Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Megan Moreau, a fellow in my office, be given floor privileges for the remainder of debate on H.R. 3590, the health care reform legislation currently pending.

What is the pending business before the Senate?

I thank the Chair.

I rise about a program funded in that conference report. It is a program that we put under the framework of Cuba broadcasting. It is surrogate broadcasting into a closed society, a society for which the State controls all information or attempts to control all information to its 11 million citizens. It is a part of a long tradition of the United States with the Voice of America type of broadcasting, the effort to try to bring a free flow of information into countries in the world which are governed by despotic rulers. We did this successfully in the former Soviet Union. We did it successfully in Eastern Europe and during the changes in the Czech Republic, then Czechoslovakia, Poland, the Solidarity movement, and many others. We have been proud of that history of bringing the free flow of information. We now try to use it in different parts of the world based on the new challenges we have.

One of those places in the world in which we do this surrogate broadcasting is into the island of Cuba, because it has a repressive regime that will not allow the free flow of information to go to its people. We have a program called Radio and Television Marti. Marti is sort of like the George Washington of Cuba. It is named after him.

In 1983, Congress passed the Radio Broadcasting to Cuba Act to provide the people of Cuba, through Radio Marti, with information the Cuban Government would try to censor and keep from them. Subsequently in 1990, Congress authorized U.S. television broadcasting to Cuba through Radio and Television Marti to support the right of the Cuban people to receive information and ideas they would not normally receive. It opened radio and television broadcasting to Cuba, provided a consistently reliable and authoritative source of accurate, objective, and comprehensive news commentary and other information about events in Cuba and elsewhere. It did so to promote the cause of freedom inside of Cuba.

We know there is a long history of repressive regimes trying to block our surrogate broadcasting around the world. They just don't simply sit back and say: Send it all in. Let me accept whatever it is you are sending in. That is not their effort. Their effort is to block. And our difficulty with broadcasting has never been a justification for cutting funding for these programs. We have never submitted to the proposition that when a regime tries to block our surrogate broadcasting--whether it was Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, all of those efforts, there was always blocking taking place--that that is a cause or justification for cutting funding. It should not be a different standard now.

I ask, when it comes to Cuba broadcasting, why the double standard? In fact, especially now when change is coming to Cuba, it is in our interest to have the capacity to broadcast information to the Cuban people.

I want to show one of the charts that may be a little difficult back at home, but these are actual photographs which came from a January 2009 Government Accountability Office report which were provided by an organization that reports on Cuban affairs. It depicts evidence of Cubans' ability to watch Television Marti despite Cuban jamming efforts. These pictures were taken from inside of Cuba. They may not be the best picture quality, although I doubt they have digital television inside of Cuba. But nonetheless, they have the ability to see it.

There are other pictures of Cubans. Here is a picture of a group of individuals who, in fact, are part of an effort to create a library system, something as fundamental in the United States as a free public library. There isn't that in Cuba, at least not a free public library. They control what books might be found there.

So these groups try to create information. One of the things they do is, again, to be able to have access--as shown in this picture. This is a panel that is talking on Television Marti. Here, in this picture, is a young child watching a Marti program inside of Cuba. You can see the logo here of Marti TV.

As shown in this picture, this was a special that was broadcast into Cuba and was seen in Cuba on the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King on the whole issue of peaceful, nonviolent change--as a message to the Cuban people that, in fact, these things could be achieved.

Now, you can see at the bottom of these pictures--it is a little hard to see--but here is the Marti logo that is seen on the bottom right- hand corner on several of these photographs.

This came from that Government Accountability Office report. A January 2009 report by the Government Accountability Office noted the following:

The Broadcasting Board of Governors--which is the oversight we have as the Federal Government--and the Office of Cuba Broadcasting and the U.S. Interests Section in Havana--which, in essence, is, we do not have an Embassy there because we do not have relations, but we have an Interests Section there--that Cuba officials emphasized that they face significant challenges in conducting valid audience research due to the closed nature of Cuban society.

U.S. government officials stationed in Havana are prohibited by the Castro regime from traveling outside of Havana.

We know it is difficult to travel to Cuba for the purpose of conducting audience research. We know the threat of Cuban Government surveillance and reprisals for interviewers and respondents raises concerns about respondents' willingness to answer sensitive questions frankly.

In this January 2009 Government Accountability Report, U.S. officials indicated that research on Radio and TV Marti's audience size faces significant limitations. For example, none of the data is representative of the entire Cuban population. Telephone surveys are the only random data collection effort in Cuba, but it might not be representative of Cuba's media habits for several reasons. But here are two of the main ones.

First, only adults in homes with published telephone numbers are surveyed. According to Broadcasting Board of Governors documents, approximately 17 percent of Cuban adults live in households with published household numbers. That means that 83 percent of the population does not have a published telephone number.

Second, the Board of Governors and the Office of Cuba Broadcasting officials noted that because individuals in

Cuba are discouraged or prohibited by their government from listening to and watching U.S. international broadcasts, they might be fearful of responding to media surveys and disclosing their media habits.

If I am told that it is illegal for me simply to watch the programming of some international organization, and that I can go to jail for listening to that programming, then ultimately--then ultimately--am I going to be truthful to some telephone survey about: Did I watch TV Marti? Did I listen to Radio Marti?

Mr. President, I know about this personally. Years ago, when I was in the House of Representatives, while I had an aunt who was still alive at the time, who I had asked never to acknowledge me as her nephew-- which she agreed to--in my second term, however, she was listening to me on Radio Marti, and in a moment of pride, she said: ``Oh, that Menendez is my nephew.''

Unfortunately, she said it in front of some visitors who she thought were her friends. One of them was part of El Comite de Defensa de la Revolucion, which means ``The Committee to Defend the Revolution,'' a block watch organization in every city, in every village, in every hamlet inside Cuba, whose only job is to go and spy on their neighbors and tell the state security who speaks ill or does something against the regime.

Unfortunately, for that simple act of speaking out, saying to a friend: ``Oh, that Menendez is my nephew,'' my aunt suffered serious consequences.

So the audience size might very well be larger than the survey results would indicate because people are fearful to say: Yes, I am listening to Radio and Television Marti, because I cannot do that and not face the consequences of a regime that would arrest me.

Radio and TV Marti have a larger audience in Cuba. Why do I say that? Because a 2007 survey that the Office of Cuba Broadcasting commissioned, intended to obtain information on programming preferences and media habits, also contained data on Radio and TV Marti's audience size.

While the survey was not intended to measure listening rates or project audience size, this nonrandom survey of 382 Cubans, who had recently arrived in the United States--so now they were free to say what they actually did back at home because they were not subject to being arrested simply for listening to Radio and Television Marti-- found that 45 percent of all of those respondents reported listening to Radio Marti and that over 21 percent reported watching TV Marti within the last 6 months before leaving Cuba.

So I rise because I want to bring this data, this information, this perspective to the debate.

I am happy to see the very deep cuts that were made to the Office of Cuba Broadcasting that contains both Radio and Television Marti have largely been restored. That is one of the reasons I felt willing to vote to proceed with the omnibus bill.

One of the body's greatest strengths is the ability to freely debate issues in an open format, issues on which, in the end, we might completely disagree, but issues that need to be brought into clear focus for the American people.

However, when I see my colleagues drawing conclusions on their own, without reasonable data to support those conclusions, I feel compelled to come and present an alternative perspective of the facts.

Why is this important to us. The United States is a beacon of light of freedom and democracy around the world. The promotion of democracy and human rights has always been one of the pillars of our foreign policy.

Yesterday was Human Rights Day, which is the day that marks the anniversary of the United Nations Assembly's adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. It is recognized every year on December 10.

Yesterday, in the midst of the recognition of this day in Havana, we saw the brutal Castro regime cracking down on people just because they were trying to exercise their right for peaceful demonstration. We saw people beaten, arrested, and forcibly detained.

