Floor Statements

Madam President, there will be parts of my comments that, for historical purposes, will be said in Spanish, and then I will translate them into English, so I ask unanimous consent that be permitted.

Madam President, February 16 of this year marked 50 years since the revolution in Cuba that brought Fidel Castro and his brother, Raul, to power. Some have used this anniversary as an opportunity to put forth some romantic views of the revolution. So I have come to the floor to talk about the realities of the situation in Cuba. The reality is that this golden anniversary for the Castros is an impoverished anniversary for the rest of the country.

Over the course of 50 years, the tides of romanticism have come and gone, but they have always crashed hard against the rocks of reality. All the pictures of Che Guevara on T-shirts cannot hide the brutality of the declaration he made before the United Nations in 1964. He said then:

hemos fusilado, fusilamos y seguiremos fusilando mientras sea

necesario--

Translated that means:

[W]e have executed people, we execute people now and we

will continue executing people for as long as we deem

necessary.

No words better sum up the character of the revolution. The Cuban regime has bent and gilded the spirit of their people over a rotten core of brutality, depravation, and fear.

Here are the realities of the last five decades on the island:

According to the Free Society Project of the Cuban Archive, which has verification for every case, the number of people the regime has murdered or abducted numbers in the thousands, if not the tens of thousands. Hundreds of thousands of children have been separated from their parents. Millions of men, women, and young people have been forced into the fields to cut sugarcane and perform other hard labor against their will.

Here are the realities of Cuba today:

The Government is, pure and simple, a brutal dictatorship. Every now and then, the regime stages meaningless elections with 609 candidates, all 609 chosen by the regime, vying for only 609 seats in a National Assembly that does not do anything without the approval of the Castro brothers.

Despite fertile soil and perfect climate, as well as significant financial assistance, access to food is tightly rationed. The average Cuban worker lives on an income of less than $1 a day.

World Bank statistics show that fewer people have telephones, televisions, computers, and cars than in almost any other country in Latin America. The regime makes sure as few people as possible can use the Internet, so that the percentage of people who have access in Cuba is less than in Haiti.

The regime's claims about great progress in health care and education are immediately undermined by the costs paid--in lives lost, economic opportunities stolen, and freedoms denied. The island was not rich in 1959. Yet Cubans have fewer opportunities to get ahead than they did 50 years ago.

Across a wide variety of indicators of human development, Cuba has watched other countries in Latin America make similar or even greater gains. This poverty has an enormous cost. The widespread desperation of families has forced far too many young girls and boys into becoming sex workers, even though defenders of the revolution constantly cite the elimination of prostitution as one of its supposed accomplishments. In fact, a few years ago, Cuba was listed by Voyeur Magazine as the sex tourism hotspot of the world. So much for that success of the revolution of eliminating prostitution.

The Castro revolution has been most adept not at spreading education and prosperity but at instilling penetrating fear and terror, perpetuating their own power through a Stalinist police state.

The Cuban security forces were trained to torture by the dreaded Stasi of East Germany and carry on that legacy today. If you doubt that, ask Senator McCain about one of his torturers in Vietnam, a Cuban agent.

The world has expressed outrage at the treatment of detainees in the prison at Guantanamo Bay, and President Obama announced he would close it within a year. When the news of that decision reached Juan Carlos Herrera Acosta, who has spent more than 6 years in jail for his political views, he said:

Cuando el mundo abrira sus ojos y dira que hay

que cerrar los otros guantanamos que existen en Cuba?

Translated that means:

When will the world open its eyes and say that it's time to

close the other Guantanamos in Cuba?

There is no excuse for turning a blind eye to the 300 other prisons on the island, prisons that make Guantanamo Bay look tame by comparison.

Armando Valladares, who wrote the prize-winning book ``Against All

Hope,'' was imprisoned in the infamous Isla de Pinos in 1960 for his opposition to communism. He lived through the hell of Castro's jail, suffering violence, forced labor, and solitary confinement.

His writings were smuggled out, read throughout the world, and he was finally released after intense international pressure, 22 years after he was taken prisoner. Here are some of his memories of his captivity:

I recall the two sergeants, Porfirio and Matanzas, plunging

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

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

strike, because Castro wanted him dead; Clara, Boitel's poor

mother, beaten by Lieutenant Abad in a Political Police

station just because she wanted to find out where her son was

buried. . . . Officers . . . threatened family members if

they cried at a funeral.

I remember Estebita and Piri dying in blackout cells, the

victims of biological experimentation. . . . So many others

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

legion of specters, naked, crippled, hobbling and crawling

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

horrifying searches [they went through].

Eduardo Capote's fingers chopped off by a machete.

Concentration camps, tortures, women beaten. . . .

And in the midst of that apocalyptic vision of the most

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

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

prisoners beaten to the ground, a man emerged, the skeletal

figure of a man wasted by hunger with white hair, blazing

blue eyes, and a heart overflowing with love, raising his

arms to the invisible heaven and pleading for mercy for his

executioners.

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

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

Those are Armando Valladares' live memories of the 22 years he spent in Castro's jails.

