10 bridge between Santa Rosa and Escambia counties, failed to slow down for a disabled vehicle. The significantly larger vehicle collided with Villar's car with devastating force. Chris, in an instinctive moment and without thinking of his own safety, grabbed his 2-year-old brother Jacob--perched high in his car seat--and threw his own 10-year-old body over him to save him. That should tell you volumes about the kind of person Chris Villar was. By and large, the people who knew Chris all said the same things about him: He was a ``good boy'' and he had been ``raised right.'' That is a compliment we hear far too infrequently these days, but it is a testament to his parents. It should make them proud. I wish I could tell you that the story ends there that this exceptional boy will one day become an exceptional man, an exceptional husband, and an exceptional dad. Unfortunately, on the evening of Thursday, June 15, Christopher Villar's life came to a tragic end when a car driven by a drunk driver crashed through the roof of his family's home. This was an avoidable tragedy. This is a grave reminder of the dangers of driving while under the influence. Just moments before this tragedy began to unfold, Chris, like so many of us, had been enjoying the NBA playoffs with his family. He was a New York Knicks fan but pulled for the Miami Heat in this series as a way to tease his younger brother, Matt. They were kidding about it, as brothers do, when a loud noise was heard in the front yard. Whether it was the sheer instinct of a protective older brother, the hand of God, or both, Chris pushed Matt away from himself and toward the middle of his room just as the car crashed through the ceiling. In that instant, it was over. If any good can be found in this tragedy, it is that one life was lost instead of two. Once again, Chris hadn't thought of himself. Mr. President, these words do nothing to ease the pain the friends and family of William Christopher Villar are feeling today. Their void is a void that no words can fill. I share them with you because this remarkable young man deserves to be remembered, not for the tragic accident that took his life but for the positive impact he had on the lives of others.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, today I honor a great American, a man who devoted his life to this nation and to the just principles he believed in. Born in Russell, Ks, Robert J. Dole would serve his country as a war hero, risking his life for a fellow soldier fighting the forces of fascism and Nazism in Italy, as a Senator, a great Majority Leader, my party's candidate for Vice President and President and today as an active private citizen fighting for veterans and the causes in which he believes. For his bravery in World War II, Bob Dole received two Purple Hearts for his injuries, and the Bronze Star Medal for his attempt to assist a downed radio man. Bob Dole served in the House and Senate representing his home State of Kansas. In 1971, President Nixon asked him to be the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, a post he held for 2 years. Then in 1976, President Ford selected Bob Dole as his running mate for the Republican nomination. Recognizing his leadership, Bob Dole rose to the pinnacle of our leadership here in the U.S. Senate as the Majority Leader. He was a tireless worker and effective champion of conservative principles, a strong foreign policy and personal freedom and responsibility. One decade ago, Senator Dole resigned his post to devote himself fully to his 1996 presidential campaign. As my party's nominee he crossed the country running on a platform of lower taxation and smaller, more accountable government. Unfortunately, he didn't win, but he developed a good working relationship with President Clinton and the two leaders have devoted their time and energy to many notable causes over the years. Shortly after the 1996 election, President Clinton bestowed upon Senator Dole the highest civilian award in Government, the Presidential Medal of Freedom. To those who know him, Senator Dole is a regular comedian. One story goes that on the campaign trail in his home state of Kansas, he would spend an hour at each stop telling jokes and only 10 minutes talking about politics. Senator Dole was always able to demonstrate a quick wit, while also showing that he was well grounded in decency. Senator Dole continues today to serve the many veterans of World War II who fought so valiantly to liberate Europe and defeat the Japanese. Most recently, it was his personal dedication and determination to see a monument honoring the sacrifice of the World War II veterans that led to the construction of the beautiful tribute to selfless service that now graces the National Mall. I wish Senator Dole and his lovely wife, my colleague, Senator Elizabeth Dole, more happy years together and many happy returns to the United States Senate.