Mel Martinez

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I wish to take a moment to express my strong support for modernization of the Federal Housing Administration. As you know, there is a serious financial issue affecting a lot of Americans. The subprime lending crisis is driving up foreclosure rates in Florida and across the country. The problem is that from 2004 to 2006, financial institutions gave a lot of people mortgages they could not afford. These were low-interest, nothing-down, sometimes no-document loans that made the initial monthly payment very affordable. But because these were adjustable rate mortgages, a lot of people soon found themselves in a lot of financial trouble. After 24 months, or whenever the initial low downpayment period was over, the next market-driven rates set in and monthly mortgage payments climbed substantially. Another factor compounding the problem, especially in places such as Florida, is that housing prices are stagnant or declining. So with no equity, higher monthly payments, and no chance to sell without taking a substantial loss, a lot of homeowners who have subprime loans are finding themselves in the perfect storm and, sadly, they are facing financial foreclosure. Imagine the heartbreak of a family losing a home to foreclosure. About 2 million families in America are in that predicament today. This summer we saw the first wave of foreclosures, and because of the lag time between interest rate adjustments, we are likely to see another wave before too long. But the good news is that there is a strong public-private partnership offering help. The Federal Housing Administration is offering certain homeowners an option to refinance their existing mortgages so they can make their payments and keep their homes. Additionally, FHA is coordinating a wide variety of groups that offer foreclosure counseling. This is to identify homeowners before they face hardships, help them to understand their financial options, and allow them to find a mortgage product that works for them. I commend President Bush and Housing Secretary Alphonso Jackson for stepping in to help with this difficult situation. I also commend the private institutions that are helping families avoid foreclosure. But where we need more action right now is right here in the Congress. I am pleased we have put together a bipartisan FHA reform bill that will lower downpayment requirements, allow FHA to insure bigger loans, and give FHA more pricing flexibility. These reforms will empower FHA to reach more families that need help. It would also help first-time home buyers, minorities, and those with low to moderate incomes. Over the past 72 years, FHA has been a mortgage industry leader, helping more than 34 million Americans become homeowners at no cost to the taxpayer. With this legislation, we build an even better program that complements conventional mortgage products and allows FHA to continue to serve hard-working and creditworthy Americans. I commend Senators Dodd and Shelby for their leadership on this issue in the Banking Committee. The legislation we have before us is the result of a lot of time and dedication from members of that Senate Banking Committee. It isn't an easy process to get legislation through this committee, but it is a fair one. With this legislation, we have the opportunity to use the resources of the Federal Government in a reasonable and responsible manner in order to mitigate against future home losses. As former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, I know this program well, and I would ask my colleagues who may have questions or concerns with this legislation to talk to me about it. I would love to tell you why this is a good idea for America. I would also add that Senators Dodd and Shelby and I have worked hand in hand with the administration throughout this process, and that this legislation that was reported from the Banking Committee--and, as I said, has bipartisan support--also enjoys the support of the President and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. In fact, I have a letter from Secretary Jackson to Chairman Dodd and Ranking Member Shelby dated September 19 expressing enthusiastic support for the bill. This is a bill that will help families. At a time when America seems to be looking to Congress for answers on issues from energy to the crisis that is going on with the foreclosure problem, to so many other issues, here is a time when we can come together and get something done that is good for the American people. To make the argument this legislation has not been given due deliberation is both unfair and unfounded. FHA reform is an issue that has been debated here in Congress for many years. In fact, I know we debated this issue here when I was Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. The Banking Committee has had hearings and Members have been an active part of the process. At the markup in September, members voted 21 to 1 in favor of reporting the legislation from committee. I believe the one Senator who did object in committee now supports the legislation. So, again, I ask my colleagues to take a good look at the merits of this legislation and support our efforts to provide hard-working, creditworthy Americans with an avenue to safe, sound, and affordable mortgage lending. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I rise during a period of morning business to talk about two very important topics. For the last 40-some days we have been discussing the nomination by President Bush of Judge Mukasey to be the next Attorney General. It is a nominee to the President's Cabinet. First, I believe the President ought to be accorded great deference. The President gets to pick the team to work with him. This is a Member of the Cabinet. It is an appointment that at this juncture, realistically, may not last much more than a year or so. It is not a lifetime appointment to the court, it is to serve on the President's Cabinet, but it is to the very important job of Attorney General. It is a job in which, in this particular time in history, it is terribly important that we have someone of measured judgment, someone of impeccable credentials, and someone with a fine-tuned ear to following the rule of law. In Judge Mukasey, when his name first surfaced, we had a consensus nominee. He was referred to as someone who would get swift confirmation. He was further referred to as someone who had not only the judicial experience but also had significant experience in dealing with cases relating specifically to issues of terrorism. He has 15 years of experience as a Federal judge in the Southern District of New York. During that time he presided over several national security cases, in which cases he demonstrated his ability to faithfully adjudicate difficult issues of law and fact. It seems to me somewhat unfair to require the nominee for Attorney General to now jump through hoops that even the Senate itself has not been willing to tackle head on, on the issue of waterboarding. I believe that is a bit of a red herring. I think at the end of the day, when it is all said and done, it is time we move forward on the confirmation of this good man, a good man who now has had the vote of confidence from the Judiciary Committee; that his nomination be brought to the floor so we can give the United States an Attorney General, someone at the head of the Justice Department, someone we desperately need at this point in history. There is no question that I believe it is time, after 48 days of his nomination being pending as of today, that the Senate take up this nominee and move it swiftly forward. Judge Mukasey has answered all the questions that have been presented to him. He has answered them to the best of his ability. He has not been able to answer questions that are in the nature of hypotheticals. He has not been able to answer questions that are in the nature of things that may be a part of classified programs that are not available to him at this point in time and that might, in fact, not be the kinds of questions any other nominee to be Attorney General could answer in the course of his nomination. In writing to members of the Judiciary Committee, Judge Mukasey wrote: Some of you told me that you hoped and expected that I would exercise my independent judgment when providing advice to the President, regardless of whether that advice was what the President wanted to hear. I told you that it would be irresponsible for me to do anything less. He went on to say that if he was confirmed, he would review any course of interrogation techniques currently used by the U.S. Government and determine whether any technique would be unlawful and advise the President accordingly. He committed that to the President, to the Congress, and to the American people. I take him at his word. This is a respected man. This is a respected judge. He has a track record. This is not a Johnny-come-lately. His nomination should be confirmed. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the nomination of Judge Mukasey to fill the vacancy of Attorney General which has been open for much too long and this good man may begin his service to our country at this very important post at this very important juncture.

