Mel Martinez

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Point of order, Mr. President.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam President, today I will be introducing a resolution on World Freedom Day, if I may have another second to finish, and as I do, I hope many of my colleagues will join in this resolution. There may be some of us in this body who might differ on the best approach to bring freedom to Cuba. There ought to be no dissent on the issue that we all stand on the side of those who seek to freely express themselves in the midst of a very oppressive regime. So I hope we will have a lot of support for this resolution which I will be presenting later today. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam President, this Sunday, individuals around the world will mark World Press Freedom Day by recognizing the plight of journalists in nations where their rights are not accorded under the law. Sadly, this includes many living in our own hemisphere. In Cuba, the repressive regime has gone to great lengths to extinguish freedom of the press, freedom of expression, and independent thought. Many have had their homes invaded, their families blacklisted, and their lives ruined for merely reporting the facts about the reality of Cuba under the Castro brothers' dictatorship. Six years ago, in a massive crackdown on independent civil society activists, more than 100 people were detained, with 75 suffering prosecution and then later imprisonment. Of the 75 targeted by the regime for imprisonment, 35 were writers, journalists or independent librarians. Because in Cuba the repression has been such that people are not allowed to even go to a library and read books that might be banned by the regime, individuals began to have home libraries where people could come and check out a book or read a book that might otherwise not be permitted by the Government. These people were imprisoned along with others who, in a fledgling kind of way, attempted to report conditions in Cuba. Today, 22 of these courageous individuals remain imprisoned. In the intervening 6 years, they have been joined by others who dared to express independent thought. Among those arrested during the 2003 ``Black Spring'' crackdown was Jose Luis Garcia Paneque, a doctor who became a journalist with the independent news agency Libertad--or ``freedom''--in Las Tunas Province. In 2003, Cuban state security searched his home and seized his personal possessions. He was prosecuted and convicted under Cuba's Orwellian penal code for acting ``against the independence or the territorial integrity of the state.'' He was sentenced to 24 years in prison--imagine, 24 years in prison-- for a crime of being ``against the independence or the territorial integrity of the state.'' In fact, he was just a free journalist. He was sentenced to 24 years. He is limited to one family visit every 45 days. His health, understandably, has deteriorated and there is genuine concern for his well-being. For advocating on his behalf, the regime accused his wife of espionage and conspired to organize mobs outside their home. These government-inspired mobs threatened to burn the house while the family feared for their lives and were still inside the home. His wife and children were forced to flee the country, all because he dared to speak the truth. Another independent journalist jailed by the regime is Normando Hernandez Gonzalez from Camaguey Province. Hernandez Gonzalez was arrested by the regime for reporting on the conditions of state-run services in Cuba and for criticizing the government's management of issues such as tourism, agriculture, fishing, and cultural affairs. He too was convicted for acting against ``the independence or the territorial integrity of the state.'' Following his arrest and 25-year sentence, Hernandez Gonzalez was placed in solitary confinement, allowed only 4 hours of sunlight per week, and limited communication with his family. Prison authorities encouraged inmates to harass Hernandez Gonzalez, according, to his wife Yarai Reyes Marin. It is no surprise his health has declined during his imprisonment. As technology makes incremental advances in Cuba, the regime continues to clamp down on those using it to speak freely. Around the world, bloggers share information as fast as they receive it, but Cuban bloggers are lucky to have their messages penetrate the regime's repressive Internet restrictions. One blogger who has found a way to report on the struggles of Cuban society is a woman named Yoani Sanchez. Sanchez is able to blog, but she does so at great risk of regime retribution at any moment. By e- mailing her observations on daily life in Cuba to friends outside the country, who then post them on line, she faces potential prosecution and imprisonment. Despite the risks, Sanchez eloquently expresses her support for freedom of expression. In one post she said: State control over the media remains intact, even though technological developments have helped people find parallel paths to keep themselves informed. Illegal satellite dishes, the controlled Internet, and books and manuals brought in by tourists have shaken the government's monopoly on providing news. Like many other supposed ``freedoms'' in Cuba, the Cuban constitution actually provides for speech as long as it ``conforms to the aims of socialist society.'' According to the State Department's 2008 report on Cuba's human rights, anyone engaged in: disseminating ``enemy propaganda'' --is how they label it-- which includes expressing opinions at odds with those of the government, is punishable by up to 14 years in prison. Imagine 14 years in prison for disseminating ``enemy propaganda,'' as they determine it. We here in the United States, with our traditions of freedom of expression and freedom of the press, often take our freedoms for granted. As we near the 3rd of May--a day in honor of free press around the world--I urge my colleagues to consider all those who are suffering for exercising their inalienable right to free speech. I have a list here I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record. It lists all of those who are presently in prison in Cuba as a result of their desire to express themselves freely in violation of the dictates of the regime.

Mr. MARTINEZ

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

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I wish to share with my colleagues a recent letter from 17 courageous activists within Cuba who are calling for democracy for their country. These individuals represent peaceful local movements across the nation. They represent Cuba's future more than the aged military elite now ruling that country alongside Raul Castro. They are asking for the support of the United States, including a policy that does not ``sacrifice the moral leadership of the United States in the face of commercial temptations.'' Though Cubans have suffered oppression under the Castro regime for more than 50 years, this is an especially appropriate time to raise awareness of the ongoing plight of the Cuban people. In recent weeks, the Cuban regime has tightened its grip on the reins of power and installed hard-line military officers in top government posts. Ironically, at a time with increasing harassment and imprisonments taking place in Cuba, there are efforts within this Congress to adjust U.S. policy in a way that would essentially reward the Cuban regime. Before any Member of this body or the President considers loosening the sanctions we have on Cuba, I commend the following letter to their reading: The material follows: [Informal Translation] Dear President Obama, Your election is a formidable symbol of what civic determination can do to institute transcendental social and political change. By assuming and conducting your important Presidential duties, you honor the millions of Americans who have fought for liberty, social justice, civil rights and human dignity. In Cuba, there is a movement representing a broad racial and religious spectrum, formed by women, men, workers, and young people that--despite being the object of terrible repression by the regime in power--is conducting a peaceful civic struggle for democracy and human rights. Our movement includes the desire for CHANGE by thousands of Cubans who have defied the repression, the intimidation and have overcome the fear to sign their names in petitions for constitutional reforms and academic freedom. Thousands more have refused to join in the attacks or ``actos de repudio'' ordered by the political police against those who aspire for peaceful political change. We are sustained by the inspiration of the more than 1.4 million Cubans that boycotted the elections of a single party and candidate organized by the regime in January and February 2008. Every day, in subtle and not so subtle ways, in visible and invisible ways, the Cuban people increasingly deny their support to the regime in power through acts of civil disobedience. A great majority of Cubans, including many within the government, yearn for deep democratic changes in Cuba. The great example of the civil rights movement in the United States is a ray of hope that the full dignity of every Cuban will be restored. We want to determine our future through democratic means. It is our understanding that your administration will redirect the policy of the United States on Cuba and the regime. We ask that you do not put commercial considerations ahead of political freedom for our people. The regime's repression has increased considerably during the last year, and the militarization at high levels of government is a clear signal of the government's lack of will to initiate real changes. Today, hundreds of political prisoners languish in terrible conditions in Castro's jails. Their only crime has been to fight for the same freedoms that Americans such as Abraham Lincoln