Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise to speak about the supplemental that is before the Senate in terms of the appropriations. Much of this bill is about supporting the men and women wearing the uniform of the United States who are serving this country around the world and acting as sentinels for America's freedom around the world.

The question is, Will we appropriate the resources necessary to match the challenge we have given them and the call to service we have asked of them? That is what this appropriations supplemental bill is largely all about.

In that context, there is one particular area of funding that doesn't go to where we have troops but where we, in fact, care about what is happening in part of the world, and that is Pakistan. We care about it because it is along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border; the area where, in fact, Osama bin Laden likely exists; the area al-Qaida is operating in, crossing back and forth along that border in order to attack our troops in Afghanistan; and also because of the Taliban. So we have clear national security interests as it relates to that part of the world.

We all agree the situation in Pakistan is probably at the top of the list of our most serious national security challenges because this is where al-Qaida has reconstituted itself, and this was the entity, along with bin Laden, that struck us on that fateful day of September 11.

Late last month, the Secretary of State warned us that Pakistan's government is facing an ``existential threat'' from Islamist militants who have established operations dangerously close to the capital city of Islamabad. These are militants who wish to do us harm, plot new terrorist attacks or, God forbid, seize control of that country's nuclear arsenal. There are plenty of reasons for the United States to be engaged. Since 2001, Pakistan has received more than $12 billion in assistance from the U.S. Government. The idea behind the assistance has been to support democratic institutions, human rights, economic development, along with counterterrorism operations to fight the Taliban and al-Qaida and create the conditions for stability in the country.

Unfortunately, under the lax oversight of the Bush administration, that assistance had very few strings attached to it, and under that administration it is hard to see what kind of results we actually achieved for the money we spent. Democracy and institutions of civil society are as fragile as

ever, the Taliban is expanding its reach, and we have heard reports about the Pakistani Government expanding its nuclear arsenal. So $12 billion later, the way we sent assistance may or may not have worked for Pakistan, but it certainly didn't work for us.

So, Madam President, we have to constantly ask ourselves: How are we using our money in pursuit of our national interests and our national security interest, and what type of benchmarks and progress are we making so that we can, in fact, respond both as fiduciaries to the taxpayers of the country and, at the same time, in measuring benchmarks toward our national security goals?

It is our responsibility to see that there is transparency and accountability in whatever assistance we are providing, and as the administration makes the case to reverse what it acknowledges are ``rapidly deteriorating security and economic conditions'' there, we have to make sure the funding we are sending over is actually doing its part to make the situation better.

We have to ask those questions about the Pakistan funding in this current supplemental bill as well. For starters, in this supplemental, I think when we look at it, it is pretty significant. There is over $1.6 billion in the supplemental for Pakistan, including $400 million for the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund, $439 million in economic support funds, and $700 million in coalition support funds.

I am concerned about the funding, but I want to specifically talk about the $700 million in coalition support funds. Those funds are used to reimburse the Pakistani Government for the logistical and military expenses of fighting Islamist militants.

As the Pakistani military increases these activities--and we have seen those military activities finally take place in a way that we think is moving in the right direction--those coalition support funds are expected to increase substantially as well. So if we are going to have a shot at the militants, we are going to need to provide support. And we are agreed on that, I think. But that does not mean we should be sending out blank checks.

Along with my distinguished colleague from Iowa, Senator Harkin, and several colleagues in the House, we suggested the Government Accountability Office look into the assistance we provided to Pakistan, including the $6.9 billion in coalition support funds it received. In a June 2008 report, the GAO found that the Pentagon did not consistently verify Pakistani claims for reimbursement, and additional oversight controls were needed.

Here is an example from that report. The United States was reimbursing the Pakistani Government $19,000 per month for each of about 20 passenger vehicles, about $9 million in total, even though we later found out that we were paying for the same 20 vehicles over and over.

A February 2009 report that we also asked for echoed and confirmed those findings and said that the Pentagon needed to improve oversight of coalition support funds reimbursements.

Earlier today at a Foreign Relations hearing I asked Admiral Mullen, and he acknowledged we have not had good controls in the past on coalition support funds, but he assured the committee the controls have improved and additional steps are being taken to make sure the funds are being used wisely.

The Deputy Secretary of Defense outlined these steps in a letter to Chairman Kerry last month, including new guidelines, additional face- to-face meetings with Pakistani counterparts, and additional visits by the Department of Defense to Pakistan to refine the coalition support fund claim processing and validate procedures.

Personally, I have met with Ambassador Holbrooke, our special envoy to this region, as well as questioned Secretary Clinton yesterday before the Foreign Relations Committee, and they both assured me this administration is developing metrics to measure success and change the way we engage in Pakistan so we can defeat the militants and bring stability to the country and the region. I am pleased to see these steps being taken and I look forward to closely monitoring them as we move forward.

Let me conclude by saying we all realize that conditions on the ground make detailed reporting and accountability a major challenge. We cannot expect to be getting daily comprehensive spreadsheets e-mailed from every remote mountain region. But as best as we can, it is the responsibility of this Congress to ensure that all of our funds are being used in a manner that is advancing our national interests and our national security interests.

With these changes that have taken place, I think--partly because we have asked for these reports, partly because of the questioning at these hearings, partly because of the new leadership of the administration--I plan to vote for the supplemental. In doing so, however, I want to send a very clear message that it is not and should not be construed as a blank check. I have concerns with the coalition support fund program and concern about Pakistan's nuclear program. Money is fungible, and I am concerned as we send money to Pakistan for one purpose that frees up their money to be buying nuclear weapons, something that is not in our interest or in the interest of that part of the world. I am glad the Obama administration is taking steps to ensure accountability and in the future we need to do even more. We need to be sure we do not wind up right back here a year from now, having to say the same things. We cannot afford to yet again take one step forward and two steps back, and above all we cannot afford to be sending such resources without achieving the national goals of security and the interests we have. That is the best way to make sure we do not lose sight of our goal here and that is also the best way we keep America safe.

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

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, we see gathering clouds in this economic storm and those clouds are credit card debt. At the very same time that it is becoming harder to get new credit, Americans have almost a trillion dollars of credit card debt outstanding. Defaults are rising and delinquencies are at a 6-year high. It is clear this isn't only a question of consumers overspending. Credit card companies are trying to boost their profit with deceptive practices and making the situation worse. People are seeing so much of their paychecks eaten up by late fees, over-the-limit fees, and interest payments that today companies can unilaterally increase at any time. Credit card companies are pushing cards on college students who can't afford them and teenagers are winding up with a lifetime of debt.

Companies are raising interest rates on consumers and customers who have a perfect record with their credit card but miss a payment with some other creditor. Maybe worst of all, if you have a credit card, chances are there is a line in the fine print that says the company can change the rules at any time. Considering some of the changes companies have made already, who knows what they could do tomorrow.

