Mel Martinez

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I wish to follow the comments of my colleague from Texas, Senator Cornyn, who so aptly framed this issue of the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. I wish to focus on a couple of points. Senator Cornyn pointed out that the differential in tariffs is tremendous. Now, what does it mean to the American worker? It means if an American worker is manufacturing something that is sold overseas, when that product is being sold in the Colombian market--suppose it were a heavy piece of equipment made by Caterpillar and is going to be sold now in Colombia to build roads or other things that are happening there because the country is prospering as a result of President Uribe's leadership--that particular piece of equipment is now competing in the Colombian marketplace with one made in Japan and one made in Germany. The American piece of equipment today has to pay that tariff. As we speak, Colombia is negotiating a free trade agreement with the European Union. As soon as that is done, they will have the opportunity to then bring their product in at a tremendous advantage over an American product. Canada is in the process of negotiating a similar type agreement with Colombia. Mexico already has negotiated one. So when it comes to American manufacturers, the advantage to the others is going to be that over time, these trading patterns will be set with other countries. Contracts will be made with the others because of the tremendous advantage. While they may prefer an American-made good, they are now going to pay an extra 35 percent for it, and as the American good goes in there with a tariff, the advantage will be to our foreign competitors. This is a global marketplace. Colombia has other trading opportunities. As they work and create free trade agreements with other marketplaces, they will put American products at a tremendous disadvantage going into the Colombia market. That may not just be for the one particular sale. That is going to be for time on into the future because, as I say, trading patterns will be set and contracts will be made, many of which could have a long-term impact. So it is not good in that respect. It is not good because American jobs would not be created. I was in Tampa with the Ambassador from Colombia on Monday. We have an opportunity in that very important trade city, the port of Tampa, and for the American economy. The fourth largest trading partner using that port is Colombia. For that very reason, the longshoremen's union in Tampa is in favor of this agreement because they know it will mean more jobs. In the first year this agreement is in place, our trade with Colombia will increase by $1 billion. That increase will translate to not only jobs but good-paying jobs in the cargo area of the airports, as well as in our ports and harbors. These are good-paying jobs, which pay well above the minimum wage. These are the kinds of jobs we need to create in Florida and across the United States so the American worker can benefit from this enhanced trade relationship. There is another dimension to this problem, which I know has been touched upon, and I wish to put my two cents in. We are in an ideological battle in Latin America. The fact is the Cold War ended, and we pretty well let our guard down in terms of this ideological competition. Well, it is back in a big kind of way. We have the country of Venezuela, under the rule of a tyrant, who is less democratic every day and who has maniacal ambitions of conquering the entire region. He talks of a Bolivian revolution. That ideology is rooted in the Castro brothers in Cuba, who have given him the playbook, if you will. On the other side of Colombia is Ecuador. We know Colombia, for 40 years, has been in a fight with terrorists, with those who would subvert the democratic process. Colombia has had a long and established tradition of democracy. This tradition is now threatened by the FARC, the narcoterrorists who have been kidnapping, killing, and maiming in Colombia for a number of years. We know, because of recent incidents that have occurred, that the Venezuelan Government, with assistance from the Cubans, has been funding and giving all sorts of resources to the FARC. The fact is the FARC is in existence today in large part because of the support they are getting from Venezuela. Venezuela now is engaging in new negotiations with Russia, and Hugo Chavez will be traveling to Russia in the near future to sign another large arms agreement. With the price of oil at $120 a barrel, Venezuela is awash with cash that it is utilizing to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries in the region, with Colombia, with the FARC, and it is also interfering in the political process in other countries, where large sums of money are being passed to the political candidates of their favor. The United States is AWOL in the region. We need to engage there. The worst message we can send to those who look to the United States for leadership and partnership and friendship is we are an uncertain ally, that we will not even go into a free-trade agreement which, in fact, is to the great benefit of the United States, simply for politics as usual in Washington. That is unacceptable. I submit it is in the long-term best interest of the United States, not only from an economic standpoint but also from a geopolitical standpoint, from the regional implications of the trade agreement, and what it would mean to all those in the region who look to the United States for a signal: Are you with us or will you ignore us? Are you going to support democracies or not stand behind democracies? The time is now. I know the Hispanic community of America looks upon this agreement as a signal. I know there is a great movement afoot by those who deeply care about the region and about the need for this agreement to help create jobs in America, and it is going to be felt and heard throughout this Nation. So I am pleased to join my colleagues in talking today about the virtues of the free-trade agreement with Colombia. It is important from an economic standpoint, and it is important to create jobs. I know it will create jobs in Florida. I know it will create jobs in other parts of the United States. I know it is good for Colombia. It will tighten and close ranks with a country that is our ally and long-time friend. I believe the time has come for this agreement to get an up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate and in the House. It is time for Speaker Pelosi to not play politics with something of this importance, this magnitude. I ask that the free-trade agreement with Colombia be brought to a vote and that we have an opportunity to engage with this close ally and friend. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ. How much time remains in morning business?

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam President, we are facing a real problem as Americans increasingly go to the gas pump to fill the need of energy for their vehicles and they find that the prices at the pump are ever higher, more onerous, and it makes the family budget more difficult to manage. This is a problem for working families, to the typical American family trying to drive children to school, participate in carpools and other activities. It hits everyone at a time when other economic problems are surrounding the American family. We have a problem, and we have to act. Failure to act is not an option. At this point in time, we cannot offer immediate solutions, but we have to recognize where we are. We have to recognize what has not happened. I recall many days sitting where the Presiding Officer sits today, when our party was in the majority. Democrats would come to the floor and talk about how, if they were in power, because they were not in cahoots with the big oil companies, then things would be better, they would find a way to make things better. There was a bold announcement made by then-House minority leader Nancy Pelosi on April 24, 2006: Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices. That is when prices were tipping at $3 a gallon. They were $2- something a gallon. I wish today we were back to those moments in time. A commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices? I ask, where is the plan? What happened to that plan? Democrats came into power to lead both Houses of Congress on January 4, 2007. The distinguished Senator from Minnesota proudly took her oath; many others came into office. At that point in time, the price of gas was $2.33 a gallon. Today, it is $3.62 a gallon. Is this what the commonsense plan to bring down prices was supposed to bring us? Is this why someone had a plan that was going to help America? Has it helped us? Have we gone up or down? The fact is, today prices are $3.62. What we should do is have some plain talk. The fact is, it didn't matter who was in control of Congress because the laws of economics go well above the laws of politics. This is about supply and demand. The fact is, there is not a commonsense plan. The fact is, there is no plan, that America's energy policy continues to flounder for several reasons. We have to act, and we have to act as responsible leaders. One of the things that is inevitable is that as long as supply and demand stay where they are today, with demand ever increasing and supply topping out, we will continue to have increasing prices. I submit that part of what has to occur is increased production. We have to find ways that we can, within our own borders, produce more energy. I have been supportive of drilling in 2000 acres of the vast wilderness of Alaska in a way that would be safe. If it had been done back when President Clinton vetoed it, today a million barrels a day would be flowing into the stream of production and would help with this supply problem we have today. There may be other safe ways. A year or so ago, we made a deal. The deal was that we would drill safely in areas well away from the Florida coast in the Gulf of Mexico--8 million acres for new drilling that are also available and will produce oil and gas. These are helpful steps, but they are not enough. We have to conserve. We have to find ways to encourage Americans to conserve at the pump, to save by carpooling, to save by finding a way of buying more energy-efficient vehicles. We as a government should be helping American consumers through our tax system to find a way they can purchase vehicles that are more energy efficient. We know that a hybrid vehicle will get 35 to 38 miles to the gallon. We know that a standard vehicle of similar size would be lucky if it gets 17 or 18 miles to the gallon. At the end of the day, it is a combination of strategies. The bottom line is, we have to have a multifaceted strategy. We have to work together, not suggesting that there is one party that has a secret plan that, in fact, doesn't exist. We have to find a commonsense way to work together, Democrats and Republicans, to increase production modestly and safely, to encourage conservation and new technologies, and to continue to boldly move forward toward a Manhattan-type project that is going to put all of the resources and energies of this country toward energy independence and energy security so we can discontinue this horrendous practice of wealth transfer that is taking place today between our country--the billions and billions of dollars we are transferring to some of the worst enemies of our country, people such as Hugo Chavez and Ahmadinejad. The day is coming when we have to find a way to pull together toward a common goal of having a sensible, balanced energy policy, increase production safely, conserve more, and new technology. All working together, we can do this. America can meet this challenge. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ

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

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the efforts of a Floridian who has worked to make a difference in an underserved part of our world. Leigh Anne Gilbert, who recently returned to her hometown of Orlando, has spent the past 3 years establishing the Rainbow Primary Neighborhood School in Masthan Nagar, Hyderabad, India. After her husband's job relocated the couple to an undeveloped part of India, Leigh Anne recognized the need to serve her new community and began work on a school to serve the area's children. Through the support of charitable organizations, Leigh Anne raised the funds necessary to charter and construct the Rainbow Primary Neighborhood School, which now serves more than 300 impoverished children living in the small Indian village. Leigh Anne was responsible for bringing together all those involved in building and operating the school--the designers, construction workers, local government, teachers, and staff. She even recruited the services of the Naandi Foundation--a worldwide charitable organization fighting poverty and malnourishment--which delivers meals to the school and provides the students health care. Work on the school began in early 2007 and it was completed in March of this year. The effort tested Leigh Anne's physical and mental fortitude as she worked tirelessly for the past 3 years to bring all the partners to the table. The project required patience, persistence, and cooperation from government officials, community leaders, and charity organizations. On Web posts, Leigh Anne reflected on the project and offered words of advice to those pursuing similar ventures: ``The number one lesson learned: Get partners--rugged, go-to, and knowledgeable partners--then leverage the partnerships to meet needs. None of us can go it alone.'' On behalf of Florida and the people of the United States, I would like to honor Leigh Anne Gilbert for the tremendous example she has set and the good work she has accomplished.