Mel Martinez

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. I call up amendment No. 2413.

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

Mr. MARTINEZ. This is an amendment in which the senior Senator from Florida, Mr. Nelson, joins as a cosponsor. It is one that is tremendously important to make sure we have the best security for our Nation we can possibly have. The concept of this amendment is straightforward. It directs Homeland Security dollars to areas where the threat of attack by terrorists is the greatest. It was no accident that when the terrorists attacked our Nation on September 11, they picked powerful, high-profile and heavily trafficked targets. Terrorists target areas where they can inflict the most damage and get the most attention. For those reasons, they focus on urban areas and areas of national importance or those that are, naturally, highly populated. One of the things that often gets overlooked is when you look at only the population in a certain place, oftentimes we overlook places such as Florida. In Florida, we have 70 million people from all over the world and certainly from all over the United States who visit as tourists. During any given day there are hundreds of thousands of tourists all over the State of Florida. This only adds to the population of our State at any given point in time. On March 18, 2003, the Federal Aviation Administration proposed a no- fly zone over the Walt Disney world resort area because, according to the FAA, the Disney parks are a potential target of symbolic value. In a similar instance, Port Everglades in Broward County actually has more passengers, freight, and people moving through it than even the port of Miami. All of the cruise ships, tankers, and shipping traffic out of the Miami area actually sail from Broward County. These examples highlight the issues associated with regional influx. They underscore the need for additional security resources. The whole State of Florida, in fact, now plays host to 77 million tourists a year. That is on top of the 17 million persons who call Florida home. We cannot overstate the importance of regional concepts and that models created by this amendment will encourage funding to be spent not only on our major cities but also on those regional centers that require by their nature special protections. On this issue, the Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff has weighed in with a consistent message. In a letter the Secretary says: Funding our first responders based on risk and need gives us the flexibility to ensure our finite resources are allocated in a prioritized and objective manner. The Department of Homeland Security strongly supports authorization language that would distribute Federal homeland security grant funds based on risk and need, rather than on static and arbitrary minimums. At this time I do not intend to pursue this amendment and would in a moment ask that it be withdrawn. My understanding is that the 9/11 bill, the bill that gives life to many of the recommendations of the 9/ 11 Commission, is going to be accepted or is going to be voted on and accepted by the Senate. In that bill there will be a much better distribution of dollars in a way that is more in keeping with the risks our Nation faces. Amendment No. 2413 Withdrawn With that in mind, I will at this time ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

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

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the border security amendment No. 2480. As the immigration bill came to a close, there was one thing that was very clear--there was unanimity and support for the issue of border security. The issue of protecting our border is one we all understand. The American people understand. It needs to be done. That was one of the many things that was in that bill that was undone that needed doing. I believe today we do a great thing by moving this issue forward. We have a great threat of terrorism, the continued flow of illegal immigrants. We need to do all we can to secure our border. This amendment will provide an increase in resources to improve our security by building our physical presence and surveillance on the border itself. It requires within 2 years of enactment that we secure operational control over the southern border between the United States and Mexico, and it allows the Border Patrol and U.S. Customs to hire and train and report for duty 23,000 full-time agents. I believe this is a step in the right direction. The United States, in addition to that, will deploy four unmanned aerial vehicles. These are essential for electronic surveillance in order to fully protect our southern border. In addition, the U.S. shall engage in the catch and return of illegal aliens. We know that a great many of those who are here illegally have simply overstayed their visas. This also permits interior enforcement in order to be able to be successful in implementing strong border and interior enforcement. Ninety days from enactment of this bill and every 90 days thereafter, the administration shall report to Congress on the progress. If the progress isn't on track, the report will include specific recommendations for fixing the problem. That is essential because for too long we have known we had a problem. We have thrown money at the problem, and the solutions have not always been what we wanted. Regardless of our position on the issue of immigration, all of us can coalesce around the idea that border security is essential to the rights of a sovereign nation. The deployment of additional border agents, the end of catch and release, the provision of additional space in beds, interior enforcement to ensure we can begin to move forward to ensure those who have overstayed their visas, we understand how that happens and we keep track of that, and not allow them to occur. It is all part of what we need to do in order to ensure we have a safe and secure country. Giving the American people the security and understanding that the Government is serious about border enforcement and about interior security, we then will be able to move forward with phases of the immigration reform act that did not come to pass. There was a lack of credibility that our Government has with the people with respect to our seriousness of purpose in border enforcement. This amendment is a step forward. We are putting the dollars that it needs, in addition to the specific direction it ought to have, as well to ensure that we will have the kind of border security all Americans expect and want so that we can then move forward with the other phases of immigration reform that are so desperately needed. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ. I wish to take an additional moment to speak about amendment 2404 which will be considered later today. Many other countries, including Israel, Canada, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands, have successfully demonstrated how an international registered traveler program can work to ensure security, focus attention on lesser known travelers, and provide a smoother and more predictable travel schedule for repeat travelers. Amendment No 2404 attempts to create an international registered travelers program. This amendment would authorize the Department of Homeland Security to establish an international registered traveler program to expedite the inspection of frequent U.S. and international travelers arriving by air into the United States. The Secretary of Homeland Security is accordingly authorized to impose a reasonable fee to cover the costs associated with establishing and maintaining such an expedited inspection process and is tasked to coordinate such a program with the Department of State. The Transportation Security Administration and private industry developed the Registered Traveler program here in the U.S. to provide expedited security screening for passengers who volunteer to undergo a TSA-conducted security threat assessment in order to confirm that they do not pose or are not suspected of posing a threat to transportation or national security. It has been quite successful. I believe this is something that can work. If we can create an international version, it will go a long way in helping to develop more strategic ties with our allies abroad and show openness to investment and travel in America. We fight all the time for travelers who have options to travel anywhere in the world to come to our country to be tourists. Certainly tourism areas in our country such as Florida, but like many others, Washington, DC, New York City, many national parks out West, many of the beautiful areas of our States are natural attractions for foreign travelers. But the foreign traveling public has options of where to go. Part of the decisionmaking process is cost and ease of traveling. I believe this is a well-thought-out amendment which will enhance our national security while at the same time allowing travelers to more easily find their way to our country in order to enhance the travel and tourism industry, which is of great importance in terms of our own tourism dollars, which keep many Americans employed. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I thank the leader for the time allotted, and I wish to take this time to say that I do oppose the Levin-Reed amendment. I believe it is very important for the Nation at this point in time to not change course until September when we have had an opportunity to not hear from people in this Chamber but when we have an opportunity to hear from the general on the ground, General Petraeus, when he comes back and reports to us on the conditions in Iraq and what his recommendations might be. I think this is too important. The danger to our Nation as a result of Iran's very aggressive tendencies, as well as al-Qaida's continued presence in Iraq, makes it essential that this mission not be terminated prematurely and certainly not until the time we have had the generals on the ground give us their assessment of this latest strategy, which we approved and put in place in order for us to see some progress forward. There are signs of progress on the ground. I am encouraged by some of those things I hear in spite of the noise that doesn't allow it to break through. The fact is, it does appear things are improving somewhat on the ground. At the end of the day, the proper time for us to make a judgment is September and not now. The amendment before us, the Levin/Reed amendment, would mandate the Bush administration begin reducing the number of troops in Iraq within 120 days and maintain only a ``limited presence'' by April. In 120 days, can we physically reduce our troops that quickly in a safe manner? What about our equipment? Can that be done in 120 days? The issue clearly is not our shared desire to see our troops come home safely and at the earliest time within the needs of our Nation's security. All of us want our troops home. The question is, what is the correct policy for our country in Iraq? Last week we received an interim report on the status of the situation in Iraq. To be sure, it was a mixed report--showing just half of the benchmarks being met. But let's look at that report in its proper context. There are those who would inflate this report's significance beyond its intended purpose and use it to prod a hasty end to the war. I think those efforts are misguided. This was not a report on the impact or effectiveness of the surge. It was a status report of where Iraq stands currently on its path to peace, stability, sovereignty, and democracy. And here are the areas where there has been satisfactory progress in Iraq: The Iraqi Government has formed a Constitutional Review Committee and they have implemented procedures to form semi-autonomous regions. They have established support committees for the Baghdad Security Plan and they have provided three trained Iraqi brigades to support Baghdad operations. They are insuring Baghdad is not a safe haven for outlaws, regardless of their sectarian or political affiliation. They have established all planned joint security stations in neighborhoods across Baghdad. They are ensuring the protection of minority political parties and they are spending $10 billion Iraqi revenues on reconstruction projects. These are the areas where there has been satisfactory progress. But more progress remains to be seen. They have yet to solve the issues related to debaathification reform. They have yet to implement an equitable distribution system for oil revenues. The Iraqis have only just begun to enact new election laws. They have yet to ensure that Iraqi Security Forces, ISF, are providing even- handed enforcement of the law--and on that point, we are holding the ISF to an appropriately high standard. The problem is that there has been a tendency for some police to gravitate back to the old habits of sectarianism. Our presence is having a positive impact on ensuring that doesn't occur. And the interim report also notes there are areas where it is too early to assess progress. So there is the status report. Take it for what it is. It is a snapshot in time about the condition of the Iraqi government and where they are on this path to stability and democratic rule. If we are going to measure progress, it is good to know how much is being made. This is that report. To those who want to inflate it as an indicator of the effectiveness of the surge, I would say to my colleagues that the surge has only fully been in place for the last 3 weeks. The question is what should happen between now and September when General Petraeus will report to the President. At that time the surge, now in its third week, will have had 12 weeks. That will provide a better gauge of where we are. But even then it will be a very short time. We know more time is necessary. I am confident that by September, we will have a good assessment from GEN David Petraeus. He will know what progress the surge is making-- what progress is attainable--and whether it is having the desired impact toward our common goals. And yet despite the fact that the surge for stability is less than a month in place, despite the fact that Iraq has become a battleground where al-Qaida is doing everything they can to fight the West, here we are today, again, debating precipitous withdrawal. The senior senator from Michigan says of his amendment, ``Beginning a phased redeployment this year will add incentives for the Iraqis to make the hard compromises necessary to bring their country together and secure it.'' I disagree. Beginning a phased redeployment will add to the security problems. It will add to the instability. It will add to the sectarian violence and the killing. It will destroy any chance of pushing that country toward the place where we all hope it will be. It may even put our forces at risk in a defeated dangerous and humiliating defeat. I ask those supporting this withdrawal to consider the consequences. Consider what would occur if we left Iraq right now in a 120-day timeframe dictated by politics and polls and politicians in Washington, not generals on the ground. Is this a sound strategy for our military? Can this be accomplished? Leaving now would leave a security void in Iraq. The vacuum created would be filled by al-Qaida and Iran. The Kurds would be threatened by Turkey. Al-Qaida would have a training ground free from the threat of military encroachment. Sectarian fighting would create even greater loss of Iraqi lives. We have to be