I have heard from thousands of people in New Jersey who feel their credit card contracts are booby-trapped, that their credit card agreements conceal all kinds of trapdoors behind a layer of fine print. Take one false step and your credit rating plummets and your interest rate shoots through the roof.

These are the same kinds of stories we started hearing as the foreclosure crisis began. Right now there is nothing stopping credit card companies from doing this to consumers--no law, no level playing field, no protection for the average American, no way to get the kind of fair treatment we expect as a matter of common sense.

When some people see that their interest rate has shot through the roof for no apparent reason, they call and plead with their companies for help, but their fate lies solely in the hands of the credit card companies. If the companies don't want to help, they are out of luck and stuck with an even bigger mountain of debt. Meanwhile, credit card companies are still making multibillion-dollar profits. This isn't just impacting the lives of individual Americans and families trying to make ends meet; it has major ramifications for the entire economy.

One of our major economic challenges right now is getting credit flowing again but not at the high price credit card companies are imposing. The economy is never going to get running at full speed again if consumers can't get their bearings because they have fallen behind on a payment treadmill that credit card companies keep speeding up. If there is any time to end deceptive practices and level the playing field, it is now.

Credit card reform is something I have been calling for since I set foot in the Senate. In 2006, one of the first pieces of legislation I introduced was an effort to reform credit card practices. Even then it was clear credit card debt was a looming problem that had the potential to wreak havoc on American families unless we achieved commonsense reforms. If there is one thing we have learned from this economic crisis, it is that we can't wait for a dangerous situation to reach full-blown crisis proportions before we act.

This Congress, as I have done for several Congresses, I introduced the Credit Card Reform Act to tackle essentially the same issues this current bill deals with, including banning retroactive rate increases, protecting young consumers from being sucked into the cycle of debt, reasonably tying fees to costs, and prohibiting unilateral changes to agreements.

We have $1 trillion collective debt in credit cards. That is how big this issue is. I am proud to see Chairman Dodd's credit card reform bill includes many of the provisions I included in my bill and have championed for years. His leadership is what has brought us to the floor today. I included in my bill many of those provisions, and we have championed them together.

Though in some cases I would like to see different provisions that I think would make for stronger legislation, I still look forward to working with the chairman on one or two of those. But this bill represents one of the strongest, most comprehensive efforts yet to end some of the most egregious practices of credit card issuers, while making sure that Americans young and old don't fall so easily into financial traps.

The principle behind this bill is simple: Companies should be clear about the rules upfront, and they should not change them in the middle of the game. The bill says, similar to a provision I have been pushing, if companies want to change the terms of credit card agreements, they have to give reasonable notice before they do so. It will end an industry practice known as universal default on existing credit balances so companies don't raise interest rates on customers' outstanding debt when they have a perfect record with that credit card but maybe miss a payment by a few days with some other creditor.

I called for this in my bill, and I am proud to see Chairman Dodd has it in his. I am also proud he included a provision I called for in my bill to make sure that when fees are imposed, they are reasonably tied to the original violation or omission that triggered the fee, not just the companies' desire to increase profits.

This bill will discourage the bait-and-switch tactics behind the preapproved offers that almost every American consumer has seen come into their mailbox, an idea I also put forward strongly in my own bill. When you get a card offer, the offer should be real. The terms should not be so good to be true that it fades away once you apply for the card. This legislation will provide recourse for consumers, if a card issuer tries a sleight of hand and changes the terms in the fine print.

One of the things I have been focused on--and I am glad to see it in this

bill--will protect young consumers from credit card solicitations they didn't ask for. I am convinced, having seen my own children, when they were in college and studying but not working, get an incredible number of preapproved credit cards, I could stack them this high, or my State director's 2-year-old who got a preapproved credit card, if you have a Social Security number and a pulse that, in fact, you can get a credit card.

I am proud this bill includes a provision that says people under 21 can proactively opt in to receive credit offers, but they will no longer will be lured into deals unless the decision is their own. It would also ensure that when college students do opt in and apply for a credit card, they prove that they or a cosigner can actually make the payments on that debt before they get that card. That is something I even think should be considered more broadly, ability to pay as a fundamental essence.

This way we don't get people on the march of bad debt, bad credit, and all the consequences that flow therefrom. For far too many people, credit card debt is already a personal financial crisis. If we don't act soon, it could grow to become a national financial crisis. Already there is a trillion dollars in collective debt. We cannot allow predatory and deceptive practices in the industry to continue as we did in the subprime mortgage market. We cannot allow the credit card problem to become the next foreclosure crisis.

When it comes down to it, this legislation is about trust. At a time we have seen financial institutions fail, either fail to be profitable or just fail to be honest, it is clear that restoring trust by ending deceptive practices is good for everyone. People are not demanding too much, just rules that are fair, understandable, and don't change in the middle of the game.

It is time we give individual consumers the tools to level the playing field when it comes to dealing with credit card companies. This legislation is about creating a trustworthy financial system, restoring some commonsense rules of the road, and stabilizing our economy by making it possible for consumers to get their footing.

At the end of the day, that is in the interest of all Americans. Now it is time to act because, similar to the debt on our credit cards, if we keep putting this problem off month after month, it is only going to get worse.

I look forward to working with the chairman to pass this bill, making it as strong as possible and making sure it becomes law.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, due to an official event in New Jersey, I was necessarily absent for rollcall votes 186 and 187. Had I been present, on rollcall No. 186, passage of S. 454, the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009, I would have voted yea; rollcall No. 187, the confirmation of R. Gil Kerlikowske to be Director of National Drug Control Policy, I would have voted yea.

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

Madam President, two weeks ago, the democratically elected leaders of the Western Hemisphere met for the Summit of the Americas. The Castro regime in Cuba was not invited, because it has violated the democratic charter of the Organization of American States for the last 5 decades.

At the same time as that meeting in Trinidad and Tobago, Raul Castro gave a speech in Venezuela. He said he would be willing to negotiate with the United States and put everything on the table. Many considered this ``news.''

Well, let me tell you, those comments aren't news to anyone who has followed the rhetoric of the regime over the decades. The Castros have made promise after promise and none of their promises have resulted in substantial change on the island, none of their promises have resulted in the release of the labor leaders, journalists or clergymen jailed for no crime other than speaking their minds, the end of the network of government spies on every block, or the granting of basic human rights that we in the United States take for granted. None of their promises have resulted in economic freedom for the millions of Cubans who try to get by on less than a dollar a day.

And so it was hardly news that not long after Raul Castro spoke, his older brother Fidel made comments clarifying that nothing would change, and blaming all conditions in Cuba on the United States.

He said President Obama acted with ``autosuficiencia'' y ``superficialidad'', he called him conceited and superficial.

I am surprised that Secretary Clinton, in her remarks, would jump so fast to consider that good news.