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a tribute to my colleague Senator Robert Byrd. Few men in our Nation's history have had such a large hand in shaping the U.S. Senate and the destiny of our country as Robert Byrd. No one in our country's history has served in the Senate longer or with more distinction. Senator Byrd's Senate career truly is a remarkable American success story. Only in America could a young man from the coal fields of Appalachia use hard work, intelligence, and determination to one day become the longest serving Senator in U.S. history. He has often been called the Senate's historian. I have often been amazed at Senator Byrd's prolific ability to weave the great authors and poets of the past into modern relevant lessons for today's society. Cicero, Shakespeare, Tacitus, Aquinas, Jefferson, and Washington are not simply names memorized from a textbook for Senator Byrd. They are living characters with indelible truths that we should all spend more time studying and give more time to in quiet reflection. Senator Byrd reminds us all of the importance of the august traditions of the Senate and why this is the world's greatest deliberative body. You will never find Senator Byrd without his copy of the Constitution. I dare say there are few individuals here in this body with a greater love or commitment to those noble ideas our Founding Fathers fought and died defending. But above all, I have been most impressed with his love and dedication to his family. Senator Byrd and his beloved wife, Erma, were an amazing example for what we should all strive for in a loving marriage. For nearly 69 years Robert and Erma were together side by side, living and loving together. I would like to share some touching words that Senator Byrd gave in testament to his great wife--his greatest treasure: She met with kings and shahs, princes and princesses, Governors and Senators, Presidents. She entertained the high and the mighty, the powerful and the wealthy of this Nation in a foreign land because it was important to her husband who served as the majority leader of this Senate and various other Senatorial offices. She did it all with an innate, inherent graciousness, incredible patience, and a soft, warm smile. She was a remarkable lady of great wisdom, but most of all, great gentleness, yet she could be tough when she saw injustice or unfairness. I think America could use more devotion like that. In closing, I congratulate Senator Byrd on his amazing accomplishments and to his 17,329 days in service to his country in the U.S. Senate. When the history books record his deeds and actions, he will truly be remembered in the pantheon of legends that have forever left their mark on our great nation.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4237, which is at the desk.

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

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes on the subject of the amendment and come back to the issue of calling it up at the appropriate time.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, the issue of the ongoing war on terror and the very important role the National Guard is playing in this effort is the subject of my amendment. I wanted to start first by congratulating President Bush, who visited Baghdad yesterday. The President once again is showing his commitment and his leadership in this difficult fight. He went to Iraq to show his support for the now- formed Iraqi Government and again to offer his support to the brave men and women who are fighting this war and offer his support to them and their families. The last 7 days have been historic. The bringing to justice Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi, al-Qaida's No. 2 figure in the world, second only to Osama bin Laden, was great news for freedom-loving Iraqis and for the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces who have patiently and methodically hunted this terrorist to his end, and most of all a crucial step for us in winning the war on terror. For U.S. special operations forces, this was yet another impressive victory in removing an enormous obstacle to peace in Iraq and victory of our Armed Forces. By capturing Saddam Hussein, tracking and killing his sons, Uday and Qusay, and now killing Zarqawi, our special operations forces continue to effectively serve the cause of freedom. Iraq is a better place for these actions, and America will be safer as well. The President recently reminded us that the fight is far from over. As he has said from the beginning, this war on terror will not be easy or short. Blindly hoping for victory will not result in victory. As Americans, we must be firm in our determination to the task at hand. As the President said while talking to the troops in Baghdad yesterday, the sooner Iraqis can take up the fight, the sooner our soldiers can come home. Defeatism and hand-wringing and finger-pointing does not constitute a strategy for victory. We cannot and will not be defeated militarily. The only way we will be defeated is by our own lack of resolve. If we had listened to detractors who told us to cut and run, al-Zarqawi would be alive and planning his next killing and the future of a radical caliphate in Iraq. The constant talk about withdrawal and the ceaseless pursuit of establishing a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops directly undermines the mission. It undermines morale. Why would we ever want to alert our enemies and give