Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise to speak on the two pending votes before the Senate. First, I wish to follow my distinguished colleague from New York, whose comments I want to echo regarding the Presiding Officer, who has made this one of her passions. She picked it up when I first introduced the James Zadroga Act and then took it up when she came to the Senate and has done a magnificent job and brought us to this moment.

Jim Zadroga was a New Jerseyan who spent 450 hours at the World Trade Center site--a New York City police officer who simply had a paper mask on as his only protection. He and so many others who answered on that fateful day did not question their personal security, did not give it a second thought. They did not think about their health, did not think about the potential consequences that would flow from the exposure to which they were subjecting themselves. They thought only about responding, saving lives, and meeting the Nation's need--the Nation's need, not New York's need. For Jim Zadroga and so many others, the consequence of that selflessness has been enormous. In many cases, they have died. In other cases, they have serious life-threatening illnesses. In other cases, they have real disabilities as a result of those illnesses.

I remember on that day, after the attacks on September 11, how we came together on the Capitol steps and we declared our commitment of love of country and a commitment to those who died on that fateful day, to their families, and to those who responded. I remember the incredible words--glowing, soaring--that were spoken about the bravery of those men and women who responded from all over the country.

Those who are the victims of the exposure they received on the ground on September 11 come from every State in the Union. This is not simply a New York issue or a New Jersey issue, where so many of our first responders came from. These are individuals who came from across the country, who came together as Americans to respond on that fateful day. This requires each and every one of us in the Senate to respond to all of those Americans from every State who ultimately find themselves, through their selflessness, exposed to life-threatening illnesses. A grateful nation not only joins together in commemoration on September 11 of each year but a grateful nation shows its gratitude to those who answered the call without concern for their well-being by how we take care of their health care, how we take care of their disabilities, and how we take care of the families of those who ultimately lost their lives in service to the country.

This is no different than the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States and go abroad to defend the Nation. These men and women wore uniforms too. Some of them wore the uniform of a police officer, some of them wore the uniform of a firefighter, some wore the uniform of emergency management personnel. Some of them, ultimately, were first-aid squads. But all of them on those fateful days wore a uniform that served the Nation. How can the Nation forget them now? That is what this vote is all about.

I cannot accept as a moral equivalent that some oath not to vote on those who serve the country, risk their lives, cannot take place because of some vote on some tax issue. No one in the Nation would believe that it is OK to say: I will not vote to give relief to the health of those individuals who sacrificed their health on September 11 and the days after because I have to wait for some pending tax vote.

Go back to the men and women who serve this country and look at them in their eyes and tell them it is some vote that we are waiting for on taxes that determines whether their health needs will be responded to. Shameless. I can't wait to see, when one of us stands for one of those pictures on the commemoration of September 11, the comments about how heroic those individuals were but cannot cast a simple vote.

The DREAM Act

Finally, I want to move to the question of the DREAM Act. On the DREAM Act, the House of Representatives took a critical step yesterday in making a reality of the dreams and hopes and aspirations of young people who know nothing but this country as their country. They made no choices in their lives to come to the United States. Those choices were made by their parents. All they know is that they stand every day as young students and pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. All they know is the national anthem of the United States. All they know is they worked hard and became salutatorians, valedictorians, and done everything we expect of any one of us, particularly of our children, to try to excel and exceed. Overwhelmingly, they have excelled and exceeded. Yet their dream of being able to continue to exceed and excel on behalf of the Nation is blunted by the fact that they have an undocumented status in this country through no fault of their own.

The DREAM Act says if you are willing to wear the uniform and serve in the Armed Forces of the United States, and you serve honorably for 2 years, we will give you a pathway toward permanent residency. If you go to college--assuming that you ultimately qualify, that you are accepted, and that you do well--we will give you a pathway to permanent residency. We will adjust your status and permit that dream to take place.

This is not amnesty. Amnesty--which I have heard some of my colleagues use, and they will use it on anything that is immigration related. Right away they roll out the word ``amnesty.'' Amnesty is when you get something for nothing; when you did something wrong and you have to pay no consequence. In this case I believe wearing the uniform of the U.S. Armed Forces, risking your life for your country, maybe losing that life before you achieve your goal and your dream, is not amnesty. I believe working hard and being educated so you can help fuel the Nation's prosperity and meet its economic challenge, that is not amnesty. That is paying your dues on behalf of the country. For if you do all of that, you still have to wait a decade before your status can be adjusted to permanent residency. So you have to be an exemplary citizen, you have to do everything that is right, everything we cherish in America. That is what the DREAM Act is all about and that is why the Secretary of Defense has come out in strong support of the DREAM Act. That is why Colin Powell came out in support of the DREAM Act. That is why the Under Secretary, Personnel and Readiness at the Department of Defense during the Bush administration, David Chu, came out and said this is, in essence, the very effort we would like to see.

[For] many of these young people . . . the DREAM Act would

provide the opportunity of serving the United States in

uniform.

Moreover, university presidents, respected education associations, leading Fortune 500 businesses, such as Microsoft, also support this legislation. Mike Huckabee explained the economic sense of allowing undocumented children to earn their way.

Let's not stop young men and women who know only this country as their country, who made no choices on their own. Let's be family- friendly. Let's observe the values. Let's pass the DREAM Act today.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to speak about the debate we are having on the fundamental question of what type of tax relief will be considered by the Senate.

Not too often does a debate offer such clear differences in priorities between the two parties. We have before us a sensible package, put together by Chairman Baucus, which would ensure that any family in America who makes up to one-quarter of a million dollars in a year would get a permanent tax cut instead of one that expires a few years down the road, as the Bush tax cuts will do.

If Republicans would work with us, we could give businesses certainty, middle-class families tax relief, and create jobs at this very moment. Solving these issues has, at least from my perspective, broad bipartisan support. Everybody says they want to give business certainty, they want to give middle-class families tax relief, and they want to create jobs. So if we have that agreement, both sides should be able to come to support this proposition.

Both sides have agreed we should move forward extending tax cuts for middle-class families, do more to create jobs, and ensure that the alternative minimum tax doesn't ensnare more than 30 million Americans this year. Unfortunately, the question isn't, Who is going to cut your taxes? That is not the question. The question is, Whose taxes are going to be cut?

We could pass this bill today, give middle-class taxpayers certainty, take care of the AMT, the alternative minimum tax problem, which protects, right now, in terms of how we have responded to it to create relief from that--and we want to extend that relief not only to 30 million people in the country but 1.6 million New Jerseyans whom we have saved from being bit by that AMT. Failure to act would mean they would pay an additional tax bill of up to $5,600.

These are middle-class families who were never intended to pay a tax that was meant originally for those in our country who paid nothing toward the common good. Hence, the Congress created an alternative minimum tax, so those using the deductions in the code who paid nothing to the common good, to the Nation's defense, and its well-being had to pay something. But since that was 20, 25, 30 years ago, it was never indexed. We have now seen that has been biting middle-class families. In the case of middle-class families in New Jersey subject to the AMT, they would be bit by another $5,600.

We also need to extend the desperately needed unemployment benefits to the 2 million Americans who lost their jobs through no fault of their own. That is all in this package. We could pass a number of job creation measures, such as an extension of Build America Bonds which, true to its name, puts people to work rebuilding communities across America. My proposal is to give them the tools they need to put people to work on projects that deliver safer and cleaner water to families through private activity bonds--something that gets the private sector putting up money in a way that creates jobs. Unbelievably, my Republican colleagues have pledged to stop this bill, to do that by what we call a filibuster, to insist that instead of a simple majority of the 100 Senators, there have to be 60. All these benefits, permanent tax benefits for middle-class families making one-quarter of a million dollars or less, the opportunity to create jobs, the opportunity to take care of a couple million Americans who lost their jobs, the opportunity to bring the private sector back again, the opportunity to give the private sector certainty, none of that is good enough for them. They will not simply vote against it; they are seeking to block this bill, by using the filibuster, from even being considered by the Senate.

The difference in the priorities between our two parties is rather clear. Republicans would rather that taxes increase for all Americans than allow tax rates for millionaires and billionaires to revert to Clinton-era prosperity levels. So all of us have to face an increase in taxes in order to give an extra tax benefit to the wealthiest in our country.

It happens to be a fact that the wealthiest in the country still see a tax cut under this bill, and it will be bigger than a middle-class family's tax cut. We are simply asking not to extend additional tax cuts on top of the tax cuts they will already receive. So everybody in America gets a tax cut under our proposal. As a matter of fact, that tax cut, instead of expiring a few years down the road, stays permanent. But, no, they want to give an additional tax cut to those who are millionaires, multimillionaires, and billionaires. Simply put, Republicans believe it is more important to deliver massive tax breaks to CEOs than to the people who work for them. They argue that millionaires paying tax rates at the levels they paid in 2000 would decimate the economy. The problem is, that position is simply not supported by the facts or the experience of the last decade.

