Mel Martinez

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, war is difficult. War is not pretty. Sometimes war, unfortunately, leads to death and injury. Our country has been blessed over our history. There have been men and women who believe enough in our system, who believe enough in the system of democracy that we are so fortunate and blessed to have, who are willing to give their lives so this system may endure, so this system may continue, so that our country can continue to be free. I believe, as we look at a difficult situation in Iraq, the last thing we need is a policy of defeatism, is a policy that looks to ways in which we can criticize and critique without offering an alternative path and without offering an alternative solution. The fact is there was a worldwide failure of intelligence in the days leading up to the war in Iraq, but the fact also is that we are there today and that thousands of Americans--the best and the brightest, those we are the proudest of--are there serving this Nation with distinction, with valor, and I daresay with great success. Our hope for them must be that they complete their mission and come home; that they can come home with their heads held high for a job well done. I also believe that the civilian concept of leadership of our military is well ingrained in our system. I had the high and distinct honor and privilege of serving in the Cabinet of this President with Secretary Rumsfeld. Secretary Rumsfeld is a man of great distinction. He is also someone who has tackled the very difficult job of transforming our Armed Forces. He has taken on the very difficult job of moving forward into a post-cold war sort of world with an Armed Forces that is very different than the one we have had. Any time a large bureaucracy undergoes change, there is difficulty with that change. And sometimes there are different opinions about how that change takes place. And there is no doubt that there are people who have had different ideas about how to approach, whether it is a war effort, whether it is a reorganization of our Armed Forces from those of Secretary Rumsfeld, but to those who have had those kind of difficult ideas I would say that we elect only one President at a time, and that President has only one Secretary of Defense at a time. That is why we have a chain of command because someone has to lead and someone has to make decisions. I believe our country, at a time when we were unfairly and unwantonly attacked by terrorists, has been fortunate to have a President at hand who has had the good fortune to have dedicated people such as Secretary Rumsfeld at the helm to serve at his side. This is a President who did not seek a war with terrorists but who had a war brought to us in the streets of New York, with over 3,000 American casualties on a given day. And the fact is that this President was also confronted with the need to act on this global war on terror. I can remember when in the mountains of Afghanistan there seemed to be a stalemate after about a month or 2 of our initial conflict there, and the naysayers were saying we had not sent enough troops. All of a sudden, a tremendous breakthrough in modern warfare took place as we saw our special forces operating on the backs of horses with laptop computers directing fire, and a whole new era of warfare evolved. But we liberated the people of Afghanistan, who since then have had elections, where women and children of all sexes can now go to school, where women can now walk the streets without fear, where children can go to school, whether they be little boys or little girls. They have had that unique opportunity in the world which we take for granted in our country. But for those of us who were born in other places, we understand the uniqueness of voting and have had the right and opportunity to elect leaders. More recently, 11 million Iraqis voted in the third election in 1 year, followed by the formation after some politicking and some good, old-fashioned Democratic horse trading, have formed a government. The moment today ought to be to highlight the hope of a new Iraq, the hope of a democracy in the Middle East, which is so unique to that region of the world, the fact that a new government has been formed-- not to try to recount all of the potential for different moves at any given point. All warfare is riddled with difficulties and second-guessing. But here we have a moment of hope and opportunity. Defeatism is not a policy. It is only a prescription for failure. I am hopeful that as we go forward, we recognize the successes of the Iraqi people and the difficult task of forming a democracy; that we relish in the accomplishments; that we understand it is an incomplete project in democracy but one moving in the right direction. I, for one, thank all of those who are serving in these difficult circumstances over there and their families for the sacrifices they are making so that we might be successful, so that we might find a way forward that is better than defeat and is better than negativism and that is better than second-guessing. Amendment No. 3727

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for 5 to 10 minutes.