This has been going on since 1959, but, unfortunately, it is not a thing of the past.

In 2003, armed security forces raided 22 libraries and sent 14 librarians to jail with terms of up to 26 years in prison, simply because they established a library in their community. Oh how dreadful is the power of a book that could cause those people who created libraries to spend a quarter of a century in prison.

That year, it rounded up 75 journalists, human rights activists and opposition leaders and gave them summary trials and sent them to jail for up to 28 years.

To put a human face on this, because sometimes we talk about dictatorships and the consequences of their actions and we talk about people in mass numbers--but these are the faces: Oswaldo Paya; Marta Beatriz Roque; Oscar Espinosa Chepe; Armando Valladares, whom I quoted; and others who actually languish inside the jails in Cuba and who have been beaten and/or who ultimately have been harassed in the pursuit of peaceful civil society movements.

In 2003, Fidel Castro ordered one of the most sweeping, brutal crackdowns on opposition figures in years--a roundup of 75 dissidents and their summary trials.

In that black spring, his agents took away Marta Beatriz Roque. She is an economist, a leader of a group called the Assembly for Promoting Civil Society, a coalition of nongovernmental organizations dedicated to peaceful democratic change on the island. In 2003, she was sentenced to 20 years behind bars for the crime of wanting peaceful change, for the crime of speaking her mind.

In prison, her diabetes and blood pressure made her so ill that the regime let her leave her tiny cell. But they did not let her go far. Two years later, the Government sent a mob to attack her as she was traveling to meet a U.S. diplomat. They beat her. And when she tried to leave to get medical care, they trapped her in her home. She was 60 years old.

Now, every day of her life, she knows she could wake up and be thrown in a cell once more, left to die for the crime of thinking independent thoughts, for the crime of asking for change.

During the crackdown in the spring of 2003, Fidel Castro also arrested Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet. Dr. Biscet founded the Lawton Foundation for Human Rights, one of the first independent civic groups in Havana.

On February 27, 1999, he was arrested for hanging the national flag sideways at a press conference, and he was sentenced to 3 years in jail. He was protesting the forced abortions he was ordered to perform. After his release, he organized seminars on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for Cubans. And he was arrested again in December of 2002 for organizing these seminars.

In April of 2003, he was sentenced to 25 years in jail and sent to a special state prison. I have, in the Chamber, this picture of his jail cell. His dark, damp cell is barely bigger than he is. In 2007, he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honor this country gives to anyone. But he still has not won something far more important: his own freedom. He still languishes in a cell like this.

It is a myth that detentions of activists has dropped off since Raul Castro, Fidel Castro's brother, took power. More than 1,500 were rounded up last year, according to the Cuban Commission on Human Rights and National Reconciliation, an independent observer group. They may be released temporarily, but they are always subject to rearrest.

Multiple human rights organizations confirm that the Cuban regime is still holding more than 200 political prisoners whom we know of-- independent journalists, economists, human rights workers, and doctors all jailed for speaking their minds.

In the United States, we saw an election last year that was all about a powerful call for change. The year before, 70 young Cuban youth were walking down the streets of Havana and detained simply for wearing a white wristband that has one simple word on it: ``CAMBIO''--``Change.'' All they did was wear a simple, white wristband to express what they wanted to see.

While in the United States, the mantra of change can get you elected to the Presidency of the United States. In Cuba, the mere suggestion of change can get you arrested. What an irony.

The dictatorship maintains a network of spies on every single block. It is called ``El Comite por la Defensa de la Revolucion.'' It is a block-watch organization in every city, in every village, in every hamlet. If they suspect you, first, you will find yourself quietly demoted at work. Then you will lose your job. You will wake up one morning and your house will be covered in graffiti calling your family worms. You will walk outside and four former friends will now spit in your path.

The case of Adolfo Fernandez Sainz could hardly be more representative. He is a journalist forced to spend 15 years of his life behind bars, in part for the crime of owning the novel by George Orwell, ``1984.'' Fifteen years of his life behind bars.

But the saddest proof that a country is operated like a prison is when people are shot trying to escape. It was a hallmark of Soviet Russia and East Germany, Communist Hungary and Czechoslovakia, but today the Caribbean is the Cuban's Berlin Wall. All boats and building materials belong to the State, so taking a shipment to the waters or even building a raft can be considered crimes, often punishable by death. Cuban planes have attacked ships from the air. The Cuban Navy has attacked ships from the sea, surrounding boats, sinking them, sending men, women, and children to the bottom of the ocean.

The Cuba Archive has documented almost 250 cases of assassinations as people fled, in addition to the countless thousands who have died at sea, either drowning or being killed by sharks. Those Florida Straits, as people searched for freedom, are the burial grounds of so many that we don't know.

Cubans know the risks, and yet they continue to seek freedom. Since 2005, the Washington Post cites the number who have fled to America or sought to flee to America at 80,000--some of the country's best and brightest, risking arrest and death, leaving under the cover of darkness. Since 1959, according to the Center for the Study of International Migrations, nearly 1.7 million Cubans have been forced into exile.

