Mel Martinez

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam President, would the Senator from Georgia yield for a moment before you go to the Iraq comments?

Mr. MARTINEZ. I wished to follow up on the Senator's comments because there are a number of amendments that would be worth considering when we look at the problem we are facing. First, I heard the Senator from New York. He is wrong to suggest that the President and the Republicans do not understand there is a problem in America. People are being foreclosed on, and there are families sitting at the kitchen table to see how to save that precious piece of the American dream they have--their home. We are trying to help in that regard as well. The stimulus package we did a few days ago was a bipartisan measure. What we should do now with the housing package is work that as a bipartisan idea as well, coming together as both Republicans and Democrats to make it better. The Senator from Georgia has a terrific idea, one I support and I think would make a lot of sense in the current situation in Florida in the housing market, and there are a number of other ideas. One has to do with whether mortgage brokers-- Senator Feinstein and I bipartisanly have come together on this-- whether there ought to be a national registry for mortgage brokers. Senator Carper and I have worked together on a number of things that would improve the housing passage. We cannot simply say or follow a pattern that seems to be the current pattern in the Senate, which is that it is put forward by the majority, which then forecloses the ability of the minority to have amendments. The minority leader proposed five amendments per side, and that was rejected. This bill will go down if all they want is a symbolic moment for the Senator from New York to tell the Republicans how they are heartless and don't care about the poor and don't understand that America has problems with housing, and then we will go about our business as usual. If they do that, cloture will not be invoked and nothing will be done. Five amendments to a side seems to be a reasonable way of doing it if we want to get something done.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam President, I appreciate the Senator's efforts to move this process forward. He and I have been committed to the idea that there are problems the American people are facing as it relates to housing that are impacting the overall economy, and we need to act. I agree with the ideas the Senator has put forward. There are a number of other good ideas out there. Senator Feinstein and myself have cosponsored a bill regarding mortgage brokers. The proposal by Senator Isakson from Georgia, while perhaps a modification might be appropriate in terms of the cost of it, I think is a great idea. The idea is that we encourage families, through tax incentives, to buy homes, unoccupied homes, foreclosed homes, to try to lower the inventory of unoccupied homes; to do, frankly, part of what I don't believe is a terrific idea, which is to increase CDBG to deal with neighborhoods where there are foreclosures going on. I think a better idea is to put people in those homes through tax incentives. These are debatable points. They are good ideas that can be commonly shared. The whole point is, we have to stick with it. This ought to not just be a symbolic act today to say: Oh, gee, we tried to do something on housing, and in a typical way, we each went to our respective corners and could not agree. We have to keep working on this issue. We are not that far apart. The ideas are mutually understood. GSE reform has been on the table a long time, and it has to be done. On FHA modernization, I know that Ranking Member Shelby, Chairman Dodd, and the House Members have been working diligently to get to something on that. We are close on that issue. That could be part of this package. Those things will help create more liquidity in the mortgage market, they will help put Americans back in the housing business. The news today on the mortgage and housing starts was not good news. I was fortunate when I was at HUD that the news only got better every month. This month's news on housing starts, on the price of homes dropping, issues such as these, is not encouraging. We have to act. We have an obligation to act, not just make a political point. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I wish to speak on amendment No. 3906, which has been pending. I believe I can do that between now and the time of the vote. I ask to be recognized for the time remaining before the vote.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, after high tax rates, the thing that disturbs Americans the most about their Government is that their tax dollars are too often misspent. Nowhere is this problem more prevalent than in the Medicare Program where fraud is concerned. Currently, Medicare fraud consumes an estimated $60 billion a year. That is as much as 20 percent of the program lost to criminals scamming the Federal Government. In South Florida, the region has only 8 percent of the Nation's AIDS patients. Yet 73 percent of Federal AIDS medication payments are sent there. That alone is an estimated $2 billion of fraud. We have only recently begun to uncover some of the cases of widespread fraud and abuse. An 82-year-old constituent of mine kept getting $10,000 Medicare payment statements. If you looked at the bills, it appeared this elderly woman had artificial knees, ankles, one glass eye, was in a wheelchair, and suffered from diabetes and AIDS. The truth is, she is completely healthy. She had not called on Medicare, and someone else was using her stolen Medicare number. Her case is typical of many in my State and far too many other States where Medicare fraud abuse has been reported. Hard-working Americans are outraged by seeing their tax dollars lost to criminal fraud. My amendment to the Indian health bill will double the jail time, double the penalties, and give judges greater discretion in sentencing those who are guilty of Medicare fraud. The message needs to be stronger than a slap on the wrist. It has to be hard time. But tougher penalties are only a first step. There is a larger problem. We need better