Mr. MARTINEZ

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

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, before I speak on the subject of immigration, I would like to make a couple of brief remarks, having noted the comments of the distinguished Senator from New Jersey about the difficult military struggle we are in today in Iraq. I wanted to make the observation that the distinguished Senator talked about his very honorable and distinguished service at another time and in another struggle during World War II. He speaks with shock and dismay--and it is a subject of great dismay--about the fact that there has been death and there are family separations and there are injuries as a result of the great sacrifice our men and women are making today in Iraq with great valor and distinction which we highly honor, just like he and others did in World War II. The question is, Is it worth it? Are we in this matter of a war over there with a choice to do anything other than success? What I didn't hear from the Senator was a solution, a plan, an idea of how he might extricate us from this effort differently. I believe the only way is to pursue it until its conclusion, when it is ultimately a peaceful and democratic Iraq. To do otherwise would do great harm to the honor of those who serve and those who have sacrificed.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. I turn now to a subject we have been involved in all this week, the subject of immigration. I am very pleased that Leader Frist and Chairman Specter have chosen to utilize the product of the good work of Senator Hagel for a number of years, for over 5 years, on this issue of immigration, an effort which I was glad to join in over the last couple of weeks and which now appears to be poised to be the basis of a sensible and reasonable compromise. I am pleased that this will be the vehicle which will be on the Senate floor when we return to this topic sometime in the next month. I am grateful to Senator McCain and Senator Kennedy for their leadership on this issue, for all the work they have done. Others who have worked with us on this--Senators Brownback, Graham, Salazar, and Lieberman--have all been a huge help as we tried to put together a way in which we can deal better with this complicated and very much broken down system of immigration. We approach this issue by securing the borders, by dealing with a guest worker program, and by recognizing that the 1 million people who are in this country living under the radar, in the shadows, need a way out, need a way for us to welcome them into the mainstream of American life where they have now been, many of them, living for years and years, contributing, working, making a difference. It does not give them amnesty. It requires a number of steps for them to go through. For those who have been here 2 years or less, it does not provide for them a vehicle to remain. For those who have been here 5 years or less, it requires that they return to a port of entry and make a legal entry into the United States before they can then follow a path toward normalized and regularized status. The provisions of this bill have the support and encouragement of a large majority of the Senate. I hope over the next several days the procedural issues which prevented this matter from being voted upon, where I believe--and I know Senator Hagel believes--we would have had substantial majority support, will have a chance to be heard. I am still hopeful and optimistic. It is too important to the country. It is an issue that deserves a response. It deserves an answer and needs a solution. I am very pleased to be working with the Presiding Officer on this issue. I hope in the next few days and weeks we will have an opportunity for full, fair debate and then a vote up or down on what is something of great need so we can engage with the House of Representatives in a conference committee and final resolution to this difficult issue for America. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, we have been in a stalemate over the issue of amendments for several days now on what is an issue which, as the Senator from Alabama so eloquently said, is very important to all Americans. It is a very important issue to those who support the bill and to those who might oppose the bill. It is an issue where the lives of many people in America are hanging on its outcome. The President has spoken in the last 24 hours about the need for the Senate, with a seriousness of purpose, to move forward to try to arrive at a reasonable resolution of this issue. The fact is that, as we have over now several days endured, I am not so familiar with every nuance of Senate procedure so as to fully understand all that might be and could be done. But there is also a benefit to that, which is that I am so accustomed to what the rest of America thinks and hears and, frankly, have a view that I think is also fresh, which is to say: How do you explain to anyone in America that on something as fundamentally important as the immigration laws of this country, on a system that admittedly, while we cannot agree on much, we have to agree is a broken system, that today is not working, not serving America's need for security of the border, that is not serving America's need to know who these 12 million people are and why they are here, that today is a system that compounds and permits illegal behavior by those who cross the border illegally and those who employ them and benefit by their labor. There is a tacit understanding that we have an illegal system and we are fine with that. In the midst of that need and in the midst of this overwhelming problem we have in our