Mel Martinez

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 20 minutes.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, 7 years ago, nearly 3,000 Americans perished in the worst terrorist attack on our soil. Today, let us remember the innocent lives lost in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania and continue to pray for healing for their families. The stories of their heroism, compassion, and last words spoken to a loved one all serve to inspire and remind us of the pain of that tragic day. This anniversary is a somber reminder of the serious threats we face. Generations of Americans have fought for our country's freedom, and on this day, we can take solace in knowing our nation remains committed to preserving that blessing. Since 9/11, the United States has led a global campaign against terrorism. Our Nation is safer because of the sacrifices of those serving in the cause of freedom, including the men and women of our Armed Forces, our National Guard, and our intelligence communities. Our effort has been enhanced by the cooperation of allied nations that share our desire to see a world dominated by peace, freedom, and the rule of law. On this day, let us remember those Americans who lost their lives in the attacks of 9/11, those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our country, and those who continue to defend our Nation today. God bless these individuals and their families, and may God bless America.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. The International Energy Agency painted a grim picture about the future. The report estimated that over 3.5 million barrels a day of new production will be needed each year just to hold the total production steady. So as India, China, and these other countries are rising in their demand, we need 3.5 million barrels a day of new oil just to keep the current standards of what we have. That is not just a U.S. problem, it is a global problem.

Mr. MARTINEZ. I would say that, no, we cannot drill our way out of the problem, but we can improve on the problem. Today, we use about 21 million barrels of oil, and 5 million of those come from overseas. That is what turns into that $700 billion bill. What if we could add another million barrels to that production domestically? We will have ameliorated the problem by a significant percentage. What if we did 2 million barrels? All of a sudden, the equation is different and we can be more sustainable within our own resources. The second part of this is, it is not all about oil. It is about other things, such as oil shale. The Democrats oppose looking into that possibility. We have not been allowed to have a full discussion. Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming should be allowed to develop this resource. I understand that we have an estimated 2 trillion barrels of oil that can be produced from oil shale. So maybe we can drill our way out of this with enough creativity, enough technology, and enough resources being employed. So it is not going to just be about nuclear, although it ought to be nuclear. Florida has three nuclear powerplants built in the 1970s and 1980s, and thank goodness for those because in Florida we cannot produce any oil, we do not have any hydro, and we depend on those nuclear powerplants to power ourselves. So thank goodness we have that. We also need to look at more production offshore. We need to do more oil shale, and the new technologies of wind and solar and new battery technology--all of the above. My point is, we cannot drill our way out of this, but part of the solution is drilling. So it is not about suggesting that we should forget everything else and just drill, but it is to say that drilling as a component part of a comprehensive energy policy can move this country ahead, can move us forward.

Mr. MARTINEZ. I remember him being asked: What do you feel about drilling? He said: I want to drill everywhere. Now, I am not there, because I don't want to drill everywhere. I want some beaches to be protected. But he was saying we need to drill, drill, drill. That is part of the answer. It is not going to get us out of the problem, but it is part of the solution.

Mr. MARTINEZ. May I ask the Senator a question. This nuclear plant, does it produce greenhouse gases? Does it, in any way, harm the quality of air or produce the kinds of problems associated with global warming?

Mr. MARTINEZ. That is right.

Mr. MARTINEZ. I am happy to comment on the situation in Florida and also what I think is an observation you made accurately in the larger political climate. They are related. The State of Florida has jealously guarded its offshore resources because we have a tremendous tourism economy, as does Texas in some parts of the State. However, $4 for a gallon of gas has caused a transformation in thinking. It has allowed us to see more clearly what is occurring. What is occurring to our Nation is not just that the people, the families, American families, are hurting at the pump when they go pump gas. Fortunately in Florida our winters are mild, but I understand the situation in New Hampshire and other cold States that is going to be coming up. This is hurting families. This is a problem to the American family, particularly those on fixed income, many of whom live in Florida. The problem becomes more acute because this also merges into our national defense, into our security as a nation. When the Persian Gulf war took place, Alaska increased its production of oil, and at that time they were producing at a capacity of 2.1 million barrels a day. Today they are only producing 700,000 barrels a day because the supply of oil in Alaska is dwindling because we are not allowed to develop additional resources there. What is occurring, essentially, is that the domestic supply of oil is ever decreasing, our percentage of dependence on foreign sources is ever increasing, while at the same time the price is going through the roof. It is a supply-and-demand problem that cries out for a solution. What has occurred? My own transformation has been that while I was adamantly opposed to any form of drilling, my own Governor took a forward-thinking position and decided maybe the time had come for us to reconsider and think a little differently about it. We still want to protect our coastline. We still want to protect our beaches. But at the same time, we have to recognize a new reality. That new reality requires us to adapt to the current circumstances. We are transferring wealth to the extent of $700 billion a year to foreign sources. It is unsustainable over a long period of time. America will be squandering its wealth purely to satisfy our demand for oil. Surely we have to do other things about renewables. We have to do all that. But at the end of the day, we have to do more on our own resources to produce more oil from America's soil. What has occurred is, in fact, the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party and the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party have taken divergent points of view. Senator McCain, changing his position much as I have, has said: Times have changed. We have to drill in the offshore. Senator Obama remains stuck in the past. He is not for change. He is against change when it comes to taking care of America's oil resources. I believe what we are following is the dictates of higher powers. At the same time, the business of the Senate has ground to a halt. We have not been able to accomplish much because we have not been allowed to have the thorough debate we need to have on this very important issue. When I hear from Floridians today, they want us to move the business of Government, but they most of all want us to solve this problem. They do not want us to put it aside. They know they are hurting. They also realize, by the way, this is no panacea. We have no magic wand we can wave and lower prices tomorrow, but we can begin a trend that is going to trend in the downward direction if we begin to do something about opening America's resources to more drilling.