oversight, more accountability, and fewer dollars sent to organizations that can't prove they are anything more than a P.O. box. So I call upon my colleagues to join with me in addressing this situation. Help put a stop to the billions and billions of taxpayer dollars padding the pockets of criminals each and every year. We owe it to the American people to handle their money with greater care, and I believe we can do this by just cutting wasteful spending and stiffening the penalties that already exist for fraud cases. There are a number of cases I can point to in my State, and these are just cases that have come to the attention of my office. Maggie of Sunrise talks about a doctor she had never seen billing Medicare for $2,590 worth of services in July of 2006. Leslie of Punta Gorda reported a fraudulent claim filed using his deceased wife's claim number after her death. The claim was filed in April of 2006, and his wife passed away in March of 2005. There are many other examples like these. For that reason, I urge passage of my amendment, and I know it may be part of the managers' package, which I think would be a great step forward in stemming the waste, fraud, and abuse in this program. I thank the Chair.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I was running in late. I am devastated that I missed the prayer by Rabbi Cheryl Jacobs, from Broward County, FL. I am honored to have her here. I was at a Banking Committee hearing and could not make it on time. Rabbi Jacobs does an amazing amount of work in the Broward County area, helping people in need in all walks of life. She is always there to help. I am tremendously honored to have her here today. We are pleased that she was able to honor us with her prayer. We thank her for coming. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I wish to talk about the very important issue relating to foreign intelligence surveillance. I want to talk about it not in the sense of who gets to be blamed if something happens. I believe that on something of this magnitude, the American people are pretty tired of the blame game: We would have done this, but if you didn't do that, we blame you; and if this happens, you get to blame us. I think the time of blame-casting has well passed. The fact is that the laws that grant the Government the authority to use the resources we have in order to stay informed of what our enemies are seeking to do to us are outdated and need to be modernized and put up to date with our current technology. We are fighting a modern war against a modern enemy. The tools we have to fight that war are out of date. One of the only ways we are able to expose and stop terrorist plots before they unfold is through the provisions accorded under FISA. Some of my colleagues have expressed an understandable concern about the current FISA reauthorization, and whether it would improperly invade the civil liberties of our citizens. After 2 years of public debate on the broad issues of FISA, and after reviewing the current legislation, I believe those concerns are unwarranted. This issue transcends the stance of either political party or any partisan interest. Those who oppose this are sincere in their concern; they just happen to be wrong. Needless hurdles will be created for our Government in the obtaining and utilizing of valuable intelligence to keep America safe. So I want to see us address this issue head on and come together and send the President a bill that he can and will sign. The President spoke about this last night in his State of the Union Message. He wants to get this matter resolved, and he wants a bill on his desk. We owe it to the military and the intelligence community to equip them with the tools they need to protect our citizens and carry out their duties effectively. Throughout our history, Americans have always been concerned about the proper balance between security and freedom. Those concerned about the power of Government and trampling on the rights of free citizens are right to insist on maintaining the individual liberties granted to us by the Constitution, especially during a time of crisis. The bill we are considering is precisely concerned with maintaining and keeping a proper balance of those protections. This is a bipartisan bill. It was reported out of the Intelligence Committee by a vote of 13 to 2. It is a modern update that is designed to keep our technological edge and to effectively implement the goals of the original FISA law passed in 1978. This bill is the product of the careful consideration of Members of both sides of the aisle on the Intelligence Committee--those best informed about these matters, who have the most knowledge about the means and methods by which we gather intelligence. Those Members recognize a need to modernize the way our intelligence is collected and the need to share information that is vital to terrorist communications, whether these communications be on a cell phone, by e-mail, or in person. This bill is for the American intelligence services to be able to timely develop intelligence without having to wait for a court order. In other words, if a terrorist group such as al-Qaida calls a sleeper cell within our borders, this would ensure that our Government can protect our citizens, the specific procedure for surveillance, and it ensures that the independent FISA Court is fully informed of every step in the process. The bill also has a provision to protect those who have assisted us and the intelligence community in gathering information that was absolutely vital to our national security. Fortunately, we have had full cooperation from a number of telecommunications companies in providing our intelligence officials with accessing and obtaining information from foreign terrorists. As we look at this issue--and the majority leader says this issue is the big sticking point, so let me talk about that specifically, that this retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies allows bad actors to get off the hook--who is it we are giving immunity to and why should it be retroactive? This has already been noted a number of times, but I think it bears repeating. Retroactive immunity is necessary not only to protect companies that