People who have worked hard and built personal wealth should be applauded for their success. I applaud people who, through their hard work, creativity, and ingenuity, have created wealth. They should be applauded and admired. I admire them. People who work hard and prosper, they love their country too. They are in the best position to be helpful to their country in this tough economic time. Many of them are willing to contribute if we ask. We know from experience that reverting to the tax rates that the wealthiest and most successful paid during the Clinton-era prosperity will certainly not break our economy. As a matter of fact, it was that era that balanced the budget for the first time in a generation, created record surpluses, low unemployment, low interest rates, and had the greatest peacetime economy in over a generation. It certainly didn't break our economy.

So I just don't understand why my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle continue to oppose what is good for America, for our children, and for our future. We are on the eve of the holidays. Middle-class families are sitting around the kitchen table at night wondering how they are going to afford to buy the gifts for their children this year. Middle-class families are wondering how they are going to make the next mortgage payment, how they are going to pay tuition for their college-age children next semester. These are tough conversations around that kitchen table.

I can assure you those Republicans who are fighting for millionaires and billionaires are not worried this holiday season. Yet we are being asked to give them an additional tax windfall while middle-class families are struggling. Our Republican colleagues are playing Santa for the millionaires and Scrooge for the middle class.

Those who make over $1 million, they want to give them a big fat check, averaging $104,000, with a bow on it. For our children, they want to give them a big fat $4 trillion bill to be paid back with interest for generations to come. I guess that is their version of happy holidays, America.

Does it make sense to anyone but our Republican colleagues who, once again, are telling us that rewarding the wealthiest helps us all, that that wealth somehow trickles down and creates jobs? I say: Show me the jobs. We cut taxes for that universe of taxpayers, the highest income taxpayers in the Nation, and they said it would create jobs. Well, show me. Where are they? In the year the Bush tax cuts were passed, unemployment was under 5 percent. After nearly a decade under Bush's tax policy, unemployment has doubled. It now stands at nearly 10 percent. Now they are saying we need to reward the rich again and it will create jobs. Well, in my view, the Bush Republican tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires has been the biggest failed jobs program in our Nation's history. But what it did do is add enormously to the debt.

I have listened to those who have come here talking about the consequences of debt. Yet they are rushing to add to that debt in dramatic ways, all for the wealthiest people in our country. So my question to my Republican colleagues who believe that only debt- financed tax cuts for millionaires can fix the economy is this: Where is the prosperity that President Bush promised to the middle class when these cuts were passed a decade ago?

In fact, let's look at that decade. The Bush decade will go down in history as one of the worst decades the middle class has ever faced. While the wealthiest saw their incomes swell and their taxes plummet, middle-class salaries remained stagnated. Families' costs, such as health care and college tuitions, skyrocketed, and jobs disappeared overseas. The stock market sputters along at the same levels it achieved under the Clinton-era tax rates. Middle-class wages have continued to lose ground to inflation and health care costs, and millions more now live in poverty than before these tax cuts were passed.

When the unregulated greed on Wall Street led to millions of Americans losing their jobs, Republicans said: You are on your own-- literally. Literally, on this very floor--while leading a filibuster against an extension of unemployment benefits, and asked, How is it you can do that to these people who, through no fault of their own, face the unemployment line--one Republican retorted: Tough--and the rest of it you can fill in the blank--to pleas from families desperate for help.

If Republicans were truly in this debate to create jobs and protect the middle class, then why did the Republican leader introduce a bill that is actually a tax increase on millions--a tax increase on millions--of middle-class American families? Yes, a tax increase. That is right. The Republican bill offered by their leader spends $1 trillion more. Yet the vast majority of Americans would see their taxes increase if it were to become law. Why? Because President Obama's tax cut for 95 percent of Americans--for so many middle-class families--was not a large enough priority to make it into their package. Gutting the estate tax was but additional middle-class tax relief was not.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office--the one entity both Democrats and Republicans depend upon for the scoring of our efforts, for thinking about what are the best job-producing initiatives and whatnot--has found the most effective way--this is them, through their studies--to create jobs. They say the ``biggest bang for the buck'' is extending jobless benefits, and ranking right behind in terms of effectiveness are payroll tax cuts and small business tax incentives.

The chairman's bill contains all of that--all that the Congressional Budget Office has said are the biggest creators of jobs.

The Republican leader's bill contains none--zero--of those initiatives. The Congressional Budget Office has determined the Republican package does not contain even one of the most effective ideas for job creation. So if Republicans are in this debate to create jobs, why don't they include the proposals that economists are telling us are the most effective in creating jobs?

We know Republicans have said no to everything. We know the Republican leadership's top priority is not middle-class families but defeating President Obama. But we cannot tolerate the harm their political strategy will do to middle-class families. They are even willing, for the sake of their political strategy--which is to have this President fail, which means not whether the President fails but whether the country fails--to hold hostage permanent middle-class tax relief, for multimillionaires and billionaires.

I urge my colleagues to remember those who are struggling this holiday season to keep their homes, to find a job, and to provide for their families. I urge my Republican colleagues during this kind, forgiving time of year to open their hearts and change their political playbook. Their political playbook maybe has brought them some success, but it puts middle-class families at enormous risk. There is no reason the Senate cannot have a bipartisan vote or a simple majority vote on making reality permanent tax cuts of $250,000 or less for our families and to give businesses the certainty they need by creating an extension for those who are unemployed, which will create opportunities for the private sector and Build America Bonds to get us working again. That is all in this package. It will give relief from the alternative minimum tax.

That is the vote we are going to have--all of that. Saying no to that in order to help the wealthiest people in the country--those we applaud for their hard work and ingenuity, but those who are willing, I believe, to help their country and have the best wherewithal to do so-- is just simply a political game book that should be ultimately abandoned. If not, in this vote, Republicans will have abandoned the middle class of this country at a time in which they need our support the greatest.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise to speak of what I have addressed in the past about injustice. It is about the reality that it is no secret that decades of discrimination in lending practices at the United States Department of Agriculture have made it difficult, if not impossible, for minority farmers--specifically Hispanic and women farmers--to make a living at what they love to do, leaving many no choice but to lose their farms and ranches they have tended all their lives, in many cases from generation to generation. That is why I rise today in support of parity for Hispanic and women farmers. I rise so that all the victims of discrimination in this case are treated equally, fairly, and are adequately compensated for the damages they suffered regardless of their race or gender.

The Department of Justice's proposal to Hispanic and female victims is certainly a first step toward closing the entire book on the U.S. Department of Agriculture's discrimination. But, frankly, there appears to be some contradiction between the proposal given to these two groups and the declared objectives of providing parity among the different groups who suffered discrimination.

Here is the situation. African-American victims of discrimination are on a path to receive approximately $2.25 billion to resolve their claims. Victims who filed on time were afforded the opportunity to choose from two different tracks. First, they could present substantial evidence of discrimination which, if valid, entitled the victim to a monetary settlement of $50,000 plus relief in the form of loan forgiveness and offsets of tax liability or they could prove their claims using evidence which was reviewed by a third-party arbitrator who decided how much damages to award, if any.

This system took into account the fact that many if not most of the documents from this era were destroyed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, making it extremely difficult for victims to prove their claims, while also giving claimants the opportunity to seek more than $50,000 if their case was especially egregious and their losses were severe. There was not a cap on the amount of money awarded. There was not a cap on the number of claimants who could recover damages, which allowed the merits of each individual's claims to be the sole basis for determining what they received. That process appears to be right in line with the stated goal of determining the appropriate course of action for each claim based on the merits of the case and only on the merits. I certainly commend that approach.

However, when it comes to Hispanic and women farmers, the Justice Department has used legal maneuvers to prevent Hispanic and women farmers from achieving class status. Legal maneuvers should not be what the Department of Justice is all about; justice is what the Department should be all about.

Unfortunately, I do not believe the proposal which has been presented to the Hispanic and female victims meets that standard of justice, nor does it employ the fair method utilized in the Pigford I settlement or the equity that is needed. Instead, it puts a cap on the damages each victim could receive and on the total amount that can be awarded to all victims. This is not in parity with the Pigford I settlement and could potentially leave thousands of Hispanic and female victims with only a modicum of relief and far less justice than their counterparts.

Specifically, while Pigford I awarded a minimum of $50,000 to victims, the proposals to Hispanics and females will only award victims up to that amount. What this means is that Hispanic and female victims, even if they suffered millions of dollars in damages, lost their farms, lost their families' heritage in the process, lost their livelihoods, will not receive more than $50,000 and will not be made whole. Farmers who were denied a loan and, as a result, in the words of then-Secretary of Agriculture Glickman, ``lost their family land, not because of a bad crop, not because of a flood, but because of the color of their skin,'' will never be able to rebuild their lives and recover the land with a fraction of $50,000.