While Raul Castro spoke at a meeting in Venezuela, there was another gathering going on in Cuba. It was a gathering of state security agents and secret police, outside the home of Jorge Luis Garcia Perez, known as ``Antunez.''

With tremendous courage, Antunez began a hunger strike to protest the oppressive Castro regime. In response, agents descended on the house last March 17. According to Amnesty International, they have orders to use force against and arrest anyone to prevent them from entering the house, including anyone who could provide medical treatment.

Antunez and three other Cubans have vowed to continue their protest until the torture of political prisoner Mario Alberto Perez Aguilera, held at the Santa Clara Provincial Prison, ceases immediately.

They will continue their protest until he is taken out of a tiny solitary confinement cell, until he is no longer beaten and forced to starve, until the regime allows Antunez' sister Caridad Garcia Perez to rebuild her home destroyed by the hurricanes last year, which they have not allowed, as further punishment to these activists.

From his house in Placetas, Cuba, Antunez wrote me a letter on April 13.

Here's an excerpt, in Spanish:

Compatriotas a nombre de nuestro pueblo cubano persistan en

sus nobles y sinceros esfuerzos, sepan que para los cubanos

la libertad, la dignidad y el respeto a los derechos humanos

tiened mucho mas permanencia e importancia que las ventajas

economicas que puedan traer los viajes de turismo y las

llegadas de insumos que financiarin mas que al pueblo a la

cruel tirania que nos oprime.

He said:

Those who continue their noble and sincere efforts on

behalf of the Cuban people, please know, that for Cubans,

liberty, dignity and respect for human rights are much more

permanent and important than the economic advantages that

might come with visiting tourists and the arrival of

products, which will benefit the cruel tyranny that oppresses

us more than the Cuban people.

That is the kind of courage that can break a dictatorship. That is the kind of courage we should support. And that is the kind of person whose advice we should heed, the human rights activist, the Cuban who sacrifices day and night in a peaceful struggle for freedom, these are the voices we should listen to when we are making our policy toward the Castro regime.

Some like to cling to a romantic notion of the Castros, but we cannot lose sight of these brutal facts. There is no indication that political prisoners are being released, free speech is being allowed or Cubans are being granted basic liberties that we take for granted.

For the Organization of American States to readmit a regime that engages in this type of systematic suppression of human rights, it would have to rip up its Inter-American Democratic Charter as a farce. It would have to ignore Article 78 of the declaration, reaffirming, ``the legitimacy of electoral processes and full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.'' And it would be sending a clear signal to other countries moving in the wrong direction, away from democracy, that it is perfectly OK to do so.

In respect to the very complicated choices we have on Cuba policy, President Obama has proven himself a man of action. I support his allowing Cuban-Americans more opportunities to travel to Cuba, because I think families should have the chance to be reunited.

On the other hand, and although I support finding ways to improve the financial situation of the Cuban people, I think allowing unlimited remittances was not the right move, when the Castro regime still takes for itself up to 30 percent of all the money sent.

The administration also announced changes regarding telecommunications policy. Let me be clear: in spite of the fact that the regime has rejected such gestures in the past, I hope that it will now allow U.S. telecommunications companies to increase the flow of information to and from the island. That said, we need to be sure to prevent a repeat of what happened in China, where U.S. telecommunications firms helped the Chinese government monitor Internet users and control content. U.S. companies cannot and should not censor Internet searches and block Web sites at the request of the regime.

But mainly what we have learned from these good-faith actions on the part of the United States is that they have not resulted in any change of behavior from the regime in Cuba.

We have traded concessions and gotten only rhetoric in return. We have extended our hand, while the Cuban regime maintains its iron- handed clenched fist.

We cannot allow ourselves to start down a slippery slope of relaxing restrictions, that only winds up allowing the Castro regime to strengthen the iron fist by which it rules.

The press is reporting that the State Department is looking to hold talks on migration and counternarcotics with the Castro regime.

These are serious issues. But without seeing any progress whatsoever on the part of the regime, it is hard to see why we should be looking for more opportunities to make additional concessions. It is hard to see why we should believe whatever promises the regime might make. And it is hard to see why we should cooperate on migration or counternarcotics with a Cuban navy whose main mission is patrolling for and sinking ships carrying its own fleeing citizens.

If we open up discussions now, we are essentially giving the regime a pass on progress and taking the focus off of where President Obama rightly put it, freedom on the island, freedom for political prisoners, freedom from seizures of a huge percentage of remittances sent to the Cuban people.

So, this is exactly the wrong time to start these conversations and starting them would be in direct contradiction to the White House's own statements, as recently as April 17, that put the burden where it should be, on the Castro regime.

After 50 years of brutality, we need actions, not words, on the part of the Castro regime. Mere words won't erase the lack of dignity that Antunez is protesting with a hunger strike. Words won't stop people like Oscar Elias Biscet, a renowned doctor, from being thrown into prison for refusing to give women a drug that caused abortions.

And words won't finally allow Oswaldo Paya to see the free elections he's worked for and marched for and gone to jail for.

Last week I heard one of my distinguished colleagues speak about human rights abuses in China. I think the Senator was absolutely right to highlight those abuses. And I think we should be no less concerned with prison camps in China than prison camps in Cuba, no less concerned with Tiananmen Square than with the Primavera Negra crackdown, no less appalled at a child laborer in Beijing than in Havana.

And by now we should be convinced that economic interaction in the face of an authoritarian government will not end Cuba's human rights abuses, just as it has not ended abuses in China.

Another of my distinguished colleagues has pointed out the peaceful revolutions that ended communism in Eastern Europe, including in his ancestors' homeland of Lithuania. I share the Senator's deep respect for those revolutions. And I think it is worth pointing out that when they took place, there was international support and recognition not primarily for the businesses who wanted to open those countries up for financial gain, but for the democracy activists within those countries who risked their lives to bring change.

There is simply no excuse for the Cuban regime's behavior. Forgiving it and forgetting it is not the answer.

If we want to change the way we conduct our policy, there are many things we can do to isolate and weaken the Castro regime, and hasten the day when the Cuban people can be free.

Let's have the U.S. offer more visitor and student visas for eligible Cubans to come to the U.S., to see and live our way of life. Having Americans travel to Cuba could never be as powerful as having Cuban youth see the greatness of our country, and its pluralistic, diverse, representative democracy. That taste of freedom would be infectious.

In return we simply seek a commitment from Cuba to accept their citizens' return, and to guarantee the issuance of exit permits for all qualified migrants.

Cuba is one of the few countries in the world that will not permit its citizens to travel even when they have a legitimate visa to do so. And, when they give them license to leave, they must pay to do so. I find it ironic that when people mention the U.S. embargo, they fail to mention the Castros' blockade on their own people, a blockade that keeps Cubans not only from leaving Cuba, but from moving freely within their own country.