them our precise plans? A timetable is only tied to the success of our forces and the political situation on the ground. While we all wish to see the end of the struggle and our troops' safe return home, this must not be determined by an arbitrary deadline that signals retreat in defeat. After all the Iraqis have achieved--peaceful democratic elections, an interim and now permanent government, a police force, and building of the armed forces--how could we think about abandoning this struggle and mission before we meet with success? The clear goals of this war--to protect America and our vital national interests, to rid the world of radical Islamic terrorists, to reshape the Middle East and bring democracy to one of the darkest and most historically undemocratic corners of the world--is Wilsonian in its vision and Churchillian in its urgency. I commend President Bush for his leadership, Secretary Rumsfeld for his diligence, Generals Abizaid and Casey, the commanders on the field, and the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines in the theater for their perseverance, competence, and for their honor; also, our Secretary of State and our very capable Ambassador Khalilzad for their success and the way they have assisted the formation of a new government. In relation to the continuing war on terror, there is one issue I am concerned with, and that is the process by which our National Guard units are currently being reequipped. Today, we have a situation in our National Guard units from Florida--and I imagine National Guard units from many other States--which are sent to war with their own equipment; that is, the men and women, the trucks, the tanks, the helicopters, the humvees, and all the gear leave the State and go to protect Americans serving in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, when the tour of duty is over, the Guard returns home and the equipment stays behind. This is understandable, since in a war zone and in desert conditions, vital equipment needs to be replaced sometimes more quickly than new equipment can get to the region. As you might imagine, the National Guard then has a resulting deficit of equipment, which is a temporary situation but nonetheless a crucial delay in their completion of their equipment inventory. With the arrival of this year's hurricane season, I have urged the citizens in our State of Florida, where we are currently and have been previously consistent victims of recent hurricanes, as well as other hurricane-prone States, to do everything they can to prepare for potential storms. But even with the best preparedness, storms have a way of taking unexpected turns, and as we have seen over the past three years, the National Guard plays a crucial role in helping stabilize areas in the immediate hours and days following the disastrous hurricanes we have experienced recently. For instance, last year alone, the Florida National Guard deployed 5,800 troops within the State of Florida and along the gulf coast during 4 major hurricanes. To support Hurricane Katrina recovery efforts, the Florida Guard sent 2,500 troops to Mississippi as part of the emergency compact agreement the States have with the Guard. They have done their job with dedication and competence. The point is that during hurricane season, during the war on terror, we cannot sustain the National Guard without prioritizing equipment replacement. They need this equipment for training. They need this equipment for those times when they are needed to be activated in honoring their State and Federal missions here at home. The Guard wears many hats and plays a vital role in fighting the war on terror and in responding to catastrophes here at home. I have offered an amendment to ensure that their reequipment is not deferred. The amendment directs the Secretary of Defense to place a priority on providing replacement equipment to Guard units, particularly in those States which are prone and historically have been shown to be frequent victims of hurricanes. The first named storm of the season, Tropical Storm Alberto, just visited the State of Florida. NOAA has told us that we are in for an active hurricane cycle that could last for a decade or more. From New England to Texas to Louisiana to Florida, hurricane-prone States require National Guard units that will be able to meet important missions abroad and at home. Meeting this mission requires prioritizing their reequipping. So at the right time and in the right order, I intend to bring up such an amendment, which I hope will have broad support in the Senate where I believe all of us understand and appreciate the very vital and crucial role the National Guard continues to play, not only in the crucial war on terror but, equally important, providing that irreplaceable line of assistance at home during the times of hurricanes and other natural disasters. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Bill Nelson of Florida be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Correct.

Mr. MARTINEZ. I have no problem doing that. I will be glad to withdraw the amendment. Amendment No. 4237, Withdrawn

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw amendment No. 4237.