Mr. MARTINEZ

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

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I want to touch on another subject that is terribly important to the State of Florida. It has to do with the Water Resources Development Act which for a long time has been pending before the Congress, and which is so long overdue. When this matter comes to a vote, I will vote to override the President's veto, primarily because in this bill there is nearly $2 billion for the long overdue and critically important work of restoring Florida's Everglades. This is a bipartisan project. This is a project of unique cooperation between the State and Federal Government. The history of Florida's Everglades is fascinating. About 100 years ago it was decided that man could conquer all and, in fact, the Army Corps of Engineers should endeavor, through many projects, to drain the Everglades so they could be utilized for farming and that the water would be moved out. So a series of canals was dug and all sorts of efforts were put in place to drain the swamp, to drain the Everglades. Now we find ourselves a century later understanding that these well- intended Floridians of those days were terribly misguided. The Everglades is a jewel to the State of Florida; it is a jewel to the Nation. It is an environmental masterpiece, the wildlife, between the plants and animal life, but also it is an essential water resource for the people of Florida. Some years ago, under the leadership of my predecessor in office, Senator Graham, who had been Governor of Florida, and many other Floridians, working in partnership with Governor Bush and later when Senator Nelson came to the Senate, along with Florida's Governor, they crafted this Everglades Restoration Program. For 5 years this bill has been delayed. It has meant delaying substantial Federal involvement in a multitude of necessary projects, including the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. It is the funding that has been missing. The State has done its part. The Federal Government has, so far, been absent. I agree with the President and the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire that this bill lacks fiscal discipline. It seeks to spend too much on programs that have little need or reason for Federal support. But I also have to recognize that the longer we wait for the Federal Government to meet its Everglades commitment, the more expensive the cost and the more damage that will be irreversible to this fantastic ecosystem. In the past 5 years the cost of the Indian River Lagoon project alone has increased by more than $100 million. Seven years ago, the State of Florida and the Federal Government entered into an agreement: to restore, preserve and protect the South Florida ecosystem while providing for other water-related needs of the region. . . . Since that time, the State of Florida has invested more than $3 billion in this effort; but the Federal Government, originally intended to be an equal partner in the restoration, has yet to meet its obligations--spending only a fraction of Florida's investments on preplanning efforts. The Everglades belong to Florida, but they are a national treasure. The Federal Government has committed to restore the Everglades and it is high time they follow through on this commitment. What exists today is more than 2 million protected acres of what was once deemed worthless swampland slated for development. Indeed, development did occur and road construction has almost irreversibly impeded the natural cleansing flows of the Everglades. But because of the work of the State of Florida and numerous environmental organizations, we are reversing the damage of development. Once on a path to destruction, the Everglades now teems with wildlife, endangered and rare species, and contributes greatly to south Florida's environmental health. But the work is far from complete. A substantial portion of the work lies ahead. No single bill Congress approves will have as much positive impact on Florida's environment as this one. It is, in fact, more than an environmental project. It is also a water project. Over the last several weeks, we have been hearing reports about the scarcity of water around Atlanta, where several million Americans reside. It has come to the point that Florida, Georgia, and Alabama had to have a serious conversation with the Department of Interior about water flows from the river that flows from Georgia all the way into Alabama and Florida. In Florida it is the Chattahoochee River. The serious nature of that problem can also be reconciled with the serious problem we would see in south Florida if our water supply were impeded. This is not only an environmental project, it is also a water resources project. It is about the water that is necessary to sustain life and to sustain the people, the several million people who live in south Florida. I believe it would be a very important moment for us to override the veto, to move forward with the Everglades Restoration, the Indian River Lagoon, the Picayune Strand--these are very important projects--and a score of other projects around the State of Florida, all related to our environment that is such an important part of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration. But more than that, it is part of Florida's future and part of the legacy we leave our children. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Jersey, my distinguished colleague, for his very passionate and correct and appropriate remarks. I think there is no higher moment for this body than when we stand with those who are oppressed, as this country has, and as this Senate has over the history of our Nation. Standing with those who are oppressed is our highest moment and our best calling. I do find it ironic that something as simple as this simple little white band, with the word ``change'' on it, could be so threatening to this illegitimate regime as to have to imprison 70 young people. Now, today, we hear that another 40 have been arrested. It is unconscionable. It is unthinkable that a regime would be so weak as to be so threatened by something as simple as these wristbands we are wearing. But it is also a sign of the continuing spirit of freedom that continues to be alive and well on that imprisoned island. There is no question about that. That is why I think it was so appropriate we came together to increase the funding for the dissident movement inside Cuba--so they can have the simple resources, such as pens and paper, so they can communicate with one another and they can add their message of freedom and their message of hope. I do not have any question these young people, whether they were arrested for a few days or for a harsher sentence--and we do not know because there is no rule of law; there is no guidepost we can follow-- are simply at the mercy of this regime that for now almost half a century has brutalized its people with totalitarian rule. I am pleased my colleague from Texas is here, Senator Cornyn. I want to give him a moment of time if he cares to comment on this situation.