If we want to facilitate the sales of food to Cuba, let us insist that they be sold in open markets, available to all Cubans, without it being part of Castro's food rationing plan, a plan meant to further control the Cuban people.

In exchange for cooperation with Cuba on narcotics trafficking, let them hand over the 200 fugitives the FBI knows are in Cuba, including JoAnne Chesimard, the convicted killer of New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster.

And in exchange for freeing commerce, let the Castros free the political prisoners they hold and allow them to speak freely, organize freely, elect their own leadership and freely practice their religion on Cuban soil. I hope we are not so blinded by the color of money that we forget how important it is for the Castros to close their dungeons and let the light of freedom shine down on everyone who calls the island home.

President Obama, who saw repression in Indonesia when he was a child, promised us this: He said:

My policy toward Cuba will be guided by one word: Libertad.

And the road to freedom for all Cubans must begin with

justice for Cuba's political prisoners, the rights of free

speech, a free press and freedom of assembly; and it must

lead to elections that are free and fair.

For 50 years, the regime has been a social, economic and moral failure. It has succeeded merely at staying in power. Today, after the regime has offered few new words and fewer new actions, we can choose to change how we feel about the regime, or we can try to change the way it operates. That is our choice.

We can choose amnesia or we can choose justice. We can choose strong words or we can choose strong actions. We can choose giving in to the commercial interests of a few, or we can choose holding on to the moral interests that unite us all.

That is what I hope we will do. I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to discuss the Simon Wiesenthal Holocaust Education Assistance Act, which I recently introduced. This important legislation would provide competitive grants for educational organizations to make Holocaust education more accessible and available throughout the Nation.

Last Tuesday, people from all corners of the Earth, representing all faiths stood together to solemnly commemorate Holocaust Remembrance Day, in memorial of perhaps the greatest crime ever perpetrated against humanity. As we reflect upon the tragedies of the events surrounding the Holocaust--the lives lost, the families destroyed, the potential unfulfilled--we must renew our commitment to never forget, so this dark chapter in history will never be repeated.

We must never forget the approximately six million Jewish men, women and children, as well as the millions of others who faced persecution, displacement, and death at the hands of the Nazis. We must remember their stories not just to honor their lives, but more importantly, to educate the next generation about the dangers of intolerance, ignorance, and bigotry.

Some may question the necessity of studying an event that--while horrific--happened over half a century ago and an ocean away. Other skeptics will argue that anti-Semitism--while terrible--is a relic of the past that simply doesn't exist in modern society. Unfortunately, we ignore history at our peril, and not recognizing and taking seriously the seeds of bigotry and anti-Semitism that have again begun to take root around the world only serves to promulgate it.

Recently, anti-Semitism has surfaced disguised in the form of anti- Israel rhetoric. The two have morphed into a virulent attack against all Jews resulting in a provocative and dangerous escalation of physical attacks against Jewish individuals, synagogues and other Jewish institutions around the world. Symbols of Nazi Germany have been used in this form of anti-Semitism as a cudgel against Jews, insulting the honor of millions of Jewish people--a people still emerging from the dark shadow cast by the Holocaust. Some have sought to rewrite history to minimize and spin the facts surrounding the Holocaust. The leadership of Iran has waged campaigns not just to alter, but to simply erase an inconvenient history. Holocaust deniers--authors and others who have the bully pulpit have smeared the truth of history--something that is regrettably so much easier to do as the Holocaust recedes in time and as those who can bear witness are dwindling in numbers.

Unfortunately, we need not look half way around the globe for examples of anti-Semitism, intolerance and hate; but rather we can look to our own neighborhoods and communities. In Fort Lauderdale earlier this year at an anti-Israel rally, a demonstrator was heard to say ``Go back to the oven. You need a big oven,'' a horrific reference to the crematoria of Nazi Germany. And it saddens me to note that in my home State of New Jersey, a State of immense diversity, tolerance and understanding, we have seen a number of recent troubling anti-Semitic incidents that tear away at the decency and civility that we should expect in this great Nation.

Last December, three Glen Rock teenagers were charged with painting a swastika and the word ``Jew'' on the property of Jewish residents.

This past January, a Kenilworth family awoke one morning to find a Star of David and the word ``Die'' carved into their garage door.

Last month, Northvale public school students had to endure anti- Semitic graffiti scrawled throughout the walls of their school.

A New Jersey family made national headlines by naming their three young children Aryan Nation, Hinler, and Adolf Hitler.

As recently as last week, in Union City, where I grew up, authorities were investigating an act of arson in a classroom of a Jewish school that is being reported as a hate crime.

These troubling events do not occur in a vacuum. They are a reflection of an ever-present current of hate. We cannot sit idly and hope that time alone will heal the wounds of genocide or solve our issues of continued intolerance. We must take proactive steps to ensure that our society remembers and learns from the painful experiences of the Holocaust. Holocaust education is essential to the enlightenment, understanding, and empathy of our youngest generations and their role in history to come.

The Simon Wiesenthal Holocaust Education Act is an important step toward this goal. While some States, like New Jersey, currently require the Holocaust to be taught in public schools, this act goes further and makes grants available to organizations that instruct students, teachers, and communities about the dangers of hate and the importance of tolerance in our society. This legislation would give educators the appropriate resources and training to teach accurate historical information about the Holocaust and convey the lessons that the Holocaust can teach us today. I certainly cannot think of a better namesake for this bill, for Simon Wiesenthal honored the memories of those lost by dedicating his life to bringing those responsible for these horrific acts to justice.

Only by proper acknowledgement of the incredible loss of life during the Holocaust, will we ever be able to ensure that such an event never happens again.

It is in our common interest to raise our voices against anti- Semitism and against all hatred and discrimination. Funding accurate Holocaust educational programs is a step toward winning this battle.

So as America stands with Israel and all followers of the Jewish faith in condemning anti-Semitism, let us do everything in our power to end discrimination and educate future generations about the danger of hatred and bigotry.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I came to speak in support of the nomination of Christopher Hill to be the Ambassador to Iraq, but I have heard my distinguished colleague from South Carolina speak, and I feel compelled to say a few things in response.

It is easy to rail against the Government when you are part of it. It is easy to rail against the Government. But when we have a national disaster, whether it be September 11 or hurricanes or floods or tornadoes, it is only the National Government that can come and help our fellow citizens. It is only the National Government that can come at the end of the day and create a common defense. It is only the National Government that very often can stop us from economic collapse.

Now, I am for the free market as much as anyone else, but there is a difference between a free market and a free-for-all market. What we saw over the last 8 years is regulators, who were supposed to act as the cops on the beat, ultimately allowing the private sector, particularly those who are regulated industries, to regulate themselves. The consequence of that is we have excess that now each and every American is paying for. Yet there are those who want to rail against that.