and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. gave their lives for. Have no doubt Mr. President Obama that their fight is our fight now. We ask that you consider an international, multilateral strategy that would compel the regime to open itself to its own people by freeing the political prisoners, restoring the civil rights of the Cuban people and organizing free elections with international supervision. Such a policy would reinforce and strengthen the work of many groups of Cubans dedicated to the peaceful political change. This movement for change seeks to peacefully and deeply transform the political scene of Cuba. We invite you to not sacrifice the moral leadership of the United States in the face of commercial temptations. Your presidency is a tribute to everything that can be conquered when a cause is just and correct. We dedicate our lives to the movement for the freedom of Cuba and expect--one day--to have a democratically-elected Cuban president who would welcome you to Havana. Do not forget us. We need your support. We, too, ``have a dream'' of freedom. Attentively, 1. Jorge Luis Garcia Perez ``Antunez'', Presidio Politico Pedro Luis Boitel 2. Nestor Rodriguez Lobaina, Movimiento Cubano de Jovenes por la Democracia, La Habana 3. Rolando Rodriguez Lobaina, Alianza Democratica Oriental, Guantanamo 4. Idania Yanez Contreras, Coalicion Central Opositora, Villa Clara 5. Juan Carlos Gonzalez Leiva, Consejo de Relatores de Derechos Humanos, La Habana 6. Iris Perez Aguilera, Movimiento Feminista de Derecho Civiles Rosa Parks, Villa Clara 7. Alejandro Tur Valladares, Jagua Press, Cienfuegos 8. Ana Margarita Perdigon Brito, Presidio Politico Pedro Luis Boitel, Sancti Spiritus 9. Joaquin Cabezas de Leon, Movimiento Cubano Reflexion, Villa Clara 10. Ricardo Pupo Sierra, Plantados hasta la Libertad y la Democracia, Cienfuegos 11. Enyor Diaz Allen, Movimiento Cubano de Jovenes por la Democracia, Guantanamo 12. Cristian Toranzo, Movimiento Cubano de Jovenes por la Democracia, Holguin 13. Marta Diaz Rondon, Movimiento Feminista de Derecho Civiles Rosa Parks, Holguin 14. Margarito Broche Espinosa, Consejo de Relatores de Derechos Humanos de Cuba, Villa Clara 15. Maria de la Caridad Noa Gonzalez, Comision de Derechos Humanos y Reconciliacion Familiar, Villa Clara 16. Virgilio Mantilla Arango, Fundacion Cubana de Derechos Humanos, Camaguey 17. Yorledis Duvalon Gibert, Movimiento Cubano de Jovenes por la Democracia, Santiago de Cuba

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for yielding. I rise in opposition to his very amendment, which shows why I often find myself in agreement with the Senator from Oklahoma, because of his kind nature to allow me to do this in opposition to his very amendment. While I often find myself in agreement with him, in this instance I must depart and not concur. The amendment is not well founded. It is trying to strike the authorization for the St. Augustine 450th Commemoration Commission Act. This is a commemoration of 450 years of the first European settlement on the North American Continent, the first in the continental United States. St. Augustine was founded by the Spanish a full 50 years before Jamestown. We created, in the year 2000, a commission to commemorate that event, the 400th anniversary of Jamestown. Likewise, this one is identically patterned to that. It is the same thing. But here is the significance and importance of it. Our Hispanic heritage in this country, which necessarily is of more and more importance to many of us, is something we ought to recognize and celebrate. How many young Hispanic children do not have the heritage or the foundational heritage to understand their culture and their proud heritage, and how many of them would benefit by understanding that this celebration is about them. It is about their heritage and their heritage in this very country of ours. It is the oldest permanent settlement in the United States, St. Augustine, FL. It is the birthplace of Christianity. It is in St. Augustine, FL, that the first Christian Catholic mass took place. It is the first blending of cultures. It was a place that was at times Spanish, it was then English, it was then French. It has Native American influence as well as African-American influences as well. The first free Black settlement in North American was in St. Augustine. Nearly a century before the founding of Jamestown, Spanish explorer Juan Ponce de Leon landed on the coast of St. Augustine looking for the fabled Fountain of Youth, but instead he founded a colony known as La Florida. Because of St. Augustine's location along strategic trade routes, Spain constructed the Castillo do San Marco in 1672 to protect the capital of La Florida from the French and the British interests. That castle, which was later rebuilt, still stands today and is a terrific tourist attraction. Florida is not only going to celebrate this for Florida's sake, but this is a national celebration. There are over 70 million visitors to our State of Florida every year. Many of them will find their way to St. Augustine, and, of course, countless others throughout and around our country will celebrate this anniversary by seeing the celebrations on television and in other ways. It is an important linkage to our Hispanic heritage, and so I urge my colleagues to vote in opposition to this amendment and support the bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ. If I might suggest, through the chair, that the Senator from New Mexico go on and take his time. I will yield time to the Senator from Florida. Amendment No. 677

Mr. MARTINEZ. I understand it is not the first amendment. Will there be an opportunity to speak in opposition to the amendment prior to that vote?

Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam President, I was under the impression that I would be allowed to speak in opposition to amendment No. 683 as well.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I thank my two colleagues from New Jersey and Florida for what they have had to say but most of all for the work they have done. They have done good work. We have stood together, the three of us, along with others but particularly the three of us with the most immediate concern with this issue, in a way that is heartening. To me, oftentimes I have seen our names written as hardliners on Cuba. I prefer to think of ourselves as voices of freedom standing to oppression. That is what is at stake. People in the district of Senator Menendez and people in Florida, countless of them, we know their stories. We know their names. We know their suffering. It isn't about settling an old score because these conditions continue even today. Oscar Elias Biscet, to name one. He is in jail. His family seldom gets to visit him. His health is in peril. It is because of all these things that are not only part of history, but they are also part of today's reality, that we stand on the side of freedom. That means a state that is a sponsor of terror needs to be treated differently. I daresay that while I might not agree with everything that might be done, I trust President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton to do a review of our policy toward Cuba and then, perhaps in the light of day, have a discussion about what would and would not be appropriate. What I would object to is anything that would be unilateral, that simply would say: We will do this, that and the other thing and expect nothing on behalf of those oppressed people of Cuba. We need to expect that there will be reciprocity of some type, that there will be steps taken by the Cuban Government contrary to what they seem to have done last week, which is to circle the wagons and hint of more military control of the Government and more repression for the people. I deeply thank both Senators Nelson and Menendez for what they were able to accomplish in this misguided piece of legislation. I agree with them, it was inserted in the dark of night with no debate and discussion. The letters and the understanding they have reached with the Secretary of the Treasury handles the problem as it relates to agricultural sales to Cuba as well as the related licensing for travel relating to doing business in Cuba. We talk often about an embargo. This embargo supposedly is limited to trade sanctions because we sell almost a billion dollars in agricultural goods to Cuba. We sell medicine. More humanitarian aid flows to Cuba from here than any other country in the world, hundreds of thousands, into the billions of dollars in remittances that go from folks in this country to those in Cuba. Sadly, the Cuban Government takes too big a cut out of it. I look forward to this implementation, which I think fixes the problem created by this misguided legislation. I thank both the Senators for their yeoman work in getting this accomplished. I remain concerned about travel by family members. While I am not one to begrudge anyone who wants to see an uncle or aunt, there will be a need for regulations that will enshrine what I know will be a different policy under President Obama, and I respect that completely. But there needs to be some regulation about the frequency of travel and also about the amount of per diem dollars carried back and forth to Cuba. I am sure those will be forthcoming down the road. I believe it is important we continue to request that if there is going to be legislating on this topic, that it be done in the open air, that we have an opportunity for fair debate and for a legislative process that is worthy of the kind of institution we are. I thank both my colleagues for the great work and appreciate the fact that we have been able to maintain what is an important foreign policy initiative that should never be disturbed in the way this was done but should be left in the hands of the Executive and be done carefully, measuredly and after study and consideration.