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Florida for coming to the floor. Senator Menendez was so eloquent in his description of the situation today, and I wish to echo his comments regarding the Presidential Medal of Freedom Oscar Elias Biscet will be receiving on Monday. It is a wonderful acknowledgment of this Afro- Cuban doctor. He, in his quest for freedom, has chosen to follow Martin Luther King, Jr., the Dalai Lama, and Gandhi. This is a man of peace. He is not a man of armed conflict, not a man of violence; he is a man of peace. He is in prison, as was mentioned by the Senator from New Jersey, but I want us to understand that being in prison in Cuba isn't as simple as just being denied the opportunity to walk and move as you will but it is to be in the most repressive gulag the world has ever seen. President Bush last week was speaking eloquently about the situation in Cuba. He said: The day this regime ends, those who have supported it will be embarrassed by the things that will be revealed, just like those who supported the Eastern European gulag or the Nazis or the Stalins of the past, who were embarrassed at a time when the full measure of their cruelty was seen and recognized. As we approach the agricultural fair in Havana, I remember that as a young boy--my father was a veterinarian, and one of the biggest thrills for me was to go from my small city to Havana to the fair. This was a time when the cattle exposition was there, and my father, of course, being involved in this industry, was there doing business. I remember seeing my first rodeo there. It is a wonderful memory. Well, this fair still goes on every year. I know there will be many from this country who believe the most appropriate thing to do is to make a buck and go there and sell goods and participate in this fair. I hope when they are there, they might have the courage themselves to wear one of these little wristbands. I will be happy to supply them. I have a few. It would be wonderful if they would show up at the fair wearing these wristbands that say ``cambio''--just a simple message of solidarity with those who are oppressed. We are a people of freedom. We enjoy our liberty, and we want it for others. We understand that the time for the Cuban people is coming. The hour for the Cuban people is approaching. It is coming. So I thank my colleagues for their solidarity, Senator Cornyn from Texas as well as my colleague from Florida and Senator Menendez, all joining today in one voice seeking ``cambio''--change--and standing together with these young people for their courage and their bravery, as well as celebrating this wonderful award Dr. Biscet will be receiving on Monday, which is a good recognition of his long work in the area of human rights, and hoping that it might be an opportunity for the Cuban regime to perhaps consider whether it is the time to grant him his freedom.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. I wish to speak for a period of 10 minutes.

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

Mr. MARTINEZ. Parliamentary inquiry, Madam President: Is the Senate in morning business?

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam President, in the last couple of hours, the President took the opportunity to speak at the State Department on the condition of relations between the United States and Cuba. For me, as an immigrant from Cuba, born on that island and an immigrant to this country, it was a very moving and transcending kind of moment. The President, for the first time, I think, in many years that any American President might do this, detailed the problems in Cuba and the cruelty of that regime toward its own people. The President put a human face on the suffering of the Cuban people by inviting to the stage with him three families of Cuban political prisoners. These families, each with their own tale of hardship and suffering, were representatives of what I think is the now almost half century long suffering of the Cuban people. He spoke about their plight, the unjust nature of their relatives' incarceration, which is nothing more than a representative sampling of what the Cuban people have suffered over so many years of brutal repression. He also detailed the many failed promises of the Cuban revolution toward its own people. He spoke of the failed promises; that the revolution would bring a better life and so many other things that have simply not occurred. He detailed frankly, the economic misery the Cuban people suffer from today, the fact that housing is deplorable and difficult and that many families have to, obviously, live together. He spoke about the irony that while the Cuban system touts the greatness of their medical prowess; in fact the Cuban people do not have access to the kind of quality medical care that medical tourists can obtain. Just as an anecdote, sitting next to me was a foreign diplomat who mentioned to me that she had been to Cuba for eye surgery some years earlier. I mentioned to her that at about that same time--I think she said that was in 1992--I had a relative, an uncle of mine, whom we had brought to this country so he could have eye surgery here because he couldn't get it in Cuba. So foreign visitors, for dollar amounts, can get first-rate medical care in Cuba, but it is not always available to the Cuban people. He spoke about the oppression of those who seek to be a voice for change and the fact that many of those in prison, these patriots, are in prison for nothing more than having a fax machine in their home or a willingness to speak and talk about the human rights conditions on the island. The fact is that each of these brave souls takes great risk in order to facilitate the opportunity for Cubans to speak to one another, for the opportunity to speak in freedom, the opportunity to freely express an idea. These are things which are abhorrent to the Cuban regime. The President made an offer. He made an offer that the United States, through non-governmental organizations and religious entities, would send computers and provide Internet access to the Cuban people, if only the Cuban Government would allow the average, everyday Cuban--what today is part of international trade, commerce, and communications-- Internet access. Internet access in Cuba today is only allowed under the strictest of Government authority, and it is a way in which the Cuban people are held back from achieving the promise that the 21st century has for so many people, in so many other places. He also spoke about the opportunity for Cuban children to be a part of a scholarship program and all they would have to do is to be freely allowed to participate. He spoke to the international community using the example of the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland, which have, with such determination, stood clearly on the side of freedom, stood clearly on the side of those in Cuba who are not satisfied with the current conditions but look to the moment of their liberty, look to the moment of freedom. These new democracies in Europe, who still well remember the days of their oppression at the hands of another Communist dictator, are very much involved in helping the Cuban dissident movement, in allowing them to come to their embassies and just stand in their lobbies and have access to a magazine or a newspaper or a book that would otherwise not be permitted by the Cuban authorities. We can all do more. The United States has been at the forefront of assistance to a free Cuba, but no doubt many other countries, many other capitals across the world could well heed the example these Eastern European governments are today giving to the rest of the world as they stand clearly on the side of freedom. The fact is that the most important take-away, if you will, that I heard today in this very moving, emotional, and I thought historic speech was the fact that the President today said that in the future of Cuba, we should be clearly on the side of freedom and not on the side of stability. You see, the Cuban people are in the throes of change. Change is happening on that imprisoned island today, and that change can take one of several forms. One of them would