cognizant of the consequences of a precipitous troop reduction and withdrawal. If we leave Iraq now--will we have to return at a later date? We will be back fighting a larger enemy, a strengthened enemy, a more brutal enemy, an even more determined enemy emboldened by our defeat. Our leaving Iraq right now will strengthen our enemies; namely, al- Qaida. Don't take my word for it; take the words of our military leaders on the ground. MG Rick Lynch is quoted in recent news reports saying that American withdrawal would ``clear the way for the enemy to come back.'' He says troop pullout would ``create an environment where the enemy would come back and fill the void.'' General Lynch added that in the field, Iraqi citizens often ask two questions. The first is whether the U.S. is staying. The second is how can we help. Iraqis, tired of having their villages attacked, their homes destroyed by the so-called insurgents--are looking to America. But they want to know that we will be there if they make a commitment. I appreciate those clear words from one of our military commanders on the ground. Would it be a good idea to consult them first? No one cares more about our troops than the officers who lead them. I rather take his view than that of a politician. Come September we are set to receive an update from General Petraeus on the status of operations after the surge has been in place long enough for us to tell whether or not we are making the progress that needs to be made. At that point let us reassess. Are our goals attainable?

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I have been involved deeply in this debate that we have had over a couple of years. It comes to a close in the next day or so in the Senate. We have an opportunity to move forward, to move the debate on, and to have an opportunity for the House of Representatives to then add their measure of influence upon what this bill should be about. We should not simply say the bill isn't good enough so we are going to do nothing. For those who find criticism with the bill, it is much easier to tear down than it is to build. We have crafted a bill over months of discussions and negotiations, which does a tremendous amount to end the illegality, secure the border, to ensure that we have the mechanisms to enforce an employment verification system so we don't have any more illegal workers. We do a measure of justice to those who have been here and worked and made this country their home for, in many instances, two decades. The fact is, for those who simply say do nothing, they have a measure of responsibility to what comes next. What comes next is a continuation of the illegal system. To say simply ``enforce the law,'' well, the current laws aren't good enough to be enforced. They do not have the enforcement mechanisms necessary to ensure that we do have workplace enforcement, which at the end of the day is the most important measure we can have. A lot has been said about the cost to our society of illegal immigrants being legalized. The CBO, which we trust on these issues, has said--this is the nonpartisan congressional budget office--they find that the new Federal revenue from taxes, penalties, and fees under this bipartisan immigration bill will more than offset the cost of setting up the new immigration system and the cost of any Federal benefit temporary workers, Z visa holders, and future legal immigrants under the bill would receive. I thank the Senator for yielding me some time. I simply say that it has been a pleasure to work with those who have committed themselves to do something about the problem, and not simply say what is imperfect about the solution but to find a solution to this difficult problem.

Mr. MARTINEZ. I thank the Senator. Let me touch on that issue. As an immigrant to America, I understand what it means to live the American dream. I had the opportunity to come to this country as a 15-year-old child, not speaking the language or understanding this culture; yet the embrace that America gives those of us who are fortunate enough to come to these shores and make America our home made me an American. Many out there today fear that immigrants don't want to assimilate. The fact is--and I have said this before--immigrants come to America not to change this country but to be changed by this country. That was my experience. I think it is the experience that has been repeated to the over 200-year history of this Nation as immigrants have come to these shores, and America has had the magic that it performs on those of us who come here to become Americans to then make a contribution, as I hope I am making today by serving in the Senate. The fact is, this is a divisive issue, but I believe it will bind and heal our country if we deal with it. Unfortunately, to do nothing will continue this festering debate in our country that is so divisive and, at times, so ugly. Our country is better than that. I think our country has the resourcefulness and the strength of culture to ensure that we not fear they want to change America, but that we change them to be the Americans that we hope all of us are and can be. I thank the Senator for the additional time. This is something in which I have invested my heart and soul because I believe it to be so right for our country. This isn't about the 12 million immigrants. This is about what that will do to ensure that America continues to be the place it has been for more than 200 years, as a beacon of liberty, the ``shining city on a hill'' that President Ronald Reagan spoke of. We have to continue that tradition and welcome more people into that tradition by allowing them to be legal citizens, legalize their status, while we make it clear that the game is up, and from now on immigration into America will only be legal and not illegal, as it has been for more than two decades.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, today, the U.S. Army celebrates its 232nd birthday. Since a time before the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the body that soon became the U.S. Army has proudly served the people of this land. This is a birthday that should be recognized by all Americans. Created by the Second Continental Congress in Philadelphia on June 14, 1775, our Founding Fathers possessed great vision when making the decision to establish the Army. They realized the importance of having a well-trained, reliable, always-ready Army to defend freedom and the rights of the people. The U.S. Army and its soldiers have admirably served in more than ten wars from the American Revolution to the present war on terrorism. All branches of our military know the deepest depths of sacrifice; and as our oldest military branch, the U.S. Army and its 232nd birthday symbolize centuries of struggle and sacrifice on behalf of us all. Members of our armed services valiantly serve and strive to keep us safe, protect our way of life, and defend freedom whenever and wherever it is in harm's way. This June 14th--the day we also celebrate Flag Day--reminds us of the meaning of patriotism and the importance of service to country. As there are Army birthday celebrations going on across the country-- and the world--today, we should once again pause to remember the dedication of our brave men and women in uniform and their commitment to ``Duty, Honor, Country.'' To every member of our military--whether a veteran, active duty, or reserve--and your families, we say, thank you. You have helped, and continue to help keep our country free, safe, and secure. We honor your dedication and continual sacrifices. And to the Army on this day, I say, Happy Birthday. Thank you for helping to keep America safe and free for us and the next generation. As the Army's slogan states: ``Army Strong.''