Mr. MARTINEZ. That will be fine. I was under the impression Senator Levin had seen the amendment. I will make sure he gets a copy.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution that will honor June 28, 2006 through July 5, 2006 as National Clean Beaches Week. I want to thank my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, for agreeing to cosponsor this resolution with me as well as Senators Snowe, Lott, Menendez, and Stabenow so we as a nation can recognize the incredible importance beaches and coastal areas have not only for our economy but our Nation's recreational, aesthetic, and environmental wellbeing. According to data provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 85 percent of tourism revenue generated in the U.S. comes from coastal areas. The Environmental Protection Agency has also stated that a staggering 2 billion trips are made by Americans to beaches and coastal areas to fish, swim, surf, sunbathe, recreate, and enjoy our Nation's beautiful scenery. Every year roughly 80 million people visit the Sunshine State to enjoy its beautiful beaches, exciting amusement parks, and wonderfully abundant wildlife and natural splendor. The tourism industry alone directly employs nearly 840,000 Floridians and provides an economic impact of $57 billion to our State's economy. Of the 80 million visitors, a great deal came to Florida to enjoy its pristine coastline and wonderful climate. Families return, year after year, to their favorite vacation spots to relax under our brilliant blue skies, powdery white beaches, and crystal-clear emerald waters. The people of Florida share a love and appreciation of the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico, its coastal habitat, and our wetlands which make it a very complex ecosystem and a very special place to live. Our beaches and coastline in Florida are very important to the people of Florida. The resolution I submit today will support a national effort to recognize the importance of keeping our beaches clean and vibrant, to continue to support our Nation's ecological treasures for future generations to enjoy, and to encourage Americans of all ages and backgrounds to marvel at their splendor. I urge my colleagues to become a cosponsor and support designating June 28th through July 5th 2006, as National Clean Beaches Week.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be recognized for 5 minutes to speak on the issue of S.J. Res. 1.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I am pleased to follow the distinguished Senator from Texas in talking about this issue that is very important to the American people. I, like he, believe that it is a bit of a ``dodge and weave'' to suggest we should not be talking about this. It is much easier to talk about all the things that maybe we ought to be talking about, things that we have talked about in the weeks past and will be talking about in weeks to come, but let's not talk about this one because it is too hard. It is easier to have a collateral way of looking at it by saying: Oh, gosh, we should not talk about this because frankly we would just as soon not debate or discuss the merits of what is before us. S.J. Res. 1 is rather simple. Today is one of those days when we can actually read what it is we are debating. This is all we would add to the U.S. Constitution, this is all it would say, if this amendment to the Constitution were to be approved. It says: Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman. To suggest that is not an important issue for our Nation, to suggest that somehow that is some out-of-the-mainstream language, to suggest that is only from some sect or far extreme point of view--to so characterize what I believe is the mainstream of American thought is simply not to be dealing with this subject truthfully. A number of States have already spoken on this matter through their elected officials, but activist judges have interpreted both the Federal Constitution and the State constitutions very broadly. They have done this in order to overturn the will of the people regarding same-sex marriage. That is the reason we have to act. The Constitution has been improperly interpreted to impose same-sex marriage on the people of the United States. As the Senator from Texas said, the fact is, it is the action of judges that have precipitated the need for us to be discussing this issue in the Senate today. It is the activism of some judges, who have taken away the right of State constitutions to be amended to include this very simple language, that has brought us to this moment. The Constitution has been improperly interpreted to impose same-sex marriage on the people of the United States. It is proper for the people to continue to speak on this issue through their elected officials by amending the Constitution to ensure that the sanctity of marriage will be protected from these activist courts. Marriage, as defined as this amendment would define it, as between a man and a woman, hardly needs to be suggested as the most basic institution of society throughout history. It is foundational to the structure of what we know leads to the successful family, to the raising of children. Our traditional and religious understanding of marriage is under attack by those who wish to redefine the meaning of marriage and family. That is what is at stake, whether in fact the traditional view of family and marriage will prevail or whether, through the acts of judicial activism, we will redefine it to something other than that. They have sought to go to the courts to overturn properly enacted State laws or constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Only through bypassing democratically elected legislatures and the rule of law can same-sex marriage advocates enact their vision of American society. The only way to prevent marriage from being redefined by activist courts is to pass a constitutional amendment that clearly establishes the will of the people on this foundational issue for our society. I also want to address the concerns expressed by some regarding federalism. It is true that in our Federal Republic, in our system, the regulation of marriage has traditionally been left to State governments. Based on this principle of federalism, the States have been free to enact family policies that have allowed experimentation and reflect the different values that Americans have in each of their respective