There are those who also rail about spending. I am with them. But the time to have railed against that was in the last years that saw the debt and the deficit dramatically grow. If President Obama did absolutely nothing--nothing--he would have inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit. So I think we need some intellectual honesty in this Chamber as we have our debates.

Mr. President, I want to now talk about the President's nomination of Christopher Hill to serve as our next Ambassador to Iraq. I support that. It should be clear to all of us that the position of the Ambassador to Iraq is one of the most critical ambassadorial selections that President Obama will make. We are at the beginning of a period of transition in our relationship with Iraq. We are now working under a Status of Forces Agreement. Our troops are winding down their combat role and many will withdraw by June 30 of this year.

In his speech to the Marine Corps at Camp Lejeune at the end of February, President Obama made his policy clear: by the 31st day of August of the year 2010, in accordance with the Status of Forces Agreement, the combat mission of U.S. troops in Iraq will come to an end. But even though the end of our combat mission in Iraq may now be in sight, we cannot forget that today we still have more than 140,000 U.S. troops there, and we have over 1,000 U.S. civilian employees from the Department of State, from USAID, and many other departments and agencies who have been assigned to work at the Embassy in Baghdad under the authority of our Chief of Mission.

We all look forward to the day when our combat mission in Iraq is ended, our troops are returned home, and the Iraqis enjoy relative peace and security under the full protection of their own security forces. But that day has not yet come. We are at the beginning, not the end, of the transition in our role in Iraq. It is a time of uncertainty and risk, and that is why it is so urgent that the Ambassador's position be filled without delay.

We hear the military counterparts constantly saying--General Odierno--where is my civilian counterpart? Where is the Ambassador?

Now, I certainly respect the decision of any colleague to closely scrutinize any of the President's appointments. This is a keystone position at a critical juncture in our relationship with Iraq, and we need to ensure the person leading our Embassy in Baghdad is and has in full measure the background, skills, and pragmatism needed. I have scrutinized Ambassador Hill's qualifications and his testimony, both before the Foreign Relations Committee, of which I am a member, and in responding to questions for the record, and I am convinced that in nominating Ambassador Hill, President Obama has chosen exactly the right person to lead our Embassy in Baghdad at this point in time. I urge my colleagues to confirm his nomination without delay.

During his 32-year career in the Foreign Service, Ambassador Hill has developed a well-earned reputation as a diplomatic trouble-shooter by taking on a series of difficult assignments, including serving as an ambassador in the Balkans, Special Envoy to Kosovo, Ambassador to Poland and South Korea, and most recently as Special Envoy to the six- party talks involving North Korea's nuclear program. He was one of the State Department's top negotiators during the 1995 Dayton talks that ended the war in Bosnia. He has never balked from taking on the most difficult assignments and has a long list of honors and awards which stand as evidence of his accomplishments.

Now, one of the concerns raised by my colleague earlier was about Ambassador Hill's experience, or lack of experience, in the Middle East. It should be noted that our three prior ambassadors in Baghdad-- Ryan Crocker, Zalmay Khalizad, and John Negroponte--the persons who know best the experience needed to do the job--do not share this concern. They have expressed their support for Ambassador Hill's confirmation.

I am confident the experience Ambassador Hill has gained in other areas can be readily applied to the challenges he will face in Iraq. Ambassador Hill's experience in coordinating the multilateral negotiations on North Korea's nuclear program will serve him well when he seeks the support of Iraq's neighbors on nuclear issues. That experience will also serve him well in working with Iraq's numerous political factions. Ambassador Hill's experience in the Balkans has prepared him to deal with sectarianism, border disputes, human rights, refugees, developmental assistance, and postconflict normalization of relations, all of which will be major issues in his portfolio in Baghdad.

Mr. President, I share the concerns expressed by my colleague about North

Korea's human rights record, and I agree completely with Ambassador Hill's own assessment of that record of North Korea when he said it is abysmal. But as others have noted, Ambassador Hill's mission with regard to North Korea was set by his superiors in the Bush administration, not by him. The primary objective was to push the North Koreans to end their nuclear weapons program and their nuclear proliferation activities. That was his mission, directed by the Bush administration. That is the mission he undertook to accomplish.

I appreciate Ambassador Hill's continued willingness to take on these tough assignments. He is the right person to lead our Embassy in Baghdad at this time, and I urge his nomination be confirmed without delay.

Finally, I too often hear on the other side of the aisle a very familiar refrain lately. It is no--no to just about everything we are trying to do here. President Obama was elected with overwhelming support to try to move this country in a different direction, and what we hear consistently on the other side of the aisle--using the procedural mechanisms of the filibuster in this institution--is no and no and no. Then, while they hold up nominees, such as yesterday's nominees for Assistant Attorneys General--incredibly important to the Attorney General for law and order in this country--when we finally get to the vote, we see overwhelming bipartisan votes.

We have delayed it an inordinate amount of time instead of having those people work for the security of the country, instead of being able to move this agenda forward, instead of having more time for the Senate to meet some of the Nation's critical challenges.

It is time to get over the noes and start saying yes to some of the critical issues we need. The first yes should be today, with Ambassador Hill. That will move our foreign policy agenda ahead in one of the most critical parts of the world today.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Craig Bryant, a fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the day.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 806

Mr. President, while we are getting set up, I would first ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 minutes.

Mr. President, this week we are laying out a blueprint for the part Congress will play in America's economic recovery.

Our budget isn't just a list of revenues and expenditures; it is a balance sheet of priorities and values. The line of numbers come together to form a bigger picture, laying out a vision for where we plan to lead the Nation. On a practical level, it gives us a chance to plan how we are going to create jobs, reform health care, make college more affordable, and end our dependence on foreign oil. This is President Obama's vision, and it is a mission we share and seek to make a reality with this budget.

Considering the current state of the economy, the times demand a bold strategy to give immediate help to those damaged by the crisis and create the conditions for recovery in the long term. But as we are moving forward with clarity and confidence, let's not forget how we got where we are today.

We would all prefer not to have the Government run a deficit and a debt. There is no question about that. Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are a little late in coming to that conclusion. Republican policies were tried in the last Presidency over the last 8 years and were tried in Congress for 10 years. They took a record surplus to a record deficit. They added trillions of dollars in debt, trading away our fiscal health in exchange for subsidies to big oil companies and tax breaks for the wealthy. They rubberstamped a $1 trillion war in Iraq without even accounting for it in the budget.

For those who are proclaiming themselves guardians of fiscal responsibility, where were they when Dick Cheney declared that ``deficits don't matter''? Deficits don't matter.

So let's be very clear: It is a Republican deficit that we are inheriting and that the President inherited. Even if he did absolutely nothing, he would have well over a $1 trillion deficit.