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam President, no issue at the present time is hitting Americans any harder than the high price of gasoline at the pump. American families are hurting. For a variety of reasons, we are paying more for a gallon of gas and more to heat and cool our homes than ever before. There are a number of factors contributing to rising energy costs, such as a weak dollar and an incredible surge in demand from the developing world. It is not entirely clear what the magnitude of the role is that speculators might be playing in this situation. For certain, speculation is not the major contributing factor for $4-a-gallon gas. Even so, we have a responsibility to ensure that speculators aren't doing something illegal or profiting at taxpayers' expense. That is why I have joined 43 of my colleagues in introducing the Gas Price Reduction Act, which will put more cops on the beat at the CFTC to ensure there is no foul play occurring between those participating in the oil futures market and those investing in the oil market itself. This regulatory body needs more help so they can be more effective at their job and give the American people the kind of assurance and transparency they should have about the work of this trading environment. This act also commissions a study to better examine and understand the influence these speculators have on the cost of oil. We have heard much lately concerning speculators and what they may or may not be doing to influence the price of gas. On July 21, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, SEC Chairman Chris Cox, and the Chairman of the CFTC stated in a signed letter: To date, the President's Working Group has not found valid evidence to suggest that high crude prices over the long term are a direct result of the speculation or systemic manipulation by traders. That is a pretty strong statement coming from the people we trust in overseeing major parts of our economy--the Secretary of the Treasury, Chairman of the Fed, Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and Chairman of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission. While I believe speculators are an area of concern, the bigger problem stems from simple economics and the law of supply and demand. Our efforts should be focused on getting right to the heart of the matter by working to increase our Nation's energy supplies and reducing our demand. It is not enough to do one or just the other; we must do both. According to the International Energy Agency, global demand is 86 million barrels of oil per day and global supply is about 85.5 million barrels per day. While Congress's record in increasing energy supplies has been scant as of late, we have made progress in recent years. In 2006, I helped negotiate, with Senator Nelson, the opening of 8.3 million acres in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. This area is estimated to contain 5.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 1.25 billion barrels of oil, and it is currently open and available for exploration. This area was denied until 2006. It is now open and available for exploration. The Gas Price Reduction Act honors the compromise that was reached in 2006, protecting Florida's gulf coast, while empowering other States to explore for oil and gas if it is supported by the Governors and State legislature. I believe increasing our Nation's domestic energy supply is perhaps the most critical component to lowering gas prices, and to overlook it would be grossly unwise. In addition to increasing our Nation's domestic supplies, I also believe we should have access to affordable alternatives. Currently, Americans are paying a premium on Brazilian ethanol because we have a 50-cent-a-gallon tariff on Brazilian ethanol. If we mean what we say about offering cleaner, renewable alternatives to gasoline, I propose we eliminate this tariff. I plan to introduce an amendment that does just that. The amendment I am proposing would repeal the 54-cent-a-gallon tariff on foreign ethanol that was extended for 2 years--December 31, 2010-- under the recently passed 2008 farm bill. The 2008 farm bill also extended the blenders credit for ethanol producers for 45 cents a gallon, which creates a trade barrier of 9 cents per gallon. Ethanol producers can also receive a small blenders tax credit of 10 cents a gallon if they produce less than 60 million gallons of ethanol per year. My amendment helps to stop these protectionist policies and offers alternatives to hard-working Americans who are paying too much for gas. On the other side of the equation, more must be done to reduce demand and promote conservation. This Congress took a significant step by mandating CAFE energy standards in the Energy bill we passed in 2007, which was the largest increase in fuel economy standards in nearly 30 years. According to the Department of Transportation, these new fuel standards will save over 55 billion gallons of fuel and save American motorists more than $100 billion over time. But that is not enough. These standards will go a long way in helping to increase fuel economy, but more must be done to foster the market for efficient energy alternatives and other breakthrough technologies. One of the more promising technologies in this area is advanced batteries for plug-in hybrids. The Gas Price Reduction Act contains $500 million in research and development for advancements in plug-in technology and $250 million in direct loans for manufacturers who retool factories to produce plug-in batteries. It will help to make batteries in many of the current hybrids more affordable and longer lasting. In the long term, I envision a market where renewable fuels are viable and available and drivers will have affordable alternatives to fossil fuels such as gasoline. My State of Florida has been a leader in helping to make this vision a reality. The State recently created the Florida Energy Systems Consortium, which brings together researchers and resources from State universities to develop renewable energies. The University of Central Florida--a member of the consortium-- recently announced it is receiving $8.75 million in grants to focus on how technology can make new and existing construction projects more energy efficient. In addition, with the help of $20 million from the State of Florida, the University of Florida is currently building the State's first biorefinery, which could