There is a group of ladies; they call themselves the Ladies in White. They are mothers and sisters and friends of jailed dissidents inside of Cuba. So these are people of imprisoned family members--their son or their daughter, their brother or sister, their friends--and the only reason those people are in jail is because they have pursued peaceful means to try to create change inside of their own country. They may have said something. They may have worn a white band that says ``cambio,'' which means ``change.'' They may have simply uttered the fact that: What we need is change inside of Cuba.

So these Ladies in White--they dress fully in white so that, in fact, it is a form of being noticed, but, again, a peaceful form--held long- stem flowers and miniature Cuban flags. They were attacked by hundreds of angry pro-government demonstrators who sought to drown out their chants of ``freedom'' by yelling ``this street belongs to Fidel.''

Now, in Cuba, these groups are not spontaneous. It is not the citizenry. It is something called ``rapid response brigades.'' They are state security dressed as civilians, whose purpose is to make it seem that the populous is against the human rights activists and political dissidents. But, ultimately, they are state security agents who act in a way to make it seem quite different. But they are thugs.

Mr. President, the reason the regime organizes protests in this way is so if you orchestrate a protest, where it looks like its citizens are protesting against each other, then the regime can deny, in fact, any role in the event.

However, we know very well the role the Castro regime plays in these demonstrations. Especially in light of the events of yesterday and today, we know the Castro regime is a brutal totalitarian dictatorship that continues to violate the most basic human rights, continues to crush debate and crush dialog.

Yesterday, I came to the floor as part of my concerns and I spoke about this gentleman and his wife, as shown in this picture. I spoke about Jorge Luis Garcia Perez ``Antunez.'' This is a gentleman who said, while standing in a plaza in his hometown, which is in the center of Havana--it is not where the tourists go, not on the beaches of Havana; it is in the heart of Havana--he said what we need is the type of change we saw in Eastern Europe.

For that simple statement, he was thrown into jail for 17 years--17 years. He came out a couple years ago, but he has not changed. He has not changed his views or his effort to create human rights.

He issued a public letter that I read yesterday, an English translation, of a public letter he wrote to the present dictator, Raul Castro, the brother of Fidel Castro, and he said many things. I am not going to read the whole letter again, but he said things like: Let me ask you a few questions that I think are important.

With what right do the authorities, without a prior crime

being committed, detain and impede the free movement of their

citizens in violation of a universally recognized right?

The very rights that are being observed in that international Human Rights Day of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

What feelings could move a man like Captain Idel Gonzalez

Morfi to beat my wife, a defenseless woman so brutally

causing lasting effects to her bones for the sole act of

arriving at a radio station to denounce with evidence the

torture that her brother--

Her brother; this is his wife shown in the picture--

received in a Cuban prison.

I spoke about him yesterday and his letter. What happened today, Mr. President?

Today, the day after Human Rights Day, and the day after I read his letter into the Record, and 2 days after he presented that letter to Raul Castro, he was arrested again by the regime and arbitrarily detained with his wife and another activist.

What is his crime? That I read a letter in the U.S. Senate about his calls for freedom and democracy? And the day after the recognition of international human rights, he gets arrested today, and his wife gets arrested today--or detained today. I am not sure. He got arrested for sure.

TV Marti is one of the many efforts the U.S. Government rightly invests in to try to reach the Cuban people with information, to try to reach the people who were beaten today and yesterday and, for decades, simply for trying to demonstrate peacefully, to speak their mind, to walk in peace and in remembrance of their loved ones they lost under the clenched fists of this regime.

I feel badly that the day after I spoke about Mr. Antunez, he ends up in jail. So we need to have a spotlight, just as we did for Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in the Soviet Union; just as we did for Vaclav Havel as he was trying to create change for the Czech Republic; just as we did with Lech Walesa when he was having the Solidarnosc Movement inside Poland.

For some reason, I can't get anybody to come to this floor and talk about the human rights violations inside Cuba. I hear a lot about: Let's trade with Cuba, let's do business with Cuba, let's travel to Cuba but, God, I never hear anyone talking about these human rights activists like the Lech Walesas, the Vaclav Havels, the Aleksandr Solzhenitsyns of that other time.

This man got arrested today simply because yesterday we made his letter public. That is the Castro regime that I know, not the romanticism of what some people have about what goes on at that island.

So I am pleased the Office of Cuba Broadcasting has made efforts over the last year to reevaluate the programs they are carrying out and carefully consider creative ways to reach the Cuban people. They have done this with Television Marti. They will continue to do this with other programs. I would expect nothing less. The kind of evaluation should continue. We should constantly strive to tailor our programs so our investments are reaching those who truly need our help, investments that are advancing U.S. foreign policy interests, the national interests of the United States, and the national security interests of the United States.

I have a declaration that came out of Cuba of over 100 human rights activists inside Cuba who are in support of the efforts of the United States as it relates to the surrogate broadcasting that goes into Cuba from Radio and Television Marti. This broadcasting provides some free flow of information of what is happening in the rest of the world, as well as what is happening inside Cuba. Because that is part of what we help here, to let those who otherwise would not know because of a closed society and a dictatorship that rules with an iron fist what is happening even inside their own country, what is happening to people such as Mr. Antunez, what is happening to the ladies in white who are protesting peacefully about their loved ones in jail.

With that letter of over 100 human rights activists is the recognition that we will not let up for Mr. Antunez and the recognition that there are voices who will continue to speak out for the human rights.

The last point I wish to make, imagine if you were sitting in a gulag somewhere, if you were beaten simply because you had a few words to say about creating change peacefully in your own country; imagine if you could be swept away by security police and taken to some jail and maybe not seen for years after that. Would you not want someone somewhere in the world to be standing and speaking for you? I would, and that is what I try to do on this floor.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after any leader remarks on Saturday, December 12, the Senate then resume consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 3288, and that at 9:30 a.m., the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the conference report, with the time until 9:30 a.m. equally divided and controlled between the leaders or their designees; further, that if cloture is invoked, then postcloture time continue to run during any recess, adjournment, or period of morning business; that on Sunday, December 13, all postcloture time be considered expired at 2 p.m., and the Senate proceed to vote on the adoption of the conference report to accompany H.R. 3288.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9 a.m., Saturday, December 12; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate resume consideration of the conference report accompanying H.R. 3288, the consolidated appropriations bill, as provided for under the previous order.

Mr. President, at 9:30 a.m., the Senate will proceed to a cloture vote on the consolidated appropriations conference report. If cloture is invoked, the Senate will proceed to vote on the adoption of the conference report at 2 p.m. on Sunday.

Finally, I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Nevada, Senator Ensign, the Senate adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, what is the pending business before the Senate?

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about the omnibus conference bill before the Senate and specifically about provisions on Cuba that have not passed the Senate and have not been subjected to debate by this body. These provisions would undo current law where the Castro regime would have to pay in advance of shipment for goods being sold to them because of their terrible credit history.

Yes, Cuba's credit history is horrible. The Paris Club of creditor nations recently announced that Cuba has failed to pay almost $30 billion in debt. Among poor nations that is the worst credit record in the world.

So I ask: If the Cuban Government has put off paying those to whom it already owes $30 billion, why does anyone think it would meet new financial obligations to American farmers?

Considering the serious economic crisis we are facing right now, we need to focus on solutions for hard-working Americans, not subsidies for a brutal dictatorship. We should evaluate how to encourage the regime to allow a legitimate opening--not in terms of cell phones and hotel rooms that Cubans cannot afford but in terms of the right to organize, the right to think and speak what they believe.

However, what we are doing with this omnibus bill is far from that evaluation, and the process by which these changes have been forced upon this body is so deeply offensive to me and so deeply undemocratic that I have no intention--no intention--of continuing to vote for Omnibus appropriations bills if they are going to jam foreign policy changes down throats of Members in what some consider ``must-pass'' bills.

I am putting my colleagues on notice: You may have the wherewithal to do that because you have a committee perch or an opportunity to stick something in that has not been debated on the floor of the Senate in what you think is a must-pass bill, but do not expect me to cast critical votes to pass that bill.