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I want to follow my colleague from Texas in pursuing that very same discussion on the issue of energy. I was here before the Presiding Officer joined the Senate and I remember daily diatribes about how Republicans being in charge was leading Americans to have higher gas prices. In fact, I recall a great deal being made about what the gas prices were then, when they reached $3 a gallon in April of 2006, and I recall a big show up here at the gas station on the corner, right here on Capitol Hill, about how if Democrats were in charge, this wouldn't be happening; it was only because Republicans were in charge that gas prices had reached $3 a gallon. Now we are looking at a situation where they are $3.69 in April of 2008, 2 years later. The Democrats, as my colleague from Texas said, the House and the Senate leadership, with great enthusiasm, took control of both Houses of the Congress and promised the American people they would lower gas prices, they would change the dynamics, and they would deliver. We were promised an alternative to paying $3 a gallon. I don't think what they meant was to pay $4 a gallon, but it was an alternative to pay less. American families are hurting. AAA reports that today's price of $3.50 a gallon is the highest average price they have ever had on record. Families are paying record high gas prices and we still haven't passed a sensible energy policy that gets to the heart of this matter. Until that policy is passed, we ought to do what we can to offer Americans who are frustrated with the current prices some much needed relief. Currently, oil is nearly $120 a barrel. High fuel prices are translating into higher prices for groceries. What families need is relief. We need to do what we can to stem the rise of gasoline prices at the pump. One of the ways I think we could do that and benefit our economy at the same time is a summer holiday from the 18-cent-a-gallon Federal gas tax. I have joined with several of my colleagues in supporting a gas tax holiday from Memorial Day to Labor Day. What a concept. Wouldn't it be nice. By suspending the gas tax 18 cents a gallon on gas and 24 cents on diesel, it would be putting money back into the pockets of American families. This would help those who have to drive great distances for work. Many people in Florida who want to find affordable housing have to be a long ways from work. Florida doesn't have the kind of mass transit system many places in the Northeast and other parts of the country have. They have no option but to get in a car. When they do, they get hammered at the gas pump. People in the trucking industry are finding increasing problems in meeting their needs because diesel fuel costs are so high, so the cost of transporting goods is also going up. One of the things that benefits my State greatly is when the American family jumps in their car and goes for a summer vacation. As the gas prices begin to hurt the pocketbook of the American family, fewer and fewer of them will have the joy of enjoying a vacation and more and more Floridians, already threatened by a weak economy, would have an additional problem of seeing vacationers not come to our attractions and beaches and maybe hurt our tourism economy as well. Something else we can do is to seriously consider suspending the production of so-called boutique fuels. This is a requirement by States that mandate the use of different fuel blends to meet clean air standards. As States develop more and more requirements, the blends of fuel increase in number and now there are dozens of these fuel blends. Each one of them puts a strain on oil refineries which already are stretched to the max. States need to work to reduce the number of boutique fuels and increase their cooperation with oil refineries to harmonize fuel blend requirements. In other words, we all want clean air, but every State's version of how we get there ought to not be an individual act, but ought to be harmonized so we can then shorten or lessen the number of additional fuel blends that have to be made. In addition, we need to expand refinery capacity in this country. We haven't built a new refinery in 30 years, yet we keep saddling our fuel system with more and more mandates. We do need to find a way where we can create more avenues for refining fuel. Our industry refines approximately 18 million barrels a day, but we use over 20 million barrels a day. That means we have a shortfall between what we can refine, what we can actually do in that regard, and what must be imported from other parts of the world. So as unthinkable as it is, the United States has to import refined fuel. We shouldn't be in that fix; we should be able to stay ahead of the demand. We need long-term solutions to our energy problems. There are alternative sources of fuel, such as cellulosic ethanol, where it is synthesized using agricultural waste, biomass, and other byproducts that are renewable sources of energy and that do not compete with the food chain, which is an increasing problem we are finding. Florida could play a huge role in developing these fuels of the future and fuel technologies. I was pleased that our energy bill last year included a very robust focus on these new emerging technologies that will require 21 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol by the year 2022. Florida has a real potential to be a leader in biomass production, and we are quickly becoming leaders in this field. So for the long term, we have taken some steps necessary to provide Americans with more alternatives to paying high gas prices at the pump, but more must be done. We must increase, where possible, more domestic production. We need to also continue to expand avenues of research and opportunities for new fuel breakthroughs. I continue to believe that America's ingenuity is our greatest strength and we can look to ways in which we can utilize that ingenuity to find ways so we might conquer this addiction, as it might be called, to refined fuel. We must do better. We also have to help the American family to get away from $3 and $4 a gallon for gasoline. It is time we find a way to help the American family. Beyond that, I think there is one thing every American can do today, and that is to conserve. If we were to conserve fuel and do that in a significant way, I know we would lower the prices of gas, not only of fuel in the barrel but also at the pump. I think all Americans have an interest in conservation and we should seek and lead our people to do more and more conservation, because until we have alternative fuels available, this may be the very best way in which we can lower our fuel prices. We need leadership. We look for leadership from the majority party, and we hope part of that will include opening additional sources of exploration in America, where possible and where prudent, in compatibility with our environment; creating more options for fewer fuel blends, and more refining capacity; also, looking to cellulosic, but also conserving more energy. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I am honored today to pay tribute to an outstanding member of my staff. When I was elected to the Senate, one of the first things I had to do was to select and hire a chief of staff. It didn't take long for me to find John Little. He came to work for me in December 2004, even before I was sworn in as a Senator. When I first met John, he was legislative director for the junior Senator from Alabama, my colleague Jeff Sessions. I asked Jeff if it would be all right if I approached John and hired away a key member of his staff. He was very gracious, and he told me that although he would be hard to replace, he thought it would be a great opportunity for John and wanted to make sure he didn't stand in his way in any way. One of the reasons I came to Washington was to be engaged in the issues of the day and try to find solutions to the problems facing Floridians and all Americans. Having spent my entire public career in the executive side of Government, I didn't know the inner workings of the Congress and looked for someone with that skill and knowledge. John Little brought that legislative experience from day one to my office and has been an invaluable member of my staff and someone I have relied on and counted on every single day I have been in the Senate. John's experience on the Hill started when he was a very young lawyer, fresh from passing the bar and eager to work in Government. He worked his way up from being a young staffer writing legislative correspondence to becoming a legislative aide handling policy in the areas of education and health care. John had the respect of his peers and would eventually become legislative director. He is known in the Hill community for being bright, aggressive, conservative and even- keeled. He knows the implications of both large and small shifts in public policy and the impact they might have on families and communities. He brought to the people of Florida a great amount of knowledge and experience and was a problem solver when we had problems we faced. Through his work and in getting to know John personally, I have come to admire him greatly for his strength of character, a trait I greatly admire in him. In the face of challenges, John courageously rose to meet those challenges. He never wavered in his love of this institution or his love of this country, and he has served the people of Florida and the Senate, an institution that I know he loves, very well. Over these last few years, John has demonstrated tireless dedication and loyalty to me and the people of Florida. We have successfully turned back attempts to breach Florida's ban on offshore drilling. We have sought and secured funds for restoring the Everglades. We have fought to ensure Florida's military people and bases have the resources they need to perform their duties. Throughout these and other achievements, John has remained humble and committed to ensuring the policies we have pursued were in the best interests of the people of Florida. For those who know the life of a chief of staff for a Senator, it is not glamorous. The hours are long, the issues are complex and innumerable, and you rarely have the opportunity for an uninterrupted weekend. For these reasons, John has accepted a position in the private sector--a great opportunity for John. This speaks to his skill and knowledge as one of the great qualities he possesses as chief of staff in the Senate. I am sad to see him go, but I am confident he will continue to find ways to serve the public good. He will be missed. I thank him for his service, and I wish him all the best in all his endeavors. John is truly a friend. I will miss my personal day-to-day contact with him, but he is someone with whom I hope to have a lasting, lifelong relationship. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I am pleased to follow my colleague from South Carolina. I understand where we are. This amendment has been withdrawn. However, let me touch on this issue for a few moments, because it is so very important that we give this concept due consideration. In fact, at some point, the Senate should give it an up- or-down vote. A gas tax holiday from Memorial Day to Labor Day, which has a number of cosponsors, would allow American taxpayers to suspend the gas tax during that period of time. The fact is we are not in easy times in America today. We have rising gas prices, falling home prices, which is resulting in falling home equity opportunities for families to utilize their home as a means of defraying other costs in their family's life. As food prices go up, home prices are going down. The price of gasoline has gone up tremendously. Unleaded regular has increased 53 cents per gallon this year. As a matter of fact, a tax holiday of 18 cents a gallon gas tax and 24 cents a gallon on diesel fuel from Memorial Day to Labor Day will help American families, will help those who make a living driving on the road, moving and hauling things through the trucking industry. Why is it important to me as a Senator from Florida? We are a tourism State. A lot of tourists travel to Florida by car. In fact, the overwhelming majority of tourists come to Florida by car. This is the average working family--the same people we are trying to help with this economic stimulus. This is allowing a family to throw their kids in the car and get on one of the interstate highways and come down to Florida and visit the attractions, visit the beaches this summer, and do what people do to bring families together, to be able to recreate, to be able to vacation as families together. This is an economic stimulus to the State of Florida. The State of Florida is in hard times today because of the downdraft in the housing economy. So this would act as a tremendous boost, and it would help tremendously the families who are traveling in Florida and coming to Florida. Gas is about $3.38 a gallon for regular in the State of Florida right now. It is a 51-cent increase from what it was a year ago. We get about 75 million tourists a year who come to the State of Florida. As a result of that, a great deal of economic activity is generated. Over the course of a year, about 25 million families are paying an additional $68 million in Federal gas tax for just one fill-up. That is on top of the fluctuating prices for a barrel of oil. At the end of the day, we have to recognize this is an opportunity to provide a stimulus to our economy, to help the Florida economy, and to help the American family to be able to vacation this summer. The Department of Treasury would transfer funds under this amendment to make the highway trust fund whole. So, in other words, it is not going to create a hole in the highway trust fund. It will not mean a diminution in our commitment to maintaining our infrastructure. It is simply going to give families a break between Memorial Day and Labor Day. What a great thing. What a great time of year. For the 4th of July we know millions of American families are going to set to the road-- hopefully, set to the road--if they do not have to break to their kids the bad news because of the situation today. Because of difficult family budgets, that kitchen table conversation may also include saying: Children, guess what. We have to cancel our vacation to Florida this summer. We can't afford to take the family car. The price of gas is too high. This would be a way to give the American family a break. Amendment No. 4538 Mr. President, I want to take a moment and comment on something else. The distinguished Senator from California, Chairman Boxer, commented on the issue of Coconut Road. It is in my State of Florida. I am very concerned about what occurred in the situation there, which I think is well known to my colleagues in the Senate. The fact is, what happened here is, at best, a questionable procedure. So the reason for Senator Coburn's amendment, which I have cosponsored, and Senator Nelson has cosponsored--so it is a bipartisan amendment--is to try to get at the bottom of it. It is not to try to create a Justice Department investigation. I do not know if there is any criminal wrongdoing that has taken place. These are congressional actions which are, frankly, in many ways reprehensible in my view but