country, the Senate has a responsibility to do something about it. So how do we explain to the people of America that 100 Senators, led by their leaders, have been hung up over the fact that they cannot agree on how many amendments they are going to have to this bill? It is that simple. We just cannot agree on the number of amendments that will be considered on the bill. Some would say it is too fragile a compromise. If it is too fragile to not have the sufficient votes to defeat amendments to the bill, why, then, it would not pass anyway. That is an indication of a lack of purpose. Some would say: It is too broken down and cannot be fixed. Let's give it a try. I have never heard of a bill which I participated in in my short career in the Senate that came to the floor and there was not an up-or-down vote--well, sometimes they are done by unanimous consent. But on monumental, controversial legislation such as this, there are always going to be amendments. And I think about how am I going to explain to the people who are looking to me for leadership, telling me to get something done on this problem--and on both sides, people are demanding that the border be secure, and other people are asking that their status be resolved so they can move on to have a piece of the American dream--and say to both of them that the Senate has failed you and did not act; we could not act for the simple reason that we could not agree on the number of amendments. We agreed on the underlying idea--a majority of Senators, I believe, or perhaps a significant majority agreed on how we might perhaps make a contribution toward solving this problem with what now has been reached as a compromise. And we announced it with great fanfare. Then we get to the issue of how many amendments. The bottom line is that this issue is too important--too many people are depending on it and the security of our Nation depends upon it--for us to fail this test of leadership. If we fail to act on this bill, as I seriously fear we will because of the reason that some would prefer to have the politics of this issue over the policy we could create by acting upon this issue, whatever the will of the Senate may be on it, we will have seriously failed the American people and failed the test of leadership. The President has encouraged us, told us, urged us to move forward and to act on this very important issue. We simply are dilly-dallying and failing to act on something that is fundamentally important to the people of this country. So I say that if this issue fails to be acted upon, there will be people looking for places to hide and fingers to point as to who is to blame. I would blame all 100 of us for not getting it done. Those who agree with it can vote for it, and those who disagree with it can vote against. Those who have legitimate amendments should be able to offer them and be able to have a vote on them up or down. Obviously, we have to limit the number of amendments. So we are back to the decision of how many amendments. You would think that grown people could decide how many amendments to have on a bill of this significance and of this importance to the Nation. If we don't agree on the question of how many amendments, I look forward to hearing suggestions on how we explain to the American people why we failed to act.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I join my colleague from Florida in congratulating the University of Florida, the Florida Gators, Jeremy Foley, the athletic director, Billy Donovan, the brilliant head coach, and all the members of that very distinguished team in their first historic national championship in basketball for a Florida school. As a dyed-in-the-wool Florida State Seminole, I must say I take my hat off to the Gators. Today is a day for all Floridians to rejoice in this accomplishment and this victory. In this accomplishment we have seen not only the magnificent leadership of the coach--and I think he ought to be recognized nationally for that--but also this team that worked and performed in such an unselfish way. We hear the phrase, ``they were an unselfish team.'' In this day and time, when it is the ``me'' culture--so much of it is about me, me, me--these guys played as a team. They passed the ball to each other, they contributed as a team, and all were able to make a contribution. The average margin of victory in the tournament was 16 points, which speaks volumes for this very tremendously competitive tournament. But focusing on Billy Donovan, he is only 40 years old and is now competing in his second National Championship game--the unusual feat of doing it as a player with Providence and now doing it as a coach for the University of Florida. John Wooten, the much heralded and historic coach at UCLA who actually led the Bruins to victory against Florida State in 1972 in the final game, was at UCLA for 15 years before he won his first national title. Billy Donovan is way ahead of that mark. Today is a terrific day to rejoice, for all Floridians to rejoice for this great accomplishment of teamwork, of a job well done. I will be very happy to join with the senior Senator from Florida in a joint resolution that we will make part of the record. I want to make sure all in Gainesville and throughout the State know how proud we are here in the Nation's Capitol of the accomplishment of those young men who played so well and displayed such good sportsmanship and unselfishness. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the passing of an exceptional leader, as well as a respected Floridian. VADM John ``Jack'' Fetterman passed away last Friday at his home in Pensacola, FL, at the age of 73. Following graduation from Albright College in Pennsylvania and Aviation Officer Candidate School in Pensacola, Admiral Fetterman began his career as a naval aviator. He later went on to become a Pacific Fleet naval Air Force commander in 1987 and was promoted to vice admiral. I had the pleasure of meeting and working with Admiral Fetterman during the Base Closure and Realignment process last year. I found him to be a fierce and eloquent defender of the Navy and of the military. Admiral Fetterman, in 1991, became the chief of Naval Education and Training at Pensacola Naval Air Station. He created and was the father of the Core Values Training Program, which earned him the title of the ``Father of Navy Ethics.'' Admiral Fetterman retired as a three-star admiral in 1993. But upon his retirement, he did not just retire, he continued his love of the Navy and his service to the Nation by becoming the president and CEO of the Naval Aviation Museum Foundation. Admiral Fetterman, with a great deal of love and care, guided and directed the Museum of Naval Aviation in Pensacola, which is truly a wonderful and remarkable place where the many heroic feats of people over the years connected to naval aviation are recorded and appreciated. Admiral Fetterman, to the very last, continued to serve his Nation and his country well. I extend my condolences to the members of his family, to his beloved wife, and to all those in the community, in the naval community, who came in contact with such a fine American, who served his country so well. At times such as this, I know we are always reminded that life is finite, and that we also have to harken and always appreciate a life well lived, as was Admiral Fetterman's. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business for 2 minutes.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, first, I thank the Senator from New Mexico. I thank Senator Kennedy for indulging me for a couple of moments. I know we are supposed to go back and forth, but I appreciate the opportunity to be heard following Senator Domenici because I believe my comments are germane to the comments he made. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his courtesy. These will be very brief comments. Mr. President, I say to Senator Domenici, I love hearing his story because it is the story of America. It is the fabric of America about which he spoke. I was so touched by the way he told it. Obviously, as the only immigrant in the Senate, I think it is terribly appropriate that I speak at the outset of this very important national debate on this issue in the Senate. I am reminded as we talk about these issues that there are so many interesting connections. When I came to the Senate as a Senator from the State of Florida, it was such an incredibly proud moment for me and, frankly, for many in the community from which I come--the Cuban- American community--since I was the very first Cuban American to have this distinction and this honor. I also am probably the first Florida Senator to ever serve in the U.S. Senate who was not born in America. But, Mr. President, the story of America is such that, as I started to look at that history, I found out that the very first Senator from Florida, when Florida became a State--I believe in 1854--was a fellow by the name of Yulee Levy who was actually born in the Middle East. He was a fellow who had come to America as an immigrant and who ended up representing the State of Florida as the very first of two Senators who came, and he, in fact, beat me by a good little margin as the first foreign-born Senator from the State of Florida. But that is the sort of history our country is made of. This is such a timely and important debate. I am pleased that you would mention our President, who has been very steadfast and very strong on the issue of a comprehensive solution to our immigration problem. I love so much that you began this debate in such a loving way, in such a civil way, and in a way that allows us to think a little bigger and a little higher than the combat of the day and the rhetoric, frankly, which so often gets so heated, which so often gets so beyond the pale of what ought to be. I am proud of the Senate as the Senator begins this debate with such a note of civility. I believe we recognize first and foremost that our immigration system is broken, that we have to fix it, we have to set about fixing it. The Senator is so right when he speaks about the fact that it is almost too late to fix and we have to act and we must act now. It is important, too, that we focus on a comprehensive solution. It is obvious that we have to fix the border. All of us want to see the border be secured and protected, to be something other than what we have today. The resources will be there, we will do it, and it will be a commitment that we make first and foremost for border security. I think all of us, no matter where we come from, appreciate the legality involved in border security, but in addition to that, we have to be careful of the rhetoric. I don't believe we should allow the loudest voices, not necessarily the best voices, to make a definition of what amnesty is and what amnesty should be. I believe we should look to solutions that are rooted in what America is about and our American values. We cannot ignore the millions who already are here. We have to give the border its importance, but we have to look beyond that to the fact that there are millions who have been living here and contributing to this Nation, and we look forward to an opportunity to figure a mechanism. Senator Domenici has put forward a proposal--and there are many others on the table, obviously. The bill out of the Judiciary Committee makes an