An example of the danger of what we are doing by changing the definition that is now being changed in this omnibus bill of what we call ``cash in advance'' is exhibited by a Europapress report. I want to quote from that press report: ``During a trade fair this month in Havana, Germany's Ambassador to Cuba, Claude Robert Ellner, told German businessmen that Cuba's debt to the German government had been forgiven''--forgiven--``in the hopes that Cuba will meet its debt obligations to them''--meaning to the businessmen.

In other words, German taxpayers will now be responsible for bailing out its private sector and, by implication, the Castro regime.

Thanks to the U.S. policy we have had up to now, of requiring the Castro regime to pay ``cash in advance'' for its purchases of agricultural products, U.S. taxpayers could rest assured that the same would not happen to them--that we would not have to forgive any debt or obligations in order to make sure private businesspeople got paid by the regime because, otherwise, they would be left defaulted.

The Castro regime has mastered the art of making some European Governments acquiesce to its every whim, even if it means a free pass for its daunting repression.

So how do they do it? It is rather simple. They give European countries a choice: either you do what we say or we will freeze your nationals' bank accounts and default on any debts. To me, that is also known as blackmail.

Let's take Spain, for example. Recently, European news services reported that Spain has begun a diplomatic offensive to convince the Castro regime to unblock nearly 266 million euros--or the equivalent of about 400 million United States dollars--in funds that have been frozen by the Castro regime of over 300 Spanish companies in Cuba. These are Spanish companies doing business in Cuba and now cannot get access to their money.

So what does the Spanish Government do? Not coincidentally, the Spanish Government announced that upon assuming the Presidency of the European Union in 2010, it would enter into a new bilateral agreement with the Castro regime that would replace the current European Union policy which contains diplomatic sanctions for human rights violations.

The Castro regime had made it clear to Spain that the current European Union policy was an ``insurmountable obstacle'' to normal relations and, I might add, for Spanish nationals and companies to get their money back. Therefore, the Spanish Government immediately responded to what I consider to be blackmail.

On a recent visit to Cuba, Spain's Foreign Minister, Miguel Angle Moratinos, met for 3 hours with Raul Castro. He did not get one concession--not one--on human rights. But he did get $300 million that Cuba owed to Spanish companies that do business inside of Cuba.

Is that what the United States of America intends to do?

So the lesson for dictators is, go ahead and freeze the bank accounts of other countries' companies and create debt you do not intend to pay for and you get a free pass for repression.

Look at another article. A recent Reuters article highlights that Cuba continues to block access to foreign business bank accounts. Let me quote from that article:

Many foreign suppliers and investors in Cuba are still

unable to repatriate hundreds of millions of dollars from

local accounts almost a year after Cuban authorities blocked

them because of the financial crisis, foreign diplomats and

businessmen said.

It goes on to say in the article:

The businessmen, who asked not to be identified--

Because they are fearful if they are--

said they were increasingly frustrated because the Communist

authorities refused to offer explanations or solutions for

the situation, which stems from a cash crunch in the

Cuban economy triggered by the global downturn and heavy

hurricane damage last year.

This is a quote from one of those people. He says:

I have repeatedly e-mailed, visited the offices and sent my

representative to the offices of a company I did business

with for years and which owes me money, and they simply

refuse to talk to me.

That is what a Canadian businessman told Reuters.

The article goes on:

Delegations from foreign banks and investor funds holding

commercial paper from Cuba's State banks have repeatedly

traveled to Cuba this year seeking answers from the Central

Bank or other authorities--without success.

Representatives of some companies with investment or joint

ventures on the island say they were bracing for the

possibility of not being able to repatriate year-end

dividends paid to their accounts in Cuba.

Now, let's remember that some 90 percent of the country's economic activity is in the regime's hands, in the state's hands.

Foreign economic attaches and commercial representatives in

Cuba said most of their nationals doing business with the

Caribbean island still face payment problems.

That is all from that article. These are all those who are doing business with Cuba now finding themselves and their money trapped.

Last week, the Russian Federation's Audit Chamber revealed that the Cuban regime failed on three occasions to pay installments on the equivalent of $355 million in a credit deal it signed with Russia in September of 2006. That is just the latest episode in a saga that in 2009 alone includes, first, reports by Mexico's La Jornada and Spain's El Pais newspapers that hundreds of foreign companies that transact business with the Cuban regime's authorities have had their accounts frozen--frozen--since January of 2009 by the regime-owned bank that is solely empowered to conduct commercial banking operations in that country.

Second, a June 9, 2009, Reuters article said:

Cuba has rolled over 200 million Euros in bond issues that

were due in May, as the country's central bank asked for

another year to repay foreign holders of the debt, financial

sources in London and Havana said this week.

Those are direct quotes from those articles.

As a reminder, in Castro's Cuba, you can only do business with the regime because private business activity is strictly restricted.

So the real reason so many whose work is often subsidized by business interests advocate Cuba policy changes is about money and commerce, not about freedom and democracy. It makes me wonder why those who spend hours and hours in Havana listening to Castro's soliloquies cannot find minutes--minutes--for human rights and democracy activists. It makes me wonder why those who go and enjoy the Sun of Cuba will not shine the light of freedom on its jails full of political prisoners. They advocate for labor rights in the United States, but they are willing to accept forced labor inside of Cuba. They talk about democracy in Burma, but they are willing to sip the rum with Cuba's dictators.

Which takes me to a place in Cuba called Placetas. Placetas is a city in the Villa Clara Province in the center of Cuba, in the heart of the island, in the center of Cuba. In other words, it is not a beachside resort frequented by Canadian and European tourists.

Placetas is also the home of this couple. It is the home of Cuban political prisoner and prodemocracy leader Jorge Luis Garcia Perez Antunez, generally known as Antunez. On March 15 of 1990, a then-25- year-old Antunez stood at the center square of Placetas listening to the government's official radio transmission calling for the Fourth Congress of the Communist Party. He spontaneously began to shout: ``What we want and what we need are reforms like the ones performed in Eastern Europe.'' Immediately, he was beaten by state security agents, charged with ``oral enemy propaganda,'' and imprisoned. That would begin a 17-year prison term, which is about half of his current life that he spent in prison. His crime? Saying: We need the types of changes that took place in Eastern Europe. For that, 17 years in prison. He was not released until 2007. He is now 45 years old, hopefully with an entire life ahead of him.

The Castro regime would love for Mr. Antunez and his wife, who is also a prodemocracy activist--this says in Spanish, ``we are all the resistance'' and ``long live human rights.'' They would love for him to leave the island permanently, but he refuses to do so. He has decided to stay in Cuba and demand that the human and civil rights of the Cuban people be respected. For this, he has been rearrested over 30 times since 2007.

Last week, at that same center in that small town of Placetas where he had been originally arrested simply for saying that: What we need is a change as we saw in Eastern Europe, Antunez and other local prodemocracy leaders gathered to honor Cuba's current political prisoners, people who simply, through peaceful means, try to create changes for democracy and human rights inside of their country and get arrested and languish in jail.

Antunez and his colleagues were not ``educated'' on the importance of human rights and civil disobedience by foreign tourists, as some of my colleagues suggest would happen--that we need to send foreign tourists to educate the Cubans about human rights and civil disobedience. He and all of those who are languishing in Castro's jails understand about human rights and civil disobedience in a way to try to capture your rights. Unwittingly, though, foreign tourists have financed their repression. They give money to the regime that ultimately gives them the state security forces that throw people such as Antunez in jail.

Let me read an open letter that just came out by Mr. Antunez that was sent to Cuba's dictator Raul Castro. I am going to quote from an English translation.