States. While federalism is a general principle that promotes liberty within our Republic, we also have the overriding fundamental principle of American Government that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. An essential element of republican government is that those who are subject to law also determine the law by which they are governed. The recent strain of judicial decisions and cases on the part of same-sex marriage proponents, however, not only threatens the institution of marriage but denies the people of the individual States the freedom to define their own basic legal and social institutions. I believe this marriage amendment takes a measured and reasonable approach to the problem of courts redefining marriage. It prohibits same-sex marriage in the United States while preserving the concept of federalism by leaving to the States the authority to enact State laws regarding legal benefits to unmarried, including same-sex couples. Our judiciary is respected throughout the world, and I believe that is because our judges for the most part have been above politics and have always been committed to the rule of law. When our courts enact their political will over the proper policy decisions of legislatures, such respect is in jeopardy. A judge's personal political views have absolutely no place in performing their judicial role in our constitutional structure. Rather, the Constitution, statutes and controlling prior decisions as applied to the facts of the case at hand are the sole basis for judicial determination. Therefore, today I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment and give control of the foundational institutions of marriage back to the people of our country where it rightfully belongs. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, the Senator from Pennsylvania has yielded 5 minutes from his time. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I speak in opposition to the budget point of order. I have heard a lot of arguments in opposition to this bill, and I guess when all else fails and we are moving toward passing comprehensive immigration reform, there is an opportunity to raise yet one other objection, which is a budget point of order. The fact is, if we did only a border security bill, if we just went about the fact of securing our border, which we must do, there is a cost associated with that. That doesn't come free. Securing the border costs money. Sending the National Guard to the border, increasing the number of Border Patrol, building vehicle obstructions and other barriers, electronic surveillance--none of that comes free. All of that has a cost. In fact, it is estimated it would cost about $25 billion. If we only did border security and did not concern ourselves with more comprehensive reform, that $25 billion would now be offset and it would be an outlay of a net $25 billion. Our bill raises over $12 billion in revenue. It collects $66 billion where the costs are estimated to be only $55 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the arm of the Congress that is supposed to do this evaluation for us. We also have been talking about the outyears, the period of time beyond the moment, calls that may come about as a result of people ``taking'' from the system. First of all, we could not do it without the people here today, many of them working illegally, in an illegal system that, unfortunately, has perpetuated itself for too many years. In the State of Florida we have a labor shortage today. The famous theme parks that we hope many Americans choose to enjoy year after year cannot keep enough people on their payroll. They have a need for more people than they have available to do the work of the theme park. The same is true in our agricultural industry. I was meeting with friends from the Florida Farm Bureau today. They were saying, whatever you do, please, help us to keep a stream of labor so we can get our work done. Talk to Florida home builders. The housing industry in Florida would grind to a halt. The construction industry depends on what is now an illegal workforce. All of these people are not working for the minimum wage, as the Heritage study would assume. Many move right on up the ladder. The best thing I can do is use my own life as an example. Yes, my parents did come after I came to America. I came at the age of 15. They came later. If I do dare say, over the time I have been fortunate to live the American dream, I have made my contributions to the Treasury in taxes. So did my father, who came here at a much later time in life, who went to work and made a living, paid his taxes. Far more than whatever benefits may have been received were paid into the Treasury by the taxes, by the Social Security withholdings and all the other ways in which taxes are paid--whether they be property taxes for the homes we have bought, whether it be other contributions, not to mention the charitable contributions. Yes, believe it or not, immigrants do go to work on Sunday. We talk an awful lot about the few bad apples that always are in any group that has come here, and their purposes are not good. What about the folks that go to church on Sundays and put something in the basket, help a fellow neighbor, bring someone else along and help them to get a job or give them a job? Illegal immigrants in this country also create jobs. They open businesses. They do not just take; they give. That is the story of America. I am not saying anything that is unique or different. All I am saying is, a reflection, a mirroring of the America I have known in my life, the same America for immigrants that came at the turn of the century from other places also understood and knew to be the America they knew; it is the America that allows people to rise in accordance with their hard work, the story of immigrants in America that work, the story of hard work, people who come here to make a better life--not to take, but to give--to be part of this great experiment we call America and to not change America by what they do, but to be changed by America. Beyond the issues of money, some worry that our culture will be changed. I have heard that, too. The nature of our country will be changed. How? Perhaps when Italian Americans came to our country, they introduced us to the menu of pizza. Are we any different or worse today because there have been cultural differences that have enriched America while, at the same time, we