Republican policies got us into the red. As President Obama has made very clear, over the next few years we are going to bring down that deficit he inherited because our long-term financial health depends on it. But right now, there is a bigger question. The question isn't just how do we cut the Republican deficit the Nation inherited; the question is, What kind of country do we want our children to inherit? Do we want them to inherit a country where foreign workers are better trained and better prepared to compete in the global economy or a country where Americans are, bar none, hands-down the best educated, best trained innovators in the world? Should the country they grow up in be one where they stay up at night worrying because one serious illness or injury can drive their family into bankruptcy or one where everybody can sleep soundly, knowing their whole family has health coverage? Is this going to be a nation that is forced to send hundreds of billions of dollars a year to foreign governments to pay for oil or a leader in the development of clean, cheap energy, creating jobs that can't be outsourced in exporting our technologies around the world?

Those are the choices we face, and in this budget we have chosen our path with confidence. We are making health care more affordable for the middle class, investing in clean energy to create jobs that can't be outsourced, helping more middle-class Americans get a college education, and cutting taxes for middle-class Americans. That is the kind of country President Obama has promised to help us build, and it is the kind of country we are choosing to build in this budget. In a sense, if we want to get our economy moving again, we don't really have a choice but to make these investments.

Since this recession began, more than 4 million Americans have lost their jobs, 600,000 people are losing their jobs every month and often their health insurance along with it. The housing market, the epicenter of this crisis, is still unstable. A tsunami of foreclosures is still devastating our neighborhoods and leaving families on the rocks, while homeowners have seen their homes lose a staggering collective $6.1 trillion in value since 2006. While paychecks are shrinking, Americans continue to send hundreds of billions of dollars every year to foreign countries to pay for their oil.

So I don't think there is any doubt that investing in a better future isn't a luxury; it is a necessity. It is time for the kind of reinvestment this country needs to recover our economic dynamism and strengthen the 21st century economy, and that is what this budget does.

Let me talk about middle-class tax relief.

First, this budget brings immediate tax relief to middle-class families. It brings tax relief to married couples, an expanded child tax credit, and a patch for the alternative minimum tax. That tax, the alternative minimum tax, was originally designed to keep the wealthiest Americans from using creative accounting to avoid all taxes, but it was never intended to hit the middle class as hard as it is hitting them right now.

I am proud to have introduced the amendment earlier this year in the stimulus package that passed that saves, for example, in my home State of New Jersey, over a million New Jersey families up to $5,600 a year, and this budget makes a commitment to those taxpayers that they will not be subjected to higher taxes under the alternative minimum tax for the next several years. That is why collectively all of the tax cut benefits--the revenue changes in this budget--are about $825 billion in tax cuts over the next 5 years. That is the kind of relief we need to put money back into people's pockets and give families who are being squeezed some financial breathing room. If you are a middle-class family, there is no doubt that this budget is good for you.

Our budget also makes a strong investment in education. There are few instruments and investments we can make that are as important because it is no secret how closely tied our economic success is to success in the classroom. The country that out-teaches us today out-competes us tomorrow. So if we are going to stay at the apex of the curve of intellect and innovation, we need to invest in human capital and give our young people the skills to thrive in a 21st century economy.

I know what that means personally. I know what Pell grants and other assistance for higher education means for students and their families. I was raised in a tenement--poor, the son of immigrants, the first in my family to go to college. I know I wouldn't be standing here today as one of 100 Senators in a country of 300 million people if it weren't for the Federal Government's support for higher education.

So I am proud that this budget commits to making college more affordable. It boosts Pell grants to $5,550, and it provides a $2,500 credit for higher education through the American opportunity tax credit. That amounts to almost half of tuition at a State college or research university and full tuition at a community college. That is the kind of investment we need to help workers damaged by this crisis as well as to prepare younger people for a brighter future.

Our family budgets, our economic competitiveness, the stability of our climate, and our national security all depend on ending our dependence on foreign oil. The budget builds on the economic recovery package, supporting investments in renewable energy, efficiency and conservation, and modernizing the electric grid. I am proud to have authored provisions that bring funding to our communities to help save energy in the most efficient ways they know. The more we assist our hometowns in energy-efficiency projects, the more it creates jobs, brings down our electric and heating bills, and fights the global warming that threatens our very way of life.

The budget also takes a major step toward making health care more accessible and affordable. It expands coverage, saves on costs by implementing new technologies, puts a stronger emphasis on prevention and wellness, and supports the kind of research that can find a cure for my mom's Alzheimer's. For years, the administration neglected key areas of the Federal health system. This budget restores them to their rightful importance.

We are going to have a National Institutes of Health which will save lives with their innovations. We are going to have an FDA that has the resources to keep the food we put on the table safe to eat and make sure we fully know the risks and rewards of the drugs that come into the market. A larger health care reform is on the way, but up until that happens, our message is very clear: We will not rest until, in this great Nation of ours, no one goes to sleep at night without access to affordable health care.

Let me conclude. There is one thing all economic crises have in common: They all end. While history has shown that government can play a constructive role, a recovery can't come from government alone. The jobs of the 21st century are going to be created by the free market within a regulatory structure that prevents it from collapsing on itself. With the kinds of investments we make in this budget, we are paving the way for the private sector to create jobs and start us on the road to economic recovery.

The budget sends tax relief where it should go: to working middle- class families. It moves us away from the mistakes of the past by accounting for the costs of the war in Iraq until we withdraw in 2010. It makes health care more affordable and brings a college education within reach for millions of young people. It makes the investments to begin to end our dependence on foreign oil that will keep money in our pockets and create jobs here in America. And it will cut the deficit President Bush left us before the end of President Obama's term.

To sum it all up, we put forth a plan to invest in our future and get our economy moving again. It is a plan that puts forth a basic idea about what America should be. It should be a country where anyone willing to work hard can get an education and a job, a country where everyone has access to the medical services that keep them healthy, a country where a lifetime of hard work guarantees the right to retire with dignity, a country that knows its past and cares about its future.

We have a lot of work to do. I am tired of hearing just a chorus of noes, the same old politics, the same old Republican policies that got us to where we are today. As President Obama and we try to move forward in a much better direction for the country, what we hear is no, no, and no. This is about saying yes to a brighter future. This is about saying yes to the fulfillment of the opportunities that each and every American should have. This is about saying yes to a new set of policies, and it is about an opportunity to change the direction of our country.

I have great faith that we will meet these challenges. This is a country that went to war twice in Europe to beat nazism and fascism and did so. This is a country that put a man on the Moon and created a scientific revolution as a result of it. It is a country that cured diseases that were once thought incurable. It started a technological revolution that still is the envy of the world. And with this budget and working with this President, it is a country that, once again, will lead both at home and abroad.

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

Mr. President, today I honor Mary Ellen Rozzell, former President of the National Association of Professional Surplus Lines Offices, NAPSLO, who passed away unexpectedly on March 3, 2009, while attending a NAPSLO conference in Palm Springs, CA.