It says:

Mr. Raul Castro--

This is Mr. Antunez speaking now--

My name is Jorge Luis Garcia Perez Antunez--a former

political prisoner--and I am writing to you again not because

I pretend to make you aware of something that, far from

alien, is commonplace in Cuba due to the nature and politics

of your government. For several months now my spouse Yris

Tamara Perez Aguilera and I find ourselves under forced house

arrest by your political police. The week before the Juanes

concert--

That is the concert of the famous Colombian singer Juanes--

a high ranking State security official upon arresting me

informed me that there had been an order for my arrest

throughout the island of Cuba, wherever I might be found. He

emphasized that they were going to be watching every step I

take. Since that date I have lost count of how many times I

have been arrested, the majority of times with violence.

Mr. Dictator--allow me a few questions that may help you

clarify some doubts amongst those compatriots of mine who are

hopeful that your government would diminish repression or

that even Democratic openings could be made.

He poses this question:

With what right do the authorities, without a prior crime

being committed, detain and impede the free movement of their

citizens in violation of a universally recognized right? What

feelings could move a man like Captain Idel Gonzalez Morfi to

beat my wife, a defenseless woman, so brutally, causing

lasting effects to her bones for the sole act of arriving at

a radio station to denounce with evidence the torture that

her brother received in a Cuban prison. Or is it that for

you there are only five families that exist in our country

that have the right to protest and demand justice for

their jailed relatives? Should you not be ashamed that

your corpulent police officers remain stationed for days

at the corner of my home to impede us from leaving our

house and monitoring our movements in our own city?

Where is the professionalism and ethics of your

subordinates that with their ridiculous operations provoke

the mockery of the populace towards these persons on almost a

daily basis? How do you feel when you encourage or allow

these persons who call themselves men to beat and drag women

through the streets such as: Damaris Moya Portieles, Marta

Diaz, Ana Alfonso Arteaga, Sara Marta Fonseca, Yris Perez,

and most recently--

The well-known blogger, Yoani Sanchez. I am adding for the record ``the well-known blogger.'' He doesn't say that, but she is a well- known blogger, internationally known, recently beaten simply as she was trying to go to a place of civil disobedience.

How can you and your subordinates sleep calmly after

deliberately and maliciously physically knocking down on more

than one occasion Idania Yanez Contreras who is several

months pregnant? How can you and your government speak about

the battle of ideas

when you are constantly repressing ideas through beatings,

arrests, and years of incarceration?

Maybe your followers cannot find or even attempt to find a

response. However, I find myself in the long list of persons

that are not afraid to respond.

You act this way because you are a cruel man, and

insensible to the pain and suffering of others. You act this

way because you are faithful to your anti Democratic and

dictatorial vocation, because you are convinced that

dictatorships like the one you preside over can only be

maintained through terror and torture, and because the most

minimal opening can lead to the loss of the one thing that

you are interested in--which is maintaining yourself in

power.

Lastly, returning to my case in particular, I will respond

without even asking you beforehand the concrete motives of

your continued repression against my person. Your government

and your servants in the repressive corps cannot forgive my

two biggest and only ``crimes.'' First, that despite almost

two decades of torture and cruel and inhuman punishment

during my unjust and severe sanction, you could not break my

dignity and my position as a political prisoner. And second,

because even though I am accosted and brutalized and above

all risk returning to prison, I have taken the decision not

to leave my country in which I will continue struggling for a

change that I believe is both necessary and inevitable.

The letter is signed: From Placetas, Jorge Luis Garcia Perez Antunez, December 2009.

This is the voice of those who languish under Castro's brutal dictatorship. As you can see, Mr. Antunez is an Afro-Cuban, not part of the White elite of the regime's dictatorship; not what the regime tells the world, that Cubans who are all White seek to oppose the dictatorship. Most of the movement for democracy inside of Cuba are Afro-Cubans. Inside of Cuba, they are subjected to a citizenship status that is less than any human being should be subjected to.

Antunez's voice rings in my head. It tugs at my conscience.

His words:

Despite almost two decades of torture and cruel and inhuman

punishment during my unjust and severe sanction, you could

not break my dignity and my position as a political prisoner,

because even though I am accosted and brutalized and above

all risk returning to prison, I have taken the decision not

to leave my country in which I will continue struggling for a

change I believe is both necessary and inevitable.

Antunez is right. Change in Cuba is inevitable, but the United States needs to be a catalyst of that change. It does not need to be a sustainer of that dictatorship. It does not need to create an infusion of money that only goes to a regime that ultimately uses it not to put more food on the plates of Cuban families but to arrest and brutalize people such as Mr. Antunez.

These are the human rights activists on whom some would turn their backs for the sake of doing business. I guess the only thing they can see is the color of money. Well, not me, not now, and not ever.

Thank you, Mr. President. With that, I yield the floor.

If the Senator will yield, I thank the distinguished Senator from Iowa for his comments and for the position he has taken over a long period of time. It may not be the easiest, but I believe it is the one that is morally correct. Most important, on that day--which I believe is sooner rather than later--in which Cubans are free, they will remember who stood with them in the midst of this. That will make all the difference in the world. I thank the Senator.

I thank the distinguished chairman of the Senate Finance Committee for yielding me the time.

Madam President, I rise in strong opposition to the Dorgan amendment to allow the importation of drugs from 32 different countries in the world into the medicine cabinets of American families. I believe that is, at its core, a regressive amendment.

This amendment, however well-intentioned, reminds me of a time when the lack of sufficient regulation allowed people to sell snake oil and magic elixirs. Let's not relive that history. Let's learn from it.

I am sure many in this Chamber remember a time when the doctor would give us a prescription, we would take that to the local pharmacy, and the one thing we never did was question what was in the bottle. Now, with this amendment, we would not be so certain. We would not be sure that what is in the bottle is what we think it is. We would not be so certain from where it came. It could be directly from countries all over the world--Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, the Czech Republic, or any 1 of 28 other countries, and I will speak to that. Yes, I have heard they are part of the European Union, but I will talk about what the European Union just said about their challenges with counterfeit drugs. Or maybe they will come indirectly from any number of countries that have proven to make tainted medicine; those who are not part of the European Union but who are counterfeiting their drugs into the European Union, getting into their supply chain and ultimately getting to us, if we were to allow it to happen. We would not be absolutely sure of the conditions under which they were manufactured, whether they are safe to use, or where their ingredients originated.

Health care reform and lowering costs does not mean we should roll the dice with the health and safety of the American people.

I appreciate my colleagues' interest in bringing lower cost drugs to the market. In fact, I agree with them. But we cannot risk the health and safety of the American people in order to do it, and I am afraid this amendment would do just that.

We have heard a lot about the FDA--the Food and Drug Administration. Yes, they are the ones who safeguard Americans from having the wrong type of drugs get into our marketplace or making sure the right type of drugs are approved and the wrong ones stay out. I have heard the stories of Americans searching for affordable prescription drugs and either going online to get them or traveling sometimes. But we have to ensure the drugs they buy are not counterfeit, not tainted, not substandard, and that they are what the doctor ordered and will work.

This amendment would undo current safety protections that ensure that patients are getting prescription medications that are the same in substance, quality, and quantity their doctor has prescribed. So let's see what the FDA said.

In a letter from the Food and Drug Administration issued the other day to one of our colleagues in the Senate, Commissioner Hamburg said there are four potential risks to patients, in her opinion, that have to be addressed.

First, she is concerned that some imported drugs may not be safe and effective because they were not subject to a rigorous regulatory review prior to approval. Second, she says the drugs ``may not be a consistently made, high quality product because they were not manufactured in a facility that complied with appropriate good manufacturing procedures.''

Third, the drugs ``may not be substitutable with the FDA approved products because of differences in composition or manufacturing.''

And, fourth, the drugs simply ``may not be what they purport to be'' because inadequate safeguards in the supply chain may have allowed contamination or--worse--counterfeiting.

In addition, the FDA's letter went on to cite significant ``safety concerns related to allowing the importation of nonbioequivalent products . . . and confusion in distribution and labeling between foreign products and the domestic product.''

The FDA is also concerned it does not have clear authority over foreign supply chains. In other words, there is a very real risk that imported drugs either would not make us better or, yes, could very well make us worse.