important contribution there. We need to find a way that we can come to grips with what to do with the millions of people who are living here and who are already here making a contribution. The Latin community of America, the Hispanic community of America, has been galvanized by this issue like no other. This is a historic moment in our history, and it is a moment we have to treat with great care and great importance how we set the tone of this debate. I am hopeful that as we look to the future, we will come up with solutions. I am very hopeful that we can come together as a Senate. I am very hopeful that the Congress will come together, with the help of the President and others interested in this debate, to come up with solutions which will provide a way forward, which will provide a historic opportunity for the people of America to be one Nation, to be, as our model says, e pluribus unum--``For many, one''--because I do know that the immigrants who come to this Nation do not come to change America, they come to be changed by the miracle that is America. I know that I, as an immigrant, was changed by America. When I came here, much like Senator Domenici's father, I did not speak the language. You learn the language. You make it your business to become an American. I did not understand this culture. I had no idea as a 15- year-old boy what the country was all about, but I made it my business so that I could make a contribution to it. So I am hopeful that we can come together to find solutions to these issues. There is nothing easy about this problem, and I know people of good will will come together so we can move forward in a positive way, in an American way.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MARTINEZ

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

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, the Senator from New Mexico, chairman of the Energy Committee, whom I greatly admire and respect and consider a good friend, spoke about the bill he proposes to create opportunities for oil and gas exploration in the Gulf of Mexico. I rise to point out that last week Senator Nelson and I offered a bipartisan bill that also deals with opening some aspects of lease area 181 to oil and gas exploration. The bill Senator Nelson and I propose is a bill that I believe should find favor with many Senators. It allows protection to Florida's coast of 150 miles. It is the kind of protection that Florida's economy depends upon and demands. The people of Florida fully understand the significance of this. This is what jobs in Florida are about, opportunities for people to continue to come to our State to enjoy the wonderful open air, the beaches, the great environment that we have to offer. It also protects the military mission line. This is a very important area for military training out of Eglin Air Force Base and other adjoining bases that utilize this area of the Gulf of Mexico as a primary area for training exercises. More than that, it also gives the State of Florida permanent protection. This buffer of protection around the State, unlike all the other proposals, gives the State of Florida permanent protection. Once and for all we will define where in the Gulf of Mexico we will drill and where we will not drill, where in the Gulf of Mexico the State of Florida will find permanent protection. The chairman's bill opens more area for drilling in lease area 181. We don't like that as well as what the Senator from Florida and I proposed, but we understand it does also conflict with what is being proposed and today was outlined by the Minerals Management Service of the Department of the Interior. The Department of the Interior today proposed the next 5-year leasing area for the Gulf of Mexico in lease area 181, and they speak of an area open for drilling that is even less than what the Senator from New Mexico is proposing. But equally flawed, this is protection for 5 years. It is another 5-year moratorium. Five years from now, we will be right back here where we are today discussing how yet another portion of the Gulf of Mexico might be open to oil exploration. The bill Senator Nelson and I propose is the only one that opens areas in lease area 181 and a substantial portion south of lease area 181 to further oil and gas exploration but also provides the State of Florida with permanent protection, permanent protection the State of Florida ought to decide whether they wish to have. And we representatives of the State of Florida believe strongly this is important to us. What is the rationale for this? Why must we continue this quest for more and more drilling in the gulf? We are talking about the price of gas. Since we were debating this a couple months ago, the price of gas has dropped dramatically. It is now not almost but almost 50 percent of what it was a couple of months ago. In addition, for the last 15 years, we have gone to a very inefficient way of producing electricity by generating electricity with gas. Almost 95 or 92 percent of all new generating facilities that have been built over the last 10 years or so have been powered by gas, a very inefficient way of doing it. Why? Because it was cheap. Because gas was so cheap, this was the best alternative, just as the energy companies moved in the direction of gas because it was inexpensive. As the price of gas has risen, it will dictate that they will move to other fuel sources. I continue to believe that inefficient power, generating decisions made 10 years ago, should not inure to the detriment of the people of Florida, Florida's economy, and environment. It is fine to use the Gulf of Mexico for oil exploration in areas where it is sufficiently far away from the State of Florida. It is fine to go into lease area 181. We are willing to open up more of 181 to oil and gas exploration. What we are not willing to do is not insist that the State of Florida be provided with some permanent protection. There is more than one bill to discuss. There is more than one way to go here. I believe that we offer a way for more gas and oil exploration in the State of Florida while at the same time providing our State with the vital permanent protection that the people of Florida expect and demand. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from Florida, Senator Bill Nelson, in introducing the Permanent Protection for Florida Act of 2006. I believe this bipartisan legislation will provide Florida's pristine coastline, beaches, and our critical military training area with strong, permanent protections--while at the same time providing limited oil and gas exploration in areas that have traditionally been under Presidential moratoria. Our Nation is struggling with crippling energy prices and the growing pressure to explore off Florida's coast has never been greater than now. Instead of sitting on the sidelines and waiting for others to dictate the terms of oil and gas operations on our coast, we felt compelled to offer an alternative that will protect our State's interests in perpetuity. This legislation offers historic protections that would create a Florida Exclusion Zone--a buffer area extending 150 miles south of the Panhandle that would also place the Florida Straits and Atlantic Coast permanently off limits to oil and gas exploration. All leases inside the Florida Exclusion Zone would be relinquished or removed in exchange for royalty forgiveness on active leases in the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico. These relinquished leases must also be environmentally restored to their original condition. In addition, the Permanent Protection for Florida Act would remove the mandatory inventory of the Outer Continental Shelf and extend the current Presidential moratorium through 2020. This bill sends a message that is loud and clear--Florida's waters are off limits. Florida's leaders have worked too long and too hard on building up these protections just to have them disappear during a brief moment of high energy prices. We have a lot at stake and it is time to solidify our protections into law. I believe these historic protections will garner significant support from our State's congressional delegation and coastal members of Congress that are concerned with resource exploration off their coasts. I urge those that are looking for bipartisan solutions to energy exploration to join with me and my colleague Senator Nelson in supporting this legislation.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from Florida, Senator Bill Nelson, in introducing the Permanent Protection for Florida Act of 2006. I believe this bipartisan legislation will provide Florida's pristine coastline, beaches, and our critical military training area with strong, permanent protections--while at the same time providing limited oil and gas exploration in areas that have traditionally been under Presidential moratoria. Our Nation is struggling with crippling energy prices and the growing pressure to explore off Florida's coast has never been greater than now. Instead of sitting on the sidelines and waiting for others to dictate the terms of oil and gas operations on our coast, we felt compelled to offer an alternative that will protect our State's interests in perpetuity. This legislation offers historic protections that would create a Florida Exclusion Zone--a buffer area extending 150 miles south of the Panhandle that would also place the Florida Straits and Atlantic Coast permanently off limits to oil and gas exploration. All leases inside the Florida Exclusion Zone would be relinquished or removed in exchange for royalty forgiveness on active leases in the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico. These relinquished leases must also be environmentally restored to their original condition. In addition, the Permanent Protection for Florida Act would remove the mandatory inventory of the Outer Continental Shelf and extend the current Presidential moratorium through 2020. This bill sends a message that is loud and clear--Florida's waters are off limits. Florida's leaders have worked too long and too hard on building up these protections just to have them disappear during a brief moment of high energy prices. We have a lot at stake and it is time to solidify our protections into law. I believe these historic protections will garner significant support from our State's congressional delegation and coastal members of Congress that are concerned with resource exploration off their coasts. I urge those that are looking for bipartisan solutions to energy exploration to join with me and my colleague Senator Nelson in supporting this legislation.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 25, 2006, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on ``Proposals To Reform the National Flood Insurance Program.''

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 25, 2006, at 3:30 P.m., in closed session, to receive an operations and intelligence briefing on Iraq.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 25, 2006, at 4:30 p.m., to hold a hearing on nominations.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 25, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., to hold a hearing on nominations.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, January 25, 2006, at 9:30 a.m., for a hearing titled, ``Lobbying Reform: Proposals and Issues.''