Mr. MARTINEZ

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

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I rise this morning to speak once again about the pending bill before the Senate--the very large and significant omnibus spending bill--but more specifically about provisions in this bill that have very little to do with spending and have a lot to do with foreign policy, including provisions relating to U.S. and Cuban relations. I decided to inform the Senate of a few things that are in this morning's press and why what this bill will do makes so little sense for the United States at this moment in time and why it would be a mistake for us to approve the current bill. The current bill is an attempt to, frankly, usurp from the Executive the prerogative to conduct foreign policy. In his campaign, the President indicated there were some things he wanted to change about U.S. policy toward Cuba relating to travel and remittances. I would hope that would be done in the order of Presidential prerogatives and not by a legislative fiat but that, as it is done, it is done in a way that is conducive to the best interests of our Nation and the best interests of our long-term foreign policy objectives. Unfortunately, it is being done in a haphazard way, without real clarity about the implications it will have relating to what is attempting to be done. One of the issues relates, more importantly than all, perhaps, to agricultural business trade with Cuba. This is a $780 million-a-year business which is now done by the Cubans paying cash before they can receive the goods, before the goods leave our ports. This was done in the prior administration because, in fact, the Cuban Government was not exactly playing it as it was supposed to. The shipments would get to Cuba and then payment would not be there when the goods arrived, but maybe 30 days later, maybe 60 days later, and it was all of a sudden creating a problem. So we fixed the problem, and American farmers are protected. They get to sell their goods to Cuba--and $780 million is not an insignificant amount of sales--they get paid in cash, and they get paid before the goods leave the port. That makes a lot of sense for America. It may not make a lot of sense for Cuba because it is an inconvenience. But I don't think we should be making policy to the convenience of a brutal, dictatorial regime so close to our shores and which is a hostile and avowed enemy of the United States. But what happened today in the news that is of interest? Well, several things. Let's see, how do we begin. There has been great hope that there will be change in Cuba because Raul Castro is now in charge. I remember as a child always hearing that Raul Castro was the enforcer; that Fidel was the nice guy and Raul was the tough guy. Raul Castro is credited with over 500 deaths under his supervision in the first months of the revolution. In addition to that, he is the head of the armed forces--the armed forces where an Air Force plane was directed by him and authorized by him to shoot down civilian airplanes in the Florida straits, killing three Americans and an American resident. That was done to an unarmed civilian aircraft. So there is great hope that this guy is going to be somehow an agent of change, is going to be an agent of pragmatism, and is going to be someone who is less ideological. I remember hearing all the time how the real ideologues were Raul Castro and Ernesto Guevara. Those were the two ideologues. They were the real Communists. It was Raul Castro who first went to the Soviet Union and made deals with them about beginning this arms buildup that led to the missile crisis that put the world in peril. So now we are talking about the future of Cuba. So he has had a shakeup. He has really had a military coup. If it was anyone else other than a romantic revolutionary in Cuba, the U.S. press would be talking about this as, in fact, a military coup, which is really what has happened. He has tightened the circles. There is an article today by the AP which talks about the closing of the ranks. The fact is that the only rays of hope, the only people under 75 years of age in any position of significant leadership--Carlos Lage and Felipe Perez Roque have both been ousted. Worse than that, now Fidel Castro has said they were undignified, or some other term such as that, which means they have now fallen into disgrace, never to be heard from again, and they are not going to be the future leaders. Many people thought Carlos Lage was the logical next successor. Nobody really knows who will be leading Cuba in the future. But much like the sclerotic Soviet Union leadership of the time before Gorbachev where they were passing around the titular head of government from one 80- year-old to another, the Cubans are doing the very same thing. It is the same old guard. Ramiro Valdes, an enforcer, a tough guy, a hard- liner, no-nonsense, ``kill them first, ask questions later''--that is who is really the effective No. 2 to Raul Castro today. So there is no real hope of change with this bunch in charge. Here is the other thing that is of significance and importance to our U.S. interests. This is not about the interests of the Cuban Government: If we buy agricultural products from you, then you become a lobbyist for us and you advance our agenda, and at the top of that agenda is we don't want to have to pay cash when we pick up the goods. We want credit. We want the goods to be paid for when they get to Cuba, in our own sweet time, which is really nothing more than another way of eroding the trade sanctions we have with Cuba. So there is another article today in the Miami Herald talking about Cuban influence in Venezuela spreading. Now, we know Hugo Chavez is not a friend of the United States. We also should remember that for almost 50 years now, Fidel and Raul Castro and their band of collaborators have not been friends of the United States. They, in fact, have been avowed enemies of the United States and continue to be at every international forum, at every place where they can be heard. So this story today in the Miami Herald tells us that some 40,000 Cubans are now working in Venezuela, and of course Cuba receives 90,000 to 130,000 barrels of oil a day as a subsidy to continue their work and their repression of the Cuban people and the terrible living conditions they are in. So they are in public education, which is a way of controlling minds and hearts. I remember how the first Ministry that went to an avowed Communist after Defense was Education. Armando Hart became the head of Cuba's Education Ministry back in the early 1960s. It is a way of controlling what people are reading, what people are studying, because education is subverted for political propaganda purposes to wash the minds of young people. Now, this sounds all Cold War-ish and it sounds like crazy stuff, but it is going on today. So with Cuba's help, in addition to that, sources within the Venezuelan military say that Cuban military experts control several security circles that protect President Hugo Chavez. He doesn't trust his Venezuelans. He has to have his Cuban thugs there to keep him alive and protect him. They have penetrated strategic areas of the armed forces and the central government, including the situation room and Venezuela's Presidential palace. So they run his security, they run his situation room, the equivalent of our White House, and Cuban advisers play a critical role. Now, why is that important? Well, it is important because it shows the linkage, the alliance, the partnership, the working together of Venezuela and Cuba to try to spread their brand of anti-Americanism and socialism throughout Latin America where they are having, frankly, significant success with Venezuela's oil wealth and with Cuba's know- how of the security apparatus and control. That is all working very well for them because, see, here is the next news item in that same article in the Miami Herald. It also mentions that an additional area where the Cubans are providing their dark expertise is in that of policing. They are working as advisers to the police forces throughout the country, and Cuban advisers will play a critical role. It won't be long before we will be seeing the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution coming to a neighborhood near you in Venezuela. That is unfortunate, and that is bad for the Venezuelan people. But here is now another thing not in the policy interests of the United States, another headline: This morning, Chavez orders expropriation of Cargill's rice plant. Another Miami Herald story. Well, the last I knew, Cargill is an American company. The last I knew, American investors invested their good money and have processing plants in a company based in Minneapolis, MN, and they operate in Venezuela. They invested in good faith. In good faith, they attempted to provide a service to the Venezuelan industry and commerce. So now we find out it is a purposeful, continuing attempt to expropriate, without appropriate compensation, American properties. We go full circle. This is how the Cuban trade sanctions began under the Eisenhower administration--it almost sounds comical now. The fact is that it began because of Cuba's expropriations of American property in Cuba without proper compensation and in violation of every international law and rule in existence. So today we find that, in partnership, the Cubans and Venezuelans are once again continuing this advance of anti-Americanism, of expropriation of American properties, of taking out each and every one. I believe this article details that Empresas Polar, another private enterprise, is no longer going to be private because the government is taking it over. Over the past year, Chavez has nationalized Venezuela's largest telephone, electric, and cement companies. His government is also negotiating compensation for a takeover of the country's biggest steelmaker, Sidor. So, as we can see, it is a pattern of government control. From the police forces that are being trained now by the Cubans--have been, really--to the security apparatus around President- for-life Hugo Chavez, to everything else that goes on around them, we find that the Cuban presence is there and is continuing and is ever- present. So at a time when all of this is taking place, at a time when just today these three articles are in our news media--this is just today, by the way. There