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the very important bill before us. Like the Senator from New Jersey, I serve on the Energy Committee. It has been my pleasure to work with the chairman and ranking member to discuss the problems we have in our country and the State of Florida with energy, the fact that it is such an essential ingredient in our daily lives. It needs more help. It needs reform, and Congress needs to address it. As we move forward in shaping the policies that guide our Nation in securing domestic, stable, and affordable sources of energy, we must remember that everything we do here will have a direct impact on every American who drives a car, turns on a light, or takes a sip of water. Gas prices are hovering around historic highs. Energy bills are climbing. Over the last 5 months, gas prices have risen almost 50 percent. That is the one place where all Americans have to, at some point during the week, make a stop, as with the grocery store. If prices have gone up 50 percent over the last 5 months, imagine what that does to a family on a budget trying to make ends meet, trying to send children to school, trying to live on a fixed income--retire, perhaps--members of our military. This cuts across all people evenly. Energy bills are climbing for all Americans. There is increased concern over the impact our energy production has on our environment, and rightly so. I am glad we are talking about this important issue because it is a vehicle we can use to address all three of these pressing concerns. But in this bill, there are areas where we can do more, areas we can improve to help shape the long-term outlook for domestic energy production. In the area of gas prices, this bill does nothing to remove the barriers to refineries. Total U.S. demand for oil is about 22 million barrels per day. Right now, we have domestic refinery capacity here in the United States to produce about 17 million barrels a day. That means we have to import at least 5 million barrels of refined products every day just to meet our current deficit. But the problem is, our needs are growing and refinery capacity is static or shrinking. We need more refineries and more refinery capacity. But the fact is, we have not built a refinery in the United States in 30 years because of burdensome overregulation. Under the current system, there is no incentive for companies to take the risk or make the investment in a process that in all likelihood will result in rejection. This is something this bill should address. We know the problem. We know the solution. All we need now is a commitment to do something about it. Until we address the refinery capacity and petroleum infrastructure problems, there will be no relief for this problem, for the ever-rising prices of gasoline for American consumers at the pump. Until we address refinery capacity, this bill will not be complete. This bill attempts to address supposed price gouging at the pump. I think I speak for all my colleagues when I say we oppose price gouging and we should encourage vigorous prosecution of unscrupulous business practices. We should do all we can to see it doesn't happen and those who engage in that are punished. But study after study and investigation after investigation have shown that widespread price gouging is not happening. That is not the problem. After the devastating hurricanes of 2005, I joined my colleagues on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to ask the Federal Trade Commission if there was any sort of collusion among the oil and gas industry to drive up prices. Once again, the FTC found no evidence of price gouging or of collusion. Until we address the capacity of our refineries to produce more gas, the supply will be limited. Basic economics says if demand is high and supply is low, you are going to pay a premium at the pump. Gas prices are hurting Americans. We are looking at historic highs. Pick up a gas pump and open your wallet. Does this bill address that? No. This doesn't add any more production. This doesn't reduce inefficiencies. Instead, this bill mandates alternative fuels without removing cost barriers. We will still have a 54-cents-a-gallon tariff on Brazilian ethanol. That is fuel which could be flowing today in Florida and throughout our country. That is fuel which could increase supply, reduce the price at the pump, and have an impact on prices tomorrow. It is part of what this bill should address. We need to look at whether, in fact, it is prudent, at a time when we are trying to increase ethanol consumption, for us to put a tax on the import of ethanol from Brazil. Another area of this bill where we could make improvements is by adding incentives to promote the production of nuclear energy. If we are looking for a clean, reliable, stable, and affordable energy supply, look no further than nuclear energy. In my State, we have five nuclear units generating roughly 15 percent of our energy needs. We need more of that kind of power generation. In the time since we ordered our last nuclear reactor in the 1970s, France has embraced nuclear energy. Now their country is 80 percent nuclear. They get it. They are using it. They are recycling the waste to generate even more power. If we are looking for a renewable, clean, and stable source of energy, there is one. But instead of promoting nuclear energy, this bill is silent. Instead of giving Floridians relief from the costs associated with storing the waste at our facilities, we are faced with mounting bills. Florida ratepayers have already paid $1.2 billion to move waste to Yucca Mountain, but it currently remains stored in Florida. It is sitting at the powerplants. This money, intended to store nuclear waste in Nevada, is costing Floridians money every month in every electric bill. It is costing us the money that should have been spent on producing more energy, on finding ways of bringing down the costs. Under the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act, we were supposed to be sending this waste to Yucca Mountain starting in 1998. We have let politics