which may not rise to criminality. So the issue is, why not just investigate? Let's find out: How did this happen? Because what I would hope we would all want to do is prevent this from happening in the future. Do we need to change rules, do we need to change procedures, or do we need to simply allow the public to know who did something like this and what their motivations were? I am not sure it rises to criminality. That is what the Justice Department does. They investigate criminal conduct. I do think it rises to the level of conduct that is not becoming to public officials that is not designed to enhance the public trust. The people of southwest Florida, who have tremendous traffic problems--that I-75 is dramatically important to their lives, frankly, as to the cost of fuel, the cost of how much time they spend idling on the highways--want to know what occurred here. All I want to do is allow, through this process, to provide some clarity so they can know some answers. I believe the Coburn amendment is appropriate. I do not want to see this be created into some inquisition by the Justice Department but simply to get some Members to come together around a table and say: How did this happen? What happened here? Let's give the people of southwest Florida the kind of answers they deserve, they demand, and give confidence to the American people that the Congress is acting in the people's best interests and not at the behest of special interests. With that, Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on both of these items, and I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I am delighted that the Senator from Colorado is in the chair. I will begin by simply extending a word of welcome to the Holy Father, who, a few minutes ago, landed in our country for his historic visit. I feel tremendously honored that I will have the opportunity to see his arrival ceremony at the White House tomorrow and, of course, then to be with him and, I presume, with the President as we celebrate Mass with him at Nationals Park. It is a momentous and historic occasion. I know I speak for many of us as I say the Holy Father is welcome to the United States. We are delighted he is here. We hope his message of spiritual renewal, hope, and peace is one that will resonate with the American people. Colombian Free Trade Agreement Mr. President, the Colombian free trade agreement is of great importance to me personally. It is something that I believe requires the attention of this Congress, and it is something whose time has come for us to act and make a determination. There has been a great deal of attention focused on the future prospects of this trade agreement with Colombia. The core question is whether we think people in the United States should be able to effectively compete in Colombia. What is at stake is whether we want to create jobs here in the United States, create additional wealth in the United States, and export more goods and services to Colombia. The fact is that a free trade agreement with Colombia benefits all of the stakeholders involved. It is good for the United States, it is good for Colombia, but it also is good for the Western Hemisphere. The United States would reap immediate benefits of a free trade agreement with Colombia in our level of exports--one of the strongest and more positive areas of our economy today. I know the Senator from Ohio was just speaking about the economic hard times in our country. I know and respect him greatly. I am not sure he agrees this is a good agreement for us to sign. But what better way is there of improving economic circumstances than to export and sell more of our goods to a country that wants to be our friend and our partner. By leveling the playing field and eliminating the tariffs on products we export to Colombia, this agreement would benefit those responsible for the $8.6 billion in merchandise the United States exported to Colombia last year. Currently, more than 9,000 United States companies export products to Colombia. Of those, 8,000 are small and medium-sized firms. In the absence of a free trade agreement, these firms must pay up to 35 percent when sending their goods to Colombia. On the other side of the equation, more than 90 percent of imports from Colombia coming into the United States arrive here duty free. This agreement will immediately eliminate tariffs on more than 80 percent of American exports of industrial and consumer goods, and then reaching up to 100 percent over time. This is an agreement that will bring more business to American firms, and it will bring higher demand for products from farmers in Louisiana, machinery manufacturing workers in Alabama, transportation equipment providers in Illinois, and electronics makers in California. My own State of Florida--home to what we think of as the ``gateway to the Americas'' in Miami--was responsible for $2.1 billion in exports to Colombia in 2007, the second largest export total in the Nation. The free trade agreement would benefit the more than 28,500 companies in my State that provided products in areas such as computers and electronics, machinery manufacturing, and transportation equipment. The trade agreement makes sense economically, but also from a national security standpoint, it strengthens our relationship with a key Latin American ally and demonstrates our commitment to supporting nations who choose their leaders through free and fair democratic elections and who support the rule of law. In fact, the U.S. Southern Command, which oversees our forces in Central and South America, sees the Colombian free trade agreement as a critical component of our Nation's Latin American policy. A few days ago, I saw Admiral Stavridis, head of the Southern Command, who was testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee. I asked Admiral Stavridis whether he felt the Colombian free trade agreement was an important component of our overall policy for the region and whether it would add to our ability to increase U.S. influence and security in the area. He wholeheartedly agreed. Recently, a group of SouthCom military leaders, including GEN Peter Pace, expressed their support of the agreement in an open letter to Congress. These officials know of the diplomatic opportunities this trade agreement represents, especially given their unique perspective on the current climate in Central and South America. In their letter, they affirm that passing this agreement ``will build upon [Colombia's] recent advances to enhance the long-term prospects for peace, stability, and development in Colombia.'' They also argue that it is in our ``national interest to help Colombia along the road toward democratic consolidation and economic development.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, Colombia remains one of our strongest allies within the region. It is the strategic center of Latin America, of all of the Andean countries. Geographically, it is in a precise and important spot in the region. It is a country of 40 million people. It is a very significant country. Fostering this important relationship holds strategic importance to advancing our security and economic interests in South America and also with the Colombian Government. Colombia's Congress voted twice in favor of passing this trade agreement. It would honor the commitment we made when signing the agreement last year and would provide greater stability and security to the Colombian people as their quality of life continues to improve. I know some critics of the trade agreement point to some of the violence against labor organizers that has occurred over the years as the reason not to ratify. In doing so, I believe they fail to recognize the progress that has occurred in Colombia in recent years. Colombia has had a violent history. I can recall in younger days when I used to travel to Colombia frequently. It was not only a beautiful and wonderful country, but you were perfectly free to go throughout the country. Over the years, the violence brought upon the people of Colombia by FARC, or the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, has wreaked havoc on that country. It was to the point where the violence was incredible. Six years ago, as President Alvaro Uribe delivered his inaugural address, mortar shells landed near the Presidential palace in Bogota and killed 14 people and wounded another 40. That was the level violence had reached in this country. These events and crimes against labor organizers were common prior to when President Uribe came into office in 2002. Since that time, violence has dramatically decreased in Colombia, and the Colombian Government's presence is being felt in cities and towns across the nation. Let me point out that one death of an innocent civilian or one death of a union leader or union organizer is one death too many. Colombia has seen more than its share of violence. I point to this chart which I believe is accurate in pointing out the actual figures when it comes to union leader violence. Notice the high point in 2001. This is before President Uribe was President. Then he comes into the Presidency and look at the dramatic drop since his Presidency down to where it is today. This is not just violence against union leaders. President Uribe has been effective in pacifying the country. The violence against unionists has declined 86 percent during his time in office from 2002 to 2007. The reason for this decline is President Uribe's attention and response to concerns over these attacks. The President established an independent prosecutor unit and created a special program to protect labor activists. They can actually seek protection from the Government and be provided with armored vehicles, with protection for union halls, and personal protection for them as they go about the country. There has been significant progress in other areas of Colombia as well, which is improving the lives of the Colombian people. It is astonishing to see homicides are down 40 percent, kidnappings are down 83 percent, and terrorist attacks are down 76 percent. This is as a result of what, in fact, has been a very successful partnership. One of those moments of bipartisan agreement that the President and I so often yearn for in this Congress started under President Clinton with support from the Republicans, continued under President Bush with support from Democrats. We had Plan Colombia. This has been a way of helping the Colombian Government and the Colombian people to continue to strengthen their democracy. President Uribe was elected to office with over 60 percent of the Colombian vote, and he is a democratically elected leader who is fighting an insurgent group that seeks to destroy his Government and democracy in Colombia by means of violence. When we stand with President Uribe, when we stand with the duly constituted Government elected by the people of Colombia, we are standing on the side of those who respect democracy, freedom, and human rights. When we talk about the kidnappings, these kidnappings have now been limited to poor peasants, although that has been part of it, but it has also included Government officials. Miss Betancourt, who has gained international notoriety because of efforts by the French Government to free her, was a Presidential candidate in the midst of a Presidential campaign when she was kidnapped. Also, members of the Congress of Colombia, businesspeople--they have shown no mercy. Today it is rumored they maintain about 700 kidnapped victims with them in the jungles of Colombia. Colombia's Foreign Minister is someone who was a victim of kidnapping who escaped 5 years ago, maybe more, from the jungles of Colombia and has regained his freedom. Public school enrollment in Colombia has increased 92 percent. The child mortality rate has decreased dramatically as the Government turned its focus to human rights and also living conditions. The number of tourists visiting Colombia has doubled in the last 5 years. Colombia is on the rise. Colombians enjoy a better quality of life because they have been living in a country that is more peaceful. For that, I think the Colombian people are very grateful to the United States. There is no country in the region that is more pro-U.S, that is more pro-American, and so much wants to interact and work with us. Enhancing that relationship will continue to bring prosperity at a time when Colombians continue to face destabilizing forces of terrorism. There is a second aspect of Plan Colombia. It is not just about building the Colombian military, as important as that is. There is a second phase. It is about people, it is about job generation, job creation. That is why it is important to enter into this free-trade agreement so that U.S. investment dollars might flow to Colombia and increase jobs in Colombia as we increase jobs in America as well. One of the most prominent narcoterrorist organizations operating within their borders is the FARC. ELN is another one. FARC is an organization that supports a brand of terrorism much like al-Qaida. FARC's greatest enemy is stability, the same sort of political and economic stability provided by trade agreements such as these. They oppose the democratically elected Government, and they would love nothing more than to return Colombia to the days of corruption, chaos, murder, and mayhem. It would be unwise to abandon this vital alliance in the face of a difficult time for them. A trade agreement with the United States would deal a blow to those attempting to hinder Colombia's growth, to those who offer a misguided vision of the future of the region to those who hear their cry. The fact is, there is a battle of ideas going on in the hemisphere, and this battle of ideas is one we cannot shrink from but must engage. By entering into this agreement, we would join a growing list of partners in the region that have demonstrated commitment to human rights, free and fair elections, and strengthening trade relations with us. We have a very strong partnership. NAFTA, I must confess I find it a little difficult to understand how NAFTA, which has created jobs all over America, could be faulted for jobs going to China. And I cannot believe, on a serious note, those who seek to be the President of our country would walk away from that trade agreement. The fact is, this trade agreement is one that would enhance and advance the interests of the United States. I do not believe in a country that would be afraid to compete with those abroad. I believe in the America that is proud and strong and can compete with anyone in the world. We cannot just shelter