are things such as this every day about what is going on in Latin America right under our noses. So on this very day, when these three news articles--we are probably going to take a vote tonight where we are going to pass a spending bill that contains provisions dealing with foreign policy issues that have not been through hearings, that have not had the consultation and input of the executive branch, and we will just go headlong into that. This is not to mention, by the way, the 9,000 earmarks--some of which are very questionable and some of which are by a company under Federal investigation as we speak--and a tremendous amount of spending that completely violates what the President said would be the change and the hope that the American people had, that there would be a new day, that we would be looking at every line in the budget and we would be looking at all the spending with a fine-tooth comb, and, by golly, there will not be earmarks because I will stop earmarks. I remember the President saying that. I wish today he would stand up and live up to those campaign promises. It is a very lame excuse to say that this is last year's business. This is happening on a Democratic majority watch in both Houses of the Congress. This is happening on the watch of a President who promised differently during his campaign. So whether it be because of what is in this bill as it relates to spending or whether it is by the overreach of seeking to dictate foreign policy in a very misguided and mishandled way, where, frankly it isn't really clear where we are left if the provisions in this bill are passed as to how the U.S. Government will enforce its regulations that are now being disbanded. It is making a real mess and mockery of the process. For a lot of those reasons, I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will consider whether it is wise to support this bill, whether it is, in fact, a good idea or whether we should be looking at ways in which we can allow reason to prevail and put the best interests of the United States first, not the best interests of the agricultural import Cuban company that forces those whom they buy product from to sign a memorandum of understanding, where they agree to lobby on behalf of Cuba's agenda. One of the top items of that agenda is this issue of not having to pay cash as the goods leave the port. I know the chair worries about the rice farmers in Arkansas. It is great they can sell rice in Cuba. Rice to Cubans is like potatoes to the Irish. We love to eat rice with every meal. It is great that Arkansas is selling rice to Cuba. Isn't it great also that those rice growers from Arkansas are getting paid for it? The last thing we need in these economic times is to provide credit to a country that is uncreditworthy. They have the worst credit in the world, save one other country. I would like to know what is that country. Out of every country in the world, only one country has worse credit than Cuba. So to the second worst credit country, we are going to give them credit as they purchase food rather than simply allow the current business to continue; $780 billion is not a bad piece of business. It is going great. It ain't broke. Don't fix it. This bill seeks to fix that and more in a misguided and wrong way, which I know is not in the best interest of the United States. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I was so proud to have my pastor and very good friend deliver the opening prayer. Father McCormick and I have known each other since 1983, when he first came to our parish church of St. James in Orlando. He is a product of Dublin, Ireland, but he became a proud citizen in 1973, much as I did in 1971. He has not only been a tremendous source of faith and inspiration to me and my family and, more importantly, perhaps, my children, but he has also been a tremendous advocate for the poor and needy in our community. He does tremendous work overseas as well in a program called Food for the Poor where the Caribbean nations and Latin America have benefited greatly from his generosity and hard work. There are a couple of things I must point out. He has also developed a love for American football since coming here. But not being perfect, he has chosen the Cowboys over the Redskins. And then in a further imperfection that may be less forgivable, he has chosen the Gators over the Seminoles in Florida. I frequently have been a patient listener as he, on Sunday mornings, regales about the Gators and beats up on the Seminoles. Today is my day for revenge. I am awfully proud to have him here. He is a wonderful friend. I know he has looked forward to this day. I thank the Chair for the courtesy of allowing me to say a couple words about my dear friend and pastor.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. The relationship between Venezuela and Cuba is very close and obviously designed in their alliance to exercise an anti- American policy. But it does not stop there. It also includes the very dangerous Government of Iran. Fidel Castro visited Iran in 2001. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited Cuba in 2006, following a visit in 2000 by then-President Khatami. The fact is, Chavez is in and out of Cuba regularly. The fact is, these governments are functioning as an alliance of sorts in the region, trying to thwart and provoke an anti-American attitude. Before voting on this spending bill, we ought to give serious consideration to what changing the U.S. policy toward Cuba would mean going forward. While some may feel that the U.S. policy is punitive, it was created with the interests of the Cuban people in mind. Relaxing restrictions and allowing additional remittances would provide the regime with additional revenue, cash that would help it maintain its repressive policies. According to the Cuban Assets Control Regulation: Persons visiting a member of the immediate family, who is a Cuban national, for a period not to exceed 14 days, those are allowed today once every 3 years. What is likely to happen under these proposed changes in the omnibus is a spike increase in tourist travel under the guise of humanitarian activity. That does not serve the interest of the Cuban people and those who seek freedom inside Cuba. In addition to that, this legislation before us would extend credit through the U.S. banking system to a Cuban nation that recently disclosed it owes more than $29 billion to the Paris Club, a debt they stopped making payment on back in the 1980s. In fact, Cuba has the second worst credit of any nation in the world. And to that country, we are now proposing, in this legislation, in these financial times we are living in, to provide the Cuban Government with credit that can purchase agricultural goods in this country and also medicine, in fact, to the tune of some $780 million a year. They have been doing just fine paying cash on the barrel head. This bill will give them credit. Why would we do that to this Cuban Government? Why would we do that to this enemy of the United States, when we would not sign and ratify a free-trade agreement with a country such as Colombia, which is a friend, a partner, an ally. As we consider changing U.S. policy regarding Cuba, why are we doing it in a way where we ask for nothing? We tie neither of the changes called for in this omnibus to any yardstick of improvement. We do not call for the release of political prisoners; we do not call for lowering of the remittance fee from 20 percent to something more reasonable; we do not ask for any signs of positive behavior. We just lay the changes out there and then hope for the best. That is not the way we ought to approach a regime that has rebuffed our overtures for normal relations and humanitarian aid and instead seeks to undermine our alliances and our interests in the region. The fact is, the Cuban Government is no friend of the United States. This is not just some benign dictator in Latin America; this is a government that purposely, during the entire time that it has existed, has had an antagonism and has exhibited every type of hostility toward the United States, which it continues to exhibit to this day. Now, there are those who believe that Raul Castro is a reformer. After 2 years in power, as I pointed out earlier, little or no reforms have taken place. Great hopes were raised by him with many who are hoping for some sign. Yesterday, those signs of change were even further dashed when he had a major shakeup in his Government, and Carlos Lage, who has essentially been the Prime Minister of the Cuban Government, and one of those people whom folks believed was, in fact, a reformer, and the hopes were all pinned that if Lage would take over, that he might be the next President--in fact, he was fired yesterday, and he is no longer any sign of hope for undermining change in Cuba. In fact, what happened yesterday in Cuba, by any other standard, by any other measure in any other country would be considered a military coup. We already have a totalitarian system. Now Raul Castro has put all of his friends from the military, all aging people in their seventies and older, as close to him as he can put them. Some of them are the most radical, the most vicious of those who have enforced Cuba's totalitarian regime over the years that it has existed, and they are now in the throes of government. So, essentially, what we have here is not an example of a change in regime but one that is only consolidating power, trying to only exact more repression from its people, while at the same time exhibiting hostility and anti-Americanism anywhere that it goes and anywhere that it speaks. So I would hope we can have this debate outside of this omnibus bill because it would be great to have a discussion on what our policy ought to be on Cuba--not to have it lumped into this massive spending measure that has to be passed by Friday. I would love for us to talk about Cuba in terms of how we encourage respect for human rights, how we encourage this Government to behave as a normal, law-abiding nation. The fact is, this unilateral act which, frankly, would not be met with any reciprocity is a mistake. It is a sign that we are trying now to legislate policy in a bill that is about spending and a very dramatic change in U.S. foreign policy.