If that is not enough, the Department of Justice-imposed cap on the total amount of money that can be awarded to Hispanic and women victims could arbitrarily reduce each claimant's award far below the $50,000 individual cap. You may ask why. Here is the reason: because there are likely to be far more claims filed by Hispanic and women farmers than were filed by African-American farmers. Yet the amount allocated for Hispanic and female

claims is almost $1 billion less than provided to African-American claimants. This is despite the fact that, according to the Department of Agriculture census, in the years in question--from 1982 to 1997-- Hispanic- and female-operated farms far outnumbered African-American- operated farms by almost 7 to 1.

If the Department of Justice estimates are correct and approximately 80,000 valid claims will be made by African Americans through Pigford I and Pigford II, it is safe to assume that at least this many and likely many more Hispanic and female farmers who were discriminated against will file valid claims. Even using the very conservative estimate of 80,000 valid claims for Hispanics and females, a $1.3 billion overall cap will provide each claimant with about $16,625. This amount will shrink even further if there are more than the 80,000 claimants and tax forgiveness funds are counted against the $1.3 billion cap.

Think about this. Under this method, the amount each victim will receive will depend on how many other victims there were, not on the merits of each individual case. Not only is that not fair, but it is perverse because each victim will actually be punished the more the U.S. Department of Agriculture discriminated since the more valid claims there are, the less each victim will receive. A structure has been set up that, instead of pursuing justice and equity, actually works to the detriment of those who have already been discriminated against because the more that have been discriminated against and prove their case, the less each one will receive because of this cap.

Finally, the process proposed for administering Hispanic and female claims seems arbitrary and needlessly complicated. In contrast to Pigford claimants, Hispanic- and women-owned farms would not have the benefit of a court-approved notice or any of the procedural protections associated with a class action process.

The underlying facts of the claims made by African Americans, Hispanics, females, and Native Americans are nearly identical.

I commend the President and his administration for making some effort toward delivering justice to women and Hispanic farmers. That is why I urge the administration to guarantee that the relief to be provided to women and Hispanic farmers be just and consistent with that provided to African-American victims who filed on time. In the words of Timothy Pigford, the lead plaintiff in the Pigford case, Hispanics and females ``suffered the same discrimination by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as African American farmers.'' They suffered the same discrimination by the Department of Agriculture as African-American farmers.

Again quoting Mr. Pigford:

. . . class certification is a procedural matter that does

not address the underlying discrimination that is in fact

admitted.

It is, in fact, admitted. There is not a dispute about whether discrimination took place. It is, in fact, admitted. The indisputable fact remains that farmers and ranchers--particularly women, African Americans, Hispanics--were denied access to U.S. Department of Agriculture loans, to farm benefits and credit services due to their race, their ethnicity, their gender. They were not given proper opportunity for recourse. In the process of being denied those opportunities, they lost, in many cases, their land or sold parts of their land to keep a little piece of it. The only thing that could be worse than the original discrimination, ironically, is if it were to treat the victims of that discrimination differently based on their race, ethnicity, or gender.

Justice for one cannot masquerade as justice for all. I applaud the USDA for taking a big step toward universal justice in this case by recognizing the need to put aside technical questions about class certification and address the underlying valid claims of discrimination.

I understand that this administration inherited this problem, like so many others, and is now in the position of cleaning up the mess left by its predecessors. I applaud them for seeking to right an injustice. But I do not think, nor can I accept that you can dispense justice when you know that the facts are such that, in fact, there is no dispute as to the discrimination, that you can dispense justice piecemeal, or that you can treat victims similarly situated, almost identically situated and harmed, with justice for some and not for all. We need to make this right. We need to make the victims whole. We need to do it fairly, justly, and soon.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor in an effort to try to get my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join us in preserving our democracy. I heard the Republican leader's remarks that we should be focused on jobs, and we have been, notwithstanding the constant obstruction of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle by using the filibuster countless times in terms of us being able to move forward on jobs.

But this legislation is about jobs. Some people might ask: Well, what does the disclosure of campaign finance have to do with jobs? It has everything to do with it because the murky special interests that are out there spending unlimited amounts of corporate money are not spending it because they just want to participate in our electoral process without a purpose. They are participating because they have a purpose.

The purpose is to elect those individuals who ultimately will respond to their agenda, which is an agenda that, in many cases, works against the interests of working men and women in this country; works against some of the very essence of legislation we have passed and signed into law such as equal pay for equal work; works against the very interests of what we are trying to accomplish on food safety so none of our families will ever get ill because of a product that should have never made it to their table in the first place; works against the interests of those in this country who want to work and give a hard day's work for a fair day's wage and at the same time work in conditions that ensure their safety is preserved and they can go home at the end of a long day to their loved ones and come home safe and secure--those and so many other interests. So when we talk about jobs, knowing who is out there spending money for what purpose, particularly for what corporate purpose, is incredibly important to how we create jobs, what do we do in terms of working conditions, what do we do in terms of wages, what do we do in terms of equity. This is about jobs. It is also about our democracy.

Since the Supreme Court made its decision allowing corporate interests and labor interests to spend money unlimitedly--and, by the way, in doing so also allow the possibility of foreign corporations, many of which are not just private foreign entities, they are foreign entities controlled by a government--the money is flowing. Don't believe me, even though we have seen since August 15 to last night $21 million already spent on the Republican side of the aisle in independent expenditures, unknown money, no person, no face, no name. That is why I guess we can't seem to get a vote. But don't listen to me. Listen to Michael Toner, former Republican Federal Election Commission Commissioner. He said:

I can tell you from personal experience, the money's

flowing.

For what purpose? Corporations just spending their money for something other than the pursuit of the bottom line? When have we known a corporation to spend its money recklessly without pursuing an interest in the bottom line? I haven't seen too many of those. They may have made bad mistakes, but they have never purposely spent money for the purposes of anything other than to improve their bottom line. So if they are spending money in elections, they are spending to make sure they can improve their bottom line. This undermines the very essence of our democracy where we want individual citizens and voters to determine the outcome of the elections, not the monied interests.

In this process, this was a bipartisan effort originally when Congress said: We don't want corporate or labor money to be spent unlimitedly in Federal elections. We have had continuous comments since then. Here is the Republican leader, Senator McConnell:

Public disclosure of campaign contributions and spending

should be expedited so voters can judge for themselves what

is appropriate.

We have changed that view because all we are trying to do is say: OK, Supreme Court, you are going to allow the money to flow from the corporations. Let us know who is spending it and on whom they are spending it and for what purpose. Then the voters can judge for themselves what is appropriate.

We have had others as well who are in the midst of this election process, such as my counterpart Senator Cornyn, saying:

I think the system needs more transparency, so people can

more easily reach their own conclusions.

What do we have? Less transparency. So an individual who gives their money to a candidate, they get fully disclosed. A corporation or a special interest or a foreign interest gives money, they can hide behind these shadowy groups. They have great names--Americans for this, Americans for that. The problem is, we don't even know if one of those groups that call themselves Americans for X, Y, or Z is actually an American corporation. With the loophole created by virtue of allowing foreign corporations to now spend in our elections, it is the ultimate erosion of our democracy.

If Members don't think they will, let me cite a few examples of why they

might. Imagine if BP could go ahead and influence the elections of a whole host of Senators because they want to determine what our energy and drilling policy is by electing those who ultimately share their views. After what they have done in the Gulf of Mexico, after what they refused to do in testifying before a hearing that I will hold next week about the release of the Pan Am 103 bomber and what role they played in lobbying for the release of that terrorist that killed Americans they can't even send a witness to our hearing, do my colleagues think they would not be interested in spending millions to determine who can be supportive of what they want?

Do Members believe the Chinese wouldn't ultimately make investments in candidates who continue to espouse a philosophy that allows jobs to be offshored? Talk about jobs to be offshored to countries such as China where manufacturing is dirt cheap and rights are nonexistent and working conditions virtually don't exist and the environment is not a question. Do Members think it is impossible for that to happen?

Do Members think it is impossible for Hugo Chavez not to be spending money here through Citgo and saying: Let me support those who support the type of views I hold and who will engage in an energy policy that is much different than I can influence with Venezuelan oil?

Do my colleagues think there are those in the corporate sector who have been fighting food safety--not all but some--who wouldn't elect those individuals who will ensure that we can't have the food safety procedures to come into the 21st century so that we can ultimately ensure that our food is safe? No, they would rather have the ability to do what they do and not have to worry about the consequences of safety to improve the bottom line.

I could go on and on with examples of why foreign interests spend well in our elections to dictate policies that ultimately would inure to the detriment of the American people and to the benefit of their interests. That is what we are fighting against. That is what we are trying to undo in terms of the legislation we are considering, to disclose. What a terrible thing, to disclose. We are not even stopping the contributions because the Supreme Court said the contributions can be made by corporations, but at least let's know who is giving them and who they are giving it to and for what ostensible purpose.