cooperated in good faith at the request of our President during the time of the most serious domestic crisis our country has ever faced, but it was done to ensure our national secrets regarding intelligence methods remained classified and are not disclosed in public through the civil court process. In other words, it is not just about providing immunity to those who helped at the time it was needed, but it is also to ensure that as we go forward, we are not going to have an O.J. Simpson-type trial, with television cameras blaring with information being disclosed. We know things do not keep. We know our enemies are capable of getting the information because it will be in the New York Times. The fact is, we want to keep our methods and sources secret and confidential, and this is a very important part of this immunity idea. If you want accountability for the executive branch, we have a constitutional system of checks and balances, and leaving aside the President's authority under article II, we are exercising congressional oversight in passing S. 2248, and we, along with the FISA Court, are certainly going to be able to pay close attention to how we select intelligence going forward. As far as letting bad actors off the hook is concerned, S. 2248 provides retroactive immunity from civil litigation if a series of conditions are met. The assistance was provided in connection with intelligence activity authorized by the President between September 11, 2001, and January 17, 2007, and was designed to detect or prevent terrorist attacks against the United States. What is wrong with that? The assistance was also to be provided in response to a written request, a directive from the Attorney General or other intelligence community head indicating the activity had been authorized by the President and determined to be legal. To me, it is a good idea to give these folks the kind of immunity that will allow them to continue to cooperate, that will say to them: The next time there is a vital emergency where your cooperation is needed, we didn't stick you with the bill, we didn't allow the courts to go wild. We protected you because you protected America. To me, that seems only fair and only right. I hope we can get through the partisan morass that always seems to entangle us. I hope we can find a way we can pull together something of this magnitude and importance, which is about the national security of our country--it is about the intelligence needs of our intelligence community--and that we can come together in a timely fashion, craft this bill, take the bill the Senate Intelligence Committee passed on a bipartisan 13-to-2 vote, put it up for a vote, let's take the amendments that are available, move it forward, get a vote, and get a bill to the President that he can sign. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I wish to address the issue of what is commonly referred to as the Medicare ``doctor fix.'' Unless Congress acts, there will be a 10-percent reduction to Medicare reimbursement rates in the coming year; putting good doctors further at odds with Medicare payments for their service. This is a problem that not only affects patients with Medicare but also our military veterans, many of whom rely on Medicare as their primary health care provider. Delaying the issue will put our veterans relying--on Tricare until the age of 65 and Medicare after retirement--at increased risk of additional health problems if their ability to see a doctor remains in question. If not addressed, millions of Americans could be denied immediate access to treatment when they need it most. It would also put an even greater strain on doctors, who are already forced to be selective in determining which Medicare patients they can treat. This is a choice no doctor should have to make, and our seniors and doctors deserve better. We have the opportunity to act before we leave in the coming days, and I urge my colleagues to consider the consequences that would result from an additional cut to the program. In my home State of Florida, the dilemma has reached a critical mass, with an increasing number of doctors leaving the program--refusing to continue treating a very vulnerable population. All because the bureaucracy is too much and reimbursement is too low. These are doctors that play important roles in treating seniors in their communities. These are doctors like Dr. Troy Tippett, a neurosurgeon in Pensacola, who is often faced with the choice of continuing to treat Medicare patients at a loss or refuse them because of declining reimbursements from Medicare. Dr. Tippett was so worried about the threat of further cuts to the Medicare reimbursements he receives, he recently called to let me know the detrimental impact the declining reimbursement rate would have on his ability to continue treating Medicare patients. I hope for the sake of good doctors like Dr. Tippett we can develop a comprehensive, long-term solution that fixes this problem once and for all. This is a problem, I believe, that we must fix soon, rather than kicking the can down the road and hoping the next Congress will provide an answer to the more than 40-million Medicare patients. But today, we can do our part by opposing a cut to the broken payment system that penalizes our doctors for treating Medicare patients. We owe it to the people who have worked so hard in life and need quality care now more than ever. We also owe it to the doctors who treat them on a regular basis. I urge my colleagues to support fixing the reimbursement rate that so many doctors in my State--and around the country--depend on, especially in the face of rising medical costs and skyrocketing medical malpractice insurance premiums. It is my understanding that we are very close to coming to agreement on a doctor fix and that floor action could occur very soon. I am hopeful we will have the opportunity to approve that fix. We must act because our physicians and their patients are counting on us. And while I am pleased we are about to address the problem--let's not make the mistake of leaving it as a short-term fix. The American people deserve a long-term solution. I look forward to coming back next year and working on a permanent ``doctor fix.''