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 25, 2006, at 9:30 a.m., to hold a hearing on nominations.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam President, I also rise today to express my support for the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. The Constitution demands that the President's nominees to the Supreme Court receive the advice and consent of a majority of Senators. The standard to be used is not spelled out in the Constitution, but 200 years of tradition offers a guide. That guide, that standard, applied to nominees throughout our history, is the very same standard we should apply today to Judge Samuel Alito. By that standard, Judge Alito is well qualified. Since graduating from Yale Law School in 1975, Judge Alito has had an exemplary legal career, serving as U.S. attorney, Assistant U.S. Solicitor General, and 15 years as a member of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. During that lengthy tenure in court, we have had the benefit of seeing Judge Alito's commitment to the rule of law and his commitment to an impartial review of the law and the facts of any given case. As Alexander Hamilton noted in Federalist No. 78, if the courts are to be truly independent, judges cannot substitute their own preferences to the ``constitutional intentions of the [legislative branch].'' Judge Alito clearly expressed during his confirmation hearings, and his judicial career attests to the fact, that he would not impose his personal views over the demands of the law and precedent. I find that refreshing, I find that encouraging, and I find that a strong reason for supporting the nomination of Judge Alito. I take great comfort in the fact that Judge Alito has received the unanimous approval of the American Bar Association's committee that reviews judicial candidates. This is a committee that is greatly respected by the legal profession, as well as the general public, for their impartiality and demand and insistence on and careful watch over a quality judiciary. The American Bar Association's committee that reviews judicial candidates is interested and committed to a quality judiciary. Judge Alito not only received their unanimous approval, but he received their most qualified rating. That means each and every one of the members of that committee gave Judge Alito their highest, most qualified rating. This should weigh heavily in favor of the confirmation of Judge Alito. What we know--after the confirmation hearings, after extensive interaction with Members of the Senate, after 3 days of testimony before the Judiciary Committee, and responses to a wide range of written questions by Senators after the hearings--is that Judge Alito is a humble and dispassionate judge, with a deep understanding and modest view of his judicial role in the governance of our Nation and respect for the limitations of precedent. He has an awareness of the dangers of looking to foreign jurisdictions for guidance in shaping the laws of our land and a commitment to respecting the proper role of the courts in the interpretation of the law. I am persuaded that Judge Alito will look to establish precedents, be respectful of the doctrine of stare decisis, and will use the Constitution and the law as his guideposts as opposed to any personal whim or political agenda. There are those who would say they are troubled by what they perceive, that Judge Alito would not side with the ``little guy'' when deciding cases. Let my tell you, I am someone who, for 25 years, took clients' matters to court, more often than not representing the little guy. But even with that experience, I am more committed than ever to the belief I had when I took a client to court, whether a little guy or a big guy. My hope, my prayer, was that my client would find an impartial judge. It is unthinkable to me to suggest this standard today should be that we should look for whether a judge will purposely lean in favor of one side of the litigation or another before selecting who our judges ought to be. Our judges must be impartial. Our judges must not be there for the little guy or for the big guy. Judges need to take the facts and the law, interpret them and utilize them to reach a fair and just verdict, as dictated by the laws of our Nation, not because they favor a little guy, not because they favor a big guy. If the law and the facts happen to be on the side of the little guy, the little guy should prevail. If the law and the facts happen to be on the side of the big guy, then our system of justice demands that the big guy should prevail. I love the analogy that Chief Justice Roberts used during the course of his confirmation. In selecting a Justice to the Supreme Court, he said we are looking for an umpire. We are not looking for a pitcher. We are not looking for a batter. We are looking for the umpire--the guy who will call the balls and the strikes fairly and impartially to all litigants before the Court. Our long-held traditions in our system of justice demand fairness, demand integrity, demand judicial temperament. Judge Alito fulfills all of those requirements amply, and I am satisfied he will make an exceptional Justice of the Supreme Court. Judge Alito has made it abundantly clear that his personal views have absolutely no place in performing his 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 his judicial determinations. I find that, as it should be, the correct standard to apply to a judicial nominee for determining his fitness for this high office. At the end of the day, we know that elections have consequences. The