One reason we never question what is in the bottle when we go to the pharmacy to fill our prescription is because the U.S. drug supply system is a closed system. That is why it is one of the safest in the world. Everyone in the system is subject to the FDA's oversight--to these very standards--and to strong penalties for failure to comply with the law.

The FDA would have to review data to determine whether the non-FDA- approved drug is safe, effective, and substitutable with the FDA- approved version. In addition, the FDA would need to review drug facilities all over the world to determine whether they manufacture high-quality products consistently.

It is clear that keeping our drug supply safe--in a global economy in which we cannot affect the motives and willingness of others to game the system for greed and profit--is a monumental task. It is not simply allowing for the importation of lower cost medications, as the proponents of this amendment would have us believe. It will require a global reach, extraordinary vigilance, and a serious investment to enforce the highest standards in parts of the world that have minimal standards now, so we don't have to ask which drug is real and which is counterfeit; so we don't have to wonder, if the packaging looks the same: Is it approved Tamiflu or is it counterfeit Tamiflu? The packaging looks the same, but is the content the same? One is approved; one is counterfeit.

When the swine flu was coming through and everybody started trying to get hold of Tamiflu, what did they do? They went online and got counterfeit Tamiflu which didn't do the job. In this photo, the answer is no. One is real, one is counterfeit. You can't tell the difference. Is this helping people save money, if they just paid for a counterfeit product? No. Is this an effective treatment for a contagious H1N1 flu, if you have just been fooled by a counterfeit bottle of Tamiflu because you thought it was cheaper? No. How is this in the best interest of the American people?

Here is another example--Lipitor. Can you tell which is counterfeit or approved Lipitor? They look the same. Americans who purchase them are told they are the same, but how do you tell the difference? Most people can't. So they will go about their normal routine each morning taking the so-called Lipitor, thinking they are treating their high blood pressure, but really they are walking around with the same silent killer and not taking the appropriate medication for it.

Another example, Aricept, a drug to slow the progression of Alzheimer's disease--something my mother was taking when she was alive. Can you tell the difference between the pills in this photo? No. And that is the problem.

The global economy opens global possibilities to counterfeiting these drugs. It opens the potential for these drugs--or the ingredients used in these drugs--to find their way from nation to nation, from Southeast Asia where the problem is epidemic to one of the 32 nations listed in the amendment that supposedly are safer, and then ultimately into American homes. That is a gamble we cannot afford to take. We should not have to wonder what is in the bottle.

Americans suffering from Alzheimer's should not have to wonder if the drug they are taking is real or counterfeit. By the time they figure that out, buying a drug either online or abroad that is counterfeit or not of the same substance or of a different dosage, it could be too late to help reverse the damage, as was promised.

One final example, Celebrex, used to treat arthritis and chronic pain. Can you tell the difference between these pills? No, and neither would those who continue to suffer if they are scammed into buying the counterfeit version. One is approved, one is counterfeit.

I fully appreciate my colleagues' desire to keep the cost of prescription drugs down, but our first task is to protect the safety of Americans and to prevent counterfeit drugs from infecting the American market.

The real problem is bringing down the cost of prescription drugs as part of overall health care reform, and the real solution is expanding access to affordable drugs in the United States.

I have heard several of my colleagues refer to 9 percent increases. What they fail to mention is the deep discounts the industry provides, particularly to the government and other entities, against that increase. They do not do that because, of course, it doesn't serve their purpose.

In this fight to create affordable drugs in the United States, I take a back seat to no one. But at the same time, I strongly believe we cannot roll the dice with the health and safety of the American people. This amendment is that roll of the dice. We should never put Americans in the position of having to worry about whether their medicine will make them better or worse. We should never put Americans in a position of wondering is that a real pill or is that a poison pill?

To see what happens if we allow importation we only need to look to the European Union. One of my colleagues earlier today used it as an example as to why we should pass this amendment. But I listened to the words of the European Union, and I hear quite the opposite.

Earlier this week, the European Union Commissioner in charge of this issue said:

The number of counterfeit medicines arriving in Europe . .

. is constantly growing. The European Commission is extremely

worried.

To quote another section of the statement:

In just 2 months, the European Union seized 34 million fake

tablets at custom points in all member countries. This

exceeded our worst fears.

It went on to say:

Every fake drug is a potential massacre. Even when a

medicine only contains an ineffective substance, this can

lead to people dying because they think they are fighting

their illness with a real drug.

I expect the EU will agree in 2010 that a drug's journey

from manufacture to sale should be scrutinized carefully.

He goes on to talk about other safeguards.

So, in fact, the very essence of what some claim is the very reason we should allow importation, the European Union is saying, quite to the contrary, that they think this is a huge problem for them and, in fact, what seems to be an action that would not hurt someone can actually mean the difference between life and death.

I don't want American families to see those fears come to life. Yes, counterfeit drugs may happen, but if we pass the amendment, we just open the floodgates. The European Union's experience only proves my concerns, not alleviates them like some others suggest. A $75 counterfeit cancer drug that only contains half of the dosage that a person has been prescribed and needs does not save Americans money and certainly is not worth the price in terms of dollars or risk to life. Let's not now open national borders to insufficiently regulated drugs from around the world.

Finally, in a different dimension, I think safety is utmost, but at a time of joblessness in this country, I don't want to offshore those jobs abroad to allow contaminated and counterfeit prescription drugs to come into this country. We are attacking the one last major research and manufacturing entity in the United States, one that has been at the forefront of the health care reform effort and put $80 billion of its own money in for reform. I want to see more partners like that in this process.

Let's reject this amendment. Let's keep our drug supply one of the safest in the world.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, health care reform legislation we are considering is good for America, it is good for women and for families. It is a health care reform bill; it is not an abortion bill. In fact, not a dime of taxpayers' money goes to subsidize abortion coverage in this bill. It is, in fact, abortion neutral.

This amendment, however, would change that. It would roll back the clock on a woman's right to choose. It unfairly singles women out and takes away benefits they already have. It singles out our daughters and legislates limits on their reproductive health, their reproductive rights. If we were to do the same to men, if we were to single out men's reproductive health in this legislation, imagine the outcry. Imagine if men were denied access to certain procedures. Imagine if they were denied access to certain prescription drugs. Imagine if the majority had to suffer the decision of the minority. But that is exactly what we are being asked to do to our daughters with this amendment--rolling back the hands of time. I personally find that offensive, as do women across this country.

The language of this bill has been carefully negotiated to ensure that we are preserving a woman's right to choose but doing so without Federal funding. To claim otherwise is hypocritical and misleading.

We need not fight all battles that have nothing to do with the real issue at hand--that millions of Americans do not have health insurance and many are being forced into debt to buy coverage that insurers later deny. But now, instead, we are not only reopening long-settled debates over this issue, we are actually faced with a proposal that would turn back the clock and deny women access to reproductive health care. It is the wrong debate at the wrong time.

Over the years, we have made extraordinary progress in addressing women's reproductive rights. We have debated this issue in the Senate. We have debated it in our churches, in our homes, in our communities, and in the U.S. Supreme Court that has said a woman's right to choose is the law of the land. Let's not turn back the clock.

I respect the deeply held views of my friend from Nebraska and the deeply held views of my friend from Utah. I know we will debate the issue many times in many forums. They will raise their voices in protest of a woman's right to choose, as I will raise mine to protect it. But this is neither the time nor the legislative vehicle for hot- button politics to get in the way of badly needed health care reform.

The language in this bill is clear: It preserves a woman's reproductive rights without any taxpayer funding. Yet we are engaged in a debate in which we are basically being told that neutrality is not good enough; that there needs to be an antichoice bill, not a health care reform bill; that neutrality on the issue is not acceptable; that only effectively banning abortion is acceptable. We are not going to be dragged down that road, and the women of this country will not stand for it. Certainly, this Senator will not either.