within our shores. We cannot just retreat to fortress America. Those days are gone. We created the global trade we live in today and to retreat from that would be a misguided mistake. Over the weekend, both the New York Times and the L.A. Times ran pieces urging Congress to ratify this important and historic trade agreement. According to the New York Times, ``rejecting or putting on ice the trade agreement would reduce the United States' credibility and leverage in Colombia and beyond.'' And the L.A. Times characterized the House's decision to halt the vote by stating ``it wasn't about the U.S. economy and it wasn't about Colombia. It was politics.'' I don't want to dwell on that issue because I believe the best way for this to take place is for us to continue to work together in a bipartisan fashion to try to bring about an agreement that would be good for America, good for the region, good for Colombia, good for the United States, good for our people, good for their people. This is the kind of trade agreement that is a win-win. I was talking about NAFTA. We then moved to Central America and the Dominican Republic, and we have CAFTA. That trade agreement is creating and generating jobs in that region. We have a free-trade agreement with Peru and Panama, and if Colombia joins in, that would create a powerful, mighty trade alliance creating and generating jobs and exports from the United States to this region. I was meeting this morning with a gentleman who is hoping to be the next Ambassador of the United States to Honduras. I asked him how has CAFTA impacted our relationship with Honduras. He said there has been several billion dollars a year of trade between us and Honduras, and it had increased U.S. exports to Honduras by 18 percent. That is good for America. That is good for American jobs. So I hope calmer voices will prevail. It would give us a chance to vote on this important trade agreement. It was signed by Colombia and the United States well over a year ago. There is never a perfect time for these agreements. I believe the votes are there. I believe it is time to allow the votes to take place instead of utilizing procedural maneuvers that, at the end of the day, are not particularly democratic. Mr. President, I hope we can move forward to consider this agreement, to study the elements of it, to see the merits of it. It goes beyond stating the obvious: that this is something that not only would help economically, but it would also be a tremendous boost to our relationship in this region of the world that all too often feels forgotten, that all too often feels our eyes are focused elsewhere in the world, but are always our closest neighbors, are always our people who each and every day signify more and more to us. A great many people of Colombian heritage live in the State of Florida and in other States of our country. They are great contributors to the American experiment. I am proud to have them among my constituents. I know in the southern part of my State, this is a big, important issue. It is one whose time has come. I hope the Speaker will reconsider. I hope we will move forward with this important trade agreement. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, today Senator Herb Kohl and I are introducing the Fairness in Nursing Home Arbitration Act. In my State and many others, elderly Americans--as a condition of their being admitted to a nursing home--are unfairly asked to agree to arbitrate any claims they may have against that nursing home before their claim actually occurs. This is not only unfair to those seeking residence, but it is also unfair to their families, who often times have no choice but to forfeit their loved one's legal rights in order to find them the care they need. The basis for arbitration is accorded under the Federal Arbitration Act, FAA, which Congress enacted in 1925. The FAA was intended to allow parties an alternative forum to efficiently resolve business disputes. But over time, the FAA has expanded into nonbusiness disputes, including those involving nursing homes. The legislation I am introducing today is in keeping with the FAA's original intent by requiring that agreements to arbitrate nursing home disputes be made after the dispute has arisen--not before prospective residents move in. While this bill won't prevent arbitration from occurring, it will prevent nursing home corporations with greater bargaining power from forcing residents to enter into pre-dispute arbitration through a non-negotiable contract. The trend we are seeing at far too many nursing homes around the country is an unwarranted intrusion into a vulnerable population's right to access the civil justice system. This bill protects those who are otherwise unprotected, and helps to give their families peace of mind in knowing their loved ones are able to retain their full legal rights should they be abused or injured. I applaud my colleague, Senator Kohl for recognizing the egregious injustices happening in nursing homes around the Nation, and I urge my colleagues to support this necessary bill.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, today Senator Herb Kohl and I are introducing the Fairness in Nursing Home Arbitration Act. In my State and many others, elderly Americans--as a condition of their being admitted to a nursing home--are unfairly asked to agree to arbitrate any claims they may have against that nursing home before their claim actually occurs. This is not only unfair to those seeking residence, but it is also unfair to their families, who often times have no choice but to forfeit their loved one's legal rights in order to find them the care they need. The basis for arbitration is accorded under the Federal Arbitration Act, FAA, which Congress enacted in 1925. The FAA was intended to allow parties an alternative forum to efficiently resolve business disputes. But over time, the FAA has expanded into nonbusiness disputes, including those involving nursing homes. The legislation I am introducing today is in keeping with the FAA's original intent by requiring that agreements to arbitrate nursing home disputes be made after the dispute has arisen--not before prospective residents move in. While this bill won't prevent arbitration from occurring, it will prevent nursing home corporations with greater bargaining power from forcing residents to enter into pre-dispute arbitration through a non-negotiable contract. The trend we are seeing at far too many nursing homes around the country is an unwarranted intrusion into a vulnerable population's right to access the civil justice system. This bill protects those who are otherwise unprotected, and helps to give their families peace of mind in knowing their loved ones are able to retain their full legal rights should they be abused or injured. I applaud my colleague, Senator Kohl for recognizing the egregious injustices happening in nursing homes around the Nation, and I urge my colleagues to support this necessary bill.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I would like to commend the hard work of Chairman Dodd and Ranking Member Shelby for putting together a bipartisan package of housing provisions. If we have learned anything from the current economic situation, it is the need for improved oversight of the lending industry. There is a need to restore investor and consumer confidence in the housing market. Although this bill goes a long way to helping families and communities deal with issues related to foreclosure, there's still a critical component missing--regulatory reform of government-sponsored enterprises. I would like to take a moment to remind my colleagues what precipitated the need for Congress to consider GSE regulatory reform. In May 2006, OFHEO published a special report detailing egregious management and accounting scandals that highlighted a corporate culture of greed and corruption. I would like to read a few excerpts from the summary of that report: Fannie Mae senior management promoted an image of the Enterprise as one of the lowest-risk financial institutions in the world and as ``best in class'' in terms of risk management, financial reporting, internal control, and corporate governance. The findings in the report show that risks at Fannie Mae were greatly understated and that the image was false. During the period covered by the report--1998 to mid-2004--Fannie Mae reported extremely smooth profit growth and hit announced targets for earnings per share precisely each quarter. Those achievements were illusions deliberately and systematically created by the Enterprise's senior management with the aid of inappropriate accounting and improper earnings management. A large number of Fannie Mae's accounting policies and practices did not comply with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, GAAP. The Enterprise also had serious problems of internal control, financial reporting, and corporate governance. Those errors resulted in Fannie Mae overstating reported income and capital by a currently estimated $10.6 billion. By deliberately and intentionally manipulating accounting to hit earnings targets, senior management maximized the bonuses and other executive compensation they received, at the expense of shareholders. Earnings management made a significant contribution to the compensation of Fannie Mae chairman and CEO Franklin Raines, which totaled over $90 million from 1998 through 2003. Of that total, over $52 million was directly tied to achieving earnings per share targets. Fannie Mae consistently took a significant amount of interest rate risk and, when interest rates fell in 2002, incurred billions of dollars in economic losses. The Enterprise also had huge operational and reputational risk exposures. Fannie Mae's Board of Directors contributed to those problems by failing to be sufficiently informed and to act independently of its chairman, Franklin Raines, and other senior executives; by failing to exercise the requisite oversight over the Enterprise's operations; and by failing to discover or ensure the correction of a wide variety of unsafe and unsound practices. The board's failures continued in the wake of revelations of accounting problems and improper earnings management at Freddie Mac and other high profile firms, the initiation of OFHEO's special examination and credible allegations of improper earnings management made by an employee of the Enterprise's Office of the Controller. Senior management did not make investments in accounting systems, computer systems, other infrastructure, and staffing needed to support a sound internal control system, proper accounting and GAAP-consistent financial reporting. Those failures came at a time when Fannie Mae faced many operational challenges related to its rapid growth and changing accounting and legal requirements. Fannie Mae senior management sought to interfere with OFHEO's special examination by directing the Enterprise's lobbyist to use their ties to Congressional staff to generate a congressional request for the inspector general of the Department of Housing and Urban development, HUD, to investigate OFHEO's conduct of that examination; and insert into an appropriations bill language that would reduce the agency's appropriations until the Director of OFHEO was replaced. While I will concede that the Enterprises have made great strides in cleaning up their acts, Congress must enact regulatory reform to ensure that such deliberate and egregious practices can never happen again. This legislation achieves that objective and it is high time we take action to pass it. If we really want to assist our fragile markets, we cannot forego the opportunity to include meaningful and comprehensive GSE reform in this housing package. I have spent the past five years advocating for GSE reform, first as Secretary of HUD and now here in the Senate. There has been a great deal of talk about reforming GSEs, but we haven't closed the deal. The junior Senator from Delaware and I are offering this amendment because we believe the housing legislation before us represents the best opportunity for Congress to pass GSE reform. There has been a great deal of uncertainty lately in the housing market, and as one of the most reliable resources for homeowners, we cannot afford to let the future of GSEs like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to remain equally as uncertain. The combined obligations of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks exceed $6 trillion. The Fed's bailout of Bear Sterns last month would look like a drop in the bucket compared to what would happen if one of these institutions were to fail. This is a risk we simply can't afford to take without giving the U.S. taxpayer every opportunity to ensure safety and soundness--a world-class regulator gives us that. Last year, the House passed a bipartisan GSE reform bill, and our amendment mirrors that legislation. This amendment is broadly supported by those within the financial sector as well as the Treasury Department and OFHEO. It contains the essential components necessary for overhauling GSE oversight and for providing stability and strength to our housing finance system. And given Congress's recent action raising conforming loan limits and OFHEO's decision to lower Fannie and Freddie's capital requirements, GSE reform is more critical than ever. We passed an economic stimulus package that increased the maximum size of a mortgage that Fannie and Freddie can purchase this year to almost $730,000 in high-cost areas, and recently OFHEO lowered their capital surplus requirements from 30 to 20 percent. While I agree that these were necessary steps given the current market conditions, I am very concerned about the additional risk Fannie and Freddie will assume given these changes. I am committed to ensuring the long-term sustainability of the GSEs and regulatory reform is critical to that effort. In terms of current regulation, OFHEO has done a great job with the tools at its disposal, but the problem is the regulator needs greater powers--like those of other Federal banking regulators. We need a world-class regulator to ensure the GSEs continue to operate in a safe and sound manner and that they remain focused on their affordable housing mission. One of the most important elements of this proposal is the creation of a new regulator that is both politically independent and funded outside of the appropriations process. In order for this regulator to be credible, they cannot be subject to the annual budget machinations of a committee or the political influence inherent in