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, this statement comes from the back row but no less love from us back-benchers. Let me tell you the Senate career that, for me, now completes 3 years has known no better friend than Trent Lott. I have certainly appreciated your willingness to mentor me. I was astonished to hear that Bob Bennett considered you a mentor. I thought you did that for those of us who have just gotten here but, frankly, it looks as though you mentored about everybody in the Senate. So I consider myself very fortunate. I think back to when we first met. I was first here in Washington as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and Trent was the leader, the Republican leader of the Senate. We had occasion to meet, and shortly thereafter we were building a habitat for humanity house on a cold day, much like today, and I got the opportunity to know him on a more personal level and get to know Tricia as well. That has only endured and continued. I also very much appreciated you shepherding my nomination as HUD Secretary through the Senate, which I know was no easy lift, but you have my gratitude, in fact, then and now. But, to me, as I look at my short career in the Senate, there was no issue that punctuates my time more than the very divisive issue of immigration. You didn't need to get involved in that--you really didn't. I know a lot of people in Mississippi probably wish you hadn't. The fact is, you saw a problem that needed solving. I remember you saying: Is there a problem? In fact, there was. And does this bill improve the situation from what it is today? And you said that it did, which I agreed with. Then you went on about trying to solve the problem, which is a quality that I greatly admire. You were moving the ball forward. You were trying to do what in your heart you felt was best for the Nation and something that would, in fact, move the ball forward and get it done. So you courageously worked, I know, sometimes against the grain. But I, for one, would rather have no one in a foxhole than Trent Lott during difficult times when they are lobbing them in at you. So I very much appreciated the fact that you taught me a great deal in that difficult time, but also throughout my time in the Senate. I very much thank you for taking an interest in me and in my career, and I very much thank you for what you have done for our Nation and for your State. As I look forward, my Senate career will be diminished by not having the opportunity to continue to work and learn from you, but I am grateful for the time I have had and what I have learned by your side. Thank you very much for your service and all the best to you and Tricia.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, may I learn the current time agreement?

Mr. MARTINEZ. I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. President, I join with the Senator from New York in speaking about this important step we are taking to deal with a serious crisis that America and, frankly, the world is facing with credit. It is particularly important that we think about the many Americans who today feel threatened in their homes as they face the potential prospect of losing their homes because of the current situation. We have a partial answer to this large problem. It isn't the whole answer, but it is a very good first step. It is an important first step that is going to help a number of families stay in their homes. When I had the privilege of serving as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, one of the hallmarks of our time was the attempt to put more and more American families into home ownership. It is the culmination of the American dream. That dream today is seriously threatened. The FHA Modernization Act before the Senate is a strong first step in the direction of fixing the problem. By the summer of 2010, about 600,000 people with subprime loans are expected to lose their homes because they will not be able to make their higher monthly payment. These are people who got into an adjustable rate mortgage, and each and every year or perhaps two or three times a year that mortgage resets at a higher payment and a higher rate. The way to avert that is to allow these folks to find another financing vehicle, and the FHA is the answer. HUD estimates that more than 200,000 first-time home buyers and current homeowners who need access to capital could obtain FHA-insured mortgages next year if Congress expedites passage of this legislation. That, combined with the administration's FHA Secure Program, will help more than a quarter million Americans avoid foreclosure and stay in their homes. The administration already has implemented a program called HOPE Now. That also is helping about 80,000 Americans to remain in their homes. The fact is, this is a timely piece of legislation, one that enjoys bipartisan support and one in keeping with the wonderful tradition the FHA has had in the home-ownership story of America. FHA began in 1934. Since that time, it has always operated in the black by collecting insurance premiums on the mortgages it insures and never burdening the taxpayers with any Government subsidy, and it has managed to help countless millions of Americans reach the dream of that first home. While I was HUD Secretary, we recognized that FHA was falling behind in market share because it had not been modernized. The