Mary Ellen was a respected, beloved leader. The president of Continental/Marmorstein & Malone Insurance Agency in Paramus, NJ, she began working in the insurance business with the Marmorstein Agency some 40 years ago. Mary Ellen served as president of New Jersey Surplus Lines Association, NJSLA, from 1989-1990, and was named as NJSLA honoree of the year in 1992 due to her outstanding contribution to the New Jersey Surplus Lines Industry. She also served on the New Jersey Insurance Commissioner's Producer Advisory Council, and with the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation.

Her warmth, openness, honesty, and good nature made everyone who met her feel immediately comfortable. These qualities served her very well in life, with family and friends, and in her remarkable career where she rose through the ranks with hard work and honesty. She was always prepared for the trials of life and business and the often difficult decisions required by both. She embraced responsibility, expected accountability and never failed those who depended on her. All who knew her benefited by her example.

Her family has established the Mary Ellen Rozzell Foundation for AVM Research so that friends and colleagues might contribute to arteriovenous malformation research in Mary Ellen's name.

I extend my sympathy to her family and those close to her. She will be missed greatly by everyone she touched.

Mr. President, I rise to engage my colleagues, Senator Nelson and Senator Martinez, in a colloquy. And as I do, let me start off by saying, we want to take a moment to discuss some important provisions in the omnibus bill. I discussed these provisions at length last week on the Senate floor, and I want to give an update as to where things stand today.

As I discussed last week, this bill includes three important foreign policy changes with respect to Cuba that have not been subjected to debate in this body. They have not gone to the Foreign Relations Committee, they have not been subject to a vote in either body, and these modifications deserve a full examination. This has not taken place. Instead, this body would have been forced to swallow these changes in the crudest process I can imagine, without analysis, and without inclusion.

Since we have been unable to debate the substance of these provisions, I have asked for a clarification, along with my colleagues, to the Secretary of the Treasury on the implementation of these provisions and expressed my concern for their possible implications and the unproductive signals they might send to those who are fighting for democratic change on the island.

We did this to get clear, first, of what might have been major loopholes that could have been exploited by individuals or organizations seeking to circumvent the longstanding and necessary economic embargo. In response, Secretary Geithner has provided me with two letters that I ask unanimous consent be printed in the Record.

Section 620 liberalizes individual travel regulations to Cuba for the promotion of agricultural and medical sales. This provision would systemically broaden the category of licenses available and allow individuals, in a self-policing manner, to travel to the island under the auspices of selling such supplies.

While I am sympathetic to the U.S. agricultural industry, I remain concerned that provision was written with the aim not of benefitting the private sector but, rather, of undercutting the current travel regulations for individuals and putting a wedge in a broader issue of denying our currency to the Castro regime. Depending on how this provision was implemented, it could encourage a radical break in existing travel regulations and provide the Castro regime with enhanced financial benefit in the pursuit of its repressive policies.

As a result, we asked Secretary Geithner specifically how the provision would be implemented. Secretary Geithner assured us in his letter dated March 5, 2009:

Regulations promulgated pursuant to that provision,

[Section 620] will seek to ensure that only travel for

credible sales of food and medical products is authorized.

In his letter dated March 9, 2009, Secretary Geithner wrote:

The regulations promulgated pursuant to that to provision

[Section 620] would provide that the representatives of only

a narrow class of business would be eligible, under a new

general license, to travel to Cuba to market and sell

agricultural and medical goods. Any business using the

general license would be required to provide both advance

written notice outlining the purpose and scope of the planned

travel and, upon return, a report outlining the activities

conducted, including the persons with whom they met, the

expenses incurred, and business conducted in Cuba.

Section 622 concerns cash in advance payments. This provision would strip the ability of the Department of the Treasury to enforce a 2005 amendment that defined the term ``cash in advance.''

In his March 5 letter, Secretary Geithner wrote that the U.S. Treasury ``believes that this change likely will have no influence on current financing rules. The term `cash in advance' is in the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 and therefore private parties are and will continue to be statutorily required to comply with those payment terms. Because the bill's language does not modify or negate the statutory requirement in the 2000 Act, exporters will still be required to receive payments in advance of shipment and will not be permitted to export to Cuba on credit other than through third-country banks.''

Which is the law today.

This comes particularly at a moment that is very important. The Paris Club recently announced that Cuba has defaulted on over $9 billion of obligations. At a time that we are facing challenges in the United States in terms of our financial institutions and credit, in general, to be giving credit to a country that has not only a repressive policy but has $30 billion in default is not, in my mind, good policy.

President Obama said:

My policy toward Cuba will be guided by one word:

Libertad----

Which means freedom--

and the road to freedom for all Cubans must begin with

justice for Cuba's political prisoners, the rights of free

speech, a free press and freedom of assembly; and it must

lead to elections that are free and fair.

I could not agree more with President Obama on this point, and I fully support him in moving forward in this direction.

Finally, I know some of my colleagues might be confused about my persistence with this issue over the last couple of weeks. So let me clarify what, for me, is a principled position.

First, I have many citizens in New Jersey whose personal stories speak powerfully to the repression of the Castro regime. Many of them have spent 10 to 20 years of their lives in a prison cell. Their only crime was trying to seek peaceful change in their country. They are now proud U.S. citizens. But they languished in a jail for a decade or two decades simply for seeking to make peaceful change. Many of them were tortured in that process. They are a powerful reminder to me every day, when I am back in New Jersey, of that reality.

Second, let me propose that for some it is difficult to imagine the deep personal significance these changes have for the human rights and democracy activists on the island who fight for the ability to speak freely and think freely, as well as my own personal convictions on this issue that my family has both lived under and died trying to change.

Changes in our Nation's policy toward Cuba, such as changes in our Nation's policy toward any nation our country determines a state sponsor of terrorism--such as Iran, Sudan, and Syria--are extremely delicate policy issues. Any such changes in our policy with these countries deserve a democratic debate and careful deliberation. It is simply undemocratic to tuck them in the middle of a large unrelated but must-pass spending bill.

I thank Secretary Geithner for his understanding of the sensitivity of these issues, working with Senator Nelson and myself to ensure that the spirit of the legislation is carried out

in a responsible manner. I also thank my colleagues in the Senate who have worked with us on this and others who have understood and Majority Leader Reid for working with me on getting clarification on the implementation of these provisions. It is disappointing that the process unfolded in this way. We will look just as unkindly upon any future attempts to make significant foreign policy decisions of any sort, not only about Cuba, in this type of secretive and undemocratic manner. Instead, I wish to work with my colleagues in an open and transparent manner to deliberate the substance before we get to this point, even though, at the end of the day, we may still not find common ground. I would, of course, prefer that the provisions not be in this bill at all. But the assurances I have received from Secretary Geithner have allayed my most significant concerns, and I will vote in favor of the Omnibus appropriations bill.