Washington. Part of its broad responsibility would be to ensure a more coherent regulatory framework, better enforcement, and a more consistent and aggressive effort on affordable housing. The regulator would have the ability to monitor the agency's portfolios--and direct the enterprises to acquire or sell any asset in order to maintain risk consistent with their missions. The regulator would also have the ability to set both minimum and risk-based capital levels for the GSEs--in other words, the amount of capital an enterprise would be required to hold would be directly related to the amount of risk they have undertaken. The regulator would posses enhanced enforcement powers and be able to provide prompt corrective action, including the authority to set and enforce prudential management and internal control standards. It would also have the ability to put a GSE into receivership, and exercise a role in the authority over safety, soundness and mission. Finally, it would have a say in new product review and approval. I know many of my colleagues have concerns that this legislation does not go far enough in its regulation of the enterprises or that the inclusion of an affordable housing fund is nothing more than a ``political slush fund.'' Funds would be allocated to and distributed by the states, rather than the GSEs, under a formula to be developed by HUD. The most important component of reform legislation is the establishment of a stronger, more credible regulator--which is greatly needed. Homeowners are frustrated and consumers are worried about what lies ahead for our housing market. We have an opportunity to inject some much-needed confidence into a sagging portion of our economy, and I believe it would be irresponsible to further delay addressing this important issue. Ensuring the soundness of Fannie and Freddie will give market participants the confidence they need to continue investing in mortgage products. That confidence is critical for the proper functioning of our financial markets. In the same bipartisan spirit that helped us come to an agreement on the housing bill, I would urge my colleagues to follow the same course of action in passing this necessary bill.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. I thank the Senator from California. What a pleasure it is to work with the Senator on this bill, this important piece of legislation. She has stated it so well. I want to perhaps go over a few items I think ought to be also said. I know when I first became Secretary of Housing and Urban Development I was shocked at the role, ever-increasing and prominent role, that mortgage brokers play in the home purchasing process. When there is such a close working relationship with a customer-- there are issues that deal with premiums, there is the question of fiduciary responsibility--all of these issues arise because of that relationship, and oftentimes it is the closest point of contact with the customer. And many times they are the most vulnerable of customers. So that is why I am delighted to join with the Senator from California in the Safe Mortgage Licensing Act. I hope, like her, that we can get at it and talk about it, and I would like for us to work with the managers of the bill. I know there are some concerns that the Senator mentioned perhaps that can be resolved in conference. But I look forward to working with the bill managers toward the resolution of those small issues that may remain. With foreclosures at record levels and home prices in steady decline, we must act quickly to restore consumer confidence in the housing market. Florida has the dubious distinction of ranking No. 2 in the Nation in foreclosures. In February, Florida had one foreclosure filing for every 254 households, up more than 7 percent from January's rate-- truly frightening. Last year, more than 2 percent of Florida's households entered some form of foreclosure, and that is a 124-percent increase from the year of 2006. Many of these foreclosures can be attributed to predatory lending practices of unscrupulous mortgage brokers. And while the mortgage broker industry ought to be commended for supporting this bill, and to my own profession of law, there are always bad actors out there. That is what this is getting at. Let me point out, in the State of Florida we have the dubious distinction of leading the country when it comes to foreclosures. This is the list of the top cities across the country. And you can see why the Senators from Florida and California are here talking about this. We have been hit hard. No. 1 leading the country is Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL, at 5.8 percent. Then we have No. 2, which is Port St. Lucie, FL, at 3.9 percent. Then Miami, Miami Beach, and Kendall at 3.1 percent; Fort Lauderdale, Pampano, Deerfield Beach at 3 percent. And then after a couple of California communities and Ohio, we have Naples-Marco Island, FL, at 2.7 percent. This is concentrated in some of the better areas of Florida where home prices have been in a dramatic rise for many months and years in the recent past. The current system provides little coordination between State regulators and, therefore, exposes consumers to predatory loan originators who have crossed State lines. The creation of a nationwide system will eliminate bad actors by keeping track of those who violated the law, had their licenses revoked or failed to fulfill appropriate educational requirements that will benefit families and eventually the marketplace. It would give home buyers more transparency and more peace of mind as they make one of the most important decisions and, frankly, maybe the largest financial decision of their lives. The SAFE Mortgage Licensing Act would, for the first time, establish a national professional licensing standard for mortgage brokers and lenders. This would ensure that all mortgage professionals are trained in Federal lending laws, ethics, consumer protection, and subprime market lending. The legislation also would create a national database that consumers can use to verify the credentials of the brokers and lenders. This amendment would require all residential mortgage loan originators to be licensed, provide fingerprints, and a summary of work experience, and consent to a background check. States are given 12 months to develop licensing standards to ensure that applicants meet the following minimum criteria: No felony convictions; no similar license ever revoked; a demonstrated record of financial responsibility; successful completion of educational requirements; and passage of a written exam. If this does not occur, the Housing and Urban Development Secretary is empowered to develop the national database and license, generating revenue for its implementation through fees to license applicants. The Federal Reserve, Treasury, and FDIC must also register all residential mortgage loan originators employed by national banks within 12 months of this legislation being enacted. The SAFE Act has been endorsed by mortgage regulators in 40 States, and the National Association of Realtors agrees with and supports this amendment. I thank the Senator from California for working with me on this important piece of legislation. We need to do more to empower families who have worked hard, who look to home ownership as an important piece of their American dream. While there are details to be worked out, I look forward to working with Chairman Dodd and Ranking Member Shelby to see if we cannot eliminate any concerns that might be out there. We don't want to throw the net so wide it may ensnare people for whom we are not intending this to be their concern, but we also are committed to getting this done. This is an important step forward. I look forward to moving the process along. I appreciate working with the distinguished Senator from California. I thank the Chair, yield the floor, and suggest the absence of quorum.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Missouri for his words. I was reminiscing, as I was listening to him, about my work as the HUD Secretary, and many times getting good counsel and advice from my main appropriator, a man who knows a great deal about this whole problem and about this issue, and I thank him for his comments. I think he is exactly right when discussing how the problem we are seeing today is hurting families. When I had the good fortune to be at HUD, it was in the good times. We were talking about ever-increasing rates of home ownership, particularly among minority families; more and more people getting into home ownership. It was a good thing because as we were doing that, we were building communities. Streets were getting stronger and families were getting stronger and cities and communities were getting stronger. Now we are seeing the reverse of that. That is why it is so important to take the steps the Senator from Missouri suggested and to move forward aggressively on this problem. Let me talk a little bit about what I saw in Florida during the last few days when I was there. I think in Florida it is a microcosm of the problem. The state of the market is one in which we see increasingly, at the level of the homeowner, that people are more and more distressed and more and more in trouble about holding onto the home they have. You drive around and see signs about a foreclosed home for sale. In addition to that, you know people are having a problem making ends meet. The second situation related to that is the fact that many people are now staying away from the market. They are simply not buying homes. The reason for that is there is a sense of insecurity about where we are today in this very difficult moment. So as a result, we find that homes are not being purchased. This is having an impact on market prices, where home prices are in a decline and fewer and fewer buyers are in the marketplace. As a result of all these things, there have been significant economic impacts on the State of Florida. So what begins as a problem for a family--and a significant problem, a heartbreaking problem--becomes a compounding problem when it impacts the entire economy of a State such as Florida. The State of Florida is greatly dependent on homebuilding for its economy, and that is a fact. When speaking these past few days to people in the industry, I am hearing from homebuilders who are saying: I have had to lay people off. I had to lay off substantial numbers of the workforce. Large homebuilders have laid off hundreds and hundreds of people. The impact on the economy is significant. So the Florida situation is somewhat revealing of what is happening across the country, which is why I come back here more determined than ever that we have to act; that this is a time for the Congress to take strong and significant action to try to have an impact on what is a deteriorating situation. Everybody keeps talking about whether we have hit bottom or when the housing market is going to hit bottom. Well, I am not sure if we have hit bottom yet. I hope we have, and I hope we are beginning the situation of ascending back. But the bottom line is we have to act, and there are things we can do in certain areas where we must act. I suggest we act in three areas. One is the area that impacts the homeowners themselves. That is what Senator Bond was talking about: About home counseling, about getting people help, about workouts. The fact is, it is in the best interests of a financial institution to work out a loan with a hurting homeowner rather than to turn that into foreclosure. Nobody wants to have a foreclosed home on their inventory; what they want is the homeowner continuing to make their payments. We have to work on housing counseling. We also have to do FHA modernization. I see the Senator from Connecticut, my chairman. We have worked hard to get FHA done. We have to get that done. That is going to help families by making the FHA a more active player in this current marketplace. It is going to bring FHA into play by allowing them to do larger loans, by allowing them to be more flexible in the loans they do. FHASecure is a good first step. We need more flexibility in FHASecure. We need to make sure families who have already gotten in trouble but who are not desperate yet--who have not gotten yet to foreclosure but who have gotten behind--are able to utilize FHASecure. Why do we do that? Because it will allow families to get into an FHA mortgage that will allow them to be in a mortgage they can carry and keep out of trouble. We need to stabilize values. We need to make sure the decline in home values stops, because as that happens, the equity in homes continues to decline, and that is not good for the economy as a whole. How can we help with these ideas? One I like a lot is Senator Isakson's idea to provide a tax credit to try to lower the inventory of unoccupied homes. If these homes are unoccupied, as has happened in Florida--many were built that are today not being bought. We need to get the market going again. We need to get people back into buying homes. We need to make sure they have an opportunity to do so. The encouragement of a tax credit I think will go a long way toward doing that. A second related problem is liquidity. I have talked to homebuilders who are telling me they have some buyers who cannot find loans. Banks are not lending money. Money has tightened. So as money has tightened, we need to provide those things which will create more liquidity in the marketplace. Which is why I am fearful that cramming down mortgages is not a good idea; in fact, it will work against providing more liquidity. I also wish to look at the long-term effects. There is a need for regulatory reform. I have talked about the regulation of the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac home loan banks. We need a stronger, more effective regulator. I have been preaching this since I was at HUD. This is an important concept. We have increased loan limits and lowered capital requirements to 20 percent. As we have done that, it is necessary that we look at a stronger regulator. The rules today are not up to par for what we need. These are trillion dollar companies of incredible importance that will play a significant role in getting us out of the market dilemma we are in. In order for them to be stronger and for them to have the kind of investor confidence they must have, I think a stronger regulator would be a great step forward. I commend the Secretary of the Treasury for the proposal he made on a broader regulatory scheme for our financial world. I think some of these ideas that are also being discussed in Congress are important. We need to consider them and many need to be adopted. They may be on a second tier. I am looking at more immediate things we can do to prop up the housing market and look forward in that regard. I want to touch on the importance of working in a bipartisan fashion. Chairman Dodd and I have had conversations. It is important we work together and come together with something that will help the American people. The people of Florida desperately need help. This is a problem not only relating to the end consumer, the homeowner--the family who tasted that dream of home ownership and got into a loan and is now seeing the nightmare of losing it--but also to those people who have lost a job or are fearful of losing one. The economy depends so much on housing. That is what we need to address. I hope we will come to some understanding of how to move forward in a bipartisan fashion and work toward a solution that will help the American people get back to the strong, vibrant economy we have known in recent years, and also continue to grow that dream of homeownership for more and more American families. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. About 10 or 15 minutes.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee. I appreciate this opportunity. It is something that I am doing in conjunction with Senator Menendez. Senator Menendez is at a Banking Committee hearing and will be here shortly to participate. Today, I rise to speak about a man who is best described as a defender of freedom and human rights, a consistent voice for change, and a shining point of defiance within a country rife with oppression. This man is Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet--a Cuban who has made his life's work being an advocate for democracy and a defender of human rights. This individual risked jail time for publicly denouncing the countless human rights violations performed by the Cuban regime. As a result, Dr. Biscet is today locked in a jail cell as one of Cuba's hundreds of political prisoners--people held for crimes not against society but for speaking out against the systematic repression of the regime. What was Dr. Biscet's crime? He called for freedom. I bring attention to Dr. Biscet because I believe, even in his relatively young life, he has exhibited actions that rise to the level of the extraordinary and worthy of our recognition. This is why today I, along with my colleagues, Senators Bob Menendez, Bill Nelson, John Ensign, and Norm Coleman, will introduce a measure to award the Congressional Gold Medal to Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet. This is in recognition of his courageous and unwavering commitment to democracy, human rights, and peaceful change in Cuba. Over time, Congress has recognized many individuals who have made contributions to advancing freedom around the world. Among these individuals are proponents of peace and liberty, including Nelson Mandela, Pope John Paul II, the Dalai Lama, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. All have been awarded the highest award bestowed to civilians by Congress. Dr. Biscet is equally worthy of this distinction. In fact, he has modeled his efforts after those of Dr. King, the Dalai Lama, Thoreau, and Gandhi. We should recognize him for speaking out, even though he knew he risked the regime's harassment, censure, and incarceration, and for drawing the world's attention to the regime's horrific record of human rights and disregard for human dignity and for always conducting his work through peaceful means. He is a hero among his people and deserves Congress's recognition for his courageous commitment to the principles we hold dear: democracy, human rights, and freedom for all. Throughout his life, Dr. Biscet has served others and has helped to bring the regime's injustices to light. As a physician, he provided care to those living in his hometown of Havana, doing his best to practice in the poor conditions that are common in Cuba's hospitals and state-run health care facilities. In 1997, Dr. Biscet founded the Lawton Foundation for Human Rights--a group named for the neighborhood in Havana in which he lived, and an organization whose main objective is to establish in Cuba a state based on the rule of law. In the talks he gave before being imprisoned and in his letters smuggled out of prison these last few years remains a common theme involving the intrinsic value of liberty and human rights. In establishing the Lawton Foundation, Dr. Biscet wrote that the purpose of it is ``to defend the inalienable rights of the human race we understand the need to put limits on government to prevent the undermining of those rights. It is because of this that we have become activists in this organization--to establish in our country the rule of law, so that each man and woman may be fulfilled as complete human beings.'' And for defending these universal principles of freedom, the foundation's members are often harassed, censured, and incarcerated. The foundation's mission and objective may be simple; yet it is so important. ``It promotes the defense of all Cubans through nonviolent civil disobedience''--a practice set forth by Henry David Thoreau, who wrote that ``the individual is [a higher and independent power] from which the state obtains its power.'' This is Dr. Biscet's belief; it is his guide; it is a truth he continues to promote today--even from the confines of a Cuban prison. In 1998, after publicly criticizing the quality of the Cuban national health care system, the doctor was summarily thrown in jail and forbidden from practicing medicine anywhere in the country. Even though he has been publicly disparaged and ostracized by the regime, he has always remained committed to advancing a message of peaceful political change and nonviolent disobedience. In 1999, he was arrested for displaying the Cuban flag upside down at a political rally and, as punishment, he was again thrown into a prison and savagely beaten, kicked, and burned. For his work, he was arbitrarily detained 26 times in 18 months. This is without the benefit of a grand jury, an indictment, or counsel, and without the benefit of the types of protections that are commonly afforded to prisoners in most anyplace in the world, or certainly the kind of opportunity that those detained in Guantanamo had to have: the Red Cross visit and view and examine their conditions. None of these things are permitted in Cuba's gulag of prisons. After his most recent arrest in 2003, following a peaceful protest in Havana, Dr. Biscet is now serving the fifth year of what is called a 25-year sentence. There was no fair trial, there was no counsel. This was a sentence issued by nothing more than one of those courts that the Castro regime has utilized now for almost half a century. The Castro brothers have described Dr. Biscet as a ringleader of counterrevolutionary activities. The reality is Dr. Biscet wants his people to be free. Amnesty International has declared Dr. Biscet a prisoner of conscience--someone who has been imprisoned solely for the peaceful expression of their beliefs. The Cuban regime has put Dr. Biscet and his family through the kind of anguish few in this country could ever imagine. He has committed no crimes, and yet he sits in prison fighting for a freedom he and most of the island's 11 million Cubans have never known. As a human rights activist, Dr. Biscet finds inspiration in the words of many men who share his desire to achieve peaceful change. He speaks of the Dalai Lama's message of peace, Martin Luther King, Jr.'s mission of tolerance, and Mahatma Gandhi's lifetime of unwavering faith. This is a picture of Dr. Biscet. It is a picture before the last 5 years have transpired, because now we cannot obtain a picture of him. He is given very few visits, and those visits are closely monitored. It would be unthinkable to have the opportunity to take a picture of him. I will speak a little more about his confinement in a moment. We both share a passion to one day see a free and peaceful Cuba, one where the people can hold free and fair elections so they might choose their own leaders, so they will not live in fear under an oppressive and illegitimate dictatorship. The Cuban regime, sensing the hope brought about by Dr. Biscet's efforts, sought to make him a tool of the regime. The regime offered him a choice: He could stay in prison or he could leave Cuba and never return. He could leave the country or he could remain behind. Instead of leaving his jail cell, Dr. Biscet has courageously pleaded to stay and sacrifice his own well-being so he might continue providing hope and encouragement to the Cuban people. This is a replica of the cell Dr. Biscet is in today. It is a mock-up because we could not take pictures of that cell, but it is faithfully drawn from the types of cells the regime commonly holds prisoners in. As you can see, it is completely closed. There is no light when that door is closed inside, the 3-foot-by-4-foot space that is provided for a prisoner. As a result of his refusal to abandon the cause he so dearly believes in, Dr. Biscet remains in deplorable conditions, in a rat-infested cellblock, and in fact is needing medical care and getting none. This replica of the cell was described by Dr. Biscet in a letter to his wife. He once described the conditions he lives in today. This is what he wrote: I'm arbitrarily confined in a cell with characteristics that violate the law; there are no windows, only walls; a gloomy space lacking sunlight and the sky's visibility. This is humiliating and illegal. Of the 8 months I have been in prison in Pinar del Rio, I have seen my family only once, during 2 hours, in the month of August. I am not allowed to have any type of communication with my son and daughter who live abroad. These are conditions no one should ever have to endure. In his most recent letter, dated March 1, 2008, a few weeks ago--and, by the way, he writes on whatever he can find, toilet paper or any other means, because he is not provided paper and pencil to write--he again called on the regime to change. He called for: Freedom of all political prisoners and prisoners of conscience without deportation; participation with the same rights for all Cubans; allowing the legalization of all political parties, to revoke the absolute rule of the Communist party over society and a commitment to carry out free and democratic elections. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have Dr. Biscet's full letter printed in the Record.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, in a recent column discussing the disaster that the Castro regime has visited upon Cuba, columnist George Will wrote about another Cuban, Armando Valladares, who withstood the regime's brutal prison system for 22 years. Of the prison's conditions, Will wrote: Some doors are welded shut and prisoners are fed watery soup sometimes laced with glass, or dead rats, or half a cow's intestine, rectum included, containing feces. This is the ugly reality of what speaking openly against the Castro regime gets you in Cuba. Today there are hundreds of political prisoners in the many prisons that have cropped up since the Castro regime took power. Dr. Biscet is one of those prisoners, a noble and decent man choosing to fight for a cause greater than his own, risking everything in the process. Throughout U.S. history, Congress, as an institution, has recognized those who stand up for democracy, the rule of law, and human rights. We owe Dr. Biscet and those he inspires the honor of knowing that we support his worthy efforts and that Americans share his desire for seeing freedom take root in a country plagued by oppression for far too long. Awarding this honor to a man with such courage and conviction will strengthen his cause and the cause of all Cubans and send a message to the Cuban regime that they are on the wrong side of history, and they are on the wrong side of what is good and is right. I urge my colleagues to support this man who seeks democratic change and the recognition of human rights by bestowing this honor of a Congressional Gold Medal to Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet. Mr. President, I appreciate the indulgence of time on this busy day on the floor. I know Senator Menendez wishes to speak on this issue, but at this time I yield the floor, and I thank the chairman for the time allowed.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I wish to speak in honor and pay tribute to a fallen paramedic from my State, Palm Beach County Fire- Rescue Lieutenant Rafael Vazquez. Rafael's life ended prematurely this week; he died at the very young age of 42. But the memory of his dedication, hard work, and commitment to public service will live on for many lifetimes. Rafael Vazquez led a life committed to public service. For the past 7 years, he worked at Station 28 in Royal Palm Beach, and this January he was promoted to the rank of rescue lieutenant. The men and women he supervised speak about him with great pride--describing him as a hard worker, a man with a sense of humor, and a loving father. This was a man whom they respected and considered a friend; they simply called him ``Ray.'' Rafael's coworkers knew him as someone who loved his Puerto Rican heritage. He often cooked Latin food for his colleagues. And even though he was born in Brooklyn, NY, after Rafael moved to Florida, as is our tradition in the Sunshine State, he immediately became a Floridian. Rafael was also a family man--a devoted father and husband. He met his wife Michele while working at American Medical Response and cared for her deeply. In a recent news account, Rafael's wife Michele remembered her husband as, ``. . . a jokester with a quick wit and an infectious smile who would help anyone in need.'' Michele added, ``I thank God every day for giving me the 13 years that I had with him.'' The couple had a young son together and four children from previous relationships. Floridians receive rapid medical care in times of emergency because of people like Rafael Vazquez. He loved his work and his contribution will be missed. On behalf of Florida and the people of the United States, I thank and honor rescue lieutenant Rafael Vazquez for his service to his community and the safety he helped to promote.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 15 minutes in morning business.