prevent us from embracing the promise of nuclear power. If we are serious about promoting the production of clean energy, we had better do what we promised Florida ratepayers and others around the Nation, that we open the central repository in Nevada. We have enough coal to meet our energy needs for 200 years, and very little in this bill addresses that fact. States such as Kentucky, Montana, and Wyoming are rich in resources and ready to bring those resources to meet our growing fuel demands. As a Senator from Florida, I would much rather be digging for coal in Montana or Kentucky than drilling for oil on the beaches of Florida. The Bingaman 15 percent RPS amendment is one of the amendments I encourage my colleagues to oppose. For Florida ratepayers who have embraced nuclear energy as a way to help reduce pollution, by 2030, the Bingaman amendment will have a cost of $21 billion. I don't know how many people in Florida think their energy bills are too low, but I can't imagine that they are willing to start subsidizing wind farms in North Dakota. Florida property taxes are already sky high. Our property taxes, our insurance costs are even higher. The last thing Floridians want is a $21 billion increase in their power bill. Break that down, and that is a rate increase of about $2,500 per household. That is more than a year's tuition at the University of Florida. That is more than a family on a fixed income might spend in a year for any type of recreational activity. Florida doesn't have the resources or the capacity to meet the arbitrary definitions or demands of the Bingaman amendment. We will take a big financial hit if it passes. In the next 10 years, Florida's energy demands are expected to grow 60 percent. We need reliable, affordable, abundant, clean-burning energy to meet our demands. Disincentives like the renewable portfolio standard amendment don't provide power to the State of Florida. They don't help Florida meet its needs for seniors, veterans, working families, and those on fixed incomes. This bill regulates and mandates, but where is the bill streamlining? Where is the redtape being reduced? Where are the incentives for States such as Florida to build upon those power sources which we have already found to be clean and successful? A bright future for America and our economy depends on energy. We need it to run our homes, computers, cars, our entire way of life. Right now, we have a reliance on foreign sources of energy that is unhealthy. To get away from foreign sources of energy, we need to make the hard decisions today to give us a better tomorrow. That is certainly the case with our energy policy. Domestic solutions include nuclear, clean coal, biofuels, increased production of oil and natural gas. Obviously, conservation needs to be a cornerstone of what we do. In Florida, we rejected oil and natural gas drilling off our coast in favor of pursuing alternatives, including expanding production in some of the deepest regions of the Outer Continental Shelf, opening 8.3 million acres for production. We are also studying new sources of energy. We are making great strides in biofuels research and development. We are working through public and private partnerships to harness the power of cellulosic ethanol and find ways to more efficiently turn orange rinds and sugar cane into energy. These are the ideas. These are the innovations we need to pursue in our natural energy policy. We need to reward States that are pursuing smart strategies. We need to stay away from penalizing those that don't have the resources to meet arbitrary and unrealistic benchmarks. We need an energy policy for the long haul. I am hopeful we can do that, but we still have a lot more work to do. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam President, today I recognize and congratulate Floridian Matthew Mariutto for his outstanding work and achievement in the study of history, and specifically, for his award- winning documentary on Apollo I. Each year, more than half a million students compete for recognition in the National History Day program. Students are given a general theme and the freedom to develop a presentation to present to the judges. This year's National History Day theme is ``Triumph and Tragedy in History.'' This exercise develops and enhances a student's abilities for critical thinking and problem solving skills, research and reading skills, oral and written communication, self-esteem and self confidence. Based on the quality and accuracy of their projects, this year, around 2,000 finalists were chosen. Of that group, 22 students were given the privilege of presenting their projects at the Smithsonian American Art Museum and National Portrait Gallery here in Washington, DC. Matthew Mariutto has been selected to present his documentary on ``Worth the Risk of Life: The Tragedy and Triumph of Apollo I.'' Matthew attends American Heritage School in Plantation, and his teacher is Leslie Porges. History--and the teaching of its lessons--is an integral part of the education of future generations of Americans. I would like to commend the National History Day program for empowering teachers to bring history alive through innovative teaching methods and outside-of-the- classroom learning opportunities. I would also like to congratulate again, Matthew Mariutto, for his fine work. Matthew, you have earned the admiration of the Sunshine State. Additionally, your teachers and school deserve a great deal of appreciation for contributing to your education. Congratulations on a job well done.