rules had not been keeping up with changes in the marketplace. This is a tremendous first step. It is a step that is long overdue and one I am proud to see come about. I know some have concerns about the issue of reverse mortgages. I believe that is an issue which also falls well within the purview of FHA and can be safely done, well managed, and, in fact, should not be an impediment to this legislation moving forward. I don't want to take any more of the time. I believe it is very important that, working together, all of us will move this bill to fruition, helping hundreds of thousands of American families who have tasted the dream of home ownership to maintain the dream, stay in their homes, and work through the FHA program so they can then refinance their mortgages into mortgages they can live with. I thank Chairman Dodd and Ranking Member Shelby and others on the Banking Committee who have worked so hard to make this moment a reality. I am proud of any role I might have played in it because I think it is truly touching at the heart of where so many American families are today. They have had the dream of home ownership. Let's keep more and more American families in their homes, continuing that dream. (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, from our side I would like to yield to Senator Isakson from Georgia 5 minutes of the remaining 7 minutes.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, could I inquire as to the remaining time?

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes on the bill itself from the time remaining to the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for being magnanimous even with his own colleagues. I appreciate it very much. I understand the concerns of the Senator from Oklahoma. Anytime we are looking at an expansion of a Federal Government program, it gives one pause. Having been the Secretary of HUD, I understand that. But I must say it is important for folks to understand when we talk about any burden on the Federal Government, this is a program that is an insurance program, and since 1934 has never lost a dime of the American taxpayers' money. In fact, it has a surplus today of over $20 billion. What they do at FHA is look at the risk in the mortgage. Then they will insure it accordingly and the mortgagee pays a premium accordingly. The same takes place in the reverse mortgage. HUD facilitates a larger reverse mortgage program through the FHA's home equity conversion mortgage, which is an industry leader, accounting for 90 percent of all reverse mortgages. So when we talk about the private sector, today, out of 14 million mortgage transactions in 2006, only 100,000 were reverse mortgages, of which 90 percent were handled by the FHA. That has the Good Housekeeping Seal of approval. The problems the Senator from Oklahoma talks about occur on that 10 percent in the private market. The HUD-insured, FHA-run HECM Program is one that allows a certain amount of comfort to those elderly who seek to have a reverse mortgage. There have been instances of predatory practices. Although these have generally not been a problem with the HUD mortgages, we always must be vigilant of those, and I support efforts to try to curtail any predatory practices. What we are looking to do is make positive changes that will enhance the product availability but, more importantly, lower the cost going forward to America's elderly who seek to use this program. It will help us to better understand the evolving financial needs of seniors. I am proud this bipartisan legislation is something that will help America's seniors. Reverse mortgage programs are an important tool used by many Floridians. In fact, in the last fiscal year alone, Florida witnessed a 116-percent increase in the number of reverse mortgages, and these products continue to increase in popularity. Congress has the responsibility to ensure that our elderly are properly protected but still give them every opportunity to be able to make good personal financial decisions for themselves. Now, my dear friend from Oklahoma has raised concerns, but the growth of this program is projected to be only 109,000 from 100,000 in the year 2007; and in 2008, 166,000. So there is going to be a gradual growth of this program. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. MARTINEZ. Off the time in opposition.

Mr. MARTINEZ. It will go back to the remaining speakers on the Democratic side.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, with the remaining time, I simply wanted to say I think it is wonderful when we come together, Republicans and Democrats, to tackle one of America's problems. The subprime crisis, the loss of home ownership by so many American families, the threat of it, is particularly an acute problem at this time in our history. It is good that in this season of Christmas we have made a downpayment on this problem. The Government will not be able to fix all of the problems out there in the credit community; however, this is a good step, a good first step, and a good bipartisan step. Senator Shelby, the ranking member of the subcommittee, has played an integral part of us getting to this point today, and I thank him. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, we have reached an understanding to use the remaining time. At this time, I yield, in opposition to the amendment, 8 minutes to Senator Crapo.