produce clean cellulosic ethanol to power our cars. As we continue to discuss the ongoing energy crisis, I urge my colleagues to consider the consequences of failing to offer viable solutions to the American people as they grow increasingly worried over dwindling energy supplies in America. Now is not the time for the politics of energy. It is not the time for us to look for one- upsmanship in the political game. It is time for us to act on a problem that is hurting American families throughout the State of Florida and throughout the United States. We need to address this problem. We need to put us on a track of finding more and using less--a track that, where possible, is environmentally safe, where we can produce more domestic energy, while at the same time turning loose the energies of this Nation, the technology, to look for future opportunities for different blends of fuels, different types of automobiles, and other ways we can improve the efficiency of our fleet so that we can increase the opportunity for the American people to live in a world that is cleaner and in which they can afford to drive their kids to school and go to work. When we have alternative fuels available, they may not have to be totally dependent upon fossil fuels or imported oil. I believe this is imperative, and it is an issue of national security proportions. We cannot continue to transfer our wealth overseas. We are transferring, year after year, $750 billion to countries that are not particularly our friends. Some of them, in fact, would be considered hostile to us. Nonetheless, we purchase oil from them because of our necessity; our need is too great. The fact is, we know there is plenty of political opportunity on both sides of the aisle on this issue. The American people are focused on this, and the American people are saying: Please do something about this. Hear our cry for help. I say that this is the time for bipartisan cooperation, for us to come together, Republicans and Democrats, put partisan interests aside, put American interests first, and look for ways to cooperate, work together, and do what is doable, do what can be done. On five occasions, I have voted to open ANWR to oil exploration. Whether that is acceptable or not, let's come together and decide. I would be prepared to support that once again. If that is a deal- breaker, let's not go there. Let's look for those common-ground areas where we can agree and move forward with a comprehensive energy plan. Let's not say we have done our job by simply looking at speculation as a scapegoat. We can deal with that and add transparency to it, but that is not an answer in and of itself. We have to have a comprehensive approach that tackles the issue of supply, that tackles the issue of demand, where we have more oil available, where the supply is increased from domestic production, American production on America's lands and shores, and where we can also reduce our consumption, utilize less. That will make America a safer place. Then we can go home for this August break and face our citizens and let them know we did a job they sent us here to do; not to play politics but to get the job done for the American people. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, on September 11, 2001, thousands of Americans tragically lost their lives, but the legacies of their lives endure. One of those individuals was CeeCee Lyles, a flight attendant who perished in Pennsylvania on United Airlines Flight 93. CeeCee was a loving mother, a dedicated wife, and determined individual who spent her life fulfilling dreams. CeeCee was born and raised in Fort Pierce, FL, where she attended Fort Pierce Westwood High School. She raised two sons on her own while working for 6 years as a Fort Pierce police officer. As a police officer, CeeCee earned the reputation of being a tough crime fighter. In 2000, she married Lorne Lyles and the family relocated to Fort Myers. In the face of financial hardships, CeeCee held two jobs, one at a local hospital and the other at a powerplant to help care for her sons. In her spare time, CeeCee volunteered at Restoration House, a Christian women's shelter in Fort Pierce. Eventually, CeeCee walked away from police work to pursue her lifelong dream of becoming a flight attendant. She was part of the flight crew that helped to overpower the terrorists responsible for hijacking Flight 93 and successfully kept them from reaching their intended target. On the day she died, she left little doubt that she loved her husband and children. From the plane, she told her husband in a voicemail: ``I want to tell you that I love you. I love you. Please tell my children that I love them very much.'' In honor of CeeCee's heroism, courage, and dedication to serving others, the city of Fort Pierce has already commissioned a sculpture of her for permanent remembrance. As Senator of the State she called home, it would give me great pleasure to recognize Ms. CeeCee Lyles by placing her name on a community facility so others will remember the great American she became during her brief but full life. I call upon my colleagues to join me in honoring a truly great Floridian and exemplary American by renaming the post office at 1717 Orange Avenue in Fort Pierce the CeeCee Ross Lyles Post Office.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam President, this is indeed an important debate we are having about a very important issue to many in my State of Florida. There is no doubt that my State has a large population of people who depend on Medicare for their health care. This is an important matter to them. We also have, of course, the doctors who deliver health care who also have a concern, a great concern, about a potential cut at a time when everything else in their lives is rising--an unfair cut. The fact is, we know doctors are tremendously stressed today because of many issues in their practice. The fact is that hard-working doctors do not deserve a pay cut. I know whoever created this condition years ago was well- intentioned, but it has not worked and it does not work. Doctors should not be expected to come before the Congress hat in hand each and every year or 18 months to ask for yet another extension or a deferral of a pay cut. The next cut in pay, which would come 18 months from when we do the right thing and move beyond the politics and get something done, will be a 20-percent cut--unsustainable. I would say the real answer for the long term is to fix Medicare and to fix the doctors' pay problem. Unfortunately, we have not been able to come to an agreement. I daresay I don't believe we will today either. So I believe the real answer to the issue is to extend the program temporarily. We have not done so in the past, even though it has been requested. I wonder why. The fact is that to date, the Congress has passed 28 temporary extensions for programs where agreement has yet to be reached so these programs can continue without interruption during the time those differences are ironed out. These extensions are commonplace, as demonstrated by the 28 temporary extensions during this Congress alone. In fact, at the time the majority objected to the first request for a short-term extension, Medicare payment rates were already