I see a continuing erosion of our democracy through the present circumstances. I see why we can't get a vote on the other side of the aisle because, overwhelmingly, they are receiving the benefits of this undisclosed, shadowy money that no one knows where it comes from, no one knows who is giving, for what purposes. Is that really the American way? Is that what the average voter wants to see in terms of their democracy? I don't think so.

I urge my colleagues to follow the essence of McCain-Feingold. Senator McCain and Senator Feingold authored legislation. All of those who made comments about disclosure, it is time to at least simply disclose. It is time to allow the American people to know who is engaged in this election, who is spending millions. They are talking about raising and spending nearly $300 million. There are 41 days to the election. We would not know where it came from, who is giving it, for what purpose. That is the ultimate corruption of our system.

I hope my colleagues will vote to proceed. Let's have the debate and, more importantly, let's cast a final vote.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I rise to talk about the vote we had a little while ago and the need to go to the Defense authorization bill. To me it is unconscionable that, at a time in which the Nation is at war, our Republican colleagues would vote lockstep, in uniformity, to oppose going to the Defense authorization bill--for whatever the reasons are, even though I do not find the reasons to be valid.

I think it is very clear that the majority leader said there would be a host of amendments that would be offered once we went to the bill and disposed of a few particular amendments that the majority leader was going to offer, that are in every way germane to the Defense authorization bill, more germane than the amendments that have been offered in the past on extraneous matters by those who oppose proceeding to the bill. They thought it was fitting and appropriate to offer it on the Defense authorization bill. Yet, when you have amendments that go to the very heart of how you recruit individuals for the Armed Forces and how you allow individuals to serve in the Armed Forces, that is not germane? Ridiculous.

What this is all about is an attempt once again to use the power of the minority to obstruct the process of making sure this Congress is moving forward and meeting its obligations to the American people, and in this particular case to the Nation's collective security. Because someone does not like an amendment to be offered doesn't mean they should use their power simply to obstruct the whole process of considering the Defense authorization bill. Clearly they would have the opportunity to vote against any amendment they believed was not, in their view, in line with their views or in the national interest, but certainly not to stop the process.

What is it? I looked at Senator McConnell's consent offer. It is interesting. His consent offer basically said you have to do a whole bunch of amendments before you can do anything related to immigration. First of all, the DREAM Act is in total focus on recruiting in the United States. What does it say? It says young people who, by no fault of their own, no choice of their own, were brought to this country and do not have a legal status here, and are willing to fight and maybe die for their country--because this is the country they know, this is the country they believe is theirs, and they are willing to join the Armed Forces of the United States and serve with honor and distinction and risk their lives in defense of the country--if they did all of that, then a couple of years down the line they would have a shot at becoming a permanent resident of the United States, but their service to the Nation would precede that.

Even those who say on the campaign trail ``we are for the DREAM Act,'' even those who are cosponsors and say ``no, we are for the DREAM Act,'' could not cast a vote to allow us to go to the Defense authorization bill--which is much bigger than that--and then ultimately permit an up-or-down vote on several of those amendments before we got to a whole host of other amendments that Members are going to be able to offer, under the guise, under the cloak of saying, ``Oh, no, we opposed it because we were not going to have our opportunity, our say,'' when clearly the majority leader said there would be a whole host of amendments offered and clearly when amendments have been offered in the past under Democratic majority and Democratic rule. So the precedent there is that this particular bill has always had a wide range of amendments--the hypocrisy of saying no, you can't have an ``immigration amendment'' even though that amendment deals with recruiting people into the Armed Forces of this country.

The bottom line is we have had bill after bill debated in this Senate having nothing to do with immigration and the other side of the aisle has come forward with all types of amendments, immigration related, of all sorts. Whether it was a bill about jobs and the economy, whether it was a bill about health care, it doesn't matter--motherhood and apple pie--we had immigration amendments.

Yet, when we have the opportunity to bolster the armed services of the country and those who are willing to risk their lives to defend the country, we are told, oh, no, that is inappropriate. That clearly is so transparent that I hope the Nation understands, and particularly in communities that were looking for the opportunity of the DREAM Act, to have a vote on it, it is understood.

It is pretty amazing to me when I go to Walter Reed, and I have been there in the past, or when I visited some of our troops in my travels abroad and see young men and women there who are not citizens of the United States yet. It is pretty amazing to me when I go to Walter Reed and see them with both of their legs blown off in support of the country they call their own, wearing the uniform of the United States, that people question whether they love this country and are willing to serve it. They rejoice when, after their service, they get to take an oath and become citizens of this country. These are sacrifices which the few have been called upon to make for the many who do not have to go. There is a small universe who have gone to defend this Nation compared to the large universe of all of us as Americans who get defended by the men and women in uniform--it is a small percentage of America. Yet, many of that percentage who wear the uniform and risk their lives cannot call themselves a citizen. They are permanent residents of the United States. They aspire to become citizens. But they are not able to serve the country they call home.

It is fundamentally wrong, in my mind, to simply not allow a vote. Yet not one Republican was willing to come forth and vote to proceed to a debate and to consider amendments on the Defense authorization bill simply because of an ideological view they hold as it relates to the first two amendments that would have been up in a long line of amendments. Imagine if Democrats had lockstep voted against the Defense authorization bill at a time of war--imagine.

I see the majority leader moved to change his vote in order to be in a position to reconsider. I hope we will have that opportunity. I hope there will be some enlightenment into understanding that there will be plenty of opportunities for all amendments. There will be a robust debate. There will be the opportunity for up-or-down votes on the amendments on both the DREAM Act--which, as I have said, is about giving those young people an opportunity to serve their country, either educationally and/or in the armed services of the country, and to have to do so and perform before they get any relief--and, at the same time, to let many already in the service of their country and performing valiantly and

risking their life and limb be able to do so without hiding their own person, who they are. Then we will go on to all the other amendments.

It is amazing to me that we have a lockstep vote to stop us from proceeding to this legislation. I hope all those communities and others who both care about the defense of the Nation and those who believe in the dignity of an individual who is serving their country, who believe in the opportunity to serve their country, will rise and their voices will say no more filibustering, no more obstruction, no more ``no's,'' it is time to say yes to our country, it is time to say yes to our defense, it is time to say yes to those individuals willing to serve.

Many others may not be willing to serve and we respect their choices. But let's not stop those who are willing to serve, willing to wear the uniform of the United States, willing to risk their lives, willing to defend their country. The vote that was taken sends all the wrong messages. It is, in fact, a shame.

I hope we will have an opportunity another time and that the lights of some people will be able to turn on and we will have an opportunity to make sure we move to a Defense authorization bill. As the Nation is in the midst of winding down one war and is fully engaged in another war, I hope we will have the opportunity for those who want to serve their country to be able to do so and earn their way, in the process in serving to have an opportunity to fully call America home, and for those who are serving already, gallantly, who are serving with distinction and courage and honor, not to have to hide who they are. That is what is at stake. That is why it was so important to move forward and that is why today's vote is one that is shameful, hopefully one we can turn around.

Madam President, I rise today to recognize September 15 through October 15 as Hispanic Heritage Month. America has always celebrated its diverse heritage with pride. It has always honored those who have contributed and made this Nation great.

Irish Americans, Italian Americans, African Americans, Asian Americans--all Americans--have come to this Nation and added to the rich and colorful patchwork quilt of American democracy.

This resolution recognizes Hispanic Americans for the contributions they have made to the rich fabric of America. It designates the next 30 days as Hispanic Heritage Month and in so doing celebrates the long history of Latinos in the United States and the extraordinary contribution they have made to this Nation throughout our history. That history is clear--written boldly but sometimes little known. But this is our history in America, and it is America's history.

Latinos have proudly served this Nation, helped build it and defend it, and continue to serve today.

We have been contributing to and have been part of the American tapestry for hundreds of years. Hispanics fought for freedom alongside the patriots in the American Revolution.

Increasingly, we find references to those who came before us-- Bernardo de Galvez, a Spanish army officer--the Governor of Louisiana from 1775 to 1785--who played a role in blocking British advances against George Washington in the American Revolution. And Jorge Farragut, a Spanish ship captain who came to America and fought for the colonies against the British.

He was the father of the Civil War hero ADM David Farragut, known for his famous rallying cry, ``Damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead.''

I would imagine that few who walk past Farragut Square in Washington--not far from this Chamber--realize that Admiral Farragut was of Hispanic origin.

Latinos fought and died on both sides of the Civil War and have participated in every war since. There were at least 10,000 Mexican Americans fighting for the Union during the Civil War and a number of others fighting for the Confederacy.

In one of the folkloric tales of the Civil War, there was the story of Loretta Velasquez who was born in Cuba and claimed that she disguised herself as a male lieutenant and fought against Union forces at several battles, including Bull Run, and later claimed to have worked as a spy for the Confederacy.

Even in the Spanish-American War, a dozen Latinos were among Teddy Roosevelt's Rough Riders.