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam President, today I recognize and congratulate Floridian Kelsey Tate for her outstanding work and achievement in the study of history, and specifically, for her award- winning performance on Alfred Nobel. Each year, more than half a million students compete for recognition in the National History Day program. Students are given a general theme and the freedom to develop a presentation to present to the judges. This year's National History Day theme is ``Triumph and Tragedy in History.'' This exercise develops and enhances a student's abilities for critical thinking and problem solving skills, research and reading skills, oral and written communication, self-esteem and self confidence. Based on the quality and accuracy of their projects, this year, around 2,000 finalists were chosen. Of that group, 22 students were given the privilege of presenting their projects at the Smithsonian American Art Museum and National Portrait Gallery here in Washington, DC. Kelsey has been selected to present her performance on ``Alfred Nobel: Poverty to Prizes.'' Kelsey attends Deerlake Middle School in Tallahassee, and her teacher is Mr. Andrew Keltner. History--and the teaching of its lessons--is an integral part of the education of future generations of Americans. I would like to commend the National History Day program for empowering teachers to bring history alive through innovative teaching methods and outside-of-the- classroom learning opportunities. I would also like to congratulate again, Kelsey Tate, for her fine work. Kelsey, you have earned the admiration of the Sunshine State. Additionally, your teachers and school deserve a great deal of appreciation for contributing to your education. Congratulations on a job well done.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam President, I share in the disappointment of the evening with the Senator from California. I have been a part of this process, and I never thought in my first days as a Senator that immigration would be one of the signature issues I would deal with. However, it is one I will not shrink from and one I will continue to do all I can to see that we tackle this difficult problem our Nation faces and do something about it. It would be incredibly easy to walk away from this. In fact, we have seen how easy it is to say ``amnesty'' and with that, satisfy one responsibility toward solving a problem our country faces today. It is easy to say this would not work, this is wrong, this isn't the right bill, this is the wrong bill, this is a mistake, we should not do this. What has been so ever-present to me is the lack of any constructive solutions. I know now we are going to be in a hiatus, and those who criticized this effort, I hope, will take the time and undertake the responsibility of putting forth a proposal, advancing an idea, doing something other than tearing down those who have put this together. I don't believe we would have been hurt by one more day of debate. If the bill is going to be brought back, it would have been easier to have given it another day. I can also understand the exasperation and anxiety by one who waited all day for amendments that didn't come. In the blame game of Washington, there is plenty of blame to go around. I remain committed to this because I believe we owe it to the American people to tackle this very important problem. As I look at what we must do and what is ahead, I am disappointed tonight not so much for me but for those Americans who believe our borders need to be safer. I am disappointed for those who have employees who may be illegal and are looking for a tamperproof ID system that will help them to know their workforce is a legal one. I am disappointed for those who see the opportunity for the economy of our country to be improved and made better by bringing in the best and the brightest under a points system that would reward opportunity for companies to bring in people we are not producing ourselves, but I hope we will produce in the future. But today it is advantageous to us in this global economy to bring people in from another part of the world to be a part of this thriving, high-tech economy. I am more disappointed for the families out there who are wondering what is going to happen to them, how will this affect them--the people who fix the cars, mow the lawns at a golf club, make the hotel beds in central Florida, the people who clean the parks so that the next day people can go in and enjoy a summer vacation day, the people who pump the gas for them as they are leaving the park, the people who do difficult construction and hot construction work that takes place in the hot summer in Florida, the people who harvest the citrus crops, and all those people who do all those services and jobs, who also have the anxiety of wondering what is going to happen to them. Those are the people who come to me and ask: Are you doing something about immigration? What are you doing to help? Can you do something? Is it going to happen? When? The Senate, with its long and storied history today, bipartisanly, failed the American people. That is, plain and simply, the way I see it. We have a chance to recover and recoup and come back together to try again to bring this issue to a close and to do something for the American people in a way that will bring honor to this institution. I believe we need to lead because it is time to lead. It is easy to lead on that which is easy; it is much harder to lead on that which is difficult. I wish to say to the Senator from Massachusetts how much I appreciated working with him. He has worked hard. I also thank the diligent members of our staffs who have given night and day to this effort. So I thank Senator Kennedy for his participation in this effort. We have all learned from one another. I certainly have been on the learning side of the curve from Senator Kyl, who has now gone but who has been an inspiration to me through the way in which he has handled this. I wish to simply say there was another quote from Teddy Roosevelt about the man in the arena, but I will not go through the quote. Those of us who are trial lawyers and have tasted the verdict coming back the wrong way, we understand there are days that don't go the way you want them to go. This was one of them. But there is no statute of limitations and there is no final judgment. We have an opportunity to come back another day and try again. I hope it will not be long because I think the chances of this matter being brought to a satisfactory conclusion are enhanced if we get back at it sooner rather than later. The American people expect us to solve problems. That is why they sent us here. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle so we can, at some point, do the work the American people expect us to do on this very difficult issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum, and I ask that the time be equally charged.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I wish to speak today to pay tribute to a great Floridian, Bill France, Jr.--a man who lived the American dream, a man who literally turned an idea and hard work into a multibillion dollar national exhibition we today know as NASCAR. Bill France was a great Floridian in many other ways as well. He was someone who contributed greatly to his local community of Daytona Beach, FL, as well as to the State of Florida at large. Mr. France left us at his home in Daytona Beach, when he passed away earlier this week after a long and difficult battle with cancer. What we in Florida know, and what the news reports confirmed immediately following his death, is that Bill made NASCAR everything it is today: The sold-out races, the national network television coverage, the regalia and the memorabilia--it all can be credited to this man and his love of the sport. Born right here in the Nation's capital, Bill France moved as a young man with his family, Bill France, Sr., and his mother Anne to Daytona Beach, FL, in 1935 to escape the Great Depression. With $100 in his pocket, Bill, Sr., started a new life for his family in Florida, setting up an auto repair shop and quickly taking a great interest in racing. In 1938, he would set up the Daytona Beach Road Course, and from there, as they say, the rest is history. This course he set up back in those days was so unique, and to see photographs of it is one of those things that one can only harken back to the old Florida that is no more. But the races were essentially conducted on the strip of sand in Daytona Beach. They would circle around A1A, the strip of highway that was there at the time, and then circle back around on to the beach. The spectators would sit there on the beach side and watch these cars as they raced literally on the beach. Bill, Jr., spent his young life around the racetrack and worked toward the legacy his father had begun to build. He worked on cars, helped out during races, and beginning in 1956, he worked every day of the week for more than a year on the construction of the Daytona International Speedway. In 1972, Bill, Jr., took the reins of the racing organization that his father had helped to found in 1948 and took the risks and made the decisions that took NASCAR to a whole new level. The International Motorsports Hall of Fame describes it this way: Other than the founding of NASCAR itself, Bill, Jr.'s appointment to leadership is probably the most significant event in the history of the sanctioning body. As rule-maker, promoter, ambassador and salesman, France has set the standard by which all other forms of motor sports are measured. He has taken it from a regional sport to a national sport, and nurtured its growing popularity on television, culminating in a record-setting $2.4 billion broadcast contract. He served for a quarter century leading NASCAR to unbelievable heights and set the stage for what it has become today. I know I speak for hundreds of thousands of fans, the drivers, the pit crews and anyone and everyone who enjoys NASCAR, as well as Floridians and Daytona Beach residents, when I say a well deserved ``thank you'' to Bill France, Jr., for making our weekends a lot more exciting, more enjoyable, and a lot faster. Florida thanks you for your vision, Bill. We will miss you, but you leave behind a legacy we will never forget.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, 63 years ago today, many brave Americans and other allied forces members were dropped out over the frigid North Atlantic coastline of Normandy; numerous others stormed the beaches from the sea. Ultimately, well over 100,000 determined Allied troops were involved in one of the most remarkable and well orchestrated military events in history. D-day was among the greatest victories of World War II. June 6, 1944 is a day all lovers of freedom should hold on high. We cannot ever forget the sacrifice and meaning of that day. Were it not for the supreme leadership--both here and abroad--of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Prime Minister Winston Churchill, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, and many other government and military leaders--and a patriotic citizenry--we might be living in a starkly different world today. D-day does not just signify singular success; it symbolizes the power of our fearless democracy and way of life. This triumph--not only on D-day, but in the war effort at large--helped to further a clear message made by an earlier American President, one who was considering the weight of World War I. As Woodrow Wilson remarked a generation earlier, ``The world must be made safe for democracy.'' The events of June 6, 1944, helped to make the world a safer place. Victory would not have come about without the smart and strong dedication of our military. We must take it upon ourselves as Americans, and as grateful citizens, to continue to thank the brave patriots who served in what has become a legacy of freedom; we thank them for their service and their sacrifice. Every generation faces new challenges and must accept the consequences of inaction. We are better off for the actions of the Greatest Generation. Across the beaches of Omaha, Utah, Juno, Gold, and others, our brave Allied troops sacrificed mightily on June 6, 1944. That sacrifice lives on. For all those veterans of D-day, and for that matter, any campaign of World War II, thank you. You helped to make the world safe for democracy. Your victorious struggle of more than 60 years ago makes this Nation proud and grateful. Thank you for your dedication and sacrifice.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam President, I rise to address the Senate in morning business.