harness to that ideal of being an American, of looking at our flag and being proud of it, of knowing what it is and what it means to be an American? So, let me just say, what we are doing today is to look at a bill that has been carefully crafted, that has been put together, that has had a substantial majority of support. I was very pleased 73 of our colleagues chose to vote to invoke cloture, to move forward, to end debate and to proceed so we can bring the bill to final closure. This is one last attempt to try to derail this good legislation, the legislation that our President eloquently spoke about, the need for it, that he persuasively said is part of what he believes to be comprehensive reform. Beyond that, we have an opportunity today to begin to fix a broken down immigration system. We need to overcome this hurdle. I encourage my colleagues to vote against the budget point of order. It gives us an opportunity to move forward with this bill so that we may then engage in a conference with the House of Representatives and end up providing a secure border for our country, which this bill does, and a pathway for those who are here to be part of the American dream, to join in this great experiment we call America, to allow them to do what I have done in my own life, which is to become a part of the American dream and the American experience. Today, I hope we will defeat this budget point of order so we can move on to put this good bill in order and get to final passage.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I would like to speak for 5 minutes in opposition to the Feinstein amendment.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Following on the remarks of the Senator from Kansas, I have to agree with an awful lot of what he said. We came to this bill in a situation where it was a good concept. It had some obvious, positive qualities to it, but it was also a bill that was not gaining the favor of the vast majority of the Members of the Senate. In order for it to be successful, we had to tweak it. We had to find a way in which we could thread the needle, strike a balance, a way in which we could somehow bring more people to the table in understanding what it is that we were trying to do. We came together and found a way of doing so by simply not treating everyone who was here the same. We talk about a group of 11 million people in our country illegally today. It was apparent that all of those people were not in the same situation. Some have been here for a number of years, well established, sometimes owning a home, certainly having a steady job, children who were probably by now United States citizens, having been born here. For the sake of family unity, we felt it was important to treat people who had been here a longer period of time differently than more recent arrivals. Senator Hagel and I came up with a concept of having a 5-year dividing line where those who have been here more than 5 years would be treated one way and those who had been here less would be treated a slightly different way. The requirement was that those who had been here less than 5 years would be divided in two different ways--those who have been here less than 5 years who might have come here with the expectation that there would be some immigration bill. The date was selected around the time the President first spoke on this issue of comprehensive reform. We settled on the idea that those who had been here 2 years or less would not be able to benefit from this bill, but that those who had been here between 2 and 5 years should be given an opportunity. We would require that they reenter the country, that they would have a legal entry into the country, but understanding that all the other categories or steps that were appropriate for those who had been here 5 years they would also have to meet before obtaining a path to regularization, to being here legally, and then, ultimately, to live the American dream to its fullest extent by becoming citizens of this country. Not every immigrant who crossed the southern border intended to become an American. We could not treat everyone the same. People who have been here 10, 15 years certainly have a very different situation than those who have been here 3 years. A lot of times single men will come to work for a period of time, having no intention of being here for an extended visit. At the end of the day, what we have to understand is that we are now at the crossroads where this bill is about to be completed. This bill is moving along in a very positive way with support from both sides of the aisle, which makes an even stronger statement. As we move forward to do that, this amendment will take us a step back. This would bring us back to a time when we didn't have consensus, to a time when we were not all pulling in the same direction, and to a time when we didn't have what we have demonstrated, the support of as many as 66 Members of this body to defeat some of these amendments that would have taken the bill in a different direction, that would have taken us from comprehensive reform to something different. So for those folks who have been here 2 to 5 years, we want to give them a path to regularizing themselves in this country. But also we have to understand that their situation is different than those who have been here for a long time. I appreciate the effort of the Senator from California to do what I know in her heart she believes is fair. I do understand the difficulties. I don't want to be Pollyannish about it. This is a very difficult concept to implement. When the time comes, we must try. We are putting a lot of employment enforcement into this bill which will make it possible for this to be worked out. Without any idea that this is going to be easy to do, I do believe that there is a practical reason. It was a way for us to reach a resolution of how to deal with this country's population of illegal immigrants, which is a group of people the size of those people who live in the State of Pennsylvania. I believe with ample protections to all, understanding the difficulties that may come about in the implementation, that we have to go forward and move ahead with the concept that has brought this body together, the concept that had the favor of the President. The President, when he spoke on this a week ago, clearly stated that, in fact, he favored the idea of creating a difference between the groups of people as they have