be for us to side with stability and more of the same, for the sake of stability. The other would be to chart that uncertain path that freedom often brings but a path that ultimately leads to the opportunity for free people to live freely, that opportunity to simply stand in a town square and speak your mind. So often people ask me: Have you ever been back to Cuba? And I say: No. They ask: Will you ever go back? And I say: Yes, I will go back the day I can stand in the park of my little town where I grew up, in Sagua La Grande, Cuba, and stand there and freely express my thoughts or the day I can pick up a book and read it freely. Those are the times and those are the conditions under which the Cuban people will really begin to taste freedom. All of Latin America today in one measure or another is moving to the march of democratic governments and clearly enjoying the fruits of a free market. The free-trade agreements currently pending with Latin American countries will only continue to expand the wave of prosperity that is today sweeping that continent. But one example remains, one example of absolute tyranny, one example of an old-fashioned, brutal military dictator, and that is Cuba. The fact is, I do believe freedom is on the march and that freedom can come to the Cuban people. I hope we can continue to encourage the voices of freedom within the island. The President spoke to the military, he spoke to the governmental structures of the Cuban Government, and he pleaded with them to side with the people of Cuba who seek to live free and not use the elements of repression at a critical and decisive moment in the future of Cuba. I have no doubt that many of those who today might have been, at one time, supporters of the Cuban regime, who believed in the promises of the revolution, as at one time or another all of us did, that they would now understand that this failed system has a limited lifespan and that it is time to side with the forces of freedom and not with the forces of repression and tyranny. For those who have no blood on their hands, they do have a future in a free Cuba. One of the more touching moments today was when the President discussed dissidents, such as Oscar Elias Biscet. Oscar Elias Biscet is a physician who has been sentenced, to I believe 20 years, for merely speaking and expressing his own beliefs and his desire to see a change within Cuba. He is in deplorable conditions, in rat-infested conditions, needing medical care and getting none. He is the face of the future of Cuba. He is the face of the dissidents in Cuba. He is a young man, born and raised under the Castro regime. He does not belong to any rich families of the past. In fact, he happens to be an Afro- Cuban. He is a physician. He believes in life at all stages, from conception to death, and that was one of the big sins for which he has been punished in Cuba. So I would say that today is an important day in the history of U.S. relations with Cuba. I hope it will also be a historic marker for the future of the Cuban people. The President spoke about a popular song, both in Cuba and outside, and it basically talks about ``our day is coming.'' I don't think there is any doubt that the freedom of the Cuban people is coming and that our day, without a doubt, is coming. I look forward to continuing to help the dissident movement inside Cuba in any way that we can, to continuing to help the voices of freedom that so much yearn for an opportunity. I believe the President made it clear that the standard by which we should judge our future relations with Cuba is the way in which the Cuban Government treats its own people; by releasing political prisoners, by allowing freedom of expression, by allowing freedom of the press, and by ending these despicable acts of repression or repudiation, which are nothing more than a government-organized gang of neighbors ganging up on someone who, for whatever reason, seems to be out of step with the orthodoxy of the Government of the day. These are horrible beatings and harassment that cut across age groups. It is not just about the head of the household who has expressed himself in a way the Government deems negative or maybe being guilty of that ill-defined crime of dangerousness. But the children of that family suffer, the elderly, and all of the members of any family who is chosen for these repudiation acts. They all suffer. Those are despicable acts. Those have to end-- that kind of repression--and the freeing of political prisoners. These simple things. When people talk about what is going to be the future, the future is in the hands of the Cuban people. I know the United States will stand clearly on the side of freedom. That is, what makes our country so very different and so very special, is the fact we do put freedom first; that we do put a value on every human being, every human life, and the dignity of each one; that we do understand there is a difference between freedom and oppression and we choose to stand clearly on the side of freedom. I will always be proud to stand with our President, who so clearly spoke today about his desire to stand on the side of freedom. I hope many of my colleagues in the Senate will take the time to read the speech the President gave today. If you care about Latin America, if you care about Cuba, if you care about the future of that oppressed island, I think this was a very good moment. I see my dear colleague from New Jersey and fellow Cuban American here on the Senate floor, and I know we share the same passion for the opportunity for Cuba to be free. This isn't a partisan issue between us; this is about the right of the Cuban people to live freely. I say to Senator Menendez that it was a momentous speech and I think one that will be a historic marker, as I said, in the relations between our countries and the opportunity for the Cuban people to live in freedom. I think it was an important moment, and I hope my colleague will have an opportunity to see it and read it. It was the kind of speech so many of us have wished for and were delighted to hear today. Madam President, I appreciate the indulgence of the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I want to talk this morning on the much- talked-about subject of SCHIP. In this Chamber over the last several days--and I would say all over the Nation--there has been a lot of conversation about the future of the State Children's Health Insurance Program and whether this side will budge or that side will nudge the other one or who will blink first. Clearly, we are at an impasse. Today, the President's veto of this bill--which will enlarge Government by $35 billion--will be sustained in the House, I believe. Then we will find ourselves at a place where we have to regroup and decide how to proceed in reauthorizing this very important program. It is an important program, and a program so many of America's children have benefited from, and one for which I believe we need to find a way to move forward. I want to add my voice to those who have called for the program's reauthorization. This is a program that is working. It works in the State of Florida. It is a program that helps children. I know a lot of Florida children have been helped by it. So we have to find a way we can come together in the spirit of the program so every child who needs health care has the needed access to health care. We should take great care, however, to avoid switching SCHIP from being a program aimed at helping poor children to a program that moves us toward a Government-sponsored, Government-run health care system. That would not serve the people in the program, and it would not