Mr. MARTINEZ. I am saddened by the passing of a good friend, Senator Thomas. I express my condolences to his family, the people of Wyoming, Senator Enzi, and to all of us who knew him and loved him. I have not served long with Senator Thomas. It was a joy to hear this morning how he was described by Senator Enzi, who has known him for a long time. My memories of him are as someone who always was kind, always friendly, offered me a helping hand on my first days in the Senate. I know he has been described as an authentic cowboy. I certainly always viewed him as that. He seemed to be the real deal, the real McCoy. I remember speaking before the break with the Senator, telling him how good he looked. Of course, he already knew he was headed back to another bout of chemo, but he didn't dwell on that. He was telling me that he was feeling good, and he did look good. He looked a lot better than he had been, and we were all encouraged. He certainly believed in that assessment as well. In the last few months, he has been ``down the road'' from us, and he has been responsible for the candy drawer, a little Senate tradition. As we were talking before the break, standing there, he was commenting on his pride in the Wyoming taffy candy he had introduced to the candy drawer. He was a Wyoming promoter to the very end. I relish the good memories. I know we are all sad today at this incredible loss. My heart goes out to the members of his family. We will do all we can to support all those who loved him. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam President, I wish to acknowledge an esteemed colleague and his long and storied service to the United States Senate. Senator Ted Stevens has given much to this great country of ours. Born in Indiana, he spent his college years in the West, his law school years in the East, and made significant contributions in a place far north of here. Yet he achieved much of this by heading south, to our Nation's Capital. His career reflects his dedication not only to Alaska but to all of America. He has touched every corner of this country--and beyond. Fighting in China during World War II, he served our Nation valiantly as a member of the Army Air Corps where he flew support missions for the Flying Tigers of the 14th Air Force. Now, more than six decades later, he is still serving our country. Following work as an attorney in Alaska in the 1950s, Ted Stevens headed for Washington to work for the Department of Interior under the administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower. It is worth noting that it was President Eisenhower who signed Alaska into statehood in July of 1958. Not too long after Alaska found statehood, he decided to return to the home he had made in the Last Frontier. Soon, he was serving in the State house of representatives--a body of which he became the majority leader in 1964. While he may have initially found his way to the U.S. Senate by virtue of appointment in 1968, he soon had the weight of his State's voters behind him. Now serving his seventh term in office, Senator Stevens has been a reliable supporter of his home State's interests and has supported our country in many of its most trying times. The institutional knowledge and wisdom which Senator Stevens brings to the Senate benefits this body greatly. All of us appreciate his work and contributions to America. Be it as the former chairman of the Commerce Committee, the former chairman of the Appropriations Committee, a strong voice and dedicated member of the Homeland Security Committeeor for his work on the Rules Committee--we thank him for his leadership, past and present. Congratulations to Senator Stevens on becoming the longest serving Republican in Senate history. His more than 14,000 days in this body are a remarkable testament to his hard work, staying power, and skills as a Senator. I know the people of Alaska appreciate all that he has done for them over these numerous decades. On behalf of my fellow Floridians, I thank Senator Stevens for his service to America and to the Senate.

Mr. MARTINEZ

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

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the Bingaman amendment. The idea of 400,000 temporary workers per year was not just pulled out of thin air, but it is based on the estimates of what is needed on a yearly basis to meet the needs of our economy. It, in fact, parallels what takes place each and every year as approximately that many illegal workers cross our borders. Much has been said about whether there is a need for a workforce. I believe there is. In my home State, the people who are more adamant in pursuing a bill on immigration reform are those very employers who cannot seem to find enough workers to fill their needs. They are in the hospitality industry, the tourism industry, our attractions, theme parks. They are also in agriculture, as well as home construction, which is a huge part of Florida's economy. All of those people seem hard pressed to have enough people available to do the work that is waiting. So this is a number that was derived according to the Pew Hispanic Center in a March 2005 survey of the migrant population which suggested a group of about 500,000 a year. We think it is a good idea from that standpoint. It is a legitimate number. It is based on the studies of what our needs seem to be. At the end of the day, it is about supply and demand. It is about the issue that there is a workforce available to meet the demand for workers, and that is the problem in which we find ourselves. But there is another problem, too, and that has to do with the border. Sure, we are going to do all we can to lessen the likelihood of illegal border crossings. We are going to have more border agents. We are going to have electronic surveillance. We are going to have all that we can build physically and technologically provide, as well as manpower, to provide for safety at the border. However, wouldn't it be a good idea if to assist safety at the border, if to assist and lower the number of illegal entries in our country, if we disincentivized and legalized the way people come to work in America? At the end of the day, that is what our 400,000 number seeks to do. Reducing it to 200,000 would diminish the effectiveness of our current approach of having a guest worker force that really is coming here legally. I hope the Bingaman amendment does not receive the support of the Senate. I ask my colleagues to stick with the number that is in the bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Will the Senator yield for a moment?

Mr. MARTINEZ. The Senator is very kind.

Mr. MARTINEZ. I wanted to point out that last year my colleague rightly pointed to a serious problem with last year's bill dealing with chain migration. I recall the Senator coming to the floor and explaining what had not been well understood until then, which is the fact that, as people were acquiring legal permanent resident status, then they would also have the opportunity to bring family members. That would result in a huge problem. We have 12 million illegals. If those 12 million are somehow legalized and then they can also chain migrate their families, we would end up with a problem manyfold what it would be otherwise. In this bill, we tried mightily to end chain migration, and I think we have for the most part. I want to say to the Senator from Alabama, it is because of his good work last year in pointing out that flaw in the bill that I think now we have corrected and reversed course in what I think is, by some, a real problem in terms of family reunification. But at the end of the day, I think it is the right thing for America. If we allow those who are here, after a probationary period, after payment of fines, and ultimately after returning to their home country, to legally apply for readmittance, that then chain migration would not be permitted, I think that is a fair tradeoff and is at the heart of what is called by some the ``grand bargain,'' a massive coming together we had. I want to give the Senator very much due credit for having a real hand in what it is that is at the heart of this new agreement. I realize the Senator may have many other issues of concern. I hope, as we go forward and talk about them, we will alleviate some of those concerns. I think one of the things that has happened is it is a massive bill. Here we have it now still not in printed form as we go through it. I compliment the majority leader for giving us the extra time so we all have a chance to get into what is in the details of the bill. There has been a lot of emotion and a lot of conversation and a lot of it not very well based on what is in the bill. The trigger is in the bill, and I know Senator Isakson from Georgia will be speaking to that this afternoon. It is fundamental. Nothing happens until the border is secure. I wish to give the Senator credit where credit is due for a good step along the way.