In World War I, an Army pilot, David Cantu Barkley of Laredo, TX, of Mexican decent volunteered to penetrate German lines in France. With a comrade, he drew maps of German positions and supplies.

Barkley drowned on the return trip, but his partner survived and carried back the logistical information. Praised by General Pershing, Barkley won the Medal of Honor. Among the heroes of World War II was marine PFC Guy ``Gabby'' Gabaldon who won the Navy Cross for capturing more than a thousand enemy soldiers in the South Pacific during the summer of 1944.

The honor and patriotism of these brave soldiers cannot be overstated.

The story of Alejandro Ruiz, an Army private who fought in Okinawa, epitomizes their commitment to this Nation and the tragedy some of them endured.

Private Ruiz's Medal of Honor citation noted his ``conspicuous gallantry above and beyond the call of duty.

. . . When an enemy soldier charged him his rifle jammed. Undaunted Private Ruiz whirled on his opponent and clubbed him down . . .

. . . Leaping from one opening to another, he sent burst after burst into the pillbox, killing 12 of the enemy and completely destroying the position . . .

. . . Private Ruiz's heroic conduct in the face of overwhelming odds, saved the lives of many of his comrades and eliminated an obstacle that long would have checked his unit's advance.''

Private Ruiz wrote in a letter: ``I never questioned my duty because I believe that as Americans we have a responsibility to serve our country and preserve our way of life and freedoms. All I can say is I did what I had to do.''

Private Ruiz served this Nation with honor. Madam President, 14,000 Hispanic soldiers served in Korea and more than 300 died; 80,000 Hispanics served in the Vietnam war, representing 5.5 percent of those who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country in those years--even though, at the time, Latinos comprised only 4.5 percent of the population.

As we speak, 28,000 Latinos currently serve with distinction in Afghanistan and Iraq; 561 casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan have been Hispanic casualties.

In fact, there are almost 1.5 million Hispanic veterans of the Armed Forces in this country today who also served with honor.

And of the Hispanics who have served in uniform, 41 of them have been awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, including David Cantu Barkley and Private Ruiz.

This month we celebrate the contribution of all Latinos to the history of this Nation.

We celebrate the contribution of the many community leaders and local heroes in our neighborhoods, our cities, and towns, and in every State in America.

All across this Nation, the Latino population is growing. We are now the largest minority group in the country--contributing to the community, the economy, and the political debate.

Today, Hispanics hold 29 seats in the U.S. Congress, 2 in the Cabinet, and 1 on the Supreme Court.

We are no longer on the outside looking in. We are at the table on every major issue before Congress--every major issue before the courts.

I stand here, a United States Senator, a lawyer, a Hispanic American who took his seat on the floor of this Chamber not long ago and proudly cast my vote for Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

That was a historic moment for me, a historic moment for the Hispanic American community, one we will never forget, but I can say with some measure of confidence, I believe it is only the beginning.

This month let us celebrate not only Hispanic Heritage but let us proudly celebrate and proclaim the history of Hispanics in America going back to the Revolution, and then let us recognize the role a new generation of young Latinos will play in making this, the 21st century, another American century.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and join with me in celebrating the heritage and culture of Latinos in the United States and their immense contributions to this Nation.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor to strongly support the legislation before the Senate on behalf of small businesses in this country. They are the greatest generators of jobs in the country. We hear that so often from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. This is something on which we agree. They are the greatest generators of jobs in the country. So when we are trying to get people back to work, let's help them help us collectively in putting more Americans back to work. That is what this legislation is all about.

We have talked a lot about protecting Main Street, and now this bill gives us the opportunity to do exactly that. It gives communities the guarantees they need to get lending started again, to put money into our engines of job growth, and all without any pay-go implications. That is a good bill.

I wish to thank our distinguished colleague from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, the chair of the Small Business Committee, for her hard work in putting this important legislation together, as well as the ranking member of the committee, Senator Snowe, for her work on the bill and particularly her past work with me on community development financial institutions or what we commonly call CDFIs. I am very grateful to Senator Landrieu, the chair, for including an important CDFI component in the bill before us.

Let me take a moment to talk about how this is an opportunity to have direct and immediate opportunities to help jump-start job growth.

It invests directly in small businesses and local communities by supporting community development financial institutions, or CDFIs, and based on what we know from historic performance--not because we are guessing but from historic performance--the provision I authored will create approximately 40,000 new jobs by authorizing the government to guarantee bonds issued by qualified CDFIs for community and economic development loans. Best of all, again, there are no pay-to implications.

As their name implies, the primary mission of community development financial institutions is to foster economic and community development in underserved areas. They have a proven track record of job creation and are arguably the most effective way to infuse capital in underserved areas for community and economic development.

CDFIs leverage public and private dollars to support economic development projects, such as job training clinics and startup loans for small businesses in areas full of potential but desperate for development.

CDFIs have been hit hard by the recession because they have had to rely on big banks for capital. We know and have seen that capital is neither affordable nor accessible and, to be honest with you, not forthcoming.

I am proud to have had bipartisan support on this provision that is included in the bill. Again, I thank Senator Landrieu for including it. I thank Senator Snowe for cosponsoring it, along with Senators Johnson, Leahy, and Schumer.

The idea is simple: If big banks don't care about lending to small businesses and communities in need of capital, then we should empower the very organizations that do care, that make it their mission every day to rebuild Main Street across this country, and that have a proven record of achievement. As I said earlier, all the calculations are based upon their historic performance, and this provision alone, within this bill, could create 40,000 new jobs.

I don't understand how our colleagues on the other side of the aisle can go back home to their States, looking at high unemployment, and rail about the realities that unemployment continues to be high and then be here in Washington stopping the very essence of what could create the jobs to reduce those unemployment levels, put people back to work, and give them the dignity of having a job that can help sustain their families and realize their hopes and dreams and aspirations. I don't get it. But that is where we seem to be. We seem to be where everything has a political equation, which is to ultimately have this President and this Congress fail, and somehow that is the road to electoral victory.

If you were just a political tactician, maybe that would make sense. The problem is, it is not about this President or this Congress failing; it is about failing the country at one of its most critical junctures in history. I hope we can see some support for this legislation.

Finally, I have often heard my colleagues talk about the home building industry. Well, I have an amendment that is out there, and I believe we should be supporting small businesses regardless of what industry they are in. The home building industry has been especially hit hard by this recession, resulting in the loss of hundreds of thousands of the middle-class, blue-collar jobs this country was built on and that communities were built on. Encouraging community banks to fund the construction of housing would not only put many of our unemployed construction workers back on the payroll, it will help revitalize the housing market, which is one of the root causes of this recession in the first place. But it would be nice to have some Republican support, to have that provision included, and to ultimately help us pass the bill, so we can get people back to work.

I hope the Republicans will join in this effort to ensure that all small businesses share in the benefits of this valuable program and this legislation. If we do that, this will be a good downpayment on getting more people back to work.

I don't know, again, how our colleagues seem to be able to go back home and rail about where are the jobs and then be here as the job killers. That is what they seem to be doing all the time--voting no, opposing process, so the creation of jobs is not achieved, so that, in fact, we can find ourselves in a situation in which the American people who are looking to this Senate to help create the circumstances in this country and the economic underpinnings to drive the private sector and create the jobs that they can work in, which will give them gainful employment and help them realize their hopes, dreams and aspirations and, therefore, have money in the economy to spend for the challenges they have and then further enhance the ripple effect of that, which will create more jobs. That is what this is about. It is about the private sector having the opportunities, but the private sector that creates the greatest rates of growth for job opportunities is small business.

I hope our colleagues on the other side of the aisle can find their way to finally come together with us on this specific piece of legislation to create jobs for our families and put America back to work.

With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I have listened to my colleagues in this debate, and I am reminded of a great Republican, President Reagan, who said, ``There they go again.'' I always find it incredibly interesting when some of my most conservative colleagues quote the ACLU. Then I know something is amiss. Let me ask, what is the vote that is going to take place? It is simply to allow us to go forward and have a debate, offer amendments, and ultimately vote on the bill. That is what this bill is all about. So those who say they are for transparency won't even let a process move forward that is transparent, so we can debate and so that the American people can decide do we want corporations-- including foreign corporations--to have access to who is elected in America, in this body and in the Congress, and ultimately making decisions that affect their lives every day?

That is what this vote is all about. You can paint it any way you want, but that is what this vote is about. I am amazed they cannot even say yes to proceeding to a debate and a vote on the merits of the bill itself.