serve the greater cause of reforming the bigger problem we have, and which we also have to address, which is our entire health care system. The bill the President vetoed would have allowed coverage to the point where we would have essentially encouraged families who are today receiving coverage through private insurance to drop that insurance in favor of Government-sponsored health care coverage. I do not think that is the way to move forward with health care reform. I do not think that policy would lower health care costs or increase the access to quality health care. Both are important goals. In talking with people in my State of Florida, they want to see SCHIP reauthorized. They want to help poor children who need health care. They understand the debate we are having, and they want a better alternative than anything that is on the table right now. So we are at an impasse. But I think we can find common ground. A real compromise needs to be reached, one that keeps the spirit of SCHIP, one that adds provisions to help find children currently eligible for assistance and signs them up for insurance. We need a compromise that does not simply broaden the program's eligibility so people in private health insurance are forced to move to Government-sponsored health insurance because an employer sees an opportunity to save money. That is why later today I will introduce an alternative SCHIP reauthorization program composed of three elements--a full reauthorization of SCHIP, a child health care tax credit, and an aggressive outreach program to ensure all children eligible for the program have the opportunity to sign up for the insurance. The first element enacts a full reauthorization of SCHIP, where we continue to cover children in families with incomes at or below 200 percent of the Federal poverty level. The second element of my proposal advances tax credits to families with incomes between 200 and 300 percent of the poverty level. If a family does not have insurance, a credit provides the resources necessary to go out and purchase health insurance. Families would have the ability to purchase health insurance, health care coverage tailored to their children's unique needs. The third element would enhance outreach for children who are currently eligible for SCHIP coverage but who are not currently enrolled. It is estimated between 500,000 and 1.5 million children who are today eligible for SCHIP are not enrolled simply because families do not know the program is available to them. Make no mistake: The underlying debate is not whether we are going to provide health insurance for our Nation's children. We all agree that our society can ill afford to not take care of children in need. The dispute is how are we best to achieve that goal. One of the major differences between the vetoed SCHIP program and my alternative is that the vetoed bill created a newly eligible population and moved them into a system of Government health insurance. My proposal is patient focused. It retains for families the choice of providers and practitioners and gives parents the resources necessary to add their children to their existing health care plan. Where our proposals are similar is in the number of children we insure. Under my proposal, 10 million children would have access to health insurance. That is the same number who would have been covered by the vetoed bill. It is essential we come together as Republicans and Democrats to talk about a viable alternative, about how we can get this done, about something that would ensure the reauthorization of SCHIP and that expands rather than diminishes private health care coverage for children. I would be willing to continue to discuss this issue in a way that allows us to debate whether in the reauthorization part of this bill-- the $5 billion probably is not enough to cover all of the children who need to be insured under this program. I think a larger number than that $5 billion is necessary, probably closer to $10 billion. But once we did that, then how do we go about covering that 200 percent to 300 percent of poverty--those working families who still cannot find a way to insure their children without Government assistance? We would do that through a tax credit. That tax credit would also be beneficial. It would be a way of allowing them to continue to have a private health care option, which I think is always preferable. The insurance marketplace would adjust and continue to innovate in a way that I think would give us a much stronger, much better health care system for the children of America who so much need insurance for themselves and for us to be sure we have a healthy future for them. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues in the coming days to strike a middle ground, to strike a compromise on SCHIP, to be sure we come together to let the people of America know this Congress, Republicans and Democrats, can come together to work together on something as important as the health of our children. I look forward to the days ahead, as we continue to discuss this important topic, and I look forward to having others join this effort. I am very gratified that quite a number of the Members of the House have adopted this as their idea and are going forward with this as a plan that may have viability, may be the answer. I hope an increasing number of Senators who are now not only looking at it but also finding favor with it will create the kind of middle way that will allow us to come together to find a solution and put this important issue back where it belongs: moving forward and taking care of the children of America. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Mikulski amendment and to echo the comments of my good friend and colleague from Florida, Senator Nelson. The Senator and I both have had the great privilege, not only of representing the great State of Florida but also both of us grew up within a short car ride from where all this excitement was happening, as we were young people growing up. Cape Canaveral, the excitement of flights to space, the heroics of our early astronauts and then later the flights to the Moon and the touch of the tragic that, from time to time, have been a part of any dangerous endeavor, have been a part of our daily lives. Of course, my senior Senator from Florida took it a step further. He himself donned the suit and went into space on the space shuttle on what was, I know, a life-changing event for him. I know the excitement with which he speaks of the space program is not something I can speak about firsthand as he does, because he has been a part of it, but I can certainly speak to it as a person who has seen the benefits of it to our communities, through research, through improvements to so many things that have been derivative from our space program. As we go to the Kennedy Space Center these days and we talk to these great scientists, these great engineers, these people who are so enthusiastic, who are so competent in what they do, they speak with great commitment to completing the space shuttle flights that are pending. They speak with great commitment about our space lab and the great advancements in science and technology that are taking place in the space lab--now a new component in biomedical research that will hopefully be opening the doors to the cure of many illnesses. All of these things have been a part of our space flight, of our tradition, and our history. The 5-year gap Senator Nelson spoke of, where we will have no manned space flight, is something I do not think most Americans understand. As it is right now, because of shorting the space program year after year, what