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, as this mammoth appropriations bill is being considered, there are some ramifications that go way beyond the fiscal impact of this bill and the prudence of those measures. It is about the policy implications of some of the things that have been woven into this bill. I am particularly referring to those issues referring to our relationship with Cuba. This Senate has debated over many years issues relating to Cuba, a close neighbor; unfortunately, over the last half century, not a friendly neighbor. I think back to about 1898, when this Senate was very much in favor of Cuba's freedom from Spain and American forces intervened. In 1902, Cuba's freedom as an independent nation, freed from Spain, was granted as a result of actions by our Congress as well as our President. As the Senate considers taking steps that would change the current approach to policy regarding Cuba, we should reflect on how and why we have the current policy in place and the ramifications of adjusting that policy at this moment in time, even temporarily. The United States-Cuba policy is a living, breathing entity. Over the years, it has been adjusted, loosened, tightened, and tested. Ten successive U.S. Presidents have affirmed the policy, bolstering provisions for the sake of those brutalized by the regime, seeking no harm to the general Cuban public while denying the regime the resources it so desperately needs to keep the stranglehold on power. The United States has always had the general welfare of the Cuban people in mind as evidenced by our generous humanitarian aid and the promise it is of untethered assistance. The United States is the No. 1 supplier of humanitarian aid to Cuba. The American people, in 2007 alone, sent $240 million in private assistance through reputable humanitarian assistance organizations. The foundation of our policy takes aim at the actions of the regime that expropriated private property without compensation--property owned by American citizens. On top of this foundation is our message that Cubans deserve access to free and fair elections, basic human rights, and the rule of law. The United States built this policy so as to stand with the Cuban people, who are denied the freedoms we as Americans receive as a birthright. As we consider stripping enforcement of the sanctions, I wish to spend some time talking about what this policy means to the Cuban people, the American Government, and me personally, as someone who witnessed the violence of this revolution firsthand. United States-Cuba relations during the Castro era have largely been defined by Cuba's record of anti-Americanism and aggressive acts of hostility. When Fidel Castro took power in the early days of 1959, there were promises of democracy, free press, and elections. But such reforms never took place. In fact, a violent dictatorial regime came in its place. Many executions took place--killings without trial, without due process. Our President, then Dwight D. Eisenhower, built a framework for the anti-Castro policy by placing trade sanctions on sugar, oil, and guns. When barrels of Soviet oil began to arrive in Havana, United States oil companies in Cuba refused to continue refining oil, paving the way for further nationalization of United States assets--oil refineries in this instance. All of these nationalizations took place without compensation to American companies. And to this day, there never has been compensation. All of the properties owned by Americans were taken. Later, little by little, properties owned by Cubans were taken until there was no vestige of private property left in Cuba whatsoever. My own personal story, my own life, was touched, as I was a young boy when all of this took place. Ultimately, as a result of persecution of those of us who were people of faith, as well as the stifling atmosphere in a totally controlled society, as a teenager, I emigrated to the United States. I watched firsthand the tensions between Cuba and the United States in a very personal way. I remember watching the television and the news accounts of tensions rising between the United States and Cuba--escalating and leading up to the Cuban Missile Crisis. That began in July of 1962, when Raul Castro went to Moscow, and the bonds between Cuba and Russia strengthened. The Castro brothers engaged with Russia and agreed to allow the Soviets to deploy nuclear missiles, under Moscow's jurisdiction on the island of Cuba. By the fall of 1962, Soviet freighters began delivering shipments of middle-range ballistic missiles. In an address to the nation on October 22, 1962, on the eve of my 16th birthday, President John F. Kennedy warned of the imminent danger presented by the emerging Soviet-Cuba alliance. In describing Cuba's nuclear strike capabilities, Kennedy said: Several of them include medium range ballistic missiles, capable of carrying a nuclear warhead for a distance of more than 1,000 nautical miles. Each of these missiles, in short, is capable of striking Washington, D.C., the Panama Canal, Cape Canaveral, Mexico City, or any other city in the southeastern part of the United States, in Central America, or in the Caribbean area. Five days later, in a letter to Russian Primer Nikita Khrushchev, Fidel Castro offered the island in sacrifice and urged the Soviets to use nuclear weapons against the United States if necessary. Let's be clear, the Castro regime, under Fidel and Raul Castro, then--as they are today--in power, wanted first strike nuclear attacks against the United States. Fidel Castro urged the Russians to let the missiles fly toward our soil. Fortunately for all, Khrushchev's response to the Castro request was to urge, ``. . . patience, firmness and more firmness.'' And these events are the foundation for U.S. Cuba policy; brutality, the theft of U.S.-owned assets, and the threat of nuclear catastrophe. All of these things perpetrated by the Castro brothers who were in power in 1959, and who remain in power today. In the years between the Cuban Missile Crisis and now, the United States has made many good faith efforts and attempts to unilaterally engage Cuba and restore relations. Without fail, every single attempt has failed due to the actions of the Castro regime. Several attempts involved our offering concessions similar to those in the bill before us today. In 1975, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, during President Gerald Ford's presidency, tried to broker a deal with Cuba that would have lifted the trade sanctions and normalized relations. But the regime chose another route. It wanted to project power abroad. It was more interested in acting as a surrogate of the Soviets than it was in better relations with the United States. So Cuba sent troops to Angola. These troops engaged in a war as surrogates of the Soviet Union, where Cuban men died and where the Cuban Armed Forces were engaged in battle. They seized the capital city of Luanda, and the group then proclaimed independence from Portugal. In an effort to promote peace and stability, Secretary Kissinger had no choice but to tell Cuba that as long as they had troops in Africa, the deal to normalize relations with Cuba was off the table. In April 1980, during the Presidency of Jimmy Carter the U.S. Government once again reached out to the Cuban regime. This was rebuffed in a different way. This time it was as a result of more than 10,000 Cubans who were seeking asylum in the Peruvian Embassy; Cuban- American exile groups reached out to the island asking if willing Cubans could be allowed safe passage to the United States. The response from the Cuban people was overwhelming and more than 125,000 Cubans fled for freedom in what became known as The Mariel boatlift. In the months that the boatlift took place, the U.S. established an interests section in Havana and reciprocated by allowing Cuba to establish theirs in Washington. This would have been a bright spot for U.S.-Cuba relations except for the fact that the Castro regime took advantage of our generosity. As thousands of Cubans lined up for the chance to live in freedom, the Castro regime opened its prisons and mental hospitals and sent patients and their worst criminals, murderers, thieves, and drug dealers into the United States with the idea that they would be turned loose to wreak havoc in the U.S. This was not only cynical but also an act of aggression during a time when President Carter had extended a hand of friendship. Once discovered, the Castro regime refused to take back the criminals and many were absorbed by our prison system where they remain to this day because they will not accept them back. The Mariel Boatlift, as it is now known, was symbolic of the desire of the Cuban people to live freely and the flight of the people of Cuba to friendlier places, but also of the frustrating attempts to have a better relationship with the Cuban government. Frustrated with the conditions allowed by the Cuban regime, more than 125,000 Cubans made the journey to the United States. Many were reunited with family and friends, and all had a chance at a better life. In February 1982, the U.S. Secretary of State added Cuba to the list of countries supporting international terrorists. The U.S. State Department issued a report detailing Cuba's activities. The State Department asserted that Cuba had, quote, ``encouraged terrorism in the hope of provoking indiscriminate violence and repression, in order to weaken government legitimacy and attract new converts to armed struggle.'' Cuba was noted to have very active operations throughout Central America and especially in Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala. It was reportedly providing, ``advice, safe haven, communications, training, and some financial support to several violent South American organizations.'' The long record of the Cuban government's lack of respect for human life extends beyond the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. In 1996, the Castro regime engineered a civilian murder that shocked the conscience of all Americans. On February 24, 1996, the regime ordered the shoot down of two unarmed civilian planes flying over international waters on a humanitarian mission. Four people were killed. Three U.S. citizens and a permanent U.S. resident; Armando Alejandre, Jr., Carlos Costa, Mario de la Pena, and Pablo Morales. These men were part of a Florida-based humanitarian organization called ``Brothers to the Rescue,'' a group credited with spotting and saving the lives of thousands of Cubans who spotted and helped rescue Cubans trying to