We all know that the Roberts Supreme Court and its activist conservative majority overruled, wrongly in my view, restrictions on spending by corporations and unions. My colleagues on the other side are well aware that, as a result of a perceived loophole in current law, foreign corporations--those from other countries--would now be allowed to fund American election campaigns, to pick their candidates who would reflect their interests if elected or defeat candidates who would not reflect their interests--all without any meaningful mechanism or disclosure. Amazing. It is absurd. Nothing could be more ill advised or misguided. But here we are, once again, unable to even proceed to consider a bill that would remedy that situation. Once again, my Republican friends are standing in the way of proceeding to a bill, standing in the way of what I consider to be good governance, all in the name of those in their party who hold to some misguided attempt to twist first amendment rights to suit an ideologically based argument that somehow a requirement to disclose contributions would violate the first amendment. You still can spend the money; nobody is going to stop you from spending the money. But you have to disclose who is behind that contribution. I don't think transparency is something that violates the first amendment. It is the right of the American people to receive the information required by these proposed disclosure laws.

Then they twist it even further, virtually saying that all money anywhere--even foreign money--is somehow free speech in American elections. I think the American people want to be the ones in control of who they elect to Congress to decide the issues of the day in their lives, not somebody who is backed by some foreign corporation. Imagine if BP could say: I don't like Senator Menendez lifting that liability cap; I don't want to be liable for more than $75 million, even though I have created billions of dollars in costs, so let me fund candidates who agree that Senator Menendez's legislation to lift the liability caps on limited liability should be the ones to get elected, because they are going to take care of what? BP, which is a foreign corporation.

Imagine if the insurance industry said: We don't even have to put our face on that announcement, that advertisement. Let's go fund those candidates who will allow us, the insurance industry, to continue to deny people who have a preexisting condition in this country the opportunity to get health insurance--where a child at birth has a defect and cannot get health insurance, or a father who had a heart attack on the job cannot get health insurance. Let's fund those candidates who will ensure that we as an industry don't have to insure those individuals.

Imagine those companies on Wall Street which don't like the new law that we just passed and want to see it rolled back so they can continue to have the excesses that almost brought this Nation to economic collapse. They could say: Let's fund those candidates who will allow us to have not a free market but a free-for-all market. That is what this law is all about. That is what this vote is all about. I believe the people of New Jersey, which I represent, and people elsewhere, want disclosure.

Finally, disclosure takes place by knowing who is giving this money.

The bottom line is I want Americans to decide American elections. I don't want some foreign company funding candidates who ultimately enhance their views. I don't want big business deciding elections on the basis of their corporate interests versus the interests of the people. That is what this bill is all about. I can't understand the fear my colleagues on the other side of the

aisle have of simply letting us go to a full debate and an up-or-down vote.

Look, if this law is poorly drafted and the majority of the Senate votes against it, so be it. But not even to allow us to go to that debate, to stop foreign corporations and foreign influence in our elections, to allow the BPs of the world to influence the way in which we have the gulf cleanup, or to allow the insurance industry to deny people based on preexisting conditions, or allow Wall Street to run wild--on and on--that is fundamentally wrong. That is what this debate is about, and that is what the vote will be all about.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

I have come to the floor many times to speak out about the Castro regime's abuses of the Cuban people. Today, I come to the floor once again, this time in strong opposition to any attempt in this Chamber to pass any bill that in any way lifts or lessens the travel ban on Cuba. I wish to make it absolutely clear that I will oppose and filibuster, if I need to, any effort to ease regulations that stand to enrich a regime that denies its own people basic human rights. I do not want to obstruct the business of this Chamber, but I know my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are well aware of how deeply I feel about freeing the people of Cuba from the repressive regime under which they have suffered for too long.

The fact is, the big corporate interests behind this misguided attempt to weaken the travel ban could not care less whether the Cuban people are free. They care only about opening a new market and increasing their bottom line. This is about the color of money, not the desire for freedom.

The very fact that a travel bill has moved through the House Agriculture Committee makes one wonder why American agricultural interests would even care about tourist travel to Cuba. One can only assume it is about generating increased tourism dollars for the Castro regime to buy more agricultural products. That would only serve to enrich the regime and do absolutely nothing to bring democracy to the island.

Let's be clear. Those who believe that increasing travel will magically breed democracy in Cuba are simply dead wrong. For years, the world has been traveling to Cuba and nothing has changed. Millions of tourists from democratic nations have visited Havana, and the Castro regime has not loosened its iron grip on its people. It has not ended its repressive policies. It has not stopped imprisoning and brutally abusing prodemocracy forces.

Now, sometimes I wonder; those who lament our dependence on foreign oil because it enriches regimes and terrorist states such as Iran should not have a double standard when it comes to enriching a brutal dictatorship such as Cuba right here in our own backyard.

How coincidental that suddenly, now that the Congress is considering lifting a travel ban, the Castro regime is hoping the world will believe it will release 52 prisoners of conscience. Well, let's set the record straight. Many people are wrongly under the impression--wrongly, reading and watching media reports--that 52 political prisoners have already been released and are free in Cuba. The fact is, only about seven have been released, and forcibly--forcibly--deported from their country--another human rights violation--instead of allowing them to stay and peacefully advocate for change within their own country.

So even when the regime releases people whose simple crime was trying to peacefully create change in their country and who get imprisoned for years for that peaceful act, then when they are released, they are released only with the understanding that they will be deported out of their country so they can no longer be advocates, peaceful advocates, for civil society and democratic change. Imagine if those of us who are Americans could be arrested simply because we disagreed with the government, sought to peacefully change it, and then ultimately, after being arrested for years, were deported to some other country in the world.

The remaining 47 prisoners are set to be released but not now, not tomorrow, not next week, not even next month, but sometime during the next 3 to 4 months, we are told--or so the regime says.

According to reports in the Miami Herald, nine of those prisoners have said they will refuse to leave for Spain if released, and many who were released and forcibly deported to Madrid have vowed to continue their activism in exile. They have told reporters they feel the shock of being forced to leave their country. Omar Rodriguez Saludes told a reporter he feels ``like I was still in prison. I left behind part of my family. I still feel like I have the cuffs on my hands.''

The released men said conditions in the prison were horrendous. They shared their cells with rats. Diseases infested the prison. And they told of inmates trying to kill themselves or do themselves bodily harm because of the squalid prison conditions they were forced to endure. Remember, these are political prisoners, not people who committed common crimes.

Julion Cesar Galvez, one of the dissidents, told reporters:

The hygiene and health conditions in prisons in Cuba are

not terrible--they're worse than terrible. We had to live

with rats and cockroaches and excrement. It's not a lie.

Galvez, a 66-year-old journalist who was sentenced to 15 years simply because of what he sought to write, 15 years of his life in these horrible prisons, said:

There were outbreaks of dengue fever and tuberculosis.

He said there were more than 1,500 prisoners in the prison in Villa Clars--40 prisoners to a cell measuring 32 square feet.

Another prisoner, Norman Hernandez, said:

The prisoners are tired of demanding their rights . . .

They lose all hope. They lose their desire to live, and they

try to hurt themselves so they will get attended to.

These men were lucky to be released, but they will not give up. They will continue to tell their stories, and they will continue to fight for freedom for all Cubans.

It took the regime one night in March to arrest these 52 people--one night. That scooped up 52 people who were peacefully advocating for change in their own country. So we might ask ourselves: If it took you one night to arrest 52 political prisoners, why will it take 4 months to release all of them?

It is not a coincidence that during the next 3 or 4 months, there will be Members of the Congress who will be looking to provide the Castro regime with billions of dollars of added tourism revenue. It is not a coincidence that in September, the European Union will once again deliberate the wisdom of its remaining sanctions. The nagging question that lingers in my mind is, Will the 47 ever see the light of day or will they be forcibly deported from their country and another 52 arrested overnight to take their place?

It is possible the regime will never release them because they do not want the world to see them because of the torture to which they have been subjected. Here is one of those prisoners. Last month, a man named Ariel Sigler was released from a Cuban prison on the verge of death. He was a 250-pound amateur boxer. You see him there in great health. This is the picture of his release--a 100-pound paraplegic. A 100-pound paraplegic. He did nothing to deserve that set of consequences.

Last month, the regime once again refused to let the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture visit the island, which, in my own view, speaks volumes about the conditions of the thousands of Cubans who have been imprisoned.

When you oppose the Castro regime, you are called dangerous, and there is a charge of dangerousness. Thousands of Cubans have been sent to Castro's prisons because of dangerousness. That is dangerousness: simply opposing the regime and seeking change in your home country--and for other trumped-up political charges.

If that is what is happening to the 200 internationally recognized and known political prisoners, then how much worse must it be for the thousands of anonymous political prisoners who have not been reported because they fall under the charge of dangerousness?

According to the State Department:

The total number of detainees is unknown because the

government does not disclose such information and keeps its

prisons off limits to human rights organizations and

international human rights monitors.

Again according to the State Department:

One human rights organization lists more than 200 political

prisoners currently detained in Cuba in addition to as many

as 5,000 people sentenced for dangerousness.