The sponsors claim the amendment simply reinforces existing law restricting Federal funding of abortion coverage. Let's be very clear: There is no taxpayer money going to a woman's reproductive choices-- none--and to say otherwise is simply wrong.

The fact is, this amendment that clearly takes us back in time would leave our daughters with the same hopeless lack of options their grandmothers faced, and that is not where we ought to be.

This amendment would make it virtually impossible for insurance plans in the exchange to offer abortion coverage even if a woman were to pay premiums entirely out of her own pocket. It would do so by forbidding any plan that includes abortion coverage from accepting even one subsidized customer.

This amendment is nothing more than a backdoor effort to restrict rights women already have. Would I like to see it clearly stated in this legislation that a woman should have a right to choose and all aspects of her reproductive health should be available under every plan? Yes, I would. But am I willing to accept neutrality as a reasonable compromise for the sake of passage of a bill that will provide affordable, accessible health care to every American and not spend a dime of taxpayers' money on women's reproductive choices? I will.

Under this bill, if a plan chooses to provide abortion coverage, only private funds can go toward that care. That is further than I would like to go, but it is neutrality. In this bill, in each State exchange, there would be at least one plan that covers abortion and one plan that does not. That is neutrality. It is fair. Let's accept it and move on.

Under this legislation, women will keep their fundamental right to reproductive health benefits and gain other benefits.

That is what we should do in terms of the underlying bill. Let's vote down this amendment. Let's not turn back the clock.

Mr. President, for many months the voices of opposition to any health care reform have been loud and clear. They have been shouting at townhall meetings and heard in debates in this Chamber. All too often, we have heard shrill voices raised in anger from those who are either misinformed or who would choose the status quo that benefits insurers at the expense of families. For too long those voices have gone unanswered.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act we are about to consider is our answer. It is loud and it is clear. It is thoughtful and historic. Once again, like so many other pieces of landmark legislation in the last century, it is a product of this side of the aisle.

Those who have chosen to block any attempt at health care reform this year are on the wrong side of history, just as those who came before them had one response to every landmark piece of legislation for the last 80 years. Their response has been a resounding ``no.'' They told us that it is not good for business, that it is socialism, that it stifles free market forces, and that it is too much and it goes too far.

We have heard the same fear mongering and innuendo since the New Deal. There are those who raised the specter of socialism then and said no to Social Security. They said no to unemployment insurance when President Roosevelt proposed it as part of the Social Security Act. They said no when John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson fought for Medicare. They said no to the Civil Rights Act. They said no to the Voting Rights Act. They said no to the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. They said no to jobs programs. They said no to increasing unemployment insurance, when people needed it the most. They said no to government oversight of polluters who poison our land with toxic waste, and then they said no to cleaning it up. They have been on the wrong side of history for almost a century on every major piece of legislation that has leveled the playing field for average Americans. They are on the wrong side of history once again.

All we hear from the other side of the aisle is the dim echo of the past, with no plan for the future. Americans are tired of the naysayers, tired of the shrill voices of no, when so much is at stake. It is time to say yes, time to say yes to stopping greedy insurance companies from standing between doctor and patients, time to say yes to ending medical decisions based on risk management and the bottom line rather than on saving people's lives.

This historic legislation, like so many other pieces of legislation debated on this floor, is about people--their lives, their hopes, their health, and their dreams for a better life for themselves and their families. We can be proud of this legislation. I know that when the dust settles and the provisions of this bill become clear, America will be proud of it as well.

This landmark reform legislation includes State-based exchanges creating a fair, open, and competitive marketplace for affordable health care coverage. It includes an amendment I proposed for long- overdue consumer protections for emergency services without having to call your health care provider and get a prior authorization. It requires insurance plans to provide behavioral health treatments, such as those for children who face the challenges of autism, as part of the minimum benefit standards. It encourages investments in youth therapies to prevent, diagnose, and treat acute and chronic disease. There is a tax credit for innovative biotechnology research. It ensures that minor children qualify as exchange-eligible and provides for the availability of child-only health insurance coverage in the exchanges. It stops insurance companies from denying coverage for some preexisting condition, some preexisting health status, or gender. It ends the medical benefits shell game that insurers have played with people's lives.

As soon as this bill passes and the President signs it into law, 1.3 million seniors in New Jersey will receive free preventive care, such as colonoscopies or any other recommended preventive service; 227,000 New Jersey seniors will have their brand-name drug costs in Medicare Part D cut in half; 854,000 New Jerseyans will qualify for tax credits to help them buy health insurance and ease the burden of premiums, deductibles, and copayments; 107,000 small businesses in New Jersey could get a small business tax credit--up to 50 percent of premium. Health care reform will end the hidden tax that gets passed along with the $1.1 billion spent on uncompensated care in New Jersey. It will provide portability, security, and choice through the health insurance exchange for 1.5 million New Jersey residents who don't have health insurance at all.

The bottom line is that Senator Reid's merged bill helps New Jersey and America. It is fair, balanced, and fixes a badly broken system. It is truly a historic piece of legislation and will be remembered as such. Yet there are all those who will stand against all of it, those who will stand firmly on the wrong side of history once again, those who will use every legislative tactic to stop this legislation as they tried to stop Social Security and Medicare. I am afraid history is about to repeat itself.

We have seen that the truth has been a victim on the Senate floor today. We listened to some of the most dire predictions, some of the most incredible statements, with figures thrown out there that are astronomical, simply not true, and in defiance of what the nonpartisan CBO said, which we all depend on--Democrats and Republicans. They said this bill actually cuts the deficit by $130 billion in the first 10 years and $650 billion in the second 10 years.

In the face of a health care system that seems to work only for health insurers--certainly not for average Americans--one must ask what, if any, health care reform are my friends on the other side for. What were their predecessors for when Americans were standing in bread lines and needed unemployment insurance? What were they for when they voted against Medicare? What are our Republican colleagues for now? They seem to be for one thing only: protecting the status quo, leaving health care just the way it is, letting insurers make medical decisions, letting insurers collect premiums and then find creative ways to deny coverage.

On the other hand, this bill represents the change America voted for. But as we have seen, change does not come easily. You have to work for it. You have to fight for it. Sometimes, in the face of the naysayers and fear mongers, you need more than the truth, common sense, and even a good plan; you need to fight for what you know is the right thing to do for every American, not the few, not the powerful and the well- connected but everyone.

At the heart of it, this vote we will cast tonight is about change. We can see how hard real, honest, commonsense change is. We must ask ourselves: Do we continue to be the agents of change or do we stand with the status quo that discriminates against

hard-working Americans who are denied health coverage because of preexisting conditions? Do we continue to be agents of change or do we stand with the status quo and deny coverage to women when they are pregnant? Do we continue to be agents of change, however hard it may be, or do we continue to deny millions of Americans access to quality, affordable care?

History calls on us to stand on rare occasions for what is fair and just and right for the American people. This is one of those occasions. It requires more than parliamentary maneuvers to slow the process. It requires more than voices raised under the banner of free market values at the expense of fundamental human values. It requires doing what is right for the American people. Only then will we find ourselves on the right side of history. That is what this vote is about.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, to my colleague from New York, Senator Bennet and I are here on a different matter. If the Senator will be brief, I am happy to wait until he finishes.

Madam President, I know my colleague from Colorado, Senator Bennet, wants to speak to this issue as well. He has been a champion, along with me and several others, to try to bring justice to an issue that is incredibly important.

It is no secret that decades of indifference and discrimination in lending practices at the U.S. Department of Agriculture have made it difficult for minority farmers--specifically Hispanic farmers--to make a living at what they love to do and have done, in many cases, for generations, leaving many no choice but to leave the farms and ranches they have tended to all of their lives.

In the year 2000, 110 Hispanic farmers brought a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture for the same egregious discriminatory practices that resulted in a historic settlement with African-American farmers. For 8 long years, under the last administration, thousands of Hispanic farmers who joined the suit waited and waited and waited for justice. Some of them died waiting and will never be made whole. For 8 long years, the Bush administration did nothing.