operating under a 10-month temporary extension from last December. So I would say it is time for us to stop the political ``gotcha'' games and allow the doctors to be assured that they will not be suffering a pay cut while we get to a bipartisan agreement because it is important that this be a bipartisan effort and that we come at it in a bipartisan way with ideas from both sides of the aisle. We can do that. While that takes place, I believe the only way to proceed would be for there to be a 30-day extension that can allow uninterrupted payments to continue. The differences can be worked out, as they always are in this environment, although not always on a timely basis, and then we can move forward. Unanimous Consent Request At this time, I ask unanimous consent that if cloture is not invoked on the motion to proceed to the House-passed bill, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of a Senate bill which I will send to the desk, and it is clean, a 1-month extension of the Medicare payments bill. I further ask unanimous consent that there be 15 minutes of debate equally divided and that following the use or yielding back of time, the bill be read a third time and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage without any intervening action or debate.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. It is very special.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Connecticut and very much appreciate his contribution this morning. I am incredibly honored to have the opportunity to talk about Patrick Henry and the words he expressed at such a vital time for our Nation. As the Senator from Connecticut knows, I am an immigrant to this land. I am one who has been the beneficiary of the fruits of liberty that were obtained by others, and I am incredibly grateful for those opportunities to live in freedom that I have been afforded by this great Nation. So the Fourth of July always ranks as a very special day on my calendar. The words of Patrick Henry have to do with a people who felt oppression, as I did in my youth. It is, at that time in someone's life, a little difficult to determine whether it is better to resist or reconcile, whether we move in the direction of conflict or in the direction of peace. It was in that kind of a moment that Americans in the years preceding 1776 found themselves. So on March 23, 1775, at a meeting of delegates at St. John's Church in Richmond, Patrick Henry made the case for action. There is a picture of the inside of the church which was taken from Patrick Henry's pew. Here are some excerpts from that famous speech. It reads: Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren 'til she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? . . . . . . We have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrations have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free--if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending-- if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us! They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? . . . . . . The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave . . . . . . It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! Those are the words of Patrick Henry, which I feel terribly inadequate delivering myself, but I am so honored to have this incredible opportunity, and the words ring so true today. As we know how history unfolded, he was so correct about the fact that it was a time for action and that there would be an almighty who would stand on the side of freedom and on the side of liberty, which is still true today. I know the Senator from Connecticut would share that view with me. I so much appreciate this wonderful opportunity, and I yield back to the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I thank the chairman. I have heard in recent days that this bill hasn't been seen, read, and that somehow there is mystery surrounding this bill. It has been through the committee process. There have been a number of hearings, as the chairman has discussed, on each of the components of this bill. We have had great testimony from all of the financial minds in this country. It is a bill that passed committee with a bipartisan vote of 19 to 2. There is no real mystery here. I realize minor changes have been made in the last couple of days. This is an open process. I hope we are not sidetracked with side issues having nothing to do with what is at stake--America's families who are hurting.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from California for her comments and concern. I wish to add my thanks on behalf of my constituents in the State of Florida to Chairman Dodd and to Senator Shelby for being the architects of this very fine bill that attempts to put a floor on what is a downward spiral that we are seeing of home prices and ever-increasing foreclosures. The National Association of Homebuilders tells us that every week another 47,000 homeowners are going into foreclosure. That is a tragic figure, as the Senator from California was saying. I can recall during the past decade when each and every day we could see increasing numbers of Americans who were becoming homeowners, increasing percentages, particularly among minority families--African American and Hispanic families--who were tasting and grasping that dream of home ownership, and now we are seeing that dream erode and dissipate. If we can do something, if we can respond, then we must. This bill attempts to do that in a very measured way--in an imperfect way, but in a way that I think moves us forward and allows the American homeowner to begin to feel a sense that they are getting a floor under them, and it allows the housing economy, which is so important to a State such as Florida--we begin to feel as if we are getting a little footing going. There are some tragic stories of how we got here. There are a number of things that have happened in the lending world that highlight the problem. In one situation, a gentleman from Ruskin, FL, was approved for a $280,000 home despite the fact that he was making $12.50 an hour with a lumber company in Bradenton. Without his knowledge, the mortgage originator listed his annual income at $60,000 a year in order for him to qualify for the loan. Five months later, after moving into his new home, he defaulted on his subprime mortgage, depleted his savings, and now has a black mark on his credit and no home. His story is just one of many. These stories are all over the country. There may be some parts of America that are untouched by this crisis, but I will tell my colleagues that Florida has been hit, and Florida has been hit hard. That is why I am so grateful this bill is finally on the Senate floor and that we are moving forward to act on it. I agree with the Senator from California. We need to put partisanship aside and ideology aside. This is about getting something good done for the American people. If someone thinks they can make the bill better, that is why we have an open amendment process with amendments that are germane to housing, and that is how we should keep it. Let's hear your ideas. Knowingly filling in false information is a crime, and it brings to light some of the flaws that we have had in our financial