Yet, in the face of this repression, some Members want to provide the Castro regime with its No. 1 source of income: tourism. This is not about travel; this is about rewarding a repressive regime. We already have hundreds of thousands of Americans who travel to Cuba for family, education, or humanitarian reasons under our existing law. But tourism to Cuba is a natural resource, akin to providing refined petroleum products to a country such as Iran. It is reported that 2.5 million

tourists visit Cuba each year--1.5 million from North America, 1 million Canadians; more than 170,000 from England; more than 400,000 from Spain, Italy, Germany, and France combined; all bringing in nearly $2 billion in revenue to the Castro regime.

Yet nothing has changed in Cuba except the amount of tourism dollars the regime has at its disposal. What does it do with nearly $2 billion of resources from tourism? Does it put more food on the plates of Cuban families? Does it create a better quality of life for the Cuban people? No. Even with all of that money coming in, the Castro regime still rations people's food. They have to stand in line with a coupon to get access to a simple meal, waiting in long lines for a subsistence meal. Of course, when the regime rations people and they are in line just trying to get a meal for the day, there is no time for promoting democracy or human rights. The people are just trying to exist, trying to keep their family fed. There is no time but to stand in line, despite several billions of dollars to the Castro regime from tourism.

To me, that is an irreversible concession to a regime that this week arrested a Cuban American for providing laser printers and ink cartridges to a rural woman's opposition movement in Santiago. He was interrogated, the head of the movement's home raided by a dozen state security agents, the printer and cartridges confiscated. What a threat, a bunch of printers and ink cartridges. What a threat. He was subsequently released and put on a plane back. Meanwhile, an American remains in prison for helping the island's Jewish community connect to the Internet. After 6 months in jail, this individual still faces no trial and no charges, a U.S. citizen, jailed simply because he was trying to help the Jewish community in Havana to access the Internet. What a crime. What a crime. Yet for the most part we are relatively silent.

They were looking to help the Cuban people. But the regime doesn't want anyone engaging with the Cuban people. They want tourists to provide only one thing--hard currency, dollars, money.

Visiting the beaches of Varadero and sipping a Cuba libre, which is an oxymoron, provides money to continue repression, but it will not let the Cuban people sip the sweetness of freedom. It will not change the plight of the Women in White. These are women who are the mothers, daughters, sisters, and wives of those many political prisoners in Castro's jails who each week, normally on Sunday, march dressed in white in peaceful protest with a gladiola and, in doing so, are ultimately trying to say: Free my relative.

This photograph shows the consequence of what they face. State security, dressed up as civilians, ultimately, as we can see, assaulting them, hurting them, arresting them. It will not change the fate of the Women in White, and it will not change the fate of their family member who remains jailed.

It will not change the fate of being imprisoned by the regime and then being released, as they have done so many times when there is some international spotlight on an individual, only to be rearrested over and over and over.

It will not change the tragic fate of Orlando Zapata Tamayo, who was deemed a prisoner of conscience by Amnesty International, who died in February after being on a hunger strike in a Cuban prison for 85 days protesting horrific prison conditions. It will not end the desire for freedom or change conditions in Cuba for men like Guillermo Farinas who began his hunger strike after the death of Zapata, ending it after he heard of the prisoner release, but vowing that he and other courageous Cubans would join in yet another hunger strike, if the 52 other political prisoners are not released and put back in their homes by November 7.

This photograph shows what he has been emaciated to in his hunger strike.

Lifting the travel ban, allowing tourist dollars to flow to the regime will not end any of it. It will not free the people of Cuba. It will not change the fate of the Women in White or the desire for freedom of Guillermo Farinas and the other political prisoners. It will only enrich the regime.

Reports this week have pointed out the economic impact opening travel to Cuba will cause to the Gulf States, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and other democratic neighbors in the Caribbean. The dollars that will be transferred from those tourism economies should be for the benefit of a democratic government in a free Cuba not to bail out a brutal regime. The Castros don't deserve it, and the U.S. Gulf States and our Caribbean friends cannot afford it.

According to the Jamaica Daily Gleaner:

The results of various studies of the likely impact on the

Caribbean of lifting of the U.S. travel ban suggests that

Cuba's tourism arrival would surge to full capacity at the

expense of other Caribbean destinations . . .

. . . Apart from Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands,

the most heavily dependent Caribbean destinations on the U.S.

and the most vulnerable, should the legislation to lift the

travel ban pass, ultimately include [many of the islands in

the Caribbean that would have an enormous economic damage to

them].

It seems to me we should be promoting tourism to the beaches along the gulf coast, not to the apartheid beaches of Castro's Cuba.

You are not even allowed, as a Cuban citizen, to go to the beaches, many of the beaches of your own homeland, because they are reserved for tourists. You can't enter some of the hotels unless a tourist in your own country brings you in. That is why we call it apartheid. You cannot have access in your own homeland.

Imagine in my home State of New Jersey, where we love the New Jersey shore, imagine me not being able to go to any of the beaches in New Jersey because the government wants to restrict me from interacting with tourists and that those beaches would be reserved only for foreign tourists in my own home State in my own home country. That is what goes on.

Allowing the regime to benefit from increased tourism will not change a thing in Cuba. It will not bring democracy to Cuba. It will not make conditions for the Cuban people any better or change the history of the brutality of the Castro regime, a brutality that continues to this day. Sometimes I think some of my colleagues just don't have a sense. This is not using the word ``brutality'' for the sake of it. The pictures speak a thousand words.

I would like my friends in the Senate and others beyond, who may not have fully engaged in understanding what this brutality is all about, to recall the words of Armando Valladeres who wrote the prize-winning book ``Against All Hope.'' He was imprisoned in the infamous Isla de Pinos in 1960 for his opposition to communism. He lived through the hell of Castro's jail, suffering violence, forced labor, and solitary confinement. His writings were smuggled out of Cuba, read throughout the world. He was finally released after intense international pressure, 22 years after he was taken prisoner. They had to rehabilitate him because they didn't want him released and shown to the world in the circumstances that some of these prisoners are.

Here are some of his memories of activity at the hands of the Castro brothers while in captivity:

I recalled the two sergeants, Porfirio and Matanzas,

plunging their bayonets into Ernesto Diaz Madruga's body. . .

. Boitel, denied water, after more than fifty days on a

hunger strike, because Castro wanted him dead; Clara,

Boitel's poor mother, beaten by Lieutenant Abad in a

Political Police station just because she wanted to find out

where her son was buried. . . . Officers . . . threatened

family members if they cried at a funeral.

I remember Estebita and Piri dying in blackout cells, the

victims of biological experimentation. . . . So many others

murdered in the forced-labor fields, quarries and camps. A

legion of specters, naked, crippled, hobbling and crawling

through my mind, and the hundreds of men mutilated in the

horriffing searches.

Eduardo Capote's fingers chopped off by a machete.

Concentration camps, tortures, women beaten. . . .

And in the midst of that apocalyptic vision of the most

dreadful and horrifying moments in my life, in the midst of

the gray, ashy dust and the orgy of beatings and blood,

prisoners beaten to the ground, a man

emerged. . . .

. . . the skeletal figure of a man wasted by hunger with

white hair, blazing blue eyes, and a heart overflowing with

love, raising his arms to the invisible heaven and pleading

for mercy for his executioners.

``Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do.''

And a burst of machine-gun fire ripping open his chest.

I hope my colleagues remember these memories of Armando Valladeres and

the realities of Castro's prisons before we think about rewarding the Castro regime in any way. Their sins are too great, and this is not a thing of the past. Their brutality and repression have been going on since the inception and still go on today. It has never stopped. It has never gotten better. It has never changed. It never will for so long as the regime is in power.

When I hear my colleagues come to the floor and talk about lifting the travel ban, I am compelled to ask, Why is there such an obvious double standard when it comes to Cuba? Why are the gulags of Cuba so different than the gulags of other places in the world? Why are we willing to tighten sanctions against some but loosen them when it comes to an equally repressive regime in Cuba, in effect rewarding them? Why are we so willing to throw up our hands and say: It is time to forget?

I don't believe it is time to forget. We can never forget those who have suffered and died at the hands of dictators anywhere, and certainly not in Cuba. It is clear the repression in Cuba continues unabated, notwithstanding the embargo, notwithstanding calls by those who want us to ease travel restrictions, ease sanctions, notwithstanding the fact that we have millions of visitors from other places in the world bringing billions of dollars, and still the repression goes on. In good conscience, I cannot do that. I will not step back.

I have come to the floor in the past to oppose any attempt to do that, to pass any bill that in essence lifts the travel ban on Cuba. I will continue to do so. I will continue to do so until we have the opportunity to make sure the Cuban people are ultimately free, make sure they have the basic fundamental rights that you and I enjoy in this great country, and to ensure the voices of all who languish in Castro's jails--for which the world seems to be deaf to their cries, does not seem to care, does not speak about, does not do anything about--will continue to raise their voices in this Chamber and beyond.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I want to rise in support of what my distinguished colleague from New Hampshire is trying to accomplish here,

which is simply to give the oilspill commission the subpoena power it needs to be able to do its job--to bring those individuals before it who might be reticent to come forth.