raft across the Florida Straits. Following a thorough Federal investigation, it was determined the regime premeditated the shoot down as part of a conspiracy called Operation Scorpion--a mission designed to send a message to the Cuban exile community. In the months leading up to the shoot down, Cuban-piloted MiG jets practiced intercepting and firing on slow-moving planes similar to those flown by the Brothers. Further, the regime infiltrated an agent into Brothers for the sole purpose of encouraging the group to fly into the regime's death trap. This agent disappeared the day before the shoot down and reappeared in Havana to denounce the humanitarian group. The Southern District of Florida would eventually find and charge 14 individuals including Cuban spies. The reaction from the international community was swift and harsh. The United Nations Security Council passed a resolution condemning Cuba. The European Union followed suit. Here in the United States, we strengthened sanctions against Cuba through the Helms-Burton Act. A known state-sponsor of terror, the Cuban regime engaged in premeditated murder, in international airspace. And the same people who orchestrated this unprovoked attack, Fidel and Raul Castro, are still in power today. Incidents such as these strengthen the resolve of Cubans looking for a better life. Jose Marti, a Cuban hero, referred to as the ``Apostle for Cuban Independence,'' once said, ``Man loves liberty, even if he does not know that he loves it. He is driven by it and flees from it where it does not exist.'' Many have fled Cuba for our shores. During the early days of the regime from 1959 to 1962, it is estimated that the U.S. resettled 200,000 Cuban refugees. There are well over 1.5 million Cuban refugees in the U.S. and many more in Spain, Mexico, and throughout Latin America and the world where the Cuban Diaspora has gone, escaping tyranny and seeking freedom. According to the State Department: These include former political prisoners, persecuted religious minorities, human rights activists, forced labor conscripts, and those discriminated against or harmed based on their political or religious beliefs. Those who choose to stay behind and courageously oppose the regime's radical ways are subjected to violence, torture, and even murder. According to Armando Lago, an economist who has attempted to compile a list of every person killed since the start of the Cuban revolution, Raul Castro was personally responsible for 550 executions in 1959 alone--executed without trial, without cause, without mercy--Raul Castro, the figurehead of Cuba's modern regime. Lago has documented 500 murders by prison guards, 500 deaths from medical neglect, 200 suicides of political prisoners, and more than 1,000 assassinations and disappearances. Those who have voiced opposition to the regime's policies have been forced to endure harsh consequences. Under the Cuban Criminal Code, the regime has the legal authority to detain and arrest anyone deemed not in line with the Communist State. These individuals are defined under Article 103 of the Cuban Criminal Code as: Any person who incites against the social order, international solidarity or the communist State, by means of oral or written propaganda or in any other way; prepares, distributes or possesses propaganda . . . Any person who disseminates false news or malicious predictions likely to cause alarm or discontent among the population, or public disorder . . . [or] Any person who permits utilization of the mass communication media shall be punished with one to four years imprisonment. Once in prison, these individuals are subjected to unsanitary conditions, harassment, and beatings. Here are just a few of the conditions reported by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The nutrition and hygienic situation, together with the deficiencies in medical care continue to be alarming and have caused numerous medical problems among the prison population. Anemia, diarrhea, skin diseases and also parasitism due to polluted water, appear to be commonplace in the majority of the country's prisons, while in some such as the Manacas and Combinado del Este facilities cases of tuberculosis have been recorded. Moreover, inmates who have made any form of protest about the treatment received or who reject reeducation, which according to information received consists of political and ideological training, have been subjected to reprisals such as beatings, being shut up in punishment cells (which are extremely small, with the door closed and where the prisoner can be kept for months without seeing the light of the sun), being transferred to prisons normally far from where their families live, suspension of family visits, or denial of medical treatment. This is in sharp contrast to the much publicized detention facility in Guantanamo. I have visited there and conditions are as good there or better than those in Florida jails. Organizations can visit Guantanamo. That is the only jail in Cuba that can be visited by an international organization like the Red Cross. The Cuban government refuses any human rights organization permission to visit their prisons. The fact is the only uninspected, deplorable prisons in Cuba are those run by the Cuban government. Their gulag continues today unchecked, and would continue even in spite of us reaching out through this bill in this misguided way. According to the U.S. State Department's 2008 Report on Cuban Human Rights released last week: . . . the government continued to deny its citizens their basic human rights and committed numerous, serious abuses. The government denied citizens the right to change their government. In describing these abuses of human rights, the report states: The following human rights problems were reported: beatings and abuse of detainees and prisoners, including human rights activists, carried out with impunity; harsh and life- threatening prison conditions, including denial of medical care; harassment, beatings, and threats against political opponents by government-recruited mobs, police, and State Security officials; arbitrary arrest and detention of human rights advocates and members of independent professional organizations; denial of fair trial; and interference with privacy, including pervasive monitoring of private communications. The report notes, . . . severe limitations on freedom of speech and press; denial of peaceful assembly and association; restrictions on freedom of movement, including selective denial of exit permits to citizens and the forcible removal of persons from Havana to their hometowns; restrictions on freedom of religion; and refusal to recognize domestic human rights groups or permit them to function legally. One of the political prisoners mentioned in the State Department report is a man named Tomas Ramos Rodriguez, who was released on June 16 after 18 years in prison. Following his release, Tomas Ramos noted that ``prison authorities beat prisoners with truncheons on a near-daily basis with impunity. Families of prisoners continued to report that prison staff sometimes goaded inmates with promises of rewards [if they would] beat a political prisoner.'' In describing the prison conditions, Tomas Ramos recalled the ``cell floors that had standing pools of water contaminated with sewage.'' Additionally, the report tells the story of a physician named Rodolfo Martinez Vigoa, who complained to the Ministry of Public Health about the condition of the local health clinic in Artemisa as well as the salaries of his employees. In response, instead of taking care of the problem, the regime stood by as ``approximately 300 persons arrived at Martinez's house and shouted insults, calling him a traitor and a counter revolutionary. The government later stripped Martinez of his medical license.'' There is a long litany of the human rights abuses that exist in Cuba. The fact is, with these conditions, we would dare not have a free-trade agreement with Colombia because of concerns about human rights. President Obama, during his campaign, indicated he was concerned about human rights conditions in Colombia so, therefore, he would not be for a free-trade agreement with Colombia. It would seem to me that to be consistent, he would have to veto this bill if, in fact, it contains a relaxation of trade with Cuba, particularly if it gets into the area of providing credits, which is what this bill would do, to those in Cuba who do not pay their bills. The fact is, there have been some pretend changes in Raoul Castro's regime since he took over Cuba. Citizens are allowed to use cell phones. That sounds like a great thing. The problem is the average Cuban makes $17 a month. The average cell phone in Cuba costs about $64. With the activation fee as high as $120, never mind the contract fee on a month-to-month basis. Another change is Cuban citizens can now stay in hotel rooms that have been historically reserved only for tourists. The problem is, hotel rooms cost as much as 11 times the average monthly salary of a Cuban. These are not changes, these are sham assurances aimed at hiding the regime's struggle to remain financially solvent. One clear change that has occurred is the rise of short-term arrests for so-called dangerous activity. Arbitrary detentions of prodemocracy activists have increased five times, from 325 in 2007 to 1,500 in 2008. These are just those that have been documented. Hundreds more, I am sure, take place that would be difficult to document because they happened in parts of the country where our diplomats certainly are not allowed to travel, and certainly there are no human rights organizations that could monitor it. The regime's promise of change has fallen short of what the Cuban people want and deserve. Where are the anticipated reforms? There have been 2 years of Raoul's rule and nothing has happened. Even the most modest calls for reform go unanswered. Since the average Cuban earns $17 a month, but the prices of goods and services are almost what they are here, many families find it very difficult to get by. For those Cubans who have family members living abroad, here in the U.S. or Spain or elsewhere, they can receive remittances without a Government penalty. But the Cuban Government, unlike any other Government in the world, takes 20 percent from any incoming money. A person living in the United States who sends funds to Brazil, Ecuador, Colombia, or China, they can expect to pay a private transaction fee of somewhere in the neighborhood of 2.5 percent. The Cuban Government takes a 20-percent cut right off the top. In this bill we will unilaterally be letting the Cuban Government receive unlimited remittances, asking them to do nothing--unilaterally lifting the restrictions on remittances while asking the Cuban Government to do nothing. Would it not be nice if we were to tell the Cuban Government that in exchange for allowing them to now receive unlimited remittances, which may not be a bad thing, then they should, in fact, act in a way that allows the poor people of Cuba and those here sacrificing to send them help, not to be taking a 20-percent cut from the moneys they send to their relatives and loved ones in Cuba. These are not measures designed to serve the interests of the Cuban people. But there is another yet darker side to this regime, as the anti- Americanism and the antagonism to our country has exemplified the actions of this regime throughout its time. Cuba and its anti- Americanism has fallen in line with Venezuela. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to have 5 additional minutes to conclude my remarks.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 20 minutes and that the time not be counted against Senator Hutchison's time.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Jersey for supporting the nomination of Hilda Solis to be President Obama's choice to lead the Department of Labor. I too rise in support of this nomination. Having served in a President's Cabinet myself and gone through this arduous and difficult process of confirmation, I adhere to the principle that a President should get the right to nominate his Cabinet and should have the opportunity to name the people he chooses to work with. It is, obviously, up to the Senate to confirm and ratify those nominations but, assuming qualifications, it is something that ought to be forthcoming. I may have some policy differences with the nominee. I am sure that, from time to time, we may look at the world a little differently. I am sure I do not endorse everything my dear friend and colleague just said about the prior 8 years punishing workers and things of that nature. But I do believe it is important that we come together to recognize a fine American. Having looked at Congresswoman Solis's record, and the testimony before the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, and her answers to the committee's questions, I am satisfied that she carries the qualifications and will serve the Department of Labor with great distinction as Secretary. Congresswoman Solis graduated from California State Polytechnic University in Pomona and earned a Master's in Public Administration from the University of Southern California. She worked in the White House for President Carter in the Office of Hispanic Affairs, and was later appointed as a management analyst with the Office of Management and Budget in the civil rights division. As a member of the California State Senate back in 1996, she led a successful effort to raise the State's minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.75 an hour. As U.S. Representative for California's 32nd district, she authored legislation that sought to protect and improve working conditions and the rights of farm workers, garment workers, the construction industry, janitors, State and local employees, and many others. She authored the Green Jobs Act of 2007, an effort aimed at promoting job creation and renewable energy, which was signed into law as part of the 2007 omnibus. I know there is a dynamic and unique relationship between the executive and legislative branches. We may not always see eye to eye on the issues. We may modify the President's proposals significantly through the committee and amendment process. But we always respect each other's positions and priorities. Congresswoman Solis has demonstrated hard work and experience. Her life is an inspiration to many. In the areas of labor, health care, and the environment, she has made her mark and has done a tremendous job to highlight the issues and many problems throughout our country that urgently need attention. She has done that with competence, diligence, and tremendous determination. She will bring those same qualities to the Department of Labor as the Secretary of Labor. I had the pleasure of working with the prior Secretary of Labor, who has a relationship with the Senate--Secretary Chao. She and I served in the Cabinet together. She served for 8 years in that role. Sometimes we faced many challenges, and I am sure that upon her confirmation, Hilda Solis will serve with distinction as well. But she will also be faced with many challenges, particularly in this difficult labor environment. There is no question, with unemployment at record highs, and continuing to rise, this is the time when the Secretary of Labor will be in a position where leadership can emanate throughout this country. I urge my colleagues to support the confirmation of Congresswoman Hilda Solis to be the next Secretary of Labor. She will be making history as the first Hispanic woman to serve in a President's Cabinet. I understand something about that, and I look forward to working with her in that capacity. It is a great day for America when we can see that people can rise as a result of the opportunities that this country opens up to all those who seek them. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, today our Nation celebrates the bicentennial of Abraham Lincoln's birth, a man who became one of the finest leaders America has ever known. Given his service to our Nation, it is fitting that we pause to acknowledge President Lincoln's lasting contributions to our society. President Lincoln was a writer, an attorney, and a statesman, but above all else he was a strong advocate for the common man. This was due in large part to the fact that he was a common man. He was born into a family with modest means, became self-educated, and entered into a life of public service at the age of 23. During his Presidency, Lincoln once remarked, ``God must love the common man, he made so many of them.'' He gave a voice to the disenfranchised, the destitute, and the dispirited, and even in the face of adversity, he stood strong in support of the notion that ``all men are created equal.'' He also led with conviction during a turbulent time in our Nation's history. As President, Lincoln guided our divided Nation with moral clarity and persevered when the fabric of our democracy was tested. He helped to heal our Nation after the Civil War and put America on a path to overcome the dark days of slavery. Today, President Lincoln's virtue extends far beyond our borders. He has inspired generations of individuals seeking to advance the cause of freedom and liberty even when their voices have been silenced. These individuals find inspiration in places like Havana, where a statue of Lincoln still stands proudly along the Avenida de los Presidentes. I join them in hoping for the day when Lincoln's dreams can be realized and the people of Cuba can taste the same fruits of liberty we as Americans cherish. On this day, we are reminded not only of Lincoln's contributions to our society, but also his vision, which continues to guide our Nation. May his life continue to inspire us and his words always serve as a source of hope. As he once wrote, ``The cause of liberty must not be surrendered at the end of one, or even one hundred defeats.'' May God bless Abraham Lincoln, and may He continue to bless the United States of America.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam President, I wish to speak on the pending matter, which is the so-called stimulus plan, with great concern about where we are. As we hear, the plan has been agreed to and the package is being put together; however, we have yet to see it. So I am going to make some assumptions about the things I hear that may or may not be included in it. It appears we have some clear idea of some things that definitely won't be a part of this package. The fact is that as we approach this problem--and this is a serious problem for our Nation--the President talked about a timely, targeted, and temporary spending package. The President talked about it being timely because we needed to get the money out the door now so that it would get into the mainstream of commerce, so that it could get into the economy so that we could avoid a deep and long-lasting recession. It also needed to be targeted because it made no sense to do those things that would spend money but not create jobs, not create economic activity; the types of tax cuts that are geared toward creating more jobs in the marketplace, not simply to give money to people that may or may not ultimately be spent. It needed to be temporary because we all know that Government spending in excess during a time of a recovery, when the Government should not be overspending, should not be overheating the economy, could lead to a slowdown of the recovery because it would increase inflation. So that is why, when the President made those comments, I was excited. I was positive. I was very positive in thinking this is exactly what our country needed at this point in time. However, we have found that as this has evolved through the Halls of Congress, that is not what we are getting. We are getting an unfocused spending plan which spends money on things that are far afield from shovel ready, ready-to-get-out-the-door types of projects, but which is really an unfocused spending measure that, in my view and in the view of many others, spends too much at a time when we can hardly afford to be overspending needlessly, but it also does not spend on that which is designed to create the jobs America desperately needs today. In my view, there are ways we could have crafted a package. I made a proposal because I do believe that to simply oppose what the President proposes and what the majority of this body and across the hall have put together is--it is not enough to just say no, don't do it. We have a responsibility to be responsible and offer alternatives, to offer a proposal, because at this point in time we know we are in deep and serious economic times. So the key to this is oppose but propose. The fact is that some of us did attempt mightily to see if we could not come to a bipartisan compromise, a spending package that would have spent