fact that the voters have placed President Bush in the office of President now for a second term has also been an indication that President Bush deserves and should be allowed to have his pick for the Court. It is our tradition that Presidents nominate, select, and fill vacancies to the Court, while the Senate's role is one of advice and consent. We simply do not have the prerogative of deciding who it is we would prefer to see on the Court or who it is we might find more philosophically suitable to us or more to our liking. Our role as Senators is to provide the President with the advice and consent on the qualifications of those he seeks to put in this high office. I see an evolving new standard before us. I heard from the members of the Judiciary Committee who did not support this nominee the setting of a brand new standard, and it is no longer qualifications, but it is now whether they philosophically will judge this person to be the kind of person they would want based on their political philosophy. That, I would suggest, is wrong. It has never been the standard applied or utilized by our Nation as we have sought to confirm Justices to our Court for over 200 years. I would say it is absolutely wrong to begin that new standard and leave it unchallenged as we seek the confirmation of one more Justice to the Supreme Court. My advice and consent is that Judge Alito is one of the select few Hamilton had in mind as having the character, intelligence, and temperament to guard the liberties secured by our Constitution. I strongly urge my colleagues to support his nomination to the Supreme Court. Thank you, Madam President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, yesterday we saw a historic day in Iraq. For the third time in less than a year, the people of Iraq did what only a couple of years ago would have been a dream: they voted in free elections. For those of us who have the appreciation of democracy as a result of having lived where that is denied, the ink-stained finger, the smiles, the celebratory atmosphere akin to a wedding is something to give us all hope. Yesterday was a relatively trouble-free day. Seventy percent of Iraqis voted. Poll stations were open for an extra hour because of such long lines. The turnout was so good that ballot shortages were reported. This was clearly a successful day. How does a date like this come to be? How do we go from a brutal dictatorship that threatens its citizens to a society of free elections? The answer is that it is about choices. Do people want a way of life built around tyranny, oppression, and terrorism, or do they want to embrace democracy, freedom, and prosperity? Clearly, the people of Iraq have chosen the latter. Yes, they have chosen the more difficult path, but the rewards will be enormous. I congratulate the people of Iraq for yesterday's historic elections. History will judge these elections to be pivotal, vital to building democracy, and part and parcel of our efforts in the war on terror. As President Bush has highlighted in several recent statements, in an unbelievably brief period of time, Iraq has made tremendous gains in democracy and freedom. I commend the Iraqi people for these unprecedented strides. The administration has outlined a clear strategy for going forward: three key tracks--political, economic, and security--with realistic terms that avoid imposing unrealistic expectations and very dangerous time frames. I want to mention the story of a constituent of mine, a man who saw his son go into the service of his country, who saw his son called to war, and then sadly was here in Washington this week to lay that son to rest at Arlington National Cemetery. Bud Clay of Pensacola shared a letter from his son, SSG Daniel Clay of the U.S. Marine Corps. Dan was one of 10 marines killed in Iraq by a roadside bomb in Fallujah. Knowing the danger he faced, knowing the unpredictability of war, Staff Sergeant Clay wrote a letter to his family to be opened only in the event of his death. He wrote in part: What we have done in Iraq is worth any sacrifice. Why? Because it was our duty. That sounds simple. But all of us have a duty. It has been an honor to protect and serve all of you. I faced death with the secure knowledge that you would not have to. Staff Sergeant Clay writes: As a marine, this is not the last chapter. I have the privilege of being one who has finished the race. I have been in the company of heroes. I now am counted among them. He concludes by saying: My race is over, my time in the war zone is over. My trials are done . . . Semper Fidelis. SSG Daniel Clay was laid to rest Wednesday at Arlington National Cemetery. He is a hero. We honor his sacrifice, just as we honor the sacrifice of all those who have given so much in this war. I conclude by again offering congratulations to the people of Iraq. Congratulations for going to the polls, for taking another significant step forward for your own future, and for embracing that glimmer of hope that your country can be as free, peaceful, and prosperous as any other society that rejects tyranny and entrusts its government to its people. Soldiers such as Staff Sergeant Clay are sustaining the development of Iraqi forces. We owe them our respect, gratitude, and undying honor as we demonstrate unwavering determination to complete this mission. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Agriculture Hurricane Recovery Act of 2005 be printed in the Record.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Agriculture Hurricane Recovery Act of 2005 be printed in the Record.