What we have seen here on the floor--and what we have seen in the last few minutes--is a whole process that I hope the American people understand is a clear contrast between who stands on their side and who stands on the side of special interests. How is it possible that Members of this Chamber find it difficult to even proceed, when the House of Representatives, in a near unanimous vote, could say that the subpoena power is necessary for the commission to be able to get to the bottom of what happened? The House voted unanimously, save for one vote. Yet we cannot even proceed.

This isn't rocket science. It is common sense to most Americans. We need to fully learn the lessons of this disaster with a thorough investigation, not to protect oil companies from having their negligence exposed. We need to get answers from BP and Transocean and Halliburton and everyone else, including the Federal agencies, not to give apologies to them, as I have seen Republicans suggest that we should apologize to BP for making sure the residents of the gulf region are held whole. We need to know the truth, and the commission needs subpoena power to get the truth. So who are you protecting? What are we hiding here?

In addition to holding information and blocking data collection, BP has seemingly misrepresented the magnitude of the spill. We need the truth. Let's go through a little bit of remembering a very short period of time how this Congress and the American people were deceived. That is why there is a need for subpoena power, to get to the truth and to bring people to testify under oath.

We were told after the Deepwater Horizon burst into flames and then sank onto the ocean floor that there was no spill. Anybody remember that? Can you believe it? The next day, they estimated that an absurdly low flow rate of 1,000 barrels per day was taking place. Then, on May 20, BP said they were siphoning off 5,000 barrels of oil a day from what they claimed was a 5,000-barrel-a-day spill--meaning that they were capturing all of it. Can you believe it?

Then, video feed released under pressure from Congress on May 21 showed a very different story, with a heavy flow of oil still spilling from the well. In response, only after that pressure and that video feed could be measured, the company adjusted their siphon estimate down from 5,000 to 2,200 barrels a day to explain why oil was still flowing. We now know that what the video actually showed was a much heavier flow rate. Only recently have experts begun to have access to some of the data they need to make more credible estimates.

On June 15, the Federal Government officially estimated that the flow may be as high as 60,000 barrels a day, which means that an estimated 3 million barrels have been spilled so far. Three million barrels. That would amount to more than 13 Exxon Valdez spills, which took place in Alaska.

The point of all of this is that we need the truth. That is what Senator Shaheen is trying to accomplish--subpoena power for the commission so they can bring in all the parties they need to make sure we get to the truth. We need someone to swear under oath that they are telling us, in fact, the truth about what happened and how much oil is spilling every day into the gulf.

Common sense and good judgment demand that we pass the legislation and move quickly to get to that truth. I can't understand, when I hear so many of my colleagues talk about truth and honesty and transparency, that they can oppose the very effort to give the subpoena powers that get us there. It is a sad day.

While I have the floor, let me briefly say that something good did happen today as it relates to this process, and I want to thank Senator Boxer, the chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Lautenberg, and the very supportive members of that committee, for passing my Big Oil Bailout Prevention bill out of committee today so that we can get an up-or-down vote on the floor to hold big oil fully liable for the economic and environmental damage they have caused. Frankly, it is time we have a vote, after so many Republican objections, to this commonsense legislation. The bill that the committee passed is simple and common sense. It asserts that we want to protect those families, those taxpayers--and all of us as taxpayers-- not oil company profits. It asserts that oil companies should bear the burden of the economic damages that their spill causes, not taxpayers.

As we see the images and read the stories from the gulf coast night after night, it could not be clearer that coastal families and taxpayers are the ones who need protection, not oil companies. With action such as this one in the committee today, we have a lot of momentum going right now. I think the American people have shown clearly they want oil companies held fully accountable, and we are working to do just that. I think we are developing a head of steam.

It seems that the only people who consistently work to protect oil companies instead of coastal families right now are the oil companies themselves and some colleagues who seem to, no matter what, oppose, oppose, oppose either having subpoena power to get to the truth or lifting the liability cap so that the oil industry will be held responsible.

Four times my Republican colleagues have blocked the Big Oil Bailout Prevention Act from passing quickly by unanimous consent here on the Senate Floor, even though there is a fierce urgency of doing so now. All but one in the committee today voted in favor of the poison pill amendment that would have gutted the bill. And they have blocked, as I have said, the attempts of my colleague from New Hampshire to give the commission all the tools necessary to do a full investigation.

So I say to them, if they continue to stand in the way of our efforts to hold oil companies fully accountable, they are going to get run over by public opinion. I hope that now the committee has acted, we can use this as an opportunity to finally hold big oil accountable, and in doing so, to send a message to the industry that they are going to have to be extremely careful; that they cannot cut corners; that they cannot go cheap as they drill--to the extent that we are going to allow drilling to take place. We cannot risk the kind of environmental disaster we now have in the gulf. By the way, 11 lives were lost on that day on that rig. We must guard against a future generation facing this kind of environmental degradation. That is what is at stake here. That is what is at stake here.

It is incomprehensible to me that we cannot get our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join us in this effort.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of this conference report for robust sanctions against Iran. I was proud to serve with, among others of my colleagues, Senator Dodd, on the conference committee. I want to recognize the hard work he has done to create a strong sanctions bill.

These sanctions, I believe, will deter the threat Iran poses to U.S. national security because of its suspected nuclear weapons program. A country that has huge oil reserves clearly does not need nuclear power for nuclear energy. Therefore, the difference between its stated goals and its actions creates, I believe, a threat to the national security of the United States.

I have been eager for today's vote. During the process of the conference committee, I have advocated for the strongest sanctions possible.

I believe deeply that we must apply maximum pressure to the Iranian regime, that it is a growing threat to the region, the world, and a threat to its own people. In my view, tightening the screws on the Iranian regime genuinely advances the cause of stability and peace in the Middle East as well as our own national security. These sanctions are an essential means to that end.

I have seen what the United Nations has done, and I am glad we got some multilateral response. But, in my view, they are not strong enough. That is why I think it is essential that we continue to lead many of our allies, who will be more robust in their actions if we pass this legislation today.

In my view, it is essential that we freeze the assets of Iranian officials who have supported terrorism--with this legislation we will do that--that we impose sanctions against companies that engage in oil- related business with the Iranian regime--and with this legislation we will do that--that we monitor Iran's usage of energy-related resources other than refined petroleum, especially ethanol, to ensure Iran is not allowed to replace its current petroleum needs with ethanol which would, in essence, severely undercut the intent behind these sanctions. So I am glad we have pushed for language that will follow that.

We need the ban on trade with Iran to be strong, to be significant, and to be airtight. We need to press the Iranian Government to respect its citizens' human rights and freedoms, to identify Iranian officials responsible for violating those rights and impose financial penalties and travel restrictions on these human rights abusers.

We need to prohibit the U.S. Government from contracting with those companies that export communication-jamming or monitoring technology to Iran. We simply cannot allow the regime to restrict communications between Iranians and between Iran and the outside world as happened during the postelection protests.

We clearly see there is a desire among the average Iranians to be able to change the nature of their lives. We saw those willing to risk their freedom, willing to risk their lives. We cannot have the U.S. Government contracting with those companies that export communication- jamming or monitoring technology to Iran that in essence allows the regime to do exactly that.

We need to ban trade with Iran with exceptions for the export of food, medicines, humanitarian aid, and the exchange of informational materials.

There is something I included in the Senate bill before it went to conference, and I am glad to see it is largely still in the legislation we will vote on today. We needed targeted sanctions against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, its supporters and affiliates, and any foreign governments that provide the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps with support.

I am pleased to see this report will ban U.S. banks from engaging in financial transactions with foreign banks that do business with the Revolutionary Guard or facilitate Iran's illicit nuclear program. The Revolutionary Guard has now spread like a cancer throughout Iranian society, and it is involved in almost everything in Iran. We need to specifically target the IRGC, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, and this legislation does that.

The robust sanctions against the Iranian regime that I will vote for today, and that I helped fashion, are a positive and necessary step to increase pressure on Iran so the regime fully understands the world will not only not tolerate its deceit and deception any longer, but it cannot tolerate its march to nuclear power and ultimately nuclear weapons. I will vote for these sanctions because they are robust, because they are in our national security interests and in the interests of the region and the world.

I hope my colleagues, on a strong bipartisan basis, will join in casting similar votes because when we do, we send a message, No. 1, to the administration that there is, I hope, near unanimous support for the type of sanctions we are advocating that strengthens the hand of the President as he deals with other countries in the world, as he deals in the international forum, and it sends a clear message to Ahmadinejad that the United States is serious about stopping its march to nuclear weaponry.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the privilege of the floor be granted to a member of my staff, Heide Bronke Fulton, during the pendency of the Conference Report to accompany H.R. 2194, Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, for each day that the measure is pending.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time under the control of the majority be equally divided between myself, Senator Shaheen, and Senator Nelson of Florida.