system, in our mortgage system. So this bill represents a good-faith, bipartisan effort to address this ongoing crisis. There is help for America's struggling homeowners, there is reform of major Federal programs, and there are new ideas to help ensure that we don't find ourselves in a similar situation somewhere in the future. So I wish to thank Senator Dodd, Senator Shelby, as well as Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley for working together on a package that I hope will have strong bipartisan support from the Members of the Senate. One of the most important provisions to me in this package is regulatory reform of the government-sponsored enterprises. These are little-known entities--I came to know them in depth while I was at HUD--Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks. They play an immense and critical role in our Nation's housing finance industry. They have to be strengthened. They have to be safeguarded. They are a treasure. One of the questions that I always would be asked when visiting with foreign dignitaries as HUD Secretary was, How do you set up the government-sponsored enterprises? How can we replicate them in our country? So they are a national treasure, but all is not well. It is important to note that when they have reached the point where they are financing more than 80 percent of all mortgages in the United States, which is up from 40 percent a year ago, and when we see that from time to time there has been some trouble in these entities, it is time for us to have a stronger and more forceful regulator. GSEs have been a key to the stability and the liquidity of the mortgage market, but they are stretched. Both Fannie and Freddie continue to have financial and operational issues that heighten the need for strengthened oversight. As GSEs take on more risk, as Congress has allowed them to do, we have an obligation--and by the way, I believe it was appropriate to do that, but now we have an obligation since we did that to ensure they continue to fulfill their public mission in a safe and sound manner. GSEs have an obligation of more than $6 trillion in debt and securities. If their risks are not managed properly, or if market movements turn dramatically against them, the Federal Government could face a very serious situation. So we owe it to the American taxpayer--our constituents--who would be on the line in the event of a failure, to enact meaningful, comprehensive reform legislation. A strengthened regulator is in everyone's best interests: The administration, the Congress, Wall Street, investors worldwide, and, most importantly, the American home buyer. I believe by strengthening this regulator that we will create a greater level of confidence in investors at a time when more capital and more liquidity is needed in these troubled financial times. The importance of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the housing financial system is simply undeniable. Real reform is necessary to ensure that the public understands these two companies can continue to make low- cost mortgage financing available to low- and moderate-income families. But we also have to do more than help temper the current situation. We have to ensure we don't find ourselves back here facing the same issues again in the future that we are facing today. That is why Senator Dodd and Senator Feinstein and I have worked hard on an amendment which was accepted in committee--the Safe Mortgage Licensing Act--that addresses the loose patchwork of State regulation of residential mortgage loan originators. Our amendment is included in the provisions of title V, which is included in this package. It would help eliminate bad actors from the mortgage business. I should say most mortgage brokers are decent, honorable people trying to do a good job each and every day, but there have been some bad players and bad actors in this arena. The act would create a national registry database and require brokers and lenders to meet minimum national standards which ensure that they are professional, competent, and trustworthy. Strong licensing standards for mortgage brokers and lenders are an important part of protecting consumers and restoring confidence in the marketplace. There is another important component of this package, and that is the reform of the Federal Housing Administration, or the FHA. Congress created FHA in 1934 to help spur the housing market and increase home ownership. It was in another time when we were in a troubled financial situation. It was after the Great Depression. It was one of the vehicles that moved America, particularly after the Second World War, into an ownership society. Instead of governmental loans or subsidies, borrowers purchased FHA mortgage insurance. Since the insurance mitigates a lender's risk, a lender can offer competitive mortgage terms to borrowers who may have thin or imperfect credit, or little cash on hand. Over the past 72 years, FHA has been a mortgage industry leader, helping over 34 million Americans become homeowners at no cost to the taxpayers. I should add, in my own family, as an immigrant family, when my parents had only been here a little over 2 years, we grasped the American dream and owned our first home in America. It was insured and financed with an FHA-insured loan. I had no idea what it was at that time. All I knew was that it was an FHA loan that allowed us, with a very small downpayment, to get a 30-year fixed mortgage so we could begin to live the American dream. That is the historic role FHA has played throughout our Nation's history since 1934. It can play that role again today. Prior to the FHA program, home buyers were required to have downpayments of as much as 50 percent of the purchase price. That is still true in many parts of the world today. In those places where ownership is still a distant dream, that is what it takes. Financing consisted of 5-year interest-only mortgages. FHA made the low downpayment, 30-year fixed rate, self-amortizing loan the standard product in the United States. Unfortunately, in recent years, while the mortgage industry adapted to changes in the marketplace, FHA stayed the same, leaving a large number of home buyers with no option but higher cost, higher risk mortgages. I remember when I was at HUD, each and every statistic we would get would show an ever-dwindling market share for FHA of all the mortgages being originated. For many minority and low-income first-time home buyers, the private market provided access to mortgage financing, but too often at excessive costs. We know today that the dream of home ownership has turned into a nightmare for too many Americans. I have no doubt that many of the individuals in financial trouble today could have received lower cost loans with the help of the FHA, especially if the program had the flexibility to change with the marketplace. The FHA reform provision included in this package will make much needed programmatic improvements, allow FHA to insure larger loans, and give FHA more pricing flexibility. These reforms will empower FHA to reach more families needing help--first-time home buyers, minorities, and those with low and moderate income. With this legislation, we have built an even better program that