These hard-working farmers, Hispanic families, who bought a piece of land and built a family farm--their small piece of the American dream-- were wrongly denied loans and other benefits in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act by county committees that review Farm Service Administration credit and loan applications for approval. Consequently, these farmers filed suit in the hope that it would change the discriminatory practices at the USDA, how it treated America's minority farmers; but under the Bush administration, nothing changed, the discrimination continued.

Then something did change. We got a new President and a new Secretary of Agriculture, who described past practices at the U.S. Department of Agriculture as ``a conspiracy to force minority and socially disadvantaged farmers off of their land.'' Consequently, the administration committed to appropriate $1.25 billion in the fiscal 2010 budget to settle some of the outstanding discrimination lawsuits but not all of them. To date, Hispanic farmers, women, and Native Americans have not yet seen a settlement.

We need to remedy this situation once and for all. The new U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary needs to make these farmers whole. Secretary Vilsak has created a task force to review the park and civil rights complaints and announce new efforts for the U.S. Department of Agriculture to end any and all discriminatory practices, and I commend the secretary for addressing this lingering issue. But more needs to be done.

As I said, along with seven of my colleagues, in a letter to the President, quoting from that letter, we said:

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's corrective role in

this instance has been clearly laid out, and there remains no

legitimate reason to delay action for any of the affected

groups.

The fact is that 8 years after a do-nothing Republican administration that earned the U.S. Department of Agriculture the designation of ``the last plantation,'' putting people's lives and livelihoods at risk, we simply cannot wait any longer. Certainly, for example, Alfonso and Vera Chavez cannot wait any longer. The Fresno Bee reported last week that Mr. and Mrs. Chavez stopped farming 7 years ago when they could not get a USDA loan. In fact, they said they not only could not get the loan but they were discouraged from applying and, even worse, they believed they were given misinformation so they would not apply. To quote Vera Chavez, who told the reporter, ``It was like they didn't want us to have the money.''

Mr. and Mrs. Chavez owned 300 acres. They sold off 200 of those acres, shut down their packing house, and leased the remaining hundred acres to survive. Vera said, ``It is why we have been hanging onto those 100 acres, so my children and grandchildren can have a little piece of land we worked so hard to get. I am not going to give up. But we have written so many letters, had so many meetings, and nothing seems to be moving forward.''

We need to move this forward. It is about fairness, about doing what is right. When we see discrimination in any form, and when those who have been wronged because of their race, gender, or heritage are forced to sell what they have worked a lifetime to build--abandoned by the last administration that cared more about Wall Street than Main Street--we have to make things right for them, for people like Vera and Alfonso Chavez. We need to make sure that they can keep their farms and give them back their lives. All these farmers are asking for is a commonsense solution sooner rather than later, because they have waited long enough.

I received a letter that is addressed to the President. It is a letter from the named plaintiff in the landmark case Pigford v. Glickman. That was a case that brought together African-American farmers in that landmark decision, who were also discriminated against. The letter to the President by Mr. Pigford says, referring to Hispanic, Native-American, and women farmers:

They have suffered the same discrimination by the United

States Department of Agriculture as African American farmers.

Just as USDA addressed the claims of African Americans on a

classwide basis, it should similarly settle the

discrimination claims of Hispanic and other minority farmers

on a classwide basis.

. . . Furthermore, it makes no sense for four minority

groups to suffer the identical discrimination from the same

federal agency and yet only one of those four groups to be

compensated on a classwide basis.

It goes on to say:

Mr. President, fundamental fairness and simple practice

demand that you close the entire book on all discrimination

at USDA and, consistent with section 14011, ``resolve all

pending claims and class actions in an expeditious and just

manner.''

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record Mr. Pigford's letter to the President.

We urge Secretary Vilsak to ensure all farmers will be granted the same consideration so they can begin to rebuild their lives and their farms this year. Despite clear language in section 14011 of the Food Conservation and Energy Act of 2008, which urges the administration to settle lawsuits brought by Hispanic and other farmers, the administration clearly needs to assure Hispanic farmers, many who have come to me, Senator Bennet, and others to ask for help, that it fully intends to address these cases consistent with section 14011 of the 2008 farm bill.

We simply cannot continue down this winding road to nowhere. To ignore the plight of the thousands of Hispanic farmers, families who seek nothing more than justice, who want only a chance to keep the farms and ranches they worked so hard for all of their lives, is wrong.

For 8 years, thousands of families like the Chavezes were ignored. Now we need to change that. We need to move quickly to resolve what is clearly and patently unfair and unjust. You will never turn the page on the past discriminatory practices within USDA until all victims--every last one of them--are made whole for the loss of their land, their dignity, and their hope for a decent life for themselves and their families. Let us move quickly to give them the chance they have waited for, the chance to rebuild their lives.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I understand there is a pending amendment before the Senate. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 2741.

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

Mr. President, we are often reminded of the special sacrifice military families make in service to our country.

Memorial Day and Veterans Day are just two occasions when we as Americans take a moment to acknowledge our military men and women, those who have served in uniform.

We pause for a moment of silence. We bow our head for the fallen. Family members visit the final resting place of those they have lost.

We think of those hallowed grounds, those special places, the lines of crosses at Normandy, the graves at Arlington, the tomb of the unknown soldier, veterans cemeteries across America, and we remember all those who have served this Nation with honor.

One of the ways that we can honor them and their families is by covering the cost of burial for veterans, their spouses, and their dependent children in Federal veterans' cemeteries.

Unfortunately, we have not adequately funded these cemeteries in the past and as the greatest generation ages, our ability to keep the promise of a free resting place for each of them is becoming increasingly difficult to keep.

Across America and in my home State of New Jersey, Federal cemeteries are having problems keeping up with requests for burial. As these cemeteries become overcrowded, veterans and their families are turned away from a benefit they earned through their service. In fact, 10 States do not even have Federal cemeteries, but have managed to set aside State cemeteries.

The very least we can do is provide funding for these State veterans' cemeteries which would be a cost-effective way for the VA to provide veterans with the burial benefits they were promised.

Veterans who have lived their whole lives in one place, a place with special meaning to them and to their families should have a final resting place based on the veterans cemetery in their location of choice, not the Veterans Administration's funding choice.

My amendment would simply increase Federal funding for State cemeteries by $4 million so that we can have the resources to keep our promise and provide our heroes with the dignity, respect, and honor they deserve.

Honoring America's veterans is not solely reserved for Memorial Day and Veterans Day.

This commitment to State veterans' cemeteries reinforces America's respect for its veterans and their families. They have already given their service to this country; the least we can do is give them a final resting place with their brothers and sisters who served.

Arlington cemetery is an inspiring place. We have all seen it. We have all been there. We are awed by its majesty and what it says about America, about who we are as a Nation, and what we stand for as a people.

Let us give every State an Arlington to inspire the next generations to live up to the promise of America. We owe our veterans the choice to be buried with their families at a cemetery based on location and not economics.

I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about the pending business before the Senate, the unemployment insurance extension, and I rise today to say that it should come as a surprise to no one that we have a jobs crisis in America. To help fix it in the short term, we need to extend unemployment insurance benefits to help families who are suffering through the worst job market in many years, not obstruct and stonewall to score political points.

I sometimes wonder whether my colleagues understand that people's lives are in the balance. It is not a time for political grandstanding, not a time to once again say no--no to everything, no to the people who need help. This is not a time for amendments about ACORN or E-Verify-- amendments that have been offered and voted on on the floor of the Senate time and time and time again. It is nice that those people who offer them get their paychecks direct deposited every 2 weeks. This is not the time to offer those amendments again after the job crisis this administration inherited.

Unemployment in New Jersey is at 9.8 percent, just shy of double- digit unemployment, and the experts tell us it will get worse before it gets better. This is not the time to keep saying no, especially when we are trying to come out of the policies of the last 8 years that brought us to these present economic circumstances, the policies of the last administration that favored the bottom line over the lives of people-- Wall Street over Main Street--and sent millions of jobs overseas, leaving us vulnerable to any economic downturn, let alone one as severe as the one we were left with.