I yield to the distinguished senior Senator from Florida, who has been an ally in this effort to ensure that the clarifications needed were there. He is a tremendous advocate for freedom and democracy for the people of Cuba. I was privileged to work with him in getting the clarifications and making sure we are in a position so human rights activists and political dissidents in Cuba still have their opportunity to create change.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Let me now make some broader comments about the omnibus, having expressed my concerns. And, again, in recognition and in light of the assurances we have received on the matter that Senator Nelson, Senator Martinez, and I have discussed, I have come to the floor today to support the omnibus bill.

It is an important measure to help our economy recover and keep essential public services running. It includes important funding for my home State of New Jersey, including everything from an initial burst of capital for a new trans-Hudson tunnel--incredibly important to move large numbers of people across the Hudson River to New York, and also for reverse commutes, for economic opportunity, access to hospitals, a whole host of critical issues in a way that is promoting mass transit and does so not only in terms of economic opportunity and an enormous number of jobs that will be created as a result of that but also as it relates to the quality of life and the environment by moving a lot more people in a high-speed, nonpolluting process versus through a car--to support for flood control and protection of our shore--which is incredibly important in terms of the tourism and fishing industry and the economy of New Jersey--to grants that allow local law enforcement to have the latest technology to help the police officer on the beat.

This bill invests in education, strengthening our commitment to science over the next decade so we can have a workforce that can compete on a global playing field and be second to no one in terms of that ability in those fields that are going to be the competitive future opportunities for our citizens and for our Nation.

It makes strong advances in health care. It includes more than $30 billion for lifesaving research so that the National Institutes of Health leaves no stone unturned in the search for treatment for cancer, for diabetes, and the Alzheimer's that I have watched take over my strong and proud mother.

The bill allows us to immunize an additional 15,000 children against debilitating diseases. And it funds the Patient Navigator program I established to help citizens make their way through a complicated health care system.

The legislation puts resources toward revitalizing local communities and keeping families in their homes--because the housing crisis is at the root of our overall economic crisis. It funds community and economic development in over 1,000 cities and towns, gives competitive grants to revitalize neighborhoods, and renews section 8 vouchers to help nearly 45,000 families keep a place to call home.

In short, the omnibus makes a broad range of the kind of worthy, needed investments that will help our economy recover and our citizens get through this difficult time. I am happy to see the Senate move forward on this vitally important legislation. Although I know I am not the only Senator to have felt frustration in this process, I wish to take this opportunity to express that I am always open to discussions with my colleagues, and I hope we can work together in the future to make sure in the greatest deliberative body in the world we will all do our part to deliberate before we take significant action.

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

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 630

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

Mr. President, what brings me to the floor is the Kyl amendment that is presently before us. I have listened to some of my colleagues say how this is the wrong amendment at the wrong time. I would simply say that, in fact, this is. I happen to agree. I happen to agree that it is at the wrong time.

I might very well agree with Senator Kyl on the underpinnings of the amendment. I think we need to do what we must in order to ensure that Iran does not achieve the possibility of a nuclear weapon, and whatever we need to do in pursuing a two-track parallel as we engage them, at the same time have them understand that if engagement is not going to achieve them stopping obtaining a nuclear weapon, that there are consequences. But this is the wrong way to do foreign policy--in an omnibus bill--just as it is the wrong way to do foreign policy on the Cuba provisions in this bill.

I am compelled to come to the floor because I will oppose the Kyl amendment particularly because I think it is wrong to include it in an omnibus bill without going through the process--the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and others--to consider in fact whether this is the best policy, to have an open and free debate about it, to be able to vote on it either way after such rigorous debate. But we are being asked to vote for an omnibus bill that has provisions that change a significant foreign policy as it relates to the United States and Cuba. So there is a duality.

Finally, I have been reading a lot from our friends in the blogosphere and others, who talk about this issue on Cuba, and the press. What is incredible to me is that they still cannot cite one human rights activist in Cuba, one democracy activist in Cuba, they do not have the name of one prisoner of conscience inside of Cuba. They lose track. They talk about policy, but if it were any other part of the world--if we were talking about Burma, if we were talking about what happens in the Sudan--if we were talking about any other part of the world, we would see the same attention being given to the human rights activists, the democracy activists, the political prisoners inside of Cuba who languish each and every day, and their crime is simply to try to create a civil society with the benefits of the freedoms we enjoy here in the United States--to be able to come to a body like this and be able to debate; to be able to choose our elected representatives; to worship at the altar at which we choose to worship; to be able to enjoy the benefits of the sweat of our labor, whether by brawn or by brain. But there is silence.

I am a little tired that we keep reading about those who will spend hours listening to Castro's soliloquies but not spend 1 minute with human rights activists, with political dissidents, with independent journalists. There was a time when we used to help human rights activists and democracy activists in the world; when we put an international spotlight on people such as Lech Walesa in Poland; when we did it with Vaclav Havel in the Czech Republic; when we did it with Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in the former Soviet Union. By creating that spotlight on those individuals, we gave them the opportunity not to be harassed on a daily basis, as Cuba's democracy activists are, in jail and in prison and sentenced, sometimes for a quarter of a century for some minor act that, in fact, we would enjoy here as one of our fundamental freedoms, such as wearing a simple white bracelet that says ``cambio''--change. Change in the last election in the United States would get you elected President.

Say ``change'' in Cuba, it sends you to jail. Yet there is silence. There is silence. It is deafening. It is deafening. So I will vote against the Kyl amendment because I think it is the wrong process in an omnibus bill. But, by the same token, you cannot have it one way and say it is wrong to have major foreign policy changes in an omnibus bill and then be silent about the other.

It is wrong to say our policies should be changed but not have one word about democracy, human rights, political prisoners. It is amazing to me that people do not know who Oscar Elias Biscetis is, an Afro- Cuban doctor who ultimately was sent to jail for 25 years simply because he refused to perform the abortions the regime called upon him to do. He protested it and he was sent to jail for 25 years; or Marta Beatrice Roque, who, in fact, languishes with health issues, and every time she goes out, most recently to visit a U.S. diplomat, gets beaten along the way; or Antunes, who is on a hunger strike trying to create limited openings in a civil society and protesting the beating and incarceration of another human rights activist.

I hope people will get to know their names, such as they did Vaclav Havel and Lech Walesa and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and others in the world whose voices we hear from our colleagues who come here and talk about them. I am proud of them for doing that. They need to start speaking out about the voices of those who languish in Castro's jails and stop losing the romanticism of the regime and start talking about those human rights activists, democracy activists, those who are suffering simply to create an opening in civil society within their country. Then there will be some balance. Then there would be some equity. Then we would have an opportunity to move on broader in the context of policy.

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