complements conventional mortgage products and allows FHA to continue to serve hard-working, creditworthy Americans. This housing bill will go a long way in helping those suffering in the short term, and ensure our housing economy regains its strength in the long term. Some of the detractors have said this FHA program will be some sort of a bailout to one mortgage company or another. The fact is this is a program here to help individuals. We should not get distracted with side issues. The fact is this program is inclined to help those families while, at the same time, working with the financial institutions. What we have today is--if we could create a situation where the home buyer could refinance, and where the bank doesn't have to go through with foreclosure--the bank doesn't want a house, they want a payment. They don't want to foreclose on the homeowner. If we could do all of this by using FHA, wouldn't that be a good thing? And then the bonus or the dessert on top of that good deal is the fact that we can now do this by utilizing the resources of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as a backup, creating this fund that will be there to help home buyers in the future. Today, in this moment, it is going to be there to safeguard and backstop the FHA program, to ensure that the taxpayers are not on the hook, but that homeowners are given a second chance to have a mortgage they can now afford, with the financial institutions taking a haircut. They will be taking a loss. This is no bailout. They will take a loss. Then the home buyer will have a mortgage that is more in keeping with today's market prices. This is a win-win situation that I am delighted we have been able to see come through in this housing bill. I conclude by extending my thanks to Chairman Dodd and Ranking Member Shelby. I particularly thank the chairman for his courtesies throughout the process in that I have been given an opportunity to make an impact on a couple of issues relating to mortgage brokers, and so forth. I look forward to being of help in any way I can in the process of making this bill become a reality.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I want to speak on this issue, the energy problem we find ourselves in, and I want to begin by a moment of reflection upon the problems described by my dear colleague from Minnesota. The fact is, the more we can find a way to work together and the less we make clever rhetorical points about whether one party is on full or another is on empty, or anything else, the quicker we will get to a solution. The fact is, we are not going to find solution to the energy problem in America by doing it as Democrats or Republicans. We are going to find it by working together as Americans. We all know when the minority is not permitted the opportunity to impact a bill by amendments there is not a real debate taking place and, therefore, our ideas, the ideas of 49 Members of this Senate, are not worth considering. We all know that is not the way the Senate legislates. That is not the way to do things when you are serious about an outcome and not just looking to make political points. We are, for sure, in the midst of an energy crisis like nothing we have seen in recent times. A gallon of gas is more than $4 a gallon, with diesel more than $5, and natural gas prices continue to rise. These high prices are putting an unexpected and heavy burden on millions of American families. As I talk with Floridians, it is clear that people are feeling the pain and families are hurting. The rising costs are digging into the family budget. In addition to high energy costs, we are also in the midst of increasing food costs and putting an even greater strain on families who are growing increasingly anxious. They want and deserve solutions. They don't want and don't deserve partisan bickering. There are a number of factors impacting the price of gas--including the influence of speculators and the weak dollar. We are seeing a large and increasing demand for fuel while supplies remain stagnant. Since the automobile was invented, it took the United States until the early 1980s to reach 100 million cars. In China, the same thing happened in less than 15 years. According to the International Energy Agency, Chinese oil imports are expected to rise 80 percent in the next 4 years. And by the way, we know the Chinese are looking for ways to increase their own oil production--but despite what is cited as fact here on the Senate floor on frequent occasions, China is not drilling off the coast of Cuba. I have taken the time to research this issue because of my own interest in this area of the world. According to the Congressional Research Service, China only owns one plot where they could explore. It is this little green spot. Whether it is under production or not is not clear, but it is not offshore--it is on the island itself. According to University of Miami Center for Hemispheric Policy fellow Jorge Pinon, there is no drilling taking place offshore in Cuba by the Chinese or any other country. Reports to the contrary are false; they are rumor; they are akin to urban legends. China is not drilling for oil 60 miles from the Florida Keys. There is one oil company--Spanish Respol RTF--that has purchased one lease off of Cuba's shore and there is no current drilling or even plans to drill in the forseeable future. There is the possibility that the Canadians may have something happening there, but I am not aware of that either. So any talk of using some fabricated China/Cuba connection as an argument to change U.S. policy has no merit. To address the supply side of the equation, one solution I have always favored involves using our existing natural resources to increase domestic production. Congress has made some progress in this area in recent years, but more needs to be done. Offshore drilling is one area where we have made progress. In 2006, I helped to negotiate the opening of more than 8 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico as a result of negotiations and conversations on a bipartisan basis here in the Senate. The area is estimated to contain up to 5.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 1.25 billion barrels of oil. That is a tremendous amount of resources in areas open to drilling right this minute, all as a result of an agreement Senator Nelson and I made, protecting Florida's beaches yet understanding the need to open up this area of the Gulf. While 8 million acres have been opened in the Gulf, to date no exploration has taken place. I know they are still in the process of leasing, but to date we have had no product out of that area. It makes sense to me that we would go here first, well away from Florida's beaches, before this area, where we also have a military mission area to protect. I hope that before we talk about opening areas closer to our beaches, that we will first attempt to get to the one billion barrels of oil already available in the Gulf. Another promising domestic resource is in ANWR in Alaska. Five different times during my Senate career, I have voted to open this remote area for oil exploration. It is environmentally safe, the people of Alaska favor it, and our country needs it. I will continue to support efforts