about $650 billion--a very big package of spending. But the spending would have been focused on what I believe would have gotten out the door quickly. We also know it would have been good to spend on things that we needed to spend the money on anyway. In fact, military reset, the resetting of equipment that has been damaged or lost in the long struggles in Iraq and Afghanistan would have been a great way for us to be spending it--those things that we have to spend money on anyway but at the same time be doing so now in a manner that gets it out the door in a hurry. We have the infrastructure in place for military purchases of equipment. That would have helped. We could have also done more in the infrastructure field. I think this plan is not big enough as it relates to the building of highways and bridges. The fact is that the Presiding Officer well knows the need for bridges. In Minnesota, there is a tremendous need for infrastructure. I wanted to see more bridges. Across this Nation, we have bridges that are failing and need to be rebuilt, and more highways and bridges and infrastructure in that sense would have been the right way to approach it. Obviously, a part of the package should also be tax cuts geared to job creation. There is a difference between giving money to the people who would use it to pay down debt or hoard and hold it because they are fearful of what is coming in the economy. I believe in more focused tax cuts, such as payroll deduction or the corporate tax rate being reduced, which ultimately is America's small businesses that will put America back to work. Giving those small businesses a tax break would have encouraged them to get people back on the rolls of the employed. My largest disappointment of all is that this plan fails to address the problem that got us into this mess in the first place. Why did the President and my Governor appear in Fort Myers a couple of days ago? Because that is the foreclosure capital of America, and that is where more houses are being foreclosed than anyplace else in Florida. I was speaking with a group of government officials from Charlotte County, a little north of Fort Myers, where there is 11 percent unemployment and a terrible problem with foreclosures. They said: Please do something about foreclosures. If we can stop houses from being foreclosed, we can do two very important things. We can keep a family in their home and keep that family whole; we can keep that street from having a foreclosed house, and we keep that community from yet declining further and further in the prices of homes. In addition, we also do something else; we sustain home values in a way that will help yet another foreclosure from occurring as the declining spiral of housing prices continues to go downhill. The second one I would have loved to have seen in this package--and I am disappointed to know it is not in there--is the proposal by Senator Isakson, which is to give a $15,000 tax credit to anybody who purchases a home--not just first-time home buyers but anybody. We know one of the great problems in the housing market today is that there is an enormous inventory of unsold homes, many the result of foreclosures. If we encourage potential home buyers by giving them a significant tax break, they would get into the marketplace and make the decision to buy, and we could begin then to stave off this continuing cycle of declining home prices, stalled sales, and more foreclosures. I know when the President went to Fort Myers, he went there because there is a foreclosure problem. If there wasn't a foreclosure problem in Fort Myers, there would not be double digit inflation in Lee County and Charlotte County. I know my Governor wishes to see this package passed. I don't know that my Governor understands all of the details in the package. There will be nothing here to help with Florida's housing economy, which is the No. 1 problem we have today. Until we address the housing problem, we are not going to bring Florida back to economic health. There is not enough largess that can come to Florida from the Federal Government to fill the coffers of the State's needs. We need for Florida's economy to get back on its feet. We need tax cuts so that the taxpayers have more money to spend, and we need to work on the housing problem. We need to work on the overall economy of the country so that tourism comes back to our State. All of these things working in unison will bring America back to economic health. This package, unfortunately, misses the mark. One of the great dangers in it is that at the cost of almost just a hair under $800 billion, there are not enough additional hundreds of billions that we can safely spend. We have to get it right, because some of us in the Banking Committee this week heard from the Secretary of the Treasury, who told us to get ready, another almost $2 trillion more is going to be asked of you for the financial institutions. At the end of the day, this is very costly. At some point, continued Government spending isn't going to cut it. So that is why it is so important that this package be gotten right. I hate to oppose this package, because I would have loved for us to have come up with something that was a truly bipartisan package--not just a way of getting three votes but a way of, in fact, working together and getting the best thinking of both sides and working on something that was bipartisan. Not working in that fashion has caused some of us to oppose this package. I hate doing that. I wanted to work with President Obama. I wish our new President well, and I hope the package succeeds and has the desired effect. In my conscience, I cannot support it because I don't feel it will do what this economy currently needs or that it will do what in fact all of us need to work together toward doing, and that is getting our country back on the road to recovery. With great regret, I will not be able to support this package. I look forward to seeing the final outcome because we have not all read the bill yet. I will analyze it again to see if the component parts are there that will allow me to support it. But it appears clear to me, in the information we have, that that in fact will not be the case. I am increasingly disappointed, but at the same time my hope is that it will succeed because, at this moment, at this juncture in history, we need for our country to be successful, so that Americans can get back to work and our Nation can get back to prosperity. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam President, this part of the amendment simply goes at the servicers, the private servicers who are now part of the GSEs. They hold about 15 percent of the mortgages, but they are about 50 percent of the foreclosures. These folks will now be incentivized to make workouts with the homeowners to keep them in their homes; further, they will also be given a safe harbor so they are not subject to litigation. With that incentive, we believe the private servicers will begin to do the kinds of workouts that are necessary to keep people in their homes and avoid foreclosures. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I know we all understand the seriousness of the moment, the seriousness of the situation our country is in. It is for that reason many of us, in goodwill, attempted to work together to try to improve upon the product that is this bill on the desk. As the process went on, I felt as if I could no longer support the effort because it was not going in a direction I thought was prudent or useful to our effort. The fact is, in this bill we now have before us, we will have a bill that is larger than the House- passed bill. There is a point to be made that the stimulus ought to be sufficiently large to stimulate. My concern is it doesn't stimulate, and too much of what is contained in this bill--and now the substitute which will be even more expensive than the original bill or than the House bill--I am concerned we still do not do the kinds of expenditures that are not part of an appropriations process but part of a stimulus process. I wonder just how much of this bill will spend out in the next 2 years and how much will spend out after that. The State of Florida is in dire need. We are going through the most difficult time I can remember in my adult life. Unemployment is almost double digits. Every corner of the State is suffering from the foreclosure crisis. We do precious little in that arena, which I understand to be something that is so desperately needed. At the end of the day, we are going to be spending a lot of the taxpayers' money with not too many other opportunities to get it right. We cannot continue to spend at this level. So it is incumbent upon us to get it right. That is why I believed it was more important we get it right than we get it right now. Let's get it right. We got this today, and we will have the weekend or overnight to make our decisions on it. I, frankly, commend those who worked together in a bipartisan fashion. I think we should try to do that. I just don't think there was a good bipartisan construction of this bill that was done by the majority, and it was too difficult for us to try to fix it. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam President, the housing crisis got us into this problem we are in today which necessitates the need for a stimulus bill. Until we deal with housing problems, we are not going to be out of this problem. My proposal creates a situation where, for 3 years, it compensates private servicers of mortgages so they can be incentivized to work out mortgages for families who are in trouble, so that they might be able to stay in their homes and not be foreclosed. This is a way to utilize the private sector, with some incentives from government money, to make sure we do not foreclose on more families. Two things will be accomplished. It also provides a safe harbor for the servicers, so that they are beyond legal liability for anything they might do in those workouts. At the end of the day, what we will do is stabilize home prices by freezing foreclosures. Not only will we be helping families, but we will also be trying to put a floor on the housing economy, on housing prices, which continue to decline. This will stabilize housing prices, it will avoid future foreclosures, and it will begin to turn us around and create the kind of housing economy we need in order for the American economy to come back.