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam President, before I begin my remarks regarding the very difficult situation that has arisen in South America between Colombia and some of its neighbors, I wish to take a moment this morning to congratulate our colleague and dear friend, Senator John McCain, on his outstanding achievement last night, becoming the nominee of the Republican Party for the Presidential election and going forward as the nominee of our party for these upcoming elections. Senator McCain is an example of resiliency in his life story but also particularly in this election. I am extremely proud to call him a friend, and I certainly wish him the very best as he goes forward. I know all of us in the Senate take great pride in the fact that he is going to be the nominee of one of our major parties. I wanted to note that event and give him my best wishes and congratulations on this very important achievement for him. Venezuela-Colombia Conflict Madam President, I know many of us in this Chamber, across the country, and, frankly, across the Western Hemisphere and the world are watching with concern the reports about the situation developing between Colombia and Ecuador and the complicating elements to it brought on by Venezuela. This past Saturday, Colombia conducted an antiterrorist operation. The Government of Colombia does this on an ongoing basis because Colombia has been attacked and under siege by a group of people who seek the overthrow by violence of that Government. So as they often do, this Saturday, they conducted an operation which required an airplane flying within the Colombian airspace to fire into Ecuadorian territory by only a few feet. Then Colombian troops entered that area to clean out what appeared to be a permanent base camp of the FARC, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia which has ravaged Colombia for now over 25, 30 years as an illegitimate terrorist organization bent on killing, kidnapping, and maiming. The result of that action was the No. 2 leader of the FARC was killed. The FARC is the oldest, largest, and best equipped insurgency. As a result of the actions of the Colombian military, with assistance and training from the United States, this insurgency has been lowered in its numbers from the times when it was many thousands. Today it is believed to be between 6,000 and 9,000 strong. It has for decades aggressively sought to disrupt and destabilize the Colombian Government. Its stated goal is none other than ``the violent overthrow of the Colombian Government.'' Let there be no doubt that this is a terrorist organization. They kill, they kidnap, they hold innocent people for ransom while funding all of its violence by actively engaging in narcotics trafficking. We now have learned they do have other sources of funding, and I will get to that in a moment. Just as Hamas and Hezbollah, the FARC operates by using ruthless terrorist tactics. According to the State Department's most recent Report on Terrorism, the FARC is known to routinely conduct crossborder operations. What they do is they will attack in Colombia. They will kill. They will throw bombs. They will kidnap in Colombia and then retreat conveniently to their borders in friendlier countries, such as Ecuador and Venezuela. Unfortunately, this new development has emerged because Ecuador has allowed its border with Colombia to be a sanctuary for the FARC. As we continue to receive updates on this situation, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the FARC has repeatedly and violently infringed on Colombia's efforts at stability and democracy and is operating from a neighboring country using it as a sanctuary. It is the FARC that has declared war against the Colombian people. It is the FARC that has killed and kidnapped thousands of civilians. They have kidnapped teachers, journalists, religious leaders, union members, human rights activists, members of the Colombian Congress, and Presidential candidates. This organization today is known to be holding as many as possibly 700 hostages. During their reign of terror, they have held at times as many as 100 American citizens. Today, they are currently holding three American citizens: Mark Gonsalves, Keith Stansell, and Thomas Howes. They have been held hostage by the FARC for over 5 years, living in subhuman conditions in the jungle, chained to trees. This is the fate of three Americans at the hands of the FARC. In December of 2007, the Senate approved a resolution condemning the kidnaping of these three United States citizens and demanded their immediate and unconditional release. It is time that these three Americans be released. Their families have suffered long enough. It is time that the FARC be called by the international community to end their reign of terror. I believe Colombia has had no choice but to continue to confront this aggression led by the FARC by military means. The antiterrorist strike of this past Saturday resulted in the death of Raul Reyes, a well-known senior leader of the FARC--No. 1, maybe No. 2. So who was Raul Reyes? He was a notorious and ruthless criminal who had been long sought by our Government and the Government of Colombia. He is on the FBI's most wanted list. He is on Interpol's most wanted list. Since May of 2007, Reyes has been listed on the U.S. Department of the Treasury's foreign narcotics kingpin designation list, and in March of 2006, Reyes was among 50 FARC members indicted by the Department of Justice on drug and terrorism charges. So until his death, he was a fugitive of American justice. He was wanted by the Colombian Government on more than 100 criminal charges, including more than 50 homicides, and his actions should be condemned by all of us and by the international community. Among the items retrieved by Colombia during the antiterrorist strike, among other things, was Reyes's laptop. What a trove of information it appears to have yielded. I have received copies of some of the documents recovered from the laptop, and they show a consistent pattern of communication and cooperation among Venezuela and the FARC, among the Government of Ecuador and the FARC, President Correa sending personal communications and his foreign minister to meet with Mr. Reyes; this avowed terrorist, this criminal of international justice meeting with a foreign minister, dealing as if he were a head of state. A copy of one letter recovered from a senior leader of the FARC to Chavez states that ``it is important for his government and the FARC to maintain close ties'' to ensure the success of their efforts. And part of the report obtained from these computer files indicates that the FARC may have received or was in the process of receiving as much as $300 million in financial support from Venezuela. We know that the Government of Venezuela, while its people are suffering shortages of goods, while the people are having to endure rationing and lines to get foodstuff for their children, this Government, now awash in petrodollars, is utilizing its funds, as we have now seen through indictments in the Southern District of Florida, to meddle in the elections of other countries by sending cash, and now to meddle in the peaceful pursuit of Colombia's democracy by giving $300 million to a terrorist organization attempting to overthrow by violence the Government of Colombia. I wish to address the confrontational behavior of Venezuela regarding this situation which happened between Ecuador and Colombia. I am not sure what Venezuela's business is in this matter. Venezuela's leader Hugo Chavez has decided to take an aggressive stance. He has threatened Colombia with military action and has amassed troops along the Venezuela-Colombia border. That is at the complete opposite end of the country. The Venezuela border has nothing to do with the Ecuador and Colombia border. He is attempting to divert international attention from the very embarrassing facts that are being yielded from the computer files that have been found. He is trying to divert national and international attention from the suffering of his own people as a result of his mismanagement of their economy, as a result of his mismanagement of the wealth he is obtaining through oil. He has no role in this bilateral matter between Ecuador and Colombia, and yet he is attempting to derail any efforts of resolution, including the ongoing negotiations of the Organization of American States. In fact, my colleague Senator Dodd clearly stated yesterday that Venezuela's ``recent troop buildup in the region is an irresponsible and clearly provocative act aimed at inciting further hostility.'' It is good to note that the Government of Colombia has used restraint. They have not deployed troops. They have simply been going through computer files learning the truth about the relationship between these governments and this illegitimate terrorist group. It is clear that Venezuelans are growing increasingly disenchanted with their Government's unfulfilled promises and Chavez is trying to exploit the situation with Colombia and Ecuador to distract the world from the shortcomings of his Government's policies. This is an old trick, tried and failed repeatedly in Latin America and elsewhere in the world. It is not working and will not work. This January, Chavez began calling for removal of the FARC from the terror lists of Canada and the European Union. Chavez has stated that the FARC is not a terrorist group, claiming incomprehensively that they are a ``real army.'' he says they are a ``Bolivarian'' army that follows the spirit of the South American liberator Simon Bolivar. Nothing could be further from the truth. These claims are completely divorced from the reality of what the FARC is and what they represent to the Colombian people and to the region. In recent testimony, the Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell told us that ``. . . since 2005, Venezuela has been a major departure point for South American--predominantly Colombian--cocaine destined for the United States market and its importance as a transshipment center continues to grow.'' It is clear that Venezuela is not a part of the solution; it is a part of the regional narcotrafficking problem. Venezuelan ports are increasingly becoming the departure points of choice for Colombian traffickers. According to both the National Intelligence Center and Office of National Drug Control Policy, private aircraft are increasingly choosing to route cocaine shipments from Venezuela to the island of Hispanola rather than relying on go-fast boats from Colombia because Venezuelan complicity makes it safer to do it that way. It is also well known that both trafficking groups and guerrilla groups enjoy safe haven inside Venezuela along the border with Colombia. Chavez has acknowledged his sympathy and support for the FARC, despite the fact that they are also currently holding upwards of 200 Venezuelan nationals as hostages. The Colombian people are well aware of the barbaric practices of the FARC, and yet they are resilient people. On February 4, a few weeks ago, millions of Colombians peacefully took to the streets in Colombia to demonstrate against FARC's violence and terrorism, demanding ``No more FARC.'' Countless others joined similar peaceful demonstrations in the United States and around the world. An example of their resolve in the face of ruthless FARC violence is Colombia's Foreign Minister, Fernando Araujo. I have had the privilege of meeting the Foreign Minister. He has been serving his nation capably for now almost a year, after bravely enduring 6 years of captivity at the hands of the FARC and surviving a miraculous escape in February of 2007. Minister Araujo is a symbol of freedom and hope for a better future without terrorism. The killing of Raul Reyes is another success of the Colombian Government's increased efforts to combat terrorism, investigate terrorist activities inside and outside Colombia, seize ill-gotten assets, and bring terrorists to justice. This operation is a testament to Colombian Armed Forces' professionalism and competence and a success for the Colombian Government's efforts to combat terrorism, investigate terrorist activities inside and outside Colombia and to seize assets and to bring terrorists to justice. President Uribe is a committed leader and our country will and should continue to support his mission. This President was reelected overwhelmingly by his people and today enjoys an 80-percent approval rating among the Colombian people. President Bush could not have been clearer yesterday when he stated that: America fully supports Colombia's Democracy [and that we will] firmly oppose any acts of aggression that could destabilize the region. In the Congress, the best way we can show our support for democracy and the need for stability in Colombia is by ensuring the passage of the Colombian Free Trade Agreement. President Uribe has consistently made clear that passage of that agreement will show the Colombian people democracy and free enterprise will, in fact, lead to a better life for all Colombians. The Colombian people and President Uribe have made clear their commitment to a hopeful future of a stable democratic and economically thriving Western Hemisphere. The FARC is our common enemy, and we owe our continued support to Colombia as it carries this shared fight against terrorists and drug traffickers. The Colombian Ambassador was clear in his comments at the OAS yesterday. His country ``has not sent troops to their borders.'' He further stated their goal is to resolve this situation with continued discussion and cooperation. As we are ourselves fighting a global war on terror, we have to understand terrorism anywhere is terrorism that we need to be against. Groups that rely on violence and terror are not acceptable in the world in which we live. The FARC's time has come. It is over. It is time for us to clear the cobwebs of confusion about this group, to not allow Chavez to make this group into something other than what they are, a group of terrorist killers, kidnapping and maiming people for the sake of their misguided political aims, which are to destabilize the democratically elected Government of Colombia. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey.) The Senator from Kansas is recognized.