to obtain resources from the area. The size of the land we are talking about for exploration is merely 2,000 acres within 19.6 million acres of wilderness--that is the virtual equivalent of a quarter on a football field. Estimates indicate this area in Alaska contains approximately 10.4 billion barrels, meaning we could have another one million barrels of oil coming into the U.S. supply every day for decades. I will continue to support increasing the U.S. domestic production as long as it is supported by those most directly impacted by it. Along with working to increase the U.S. oil exploration efforts, there is also a tremendous need to build more oil refineries. Part of the reason why our oil supplies are stretched thin is because despite the rise in demand for gasoline, a new fuel refinery has not been built in three decades. Once crude oil is shipped from overseas, it still has to be refined. With so few oil refineries in this country and the demand so high, this results in a bottleneck and further contributes to the domestic demand that is outstripping supply. We can do a great deal more in the short term to alleviate the burden high gas prices are having on America's families. An integral part of any energy plan moving forward has to focus a heavy emphasis on conservation. We are not going to drill our way to energy independence. We have to have a comprehensive approach: more exploration, more conservation, renewables, biofuels, and new technologies. We are paying high prices at the pump for that demand, and it is also something we are paying for environmentally. I think there is huge promise in answering some of our energy demands and contributing to a cleaner environment by investing in alternative fuels. Most people are familiar with ethanol--but I think that is just the first step. Florida's research universities have been working on cellulosic ethanol, which is a second generation biofuel. This process generates fuel from orange peels, grass clippings, corn stalks--not the corn but the waste after the corn is gone. Any sort of organic material that has carbon in it can be turned into fuel. One thing should be clear--it is that the tension on the world's oil market is not going to lessen anytime soon and the need to lessen the U.S. dependence on foreign oil could not be any greater. Frankly, this Congress has been absent on the matter. The fact is, although we talk about President Bush and what he has and has not done, we have an obligation to act as well. The fact is, when the Democrats took over the Congress the price of oil was $2 a gallon; today it is over $4 and going up. We have to put down the partisan rhetoric. We have to come back to the fact that we must come together, work together, Republicans and Democrats, to do what serious legislating usually can accomplish when people of good faith come together to get something done. I invite my dear friend and colleague, the Presiding Officer today, to find ways we might work together so we can help American families. I know there are many things on which we can agree. We ought to try to diminish the points of disagreement and find the common ground and move forward to a better energy future for our country so we might leave the kind of legacy for our children that I know is the reason we came here to the Senate in the first place. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to recognize a dedicated public servant and a patriotic American from my home State--Mr. James ``Jim'' McCrindle. Jim passed away on June 1, but his legacy lives on through all that he accomplished and all those he touched. In 1961, Jim immigrated to America from Ayr, Scotland, to pursue an education and earn his piece of the American dream. He joined the U.S. Army in 1962 and attained the rank of specialist five. Following his military service, Jim began serving our Nation in a different capacity through his involvement in the Department of Defense's Morale, Welfare & Recreation, MWR, services and programs. His work helped to enhance the lives of these employees by promoting fitness, good health, and camaraderie. Jim went on to fulfill his goal of receiving an education by attaining a degree in hospitality management from Cornell University. He would use these skills to support the soldiers he greatly respected and admired. Throughout his life, Jim strived to bring comfort to members of our armed services. Among his many accomplishments, he managed the Armed Forces Recreation Center--Europe, helped to plan and execute the Department of Defense's R&R program during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, and was instrumental in the development of Shades of Green--a Walt Disney World Resort for members of our military. Jim served as the hotel's manager and helped it to achieve great success. Since its opening in 1995, Shades of Green has routinely achieved one of the highest occupancy rates of any American hotel. Jim managed Shades of Green up until his passing early this month. It was truly his pride and joy, and was one of his many contributions to our Nation. I applaud his steadfast commitment to improving the lives of others. On behalf of Florida and the people of the United States, I would like to honor this great American for reminding us all of what makes our Nation great.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, my brother, Ralph Martinez, has been nominated by the President to be a member of the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States. I am extremely proud of Ralph. He is someone, such as myself, who has adopted this country as his own and who, after the struggles of all immigrants, succeeded in life. He is the proud father of three wonderful children and has raised a wonderful family. He also has excelled in the practice of law in central Florida. I am delighted he is going to have an opportunity to serve this Nation in this very important capacity. I am also delighted to thank Leader Reid and Leader McConnell for expediting his confirmation, as well as Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Specter for their courtesies throughout this process for Ralph Martinez. I know he will serve this Nation well. I am proud to second his nomination and urge the Senate to confirm him swiftly. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 3 minutes.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I wish to speak on the executive business of the Senate. I am proud today to speak on behalf of my brother, Ralph Martinez, who has been nominated by the President.