we have is a situation in which there will be a 5-year gap from the last space shuttle flight until the next vehicle is ready for manned flight. I think, as the American people would know about this, it would raise concerns for them in the area of science and technology, of advancement, of exploration, which has been such a part of our country where we have led the world without a doubt. But there is something else about it which troubles me greatly and which I think the American people also ought to be made aware of, which is the fact that in order for an American to fly into space for those 5 years, we would be completely and totally at the mercy of Russia. We have had a very good and cooperative relationship. The Americans and Russians and, frankly, many other citizens of other countries, have been a part of the space shuttle and more particularly of the space lab. We have modules there--obviously the space shuttle arm from Canada, modules that have come from Japan and from Italy and many other countries. Each of those countries with great pride has had one of their crew members go on the space shuttle and go to the space lab. Our cooperation with the Russians has been fantastic, even back to the days of the Soviet Union. But in an ever-changing world, should not we wonder if it is safe for America to totally be reliant upon an increasingly undemocratic Russia for our space flights? I do not necessarily want to create enemies where none exist. But it does concern me to see these Russian bombers coming into areas where they know very well are our waters, our airspace, and repeatedly now over the last month or so coming into what is U.S. airspace and challenging us to intercept them. Why are they doing that? What is the purpose behind that? What could happen over the next 3 years as we conclude the space shuttle, and then the next 5 where we are without the ability to put a man in space, if our relationship with Russia is not as strong as it is today in 8 years, 5 years, 6 years? It certainly isn't as positive and strong as it was 3 years ago. It behooves us, for the sake of our independence, our sovereignty, our ability to be in control and the destiny of this magnificent laboratory up in space, that we could accelerate the time where this gap was going to exist. It is going to be there no matter what we do, but we can shorten it. I believe if we shorten it by a couple of years, that would be in our best interests. When we look at the totality of our expenditures, when we look at the cost-benefit ratio of what we get from our space program, how it inspires our young people at a time when we are falling behind in competition with the world in science and technology, when we know the world is moving faster than we are as it relates to the education of our young people and science and technology, what could be better than a vibrant space program to continue to imbue our young people with the desire to explore, the desire to invent, the desire for all he things that the space program has been to our country? Our technological edge was never finer honed than when we had a vibrant and strong space program in the late 1950s and on into the 1960s. That was our finest and best time when it comes to science and technology. We have, in many ways, been living off that for the last 25 years. Now we can have the dawning of a new age of space exploration into areas that have so far eluded us completely--well beyond the moon. This can all happen. This is a small downpayment into a very important part of America's future. It is certainly a very strong and important issue as we look also at very practical issues like our workforce. The workforce at Kennedy Space Center is a well-trained workforce. It is a workforce that has, over the years, developed and over the years improved its skills. If we were to tell these people over the next 5 years there is no work for you, they will go into other pursuits. These are sharp, talented people. It is not like they are going to be unable to get a job, but it is going to be our loss when those people are not engaged in the continuation of the U.S. space flights. NASA is a good investment for America. We are not talking about breaking the bank. We are talking about a very small investment for what I believe would be a great return. I am very pleased to join with my colleague from Florida, Senator Nelson, who is my expert when it comes to these issues. We both have great affection for the Cape. He grew up a very few miles south of it. I grew up a very few miles to the west of it. This is our backyard. We know it, we love it, and we know what it has meant to our country. We know the future of it can be very bright and we certainly do support this effort to improve funding for NASA. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. I thank my colleagues for their work on this issue and Chairman Inouye for listening to our concerns. We all appreciate his commitment to our Nation. Battlefield surveillance and Management Radar System

Mr. MARTINEZ. I wish to join my friends and colleagues from Georgia in supporting funding for the LAMPS MK III procurement line at the full authorized level of $31.8 million. This vital program, which the Senate Armed Services Committee on which Senator Chambliss and I serve, fully authorized the President's request, brings needed capability to the pilots and crews of the MH-60 aircraft and the carrier battle groups with which they work. Mr. Chairman, I thank you and your committee for your hard work on this crucial spending bill and ask that as you go to conference with the House you consider our support and the support of the Navy and administration for this important program. Again, I thank my colleagues from Georgia as well as Chairman Inouye and Senator Stevens for their time and hard work.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam President, I wish to shift the discussion, while I concur completely with the Senator from Texas and his assessment of floor management time, and I do believe we need to get about the business of a Defense authorization bill and not be sidetracked by other side issues. I wish to talk about another important issue that is coming before the Senate, which is the SCHIP program, one that I support, one that I want to see reauthorized, and one that I want to see expanded. To my colleagues on the other side of this debate, let's talk about expanding SCHIP. I support a $5 billion expansion. If that is not enough to cover the children this program is intended to cover, let's talk. Let's discuss what amount would cover these children: $5 billion, $10 billion; I am in favor of opening that discussion. What I am against, what I oppose is expanding this program beyond the needs of the poor. The bill before us today expands the program beyond its original intent. It expands it to the point where we are making Government- sponsored health care available beyond the intent and to include those in the middle class. For those who claim otherwise, let me read a quote from the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. The chairman recently noted: Everyone realized that the goal of this legislation moves us a giant step further down the road to nationalizing health care. Nationalizing health care. Let's call it what it is. This is not a debate over whether we are going to provide health insurance for our Nation's low-income children--because we all agree we should do that-- this is a debate over whether we should nationalize health care. This is a significant ideological debate. Do we in this body--in this Nation--want a system of government versus private health insurance? Is