arrived in this country and the length of time they have been here. I urge Members of the Senate not to support the current amendment but to stick with the concept that has worked so far, the concept that has pulled us together. I believe if we do that, we will be very close to final resolution of this bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I rise in agreement and opposition to the Vitter amendment. I must say I am delighted that the President on Monday sort of laid out the game plan. He laid out the vision. The vision is of a strong border, one that secures admittance into the country and does not permit illegal entry but understands we have a dynamic country, that we have a growing economy, that we have employment needs which today are being met by what is largely, in terms of this force, illegally here. The fact is, we have tried to craft a compromise, which is what Senator Hagel and I added to what was excellent work by Senator Specter in his work, and Senators McCain and Kennedy, who earlier than that came up with a concept to create a two- or three-tier system for those already here. For those 10 million people who are in our country illegally working, those people need to be treated differently. We set up a three-tier system. Five years and more, and you are more established, you have been here a long time. The President talked about this on Monday night. He spoke of this very concept. Those people would have one path to permanency and to earn legalization very much along the lines of what Senator Kennedy described--step after step after step. Those who have been here less than 5 years but more than 2 years have to reenter the country legally. They have to go to an entry point and come back in legally. We will then know who they are. As a matter of fact, when those people do that, they then go back in and have the same requirements of those who have been here more than 10 years before they get a green card or before they become citizens. Then there are those more recent arrivals, and they do not get a benefit from the bill. Those are people who presumably have only come in the last couple of years to take advantage of what is currently perceived to be an opportunity. As to all of those people, who are they and what are they doing? In my State of Florida, they are working in agriculture, they are working in construction, and they are working in a number of other enterprises. They are working in the tourism industry. They are building homes. If you are a home builder in Florida, you depend on this labor force and these workers to be there. You depend on them for you to make a good living, for your company to prosper, for your economy to continue to grow. In Florida, we virtually have no unemployment. In fact, we have labor shortages in some sectors of our economy. These demands are being met by this illegal system. What we seek to do in this bill is to create a legal system, a system that can be compatible with our ideals and concepts of a nation of laws and also a nation that has for so many years been a nation that has welcomed immigrants. I am proud to be among them. I understand the opportunity the American dream can provide to us all. I am very mindful of the openness and the love I felt in this country by the welcoming of people here who allowed me to make a way myself. This is what we are seeking for these people. After a long and projected trajectory, they have a path to citizenship. They, too, will have a stake in this country. They will have a stake in the outcome. We are not relegating them to a second-class citizenship; we are welcoming them as part of the whole. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ

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

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, yesterday, I introduced a measure which is a companion to one introduced in the House of Representatives by Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen relating to the business of trade with Cuba. This morning, I wanted to speak a little on the issue of my bill as well as on the overall need for us to file this bill. Many years ago, perhaps too long for some in this Chamber to remember, as a result of hostile acts by the state of Cuba, under the government of Fidel Castro, who today continues to terrorize his people and to be a very negative influence on the world and is one of the longest reigning dictatorships in the history of the world--certainly the modern history of the world--because of hostile acts by the Cuban Government against the United States and against the interests of the United States in Cuba, the Government of the United States felt it necessary to begin trade sanctions against the Cuban Government. These trade sanctions were designed as retaliation for the actions of the Cuban Government. Those actions included, among other hostile actions, the expropriation without adequate compensation of properties of citizens of the United States on the island of Cuba. They included the property of oil companies such as Texaco and Standard Oil and other interests of the United States that had large refineries in Cuba, that had oil exploration interests, and that also had, of course, retail outlets on the island. As a result of Cuba's action, the United States imposed the sanctions. The sanctions were designed to help the Cuban Government understand that it had to live by international law and by international standards, which were to pay just compensation, fair compensation, for the expropriated properties. Unfortunately, the Cuban Government chose not to do so, and to this day these claims of the nationals of the United States for the unfair, unlawful, and uncompensated expropriation by the Cuban Government continues unsettled. The Cuban Government has never taken steps to recognize allegations under international law or obligations under international law or obligations to a neighbor with whom it purports to want better and improved relations. So the United States began a policy of an embargo or trade sanctions against Cuba. It really wasn't an embargo, it was simply: We will not trade with Cuba. The Government of the United States will not trade with Cuba. That has been in effect even until today. It was done by Executive order for many years, but then many years ago, with the Helms-Burton Act, it was codified into legislation. It became part of the law of the land as a result of