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam President, over the course of this Nation's history, generations of Americans have made tremendous sacrifices to protect the freedoms we hold dear. Every May, we honor these courageous Americans on Armed Forces Day. Just a few years after the close of World War II, President Harry S. Truman led the effort for this holiday. It was at the end of August, 1949, that Secretary of Defense Louis Johnson announced the creation of Armed Forces Day to replace separate days of celebration for the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force. This is a day for all of us as Americans to come together to recognize our brave military men and women for their service, sacrifice, and dedication to our Nation. On this Armed Forces Day, we are reminded of the important contributions our service men and women are currently making overseas to help others come to know the freedom we enjoy. Let us not only remember all of the service men and women who have served our country so bravely, let us appreciate those serving at home and their families who sacrifice so much. On this day we thank members of our military for their selfless dedication to working everyday to protect our liberty and freedom. As the home to more than 20 military installations and nearly 2 million veterans, this past Saturday was a proud day for many Floridians. I salute all those who have given up so much for our Nation, and express my tremendous gratitude for their service.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in recognizing Israel's Independence Day--the day Jewish people around the world rejoiced after generations of political and religious persecution. Exactly 11 minutes after Israel's first Prime Minister, David-Ben Gurion, announced the nation's independence, the United States became the first nation in the world to recognize it. Since that time, Israel and the United States have forged a friendship based on shared ideals and common values--a commitment to political and religious freedom, the rule of law, democratic governance, and the preservation of individual rights. During my first official trip abroad as Senator, I traveled to Israel and saw firsthand the sacrifices Israeli people make to protect these principles. This visit helped me better understand the urgent need for sustainable peace in the Middle East and Israel's vulnerability within the region. The United States shares Israel's desire to protect their thriving democracy, and we honor our commitment by supporting security efforts in Israel. Since 1948, Israel has been a reliable and steadfast ally to the United States, and our support helps to ensure the security of its territory and citizens. A strong and healthy relationship with Israel is critical to the endurance of democracy in the greater Middle East and the United States will continue to stand with Israel to ensure its survival, peace and prosperity. I extend my greetings to all those taking part in celebrations to mark this historic week for Israel. In my home State of Florida, the home to thousands of individuals of Jewish descent, today is especially important. It marks the day a permanent home was established for a people who suffered tremendously for generations because of their ethnicity and religious beliefs. So during this momentous time, I offer the people of Israel and its many friends around the world my best wishes and the hope for continued prosperity.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I thank Senator Nelson, my dear colleague from the State of Florida, for bringing this bill forward, of which I am a cosponsor. I wish to associate myself with his comments regarding this very important proposal for the State of Florida. What already passed in the House ought to be given an opportunity to be considered by the Senate. I believe it could make a big difference to a lot of Florida homeowners who today are hurting because of high insurance costs because of unavailability of insurance and this is a way of safeguarding and actually it is a way of planning ahead for the inevitable storm. Senator Nelson likes to say the big one is coming. The fact is it is inevitable that we will have other storms and some of them are going to be substantially large storms. As that occurs, the Federal Government will have a response. Inevitably, FEMA will be there, and there will be other responses to help people. Wouldn't it make much more sense to have a Federal backstop to an insurance program that could then provide, in an orderly way, the relief that surely will come to Florida or whatever other State is afflicted by the big natural disaster as we know Katrina was and other terrible storms can be. I met today with the Director of the National Hurricane Center. I presume Senator Nelson may have met him as well. He was coming around to tell us about their programs, the terrific job they do of forecasting, but it is also a reminder that the hurricane season is upon us. About a month from now will be the official beginning of the hurricane season. As that happens, surely I will join with Senator Nelson in saying the big one is sure to come, and when it does it will be nice to have the kinds of funds the Klein-Mahoney legislation envisions and which I fully support. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Wicker amendment, the multiple peril insurance provision. I want to share some thoughts with the Senate on this provision. As a Senator from the State of Florida, little is of more importance to the average homeowner than their home insurance and the cost of that insurance. The multiple peril insurance provision will create a new option in the National Flood Insurance Program to offer coverage of both wind and flood risk in one policy. The program requires premiums for the new coverage to be risk-based and actuarially sound. CBO estimates the multiple peril program ``would increase premium receipts and additional claims payments by about the same amount-- resulting in no significant net budgetary impact.'' By covering wind and flood risk in one policy, the multiple peril option will allow coastal homeowners to buy insurance and know that hurricane damage would be covered. The reason we have to consider this is because in Florida, the gulf coast and throughout the region we have experienced constricting effects in the market. Insurance companies are pulling out. They are dropping coverage. State Farm, for instance, stopped writing residential, rental, and commercial policies just 2 months ago. People in my State are finding it increasingly difficult to secure insurance, especially policies that cover both wind and flood damage. People who have paid every premium and never filed a claim are simply locked out of the market. But insurance is only part of the solution. We also have to encourage mitigation. The multiple peril program would strengthen coastal mitigation efforts by making the new coverage available only where local governments have adopted building codes consistent with International Code Council standards. Most of the State-sponsored plans are not able to spread risk efficiently and not able to build up sufficient reserves to cover a major hurricane. They are forced to charge higher and higher premiums to buy more overpriced reinsurance to keep up with their increasing liability. The Federal multiple peril program will spread coastal risk geographically, in a much more efficient manner than the state pools. I strongly support the Wicker amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. I remind my colleagues that CBO expects that the new coverage offered under H.R. 3121, the Wicker amendment, would increase premium receipts and additional claim payments by about the same amount, and the CBO claims that the result would be no significant net budgetary impact. For those reasons, I strongly support the Wicker amendment and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.