Mr. MARTINEZ. I thank the Chair, and I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his courtesy. Mr. President, I just want to point out that the study the Senator talks about is an important study, and it is a part of what this bill contains. However, the study will be useful to us once the program has been expanded and we have the opportunity to see what the experience is on the program. So rather than not study it, it is going to study it, but it has to study it in the future based on the growth and expansion of the program because for the past we have the statistical data available and the history of this program. The bottom line on the audit issue, which I know is a concern, is the historical data will give us a fuller understanding of what the experience is, rather than the management assumptions that are made through the current audit. Mr. President, I think this is a good program for America's seniors. The concerns raised by the Senator from Oklahoma are valid and should be kept in mind, but we should vote for this good amendment today.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I join with my senior colleague in thanking the distinguished Senator from Montana for withdrawing this amendment which was ill-timed on this farm bill. Much important farm legislation and related items are in this bill. To now inject into it the very difficult issue, as my senior colleague well described, of a very fine-tuned policy, a foreign policy issue with Cuba into this bill would be a grave mistake. I want to speak in a little broader context about the relationship between the United States and Cuba. It is one that is rooted--and the reason this proposed amendment would be so wrong--in the steps the Castro government took against U.S. economic interests on the island almost a half century ago, all uncompensated, never accounted for, and never taken care of. It is a debt that still exists. Legitimate business interests had their property taken from them without just compensation. That is why we have the policy we have today. The question is, how can we influence events, how can we better help the Cuban people to overthrow the shackles that have held them in prison for 47 years? The fact is, there is an awful lot happening on the island. People are increasingly saying enough is enough. It is time for change. Cimbio, the Spanish word for change, on this little bracelet that the people around the island are wearing increasingly represents the desire of the Cuban people. The Cuban regime, true to its nature, continues to repress the people. Here is why we should not reward the Cuban Government with a change in U.S. policy. Yesterday, Human Rights Day around the world was celebrated in Cuba by a small group of people seeking to simply peacefully march to Ghandi Park, a park where Ghandi, that peaceful icon of the world, is represented. On their way there, Government thugs beat and arrested them, took them into unmarked sedans, and removed them from the area. So threatened is that Government that they also arrested 70 young people a month or so ago for wearing this simple bracelet. But that is not all. The most unheard of human rights abuse has taken place in recent days. In addition to the illegitimate detention of political prisoners in the most unspeakable conditions is the fact that the Cuban Government thugs entered a Catholic Church just a few days ago and arrested 18 young people who were there exercising the very limited right they have to at least attend church and to hear a sermon and to maybe have conversations about their hopes and dreams. The Cuban Government invaded that sacred space, took the people and arrested them. These are just a few examples of why this Government so illegitimately each day loses a little more of its grip on the people. I believe the time will come when we can trade with Cuba, when we can have open relationships, and when we can see the fruits of that relationship benefit the people of Cuba, not just the Government structure with which America's farmers are dealing. We should not give credit to the Cuban Government. We know these cash sales are the only way we can be sure our people will be paid, and we should not enhance or increase the opportunity for the Cuban Government, which is the only owner of anything in Cuba. No one owns any property in Cuba but the Cuban Government. To trade with Cuba does not mean trading with Cuban farmers. It means trading with the Cuban Government apparatus. The Cuban people only see the meager droppings from the table of the tourists who go to Cuba with whom they are not allowed to even have a conversation. Oftentimes people say: If we only opened the opportunity for people to freely travel, if we only allowed for the contact Americans would have with ordinary Cubans, everything would change. There are Canadian tourists, British, Italian. Their impact upon the Cuban people has not changed a thing because the tourists are prohibited from interacting with the people themselves. The people are just their servants. The people are the people who facilitate a fun time in the sun, but they are not allowed to have any political influence upon the people of Cuba. I know there was a hearing this morning. I would love to comment further on that because much was said there which I believe to be completely wrong. But I thank the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. Bunning, who, in this hearing this morning, spoke about his 5 months in Cuba. I saw Senator Bunning when he was in Cuba during that time as a young boy. I had the pleasure of going to a stadium and watching him pitch, which was a thrill to me. Little did I know I would have the honor of serving with him in the Senate. I thank the Senator from Kentucky for his very good words and his clear understanding of the Cuban situation as it is today. I thank the Senator from Montana for withdrawing an ill-timed and ill-advised amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ

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

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I rise this morning to speak on the proposed free trade agreement with our friend and neighbor to the south, the country of Peru. This is, I believe, a critical piece of legislation. The approval of this agreement would do wonders to advance United States interests in the region. This is a treaty that should be approved because it is good for our bilateral relations with this very important country, it is good for our overall relations with the region, but most of all we should approve this treaty because it is good for the United States economy and it is good for Florida's economy, it is good for bilateral relations, and it is good for our overall security posture in the region. The legislation will make trade with Peru a two-way street, will benefit small and medium-size businesses, and will reduce barriers to services and to investments. Over two-thirds of total U.S. exports are manufactured goods, so agreements that remove tariff and nontariff barriers in foreign countries benefit all American manufacturers, large and small. Implementation of this agreement would raise a total of U.S. merchandise exports to Peru by over $1 billion in the first year. This agreement will add over $2 billion per year to the U.S. gross domestic product. Further, this agreement contains groundbreaking enforceable core labor and environmental provisions. I know these are important. It is not just is it good for business, but is this something that is going to also speak about our core values when it comes to labor standards? Is it something that we believe will further the condition of the world as it relates to the environment? This agreement includes provisions that will enhance both of those. For the first time, future administrations will have the right to take dispute action if labor or environmental issues become a problem. So this will have enforcement mechanisms built in. Never has this been the case with any of our previous trade agreements. So we have made maybe a marker, maybe a breakthrough in a way that we can have more of these trade agreements come to pass that are good for our country, that are good for our economy and that of our neighbors, but yet give people the sense of assurance that environmental and labor rights are going to be protected. The first year of implementation will boost Florida's total economic output by $140 million, create more than 900 jobs in the State I represent, and increase workers' earnings by $35 million. In the next decade, it is estimated that Florida's total economic output would increase by more than $760 million per year. Exports to Peru would support more than 4,900 jobs and increase workers' total personal income by more than $180 million a year. Fifty-four percent of all U.S. high-tech goods exported to Peru are made in Florida. Twenty- three percent of all U.S. exports to Peru are made in Florida. Florida is the hub for transportation, trade, finance, insurance, and several other professional services provided to companies from all over the world doing business in Peru. More than half of all Peruvians visiting the United States come to Florida. Peru's democracy has successfully weathered serious security and political challenges to its institutions over the last decade. But it is a democratic country, and democracy has proven strong, and it has proven that it can, in fact, withstand challenges from all sides. The decision by newly elected President Alan Garcia to support the United States-Peru TPA marks a turning point in our bilateral relations and political stability by providing for a secure and predictable framework for investors, protections for intellectual property rights and worker rights, and an innovative process for public scrutiny regarding the enforcement of environmental regulations. Peru's democracy has successfully weathered serious security and political challenges to its institutions by the fact that elections are now repeatedly held and that, in fact, these elections have an outcome that is honored by all of the citizens of Peru which shows us they are a country strongly on the path to democratic institution building. But a great part of this is also economic success. We cannot just build democratic institutions; the people must believe by following the faith of democracy, by following the path of trade and partnership with the United States they can also better their lives; that, in fact, the false prophets who would preach to the people of Peru that the path to their better future lies in antagonism to the United States, lies in the path of socialism, which has been proven to be a failure throughout the world wherever tried, is to allow them an opportunity to have a successful future by following the path of trade and partnership with the world of beliefs in the globalized economy that all of us can benefit from if it is done right, and if it is done with the right provisions. The fact is, at this point in time, we are at a significant crossroads in our relations with Latin America. It is an area of the world that as long as things are going fine oftentimes we choose to ignore. But at the current moment in time, we find that in agreeing to this proposal for and altering the trade agreement with Peru that we would be rewarding the democratic institutions that have maintained Peru over the last decade, but also we would be telling them: We want to trade with you. We want to do business with you. As we enhance the job creation in my home State of Florida, as I have said, as well as in the United States, there is no question that we will also be enhancing job creation in Peru itself; that those people in Peru who aspire to a better life, who aspire to an opportunity perhaps to own their own small business, who aspire