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Missouri for his steadfast direction on this very important issue to the national security of our country and for the great work he does in our Intelligence Committee. But I also know he is someone who not only looks at this issue as it relates to the safety of the American people, but he also has had, as you might say, a little skin in the game. He has had his son over there on more than one occasion. So he is someone who speaks not only as a terrific Senator but as a father of someone who has been on the frontlines of this battle. So I, too, rise in opposition to both Feingold proposals. I believe this is a time when anything other than retreat is the order of the day. It is odd we should come to this point at this point in time. Why, once again, after now repeated and repeated attempts without success to insist on a withdrawal and a retreat and a defeat, do we come back to revisit this very subject? So I rise in opposition to the Feingold measure. The measure requires that the administration develop a strategy ensuring the deployments do not undermine military readiness or homeland security--which that is what they are about; they are about homeland security--and that Reserve units are not deployed more than once every 4 years and regular units not more than once every 2 years. The fact of the matter is much of what this Feingold proposal--the current one--suggests or asks is information that the sponsors of this legislation, if they truly just seek to obtain that information, would find in very comprehensive documents that are already available. There is something called a Quadrennial Defense Review, something else called the National Military Strategy. Also, there is the National Security Strategy. And there are many other documents such as these that are already available. These documents exist so we can have a fuller view of the challenges we face and the assets and plans we have in place to defeat the enemies of America. I would further suggest that one of the key tools in the fight against al-Qaida is FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. That is something both the military and nonmilitary intelligence agencies use to track terror suspects. It is probably the single most effective tool we have in making arrests and disrupting terrorist operations. The Protect America Act, nearly 2 weeks ago--which updated FISA-- expired because the Congress failed to act. The Senate acted, the House did not. As a result, we run a serious risk of losing the cooperation of the partners we rely on for gathering intelligence. As the 9/11 Commission and others have pointed out, small gaps in intelligence or the inability to connect the dots can have catastrophic consequences. Because of the uncertainty this Congress has helped to create, we are running the risk of losing these partners and missing out on information that could be vital to securing this Nation. It is imperative for our intelligence community to have every tool they need to collect intelligence at their disposal. The core authorities provided by the Protect America Act have helped us to obtain exactly the type of information we need to keep America safe, and it is essential Congress reauthorize the act's core authorities, while also extending liability protection to those companies that assisted our Nation following 9/11. As a member of the President's Cabinet on the fateful day of September 11, 2001, I can readily recall what this city was like on September 12. We could still see the smoke rising from the Pentagon building--that unbelievable sight of destruction, of death. It was a time when the Nation was assured we were about to be hit again. The decision was made that we needed to act, that we needed to move forward to try to protect our Nation. And thank the Good Lord, until today our Nation has been kept safe. That has not been by accident. That has not been just by fate. It has been because we have been aggressive in intelligence gathering, and we have been aggressive in taking the fight to the enemies of America. Some in this body have argued the expiration of the Protect America Act has not weakened the intelligence community's ability to conduct surveillance and have cited an Executive order as a legitimate substitute for the act. I do not agree with that. I disagree. An Executive order is not always as effective, efficient or safe for our intelligence professionals as the conditions accorded to them under the Protect America Act. In fact, this Executive order failed to aid our intelligence community in a particular case prior to 9/11. One of the September 11 hijackers communicated with a known overseas terrorist while living in the United States. But because that collection was conducted under an Executive order, the intelligence community could not identify the domestic end of the communication and, further, were unable to collect the information that may have given greater insight into the planning of the 9/11 attacks. In fact, this was cited as one of the central criticisms to the congressional joint inquiry that examined the intelligence failures leading up to the September 11 attacks. In the absence of the Protect America Act, others have argued employing the outdated provisions of FISA would be sufficient to ensure there is no dropoff in the way we gather foreign and domestic intelligence. Unfortunately, using these particular provisions accorded under the FISA Act--unlike the Protect America Act--would impair our ability to collect information on foreign intelligence targets located overseas. FISA was designed to govern intelligence surveillance of persons in the United States where the fourth amendment mandates that there must be probable cause before surveillance can begin. While this makes sense when targeting suspects in the United States for surveillance, it doesn't for surveillance of overseas targets and could result in the loss of potentially vital intelligence as our intelligence officials wait for the process to occur. It could also divert the attention of our linguists and analysts away from their core role, which is to protect the Nation from the task of providing detailed facts for FISA Court applications. It is false to assume Congress's amendments to FISA are sufficient and that there is no longer a need to modernize the act. This past August, Congress amended the Protect America Act on a basis that runs counter to this particular statement. Since its inception in 1978, there have been many advancements to communications that have to be reflected, that have to be updated, and that have to be a part of FISA. There has been an issue of concern also about Congress's failure to provide liability protection for private sector firms which helped the Federal Government in defending the Nation following the September 11 attacks. This was part of the Senate bill which had strong bipartisan support. Not providing liability protection, some have argued, will have no effect on our intelligence collection capabilities. The fact is that these companies acted in good faith, and they acted in good faith when they were called upon to assist our intelligence professionals in keeping our Nation safe after our Nation was attacked. I once again want to remind us about September 12. What did we feel like? What were our thoughts at that time? What would we not have done to ensure that America was kept safe from another savage attack? By the way, our enemies are still at it. Nothing has changed in terms of their intentions. What has changed is their capabilities, because we have been on the offense. What has changed is America's ability to defend itself because we have been protecting ourselves. It was the right thing for these companies at the time to assist their Nation in need, and it was the right thing for us to do to provide them with immunity from the potential barrage of lawsuits they could face. It was the fair and the just thing to do. Private party assistance is necessary and critical to ensure that the intelligence community can collect the information needed to protect our country from attack. In a report on S. 2248, the Senate Intelligence Committee agreed when stating: The Intelligence Committee cannot obtain the intelligence it needs without assistance-- from our telecommunications partners. Exposing the private sector to potential billion dollar class action lawsuits would set a dangerous precedent after they worked admirably with the folks in our intelligence community to defend our country. If we are unable to count on their support in the future, we cannot continue to pursue terrorists who are still very much interested in attacking us again. Yesterday, testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Admiral McConnell was very clear. This is necessary. It is essential for Admiral McConnell and for our intelligence community to be able to do their work. We have a solemn obligation to keep to the American people, which is to keep them safe and to remain proactive in identifying threats before they materialize. Through the benefit of hindsight, we have identified some areas where the bureaucracy has failed the American people, and we must work to fix them by ensuring our intelligence officials have everything they need to stay on the offense in the war against our enemies. One thing I think we can agree on is that Iraq is the pivotal front on our global war on terror. That is where we are fighting al-Qaida. We fight them there so we don't have to fight them on our soil. Osama bin Laden has called Iraq the ``central front'' against the war on America and the West, and al-Qaida in Iraq shares that goal. Our soldiers are on the front lines of this war on terror, and it is our duty to give them everything we can to help them achieve their objectives. Admiral McConnell yesterday was talking about how this particular act could help in the case of kidnapped soldiers on the front and that this inability would be a tremendous detriment to our ability to keep our soldiers safe on the battlefield. I understand the bill we are on today and the legislation we considered earlier this week are aimed at pulling United States troops out of Iraq immediately, precipitously, irresponsibly, and signaling defeat. If we are seeking conditions in Iraq today such as those we saw a year ago--presurge--then I could understand why we would be debating this. When we were here a year ago, many of my friends on the other side of the aisle were ready to admit defeat. The distinguished majority announced that the United States had ``lost'' the war in Iraq, there was no way to win, and that we should pull our troops out as soon as possible. Presidential candidates still continue to insist that an immediate pullout is the only logical answer that a Commander in Chief should take. A lot has changed since a year ago. In February of 2007, ethnosectarian violence accounted for nearly 800 deaths in Baghdad. So far this month, ethnosectarian-related deaths number below 40, a 95- percent decrease. During the same period in Baghdad, suicide attacks went from 12 a month to 4 this past January, a 66-percent decrease. Attacks have decreased in 17 of 18 provinces in Iraq. IED detonations are down by 45 percent in Baghdad since February of 2007. This is to say that the war wasn't lost. Admitting defeat was premature, if politically expedient, at the time. We did not lose the war. The surge is effective. Our troops, as we knew they would, did rise to the challenge. By the way, it is not only our troops, it is our commanders. It is General Petraeus. It is the brilliant strategies that have been followed. No one wants to have our troops in Iraq any longer than necessary. I look forward to the day when young people I know who are paying this country's duty there can come home to their families and to their young children. We are there because our military presence is necessary. It is necessary for our national security. The troop withdrawal measure, Feingold No. 1, was debated this week and would cut off funds for combat deployments in Iraq in 120 days. Not only would it cut off money for our troops, it would cut off any chance at continuing the political process that has begun to take hold in Iraq. The atmosphere that the surge has created in Iraq has allowed political progress to take place. Sure, the voices of defeatism would say we have made no political progress. The fact is from time to time we get a little bogged down in the Senate, even after 200 years of meeting together and after 200 years of relative peace and tranquility. But progress is being made politically. This month, on February 13, the Council of Representatives passed three key pieces of legislation: the amnesty law, the provincial powers law, and a fiscal budget. The amnesty law: The Government of Iraq's general amnesty law represents a benchmark in facilitating political reconciliation and the rule of law of Iraq. It addresses the scope of eligibility for amnesty for Iraqis in Iraqi detention facilities, whether they have been brought to trial or not. The law exempts from this amnesty those who have committed specific serious crimes such as premeditated murder or kidnapping or those who are subject to the death penalty. The provincial powers law: Along with the elections law, the provincial powers law provides the establishment of a new provincial election by October of 2008 and defines the authorities of the federal government in relation to the provinces. The fiscal budget: The $48 billion Iraqi budget would represent a 17- percent increase in spending over last year's budget, with a 23-percent increase in security expenditures. They are beginning to pay for defending their country. Capital funds allocated to the 15 provinces will increase over 50 percent, from $2.1 billion to $3.3 billion, reflecting the improved budget execution performance by the provinces in 2007. Democrats' proposals for a quick withdrawal of American forces without regard to consequences will leave America less safe and undermine our national interests. Moreover, disclosing to al-Qaida our plan for defeating them is a recipe for defeat of our own troops. General Petraeus tells us that the effective fight against al-Qaida begins in Iraq. General Petraeus says: We have an enormous national interest in Iraq, first of all, in helping the Iraqis achieve its objectives, our objectives of a secure, stable Iraq, connected into the region. Not a regional problem, not a base for al-Qaida from which to train and export terror. . . . And, I would add further, one of the possibilities of a triumphant Iraq, of a triumphant United States in Iraq, of a state that could be a stable democracy in the heart of the region, and what a difference it could make as an example to other nations. I am still hopeful enough to believe that this can be achieved, and certainly when we look to where we were a year or so ago to where we are today, a lot has changed and a lot has happened. I see my colleague from Colorado patiently waiting. I yield the floor.