congressional action. That legislation also provided a path by which these sanctions could be ended. It provided a path by which more normal trade and other relations could be had, and they had to do with the issue of something simple, something this President has so eloquently spoken about: democracy, rule of law, elections--a quaint thought, that the people of a country ought to elect their leader. The thought that the people of a country would have an opportunity on a given day in life to go to a booth and in private exercise that universal right to vote, to say whom they want their leader to be--Cuba doesn't permit that. There might be a free press. Wouldn't that be a nice thing? People could speak their mind. Folks would have an opportunity to go into a public square and debate the issues of the day. Cubans are denied that. That is no longer an opportunity and continues not to be so. In addition to those problems, the actions of the Cuban Government over its history have been anything but benign. They have been quite hostile to the interests of the United States. This is to not go into all of the details of the actions of the Cuban Government toward its own people--human rights and its denial of the most basic human rights--but as we look to other issues such as the issues of actions in the world, Cuba has tried to export revolution, to foment and foster revolutions throughout the world. They were very active in Africa as a surrogate for the Soviet Union in Angola, working hostile to the interests of the United States. In addition to that, they proceeded to encourage and foster wars in Central America which caused countless thousands of deaths in the 1980s. Thanks to the determined and decided action of the United States, it was possible for these countries to live in peace and for these countries to have Democratic and normal elections. Fast forwarding to now, even as recently as a few days ago, the U.S. State Department continues to have Cuba on the list of States that are sponsors of terrorism. There are probably 180-some nation states in the United Nations. Of those, there are only a half dozen that are on the list of terrorist states around the world. Cuba is one of them. In addition to that, Cuba now is part of an axis, an axis that works in partnership with Hugo Chavez, the somewhat democratically elected President of Venezuela but someone who increasingly governs as an autocrat. This is someone who, in partnership with Fidel Castro, has encouraged and helped Evo Morales to be elected as President of Bolivia. What have these countries under the tutelage of Castro done? Morales, in the past few days, has shown or expressed his intentions to nationalize the gas industry, to nationalize the natural resources of his country, beginning with gas. Yet in Europe he made some very clear statements that he believed that for 500 years Europeans have pillaged his country and that all natural resources ought to belong to the people of Bolivia, and therefore more expropriations are sure to come of the natural resources as defined by Mr. Morales, President Morales, and they include natural gas, and he will move on to others. Yesterday as well, or the day before, the Congress in Venezuela said that they also believe they should be nationalizing all the natural resources of Venezuela. This includes, of course, the investment that the U.S. oil companies have had in Venezuela for a number of years. So what is the suggestion and answer that some would have to our dependence on foreign sources of oil, to our dependence on unstable foreign governments, to our dependence on foreign governments that are hostile to the United States? To enter into business with the country of Cuba in order to partner with them in oil exploration, a little less than 50 miles off the shores of Florida. Why is this not a good idea? Simply for the fact that to enter into a partnership with a government that does not observe the rule of law, to enter into a partnership and encourage American companies to invest in a country where we have very strained, if any, diplomatic relations, is not only not a good idea--to enter into a partnership for oil exploration with a country that has in the past expropriated American oil companies' properties in Cuba would be only to repeat a cycle of mistakes made in the past. It would be only to come back into the fold of a dictator who does not observe or understand the rule of law. To go into a business in a country that does not have a judicial system that is independent, to go into business with a country that does not recognize the fact that foreign investors have a right to their property when they purchase it, who will not honor the rule of law, will not honor private property rights? With this kind of country, it is suggested we go into a partnership in order for us to have sufficient energy, in order for us to be independent in our resources. These efforts are sadly misguided. What we must do is do things such as explore for oil--and I know the Presiding Officer, our President pro tempore, so passionately cares about this-- in the ANWR, an area that is totally under the control of the United States, that is part of the United States. We can also drill in the Gulf of Mexico, an area that is so sensitive to Floridians and where we have acquiesced to drilling in 2 to 3 million acres of the gulf. To conclude, I suggest the bill we have filed, which tries to reenact and speak to the Cuban embargo that has been in place for many years, with good reason. That embargo would be stringently enforced with those who seek to invest in partnership with this illegitimate government, a government that continues to be a threat to its neighbors, continues to be a hostile government to the United States. In September of this year, the President of Iran, Mahmud Ahmadi- Nejad, is going to be visiting Castro in Cuba. This is a return visit for one that Fidel Castro paid to Iran a year or so ago. At that time, Castro said to the people in Iran: Working together and in partnership we will bring the United States to its knees. It is with this government that some would suggest we should enter into a partnership in order to solve our energy woes. I would say those efforts are misguided, and I look forward to further debate on my proposal which seeks to reassert the long-held position of the United States that trade with Cuba today would not be in the best interests of this country.