it right to dramatically expand this program to middle-class families for the sake of being able to say we are insuring more? I support SCHIP. I support the program with the original mission of covering low- income children who do not have health insurance. This bill we are debating today is not that program; it is not even close. It is bad policy. To take a program designed to help poor children and create a new entitlement for middle and upper income families, especially when this group already has access to private coverage, money set aside for low-income children should be used to cover low-income children. Make no mistake. This bill takes us down a one-way path. The bill takes the money intended for SCHIP and uses it as money to begin a program of socialized health care. For this reason, I cannot support this bill. Beyond the ideological shift of socializing health care, the funding portions of this bill will essentially eliminate health coverage for low-income children after 5 years. Under this plan, SCHIP outlays increase every year for the next 5 years. But in the year 2013, they drop dramatically--to levels that will not sustain even the existing population of kids on SCHIP. The proposal, as written, will require the Government to either drop millions of children from health care in 2013 or impose a new tax to raise the $41 billion needed to sustain the increased levels of coverage. Additionally, this bill sets us up to cover an unintended population of adults. This plan would allow New York to expand their SCHIP program to cover middle-class families earning $82,600 per year, which is four times the Federal poverty level. Ironically, this means many families in New York will receive a government subsidy for insuring their children at the same time they are subject to the alternative minimum tax, a tax specifically designed to target wealthy Americans. By expanding coverage further up the income scale and to new populations, this bill takes away needed resources from those most vulnerable, low-income children. Several recent analyses show that for every 100 children made newly eligible for SCHIP, half of those would either lose or forgo private coverage they currently have. So why are we using taxpayer dollars to cover children who have insurance at the expense of those who don't? I truly believe this bill represents a fork in the road. We can either move toward a health care system that is patient focused, with a choice of providers, or one that leads us toward a Cuban-style health care system, with rationing of care, long waiting lines and, worse yet, no choice. Let me reiterate, the dispute is not whether children should have access to affordable health insurance; we all believe children should have that access. The dispute is how we should achieve that goal. SCHIP reauthorization in its current form will transform the program into a middle-class entitlement. A real compromise needs to be reached, one that keeps in the spirit of SCHIP; one that finds children currently eligible and signs them up for insurance; a compromise that doesn't simply broaden the program's eligibility so people on private health insurance all of a sudden have an option to move to Government-sponsored health insurance. Congress also needs to work on legislation that will help make insurance more affordable. Since the President has signaled his intention to veto this version of SCHIP reauthorization, it is essential we talk about viable alternatives--plans that would ensure the reauthorization of SCHIP that expand rather than diminish private health insurance and coverage for children. I have been working with some of my colleagues on such a plan--one that would bring a viable alternative to the debate we are currently having. This alternative would be composed of two elements: First, a full reauthorization of SCHIP. SCHIP should continue to cover children in families with incomes at or below 200 percent of the Federal poverty level. But we should also work to enhance outreach for those eligible but not signed up. We know there are poor children out there without health insurance. We may not agree on the number of them, but let's work harder to find them and sign them up for coverage. The second part should consist of a child health care tax credit. Rather than putting more people on a government-run program, let's advance tax credits to families with incomes between 200 percent and 300 percent of the poverty level. This would cover the population targeted by this bill, but instead of forcing them to drop their current coverage, it would provide assistance to keep them in the current insurance plan. It would help families with employer-based insurance to add their children to their existing policies. If a family doesn't have insurance, this credit will provide the resources necessary to go out and purchase health care. I think this is something we can all agree to. These concepts are supported by both the left and right, from the Heritage Foundation to Families USA. So I urge my colleagues to reject the proposal before us today and, instead, come together and work to ensure access to health care for all low-income children.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition of the current amendment, the Webb amendment, to the fiscal year 2008 National Defense authorization bill. The fact is that this amendment, in its good intentions to think about the care and condition of our men and women in uniform who have so bravely served us, in fact is very much misguided in that it attempts to dictate to the military leaders exactly what type and how troop rotations should take place. I think it is a dangerous amendment because it could also interfere with the ability of our country to respond in times of a national emergency, even though it has a waiver provision in the amendment for the President's ability to respond to the dangerous situations that can occur in the very dangerous world in which we live. The fact is--I know it has been mentioned, but I reiterate--the Secretary of Defense, the person charged with the constitutional responsibility of deployment of the Armed Forces, has foursquare clearly stated that this amendment, while well intended, is certainly not a good amendment. It would dramatically limit the Nation's ability to respond to other national security needs while we remain engaged in Iran and Afghanistan. Secretary Gates, in a letter of September 18 to Senator Graham, indicated clearly his concern. He goes on to mention some other concerns. General Petraeus announced--and the President affirmed--that there would be troop drawdowns in Iraq in the upcoming weeks. In fact, this amendment could have the effect of extending the tours of duty of troops in Iraq beyond their currently scheduled rotation. There is another thing that bothers me. I think we also need to think about our constitutional scheme, how our Government is organized and ordered. Constitutionally to enact an amendment such as this would clearly be an encroachment on the constitutional duties of the Commander in Chief. This is not an area where the Congress is welcomed to dictate. We have one Commander in Chief, not 535. We only elect one at a time. This Commander in Chief has a Secretary of Defense. It is their responsibility under our form of Government to determine what our troop rotations should be. There are other very practical considerations of why this should not happen, why this is a bad idea. The Secretary of Defense goes into several items in his letter. But it does make sense, when you look at it, that units do not always stay together. Following an individual rather than a unit