When the economy sheds 263,000 jobs in 1 month alone, it is a crisis. When 14.9 million Americans are unemployed, and we know that there are only 3 million jobs available, it is not the time to say no. When over a third of all unemployed--more than 5 million Americans--have been jobless for 6 months or longer, and 500,000 Americans will exhaust their unemployment benefits this month--1.5 million by the end of the year--we have to say yes to extending unemployment benefits.

We could recite the numbers all day. We could hold up chart after chart showing State by State the unemployment figures. But as the Presiding Officer knows, from his own comments on the Senate floor, the numbers don't tell us what this is all about. It is about people and their lives and their hopes, and the look on their faces when the bill comes due and the fear that they could stand to lose everything. Everywhere I go, when I am back home, someone comes up to me and I see that look on their face. It is a look of panic. It is a look of anguish. They lost their job after the holidays, their benefits are about to run out, they lost their health care, they are behind on their mortgage, their husband or wife is working two part-time jobs to try to make up. The story of these troubled times is not in the numbers, it is in the faces of those families who are looking to us for help.

The numbers are significant, but they are merely a snapshot frozen in time. The truth of joblessness in this country is an ever-changing story of men and women who are one check away from ruin--mothers and fathers who have struggled all their lives to make ends meet, who had a good job for years, made a decent wage, then saw 8 years of government policies that favored Wall Street over Main Street. They watched their companies downsize for greater productivity and send jobs overseas. They watched their friends being laid off. They went to bed at night praying that they would not be next, and then they got the news: They were next.

But they had hope because of the wisdom of Franklin Roosevelt, who on August 14, 1935--74 years ago--signed into law the Social Security Act, which included the first provisions for unemployment insurance. The Republican opposition in his day called him a socialist and they tried everything they could to stop the New Deal, notwithstanding an economy in depression. For F.D.R., the story was not in the numbers, it was in the faces of the people in grainy black and white photographs, of bread lines and old women selling apples on street corners.

Today the faces of the unemployed are no different. Their need for help is the same, and our duty to provide it is the same.

This is about them. It is about real people who maybe, just maybe--if we have the will and the wisdom to do what is obviously right sooner rather than later--will look across the kitchen table tonight, knowing they are able to hold on just a little longer.

I know there are those who have bought into the notion that government is the problem for everything; that it can do nothing right and should stay out of just about everything; that the free market should be left to its own devices and everyone should fend for themselves without government oversight or involvement. Those are the same views that fought the New Deal. They fought against Social Security and Medicare and civil rights. They supported Reaganomics. They told us the government was the problem and Wall Street knows best.

I think history, especially recent history, has proven them wrong. Good, well-run, decent, honest government can be part of the solution. This is one of those times when it is government's responsibility to act. Extending unemployment insurance is what we, as responsible government leaders, must do when there are those in the community who have no other option. This is not a time to say no. To delay voting on this bill is to turn our backs on millions across this Nation who are still unemployed and facing financial disaster. To look into their faces and say no is not who we are as a people or what we stand for as a nation. We are a community, united by shared values and common concerns, not a nation of 300 million disconnected individuals. The plight of any one of us should be a concern to all of us.

The Federal Government stepped in at the right time to help companies we determined were too big to fail--not for the sake of them failing but for the sake of what they would do to our national economy. We said they were too big to fail. I say the American people are too big to fail. Now we have to step in and help them. This is America. We do not let the situation get the best of us. We take it as an opportunity, as Franklin Roosevelt did, to renew the promise of this Nation, to recommit ourselves to the concept and spirit of community--one nation, indivisible.

Whether that means 20 more weeks of Federal aid for those who still cannot find a job, those who wake up every day with the want ads in one hand and their resume in another trying to figure out how they can match them up and get that job, or whether it is providing incentives to home owners to boost the economy, we have always risen to the challenge. We have done it before, and we can do it again. This is our chance for each of us in this Chamber to do what is right for every American who is looking to us for a little help and a little hope. It is not the time to say no again.

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

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Maryland for yielding.

Amendment No. 2630

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 5:55 p.m. be for

debate prior to a vote in relation to the Vitter amendment No. 2630, with the time equally divided and controlled in the usual form, and that at 5:55 p.m. the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Vitter amendment No. 2630, with no amendment in order to the amendment prior to the vote.

Mr. President, I rise to speak against the Vitter amendment. This amendment is downright dangerous. It is dangerous to threaten policing funds to cities such as New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington, DC, and smaller towns across America that have chosen to encourage their community members to report crime.

The Senate tabled this same amendment last year. The reason this body was wise enough to defeat it last year was because we understood that some of the toughest law enforcement officials in our country, from sheriffs to prosecutors, and a whole host of law enforcement officials in between, understand the cooperation of the communities essential in fighting crime. Senator Vitter's amendment would deny moneys to at least 50 cities in a whole host of States represented by Members on both sides of the aisle.

I want to solve the crime. I want to get the perpetrator. I want to convict the person and put them in jail. I don't want the opportunity to go to waste because of some political statement having nothing to do with the core issue of security in our communities. Do we want witnesses to be able to come forward and provide essential, crucial eye witness testimony about the crime or do we want them to hide in the darkness and not talk to police because they are afraid of their immigration status? I want to make sure a witness comes forth and testifies against a perpetrator and has no fear to do so. That is why local police oppose this amendment.

The unwillingness of that person to come forward because of a fear may lead to other crimes being committed by that same individual in the same community; perhaps to a child who might be molested, to a person who might be assaulted, to a family who might get robbed.

So instead of catching the perpetrator, we prefer to deny moneys to communities that have a view that community policing is in their best interests and that means bringing the community in as part of that effort. These cities have made decisions across the landscape of this country--urban, suburban, and rural--to say we care more about prosecuting the crime and finding the criminal and having the witness come forward to tell us all about that crime so we can stop that person from continuing to perpetrate crimes against other people in our communities than we care about the person's status. These cities have decided they do not want a chilling effect to prevent people from reporting crime.

That is what tough law enforcement will tell you. Sheriffs will tell you, prosecutors will tell you, police chiefs will tell you, and they will tell you they want the community to participate in fighting crime. That is why we should vote to table the Vitter amendment.

Mr. President, I move to table, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I rise to extend my deepest congratulations to Drs. Willard S. Boyle and George E. Smith--two New Jersey scientists who have been awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics, an incredible honor for extraordinary ingenuity in their chosen field and fitting recognition for their outstanding achievement.

They have expanded the boundaries of science, inventing something most of us do not understand, but which has made a difference in our lives. The invention of the charged-coupled device,

or CCD, now found in digital cameras used around the world and by NASA on the ground-breaking Hubble Telescope, revolutionized how we take photographs and manipulate and transfer images. It has given us insight into the deepest reaches of space, allowed us to see remarkable images that have made us better understand the vastness and magnificence of the universe, and better appreciate the simple images in our family photographs.

Dr. Boyle and Dr. Smith have done their work at Bell Laboratories in Murray Hill, NJ, and now have enriched our State's proud tradition of scientific breakthrough and innovation. We can add their names to those of Albert Einstein, who made Princeton his base, and Thomas Edison, who from his Garden State lab invented the incandescent light bulb that lit the world. The names of Boyle and Smith will now loom large in the scientific history of our State. They have made New Jersey and the United States very proud.

Their contribution to science is in their remarkable discovery, but their legacy to mankind is in their pioneering spirit, their ingenuity, and their quest to look further, think harder, and discover what no one else could.

I join with my colleagues and with every American in thanking them for making our lives better and wish them the very best as they continue careers that brought them to this place, having earned a Nobel Prize almost 40 years to the day after they began their long scientific journey.

To Dr. Boyle and Dr. Smith, we offer the best wishes of a grateful Nation.