to have an opportunity to maybe have more yield and output from their agricultural production, those who benefit from the opportunities of trade and investment will all see the benefits and the fruits of this partnership with the United States. Now it is good for Peru. But broadly speaking, trade agreements are good for America, and they are good for our relations with the region. So, therefore, I would say we should approve this agreement today, we should vote in favor of our trade agreement with Peru, but we should not stop there. We should soon also see progress on our trade agreement with Panama and our trade agreement with Colombia. The template of this agreement, while we have additional protections as well as enforcement methods for labor and environmental rights, is the template that we should use in moving forward the Panamanian Free Trade Agreement and the Colombian Free Trade Agreement. We have no closer friends or neighbors than Panama and Colombia. We have no better friends in the region than the Government of President Uribe, where in partnership with now two consecutive administrations, the United States has taken a bold step forward in saying: We will help you, Colombia, to get rid of the narcoterrorists in your country. We will help you to achieve a better life and a more secure future for your own people by helping you to defeat the people who will sow terror on your streets and in your highways. In that we have made tremendous progress. As we have done so, we have diminished the amount of illicit and illegal drugs from Colombia that are entering the United States and poisoning our American streets. But we have done more than that. We have also helped them pacify their country. Their country is in a huge turnaround. Their country has tremendous economic growth. The Colombian people can now freely travel the country. That is a result of the good efforts of the United States working in partnership with the Colombian Government. Colombia has a bright and tremendous future. Forty million people are in the country of Colombia. It is a very diverse country. From the coast of the Caribbean to the Andes and the interior, it is a country of resourceful and tremendously ingenious people who would benefit tremendously from the opportunity of having a free-trade agreement with the United States. It is a free-trade agreement that will create jobs in America, that will also enhance the opportunity for the same kind of economic growth and job creation that I have talked about with Peru. The Panama agreement is a much smaller agreement. Panama increasingly has become the trading hub of the Americas through the Panama Canal. And we now know that for more than a couple of decades, Panama has been in charge and has been running its own canal in a very successful way. Now they are enhancing it by expanding it. The banking system, from Asia to the Americas, seems to be at a crossroads through Panama. It is a country with which we should have a trade agreement. We have one that is there. It is teed up. We should move it forward. It should be the next one we approve, with Colombia coming along not long after. But these are tremendously important. These countries look to these agreements as a way forward, as a way of enhancing their partnership with our country, and rejecting other ideologies. You know we might as well talk about this. I think it is very important. On Sunday we had a very startling event occur in the region. Venezuela held an election in what was a proposal from an increasingly authoritarian leader, Hugo Chavez, to become essentially President for life. It was essentially to give him the authority to rule by decree, to declare a state of emergency and essentially suggest that all of the institutions of the country be suspended and he would be the sole ruler. It also went further, and it said the country would take a socialist path. Now, this is only the latest excess by a leader who is excessive in many ways, his rhetoric and his action. But this latest excess was rejected by the people of Venezuela. I congratulate the people of Venezuela for taking this bold step in the direction of not a single authoritarian person in charge of the government but one who would allow a more democratic future for the people of Venezuela. The people of Venezuela courageously went to the streets, courageously demonstrated against tremendous oppression and repression by the Venezuelan authorities, and continued to insist that they have a free vote on Sunday, and they did. They rejected the overreaching of President Chavez. But this ideology that President Chavez preaches, the failed ideology that was preached by Fidel Castro that has taken Cuba on the path of destruction, disaster, and desolation is now trying to be inflicted on the people of Venezuela, where they are now seeing the same kind of food shortage we have seen in Cuba for almost a half a century beginning to manifest itself in a country that is so oil rich it is ridiculous. The fact is, we see in the path to bilateral trade agreements with the United States a rejection of these failed ideologies, a rejection of the Chavez way, and a welcoming of a partnership with the United States, one that allows independence and democratic institutions to flourish, while at the same time improving the lives of the people of the region. I urge my colleagues to look forward also to the Colombian and Panamanian trade agreements. They should be coming. We need to proceed to move those forward. They are tremendously important for these countries. Let's engage in this friendship, but let's take care of first things first and today resoundingly approve the free-trade agreement with Peru that is good for America, good for our Nation, but also good for Peru, and for our relations with the region. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MARTINEZ

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