and following the deployment of an individual rather than that of a unit is something that would be cumbersome, difficult, and, in fact, not a way in which we would be, in this very dangerous time, having to run our military. The fact is, there is something here which is maybe the most underlying and important reason of all why this amendment is not a good idea, which is the clear desire and design of the amendment to limit the options of our military forces to maintain the current policy in Iraq. We ought to not use the good intentions and the good ideas about our soldiers, about our troops and their rotations, to have an underlying mission of simply saying, they can't keep this up so they will have to pull troops out. We will change policy by dictating how troops are rotated in and out of the battlefield. The fact is, that could have serious consequences for our Nation as other nations would view this as a vulnerability. It would be viewed as a weakness, as a fact that the United States is overextended and incapable of responding to crisis. It is these kinds of misperceptions and misunderstandings that can lead irresponsible states to take irresponsible actions that could lead to frightening scenarios in the very dangerous world in which we live. It is important to also note that many of the members of our Armed Forces consider it a privilege and an honor to serve this Nation at this difficult time. My recent trip to Iraq was in Tikrit. While there, I visited with a number of troops, some of them Floridians, all proud of their service. Over 90 percent of those troops had already reenlisted, knowing full well of our involvement in Iraq, knowing what the expectations of their service would be during their time of reenlistment, and they had voluntarily reenlisted. Reenlistment rates of those serving in the theater are larger than those of any other. It is a testament to their courage, valor, and sense of duty to their country. We would demean their service if we were to say to them that there had to be parity between the time in service out of the country and the time at home. The goal ought to be for us not to have 15-month deployments. The hope would be that these would never be necessary. But a mandate from Congress that this is how we must operate our Armed Forces is ill- conceived. It is dangerous and does not serve either the national interest of the Nation or the interest of the soldiers on the field whom it is intended to serve. We should not have a subterfuge of policy to change direction in Iraq heaped on the backs of our brave men and women in uniform. If, in fact, there is the thought that this policy is wrong and it should be changed--and I know many Members feel that way; there has been plenty of debate about this issue--there ought to be the courage to say: We will not fund the troops. If you can't do that, you shouldn't do it this way. This is unnecessary. It is cumbersome, and it will be detrimental to the national security of the country. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. This amendment essentially restores $30.7 million for the Cuba Democracy Assistance Program by offsetting it from the Department of State's $3.8 billion in the general administrative budget. In conjunction with the committee's recommendation, $15 million funding for the Cuban Democracy Assistance, this amendment would now equal the administration's request. These funds are used to provide needed humanitarian assistance to Cuban civil society and pro-democracy movement. Let me say that Cuba at the current time is living through a transitional moment, an historic moment. After the dictatorship of Fidel Castro of almost half a century, it appears that he no longer is in a position to govern. His brother Raul Castro has assumed power in Cuba in a way frankly that belies legitimacy or anything close to Democratic rule. It is my hope, it is the hope of those of us who support this amendment, that by restoring these funds to the amounts necessary, we will be able to help the Cuban people create the conditions within the country similar to those that were created in Eastern Europe through our assistance to the forces of democracy and freedom. We now see the flourish in democracies of Eastern Europe and we relish the opportunity that they have brought to those people. We want to see the same take place in Cuba. A few days ago, I had the unusual opportunity and privilege to talk on a teleconference with members of the Civil Society--the opposition in Cuba--who hope and dream of a day when they will have the opportunity to freely speak, where human rights will be observed, and where they will have the opportunity to elect their own leaders. These folks pleaded with us to please assist them, not with high tech, if that would come, but with even the simple things such as pencils, paper, ballpoint pens, so that they can communicate with each other and so they can create the atmosphere and the condition of a civil society that would permit the flourishing of a democracy in Cuba at this critical time and at this juncture. I think it would be a good idea to not reduce the funding that is going to the civil society and democracy movement in Cuba. It is humanitarian assistance. It is civil society assistance. This isn't military. This is about creating peaceful conditions of change and by allowing the Cuban people those opportunities that they otherwise would not have through the current totalitarian system that currently rules in Cuba. I could talk on and on about this, but I hope that with this bill we would restore the funding to the administration recommended levels, which are not in keeping even with what was done for Eastern Europe, which are essential and which will make a big difference to the people of Cuba. Amendment No. 2695 Madam President, I have another amendment I wish to offer at this time.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam President, this amendment restores $30 million of the amount requested by the administration to continue a drug eradication program. It doesn't go as high as the administration requested, but it is higher than what came out of committee. It is vitally important to continue our commitment to drug eradication in Colombia not only by air but with other means as well. This would permit the continuation of this very important program, which we think is vital to our hemisphere's security and to our drug eradication and interdiction efforts to keep our streets safe in America. It is also a very important component of Plan Columbia, this partnership where we have enjoyed such a positive and fruitful relationship during the presidency of President Uribe.

Mr. MARTINEZ. I further ask unanimous consent that Senator Nelson of Florida and Senator Menendez be added as cosponsors of amendment No. 2695.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam President, as was pointed out by the distinguished chairman, Senator Menendez and I have worked together on this effort which has been collaborative and bipartisan and has the support also, as cosponsors, of Senators Ensign and Nelson of Florida. Amendment No. 2694, as Modified Mr. President, at this time I have a modification to the amendment No. 2694 that I would like to send to the desk.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Amendment No. 2694, which is the amendment we have been discussing.

Mr. MARTINEZ. I wish to offer an amendment to H.R. 2764 and send it to the desk.

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

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Menendez, Ensign, and Nelson of Florida be added as cosponsors of amendment No. 2694.