For those who cannot leave, there is another sign of despair on the island. The World Health Organization data reveals a sad fact: that Cuba has one of the highest suicide rates in the hemisphere.

For over five decades we have seen democracy take hold in every country on the Western Hemisphere but one--one island, suspended in the past, resisting the tide of history, its people

waiting for something to change. In 1962, the United States restricted commerce within travel to Cuba. It stands as a legal, political, and moral statement that we reject the dictatorship's abuses and it serves as a way to weaken the regime. At the beginning, it was embargoed in name only. U.S. foreign subsidiaries were allowed to freely commerce with Cuba and it wasn't until the mid-1980s that these loopholes were closed. The Cuba Democracy Act and later the Libertad Act caused the Cuban regime to downsize what had become the third largest military per capita in the Western Hemisphere. That was good for the Cuban people and good for the hemisphere because Castro could no longer send his troops to promote revolution and to destabilize Latin American countries.

But that came about not out of ideological change by the Castro brothers; it came about as a result of economic necessity. The U.S. dollar--the most hated symbol of the revolution and illegal to own for quite some time--is now eagerly sought by the regime, creating a divide in Cuba. It is a divide between those who have access to U.S. dollars from their families and can use them at state-run dollar stores with prices that gouge those Cubans--and millions who have no family to send them dollars and chafe at that disparity. They question a regime that doesn't allow the freedom to work at jobs such as tourism and others, that might give them access to those dollars. This conflict exists because these circumstances came about not as a change in Castro's ideology; they came about because of economic necessity. Economic necessity, not ideological change, further drove the regime to accept international investment--specifically, in tourism and mining-- something that was also previously illegal. This has created resentment by Cubans who are sent to work at these establishments by a state employment agency; and where the Cuban who goes to work at these foreign companies, their labor is sent there, they have to go work there, they get paid in worthless Cuban pesos, while the state gets paid in dollars for their labor. They get a fraction of the cost of their labor.

In addition, foreign companies summarily fire workers without recourse and get new workers from the state employment agency--no questions asked. Cubans have been denied access to visit these hotels in their own country and now--only now--are they told they can do so if they can pay hundreds of dollars a night when they make less than a dollar a day.

Notwithstanding these economic challenges that have created pressure for change in Cuba, opponents of the embargo are quick to point out that it has been in place for many years and the Castros remain in power. They seem very confident that allowing more American money to flow into Cuba will magically topple the regime. The truth is their prediction about cause and effect runs completely contrary to what has actually happened there. Over the years, millions of Europeans, Canadians, Mexicans, South and Central Americans, among others, have visited Cuba, invested in Cuba, spent billions of dollars, signed trade agreements, and engaged politically. And what has been the result of all of that money and all of that engagement? The regime has not opened up; on the contrary, it has used resources to become more oppressive. Foreign funds often temporarily reach the hands of Cuban families, but they are then forced to spend those dollars in government-run dollar stores so that the money ultimately winds up in the hands of the Cuban Government and many suspect in the secret bank accounts of the Communist Party elite.

So allowing Americans to sit on beaches which Cubans cannot visit unless they work there; smoking a Cuban cigar for which a worker gets slave wages, sipping a Cuba libre, which is an oxymoron, will not bring the Cuban people their liberty. When the government isn't manipulating international aid, it sometimes rejects it altogether, as it did during last year's hurricane season, further punishing its people.

So I ask those who argue that lifting the economic embargo on Cuba means the demise of the Castro regime--nothing I would want to see more--why, then, has lifting the embargo been the No. 1 foreign policy objective of the Castro regime? Does it seek its own demise after 50 years? Certainly not. What it seeks is the economic viability to continue to perpetuate itself.

But beyond the practical realities, I think there is also a broader principle at stake. Now, as power has passed somewhat--because Fidel is still alive--from Fidel to Raul, from one dictator to another, are we to declare that their tyranny outlasted our will to resist it? When a murderer escapes the police and is a fugitive, do we declare them innocent after a few years because we haven't caught them? Should we suddenly say it is too much for the Cuban people to be able to decide for themselves what course their nation will take? Should we decide to suddenly legitimize the behavior of the regime and strengthen its ability to continue perpetuating crimes? Which one of the freedoms we seek for the Cuban people as a condition of our full engagement as a country are we willing to deny them? Which one--free speech, free association, freedom of religion, freedom to politically organize and elect their own leadership? Which one? Which one of those freedoms that we are willing to say to the Cuban people they cannot enjoy are we willing to give up?

I have also heard the suggestion from opponents of legal restrictions on Cuba that the United States has dealt with other brutal dictatorships more openly than this one. Those who make that argument must have a strange definition of a successful policy. If we consider prison camps and child labor, forced abortions and slavery, violent suppression of protest, Tiananmen Square, ethnic cleansing of Tibet, and denial of human rights, be it in China or anywhere around the world, anywhere these violations are happening, if we are willing to accept that as successful engagement, I believe we are deeply mistaken. The disregard of human rights violations for the sake of economic gain in the past is never an argument to do it again in the future.

A full and open discussion of the real situation in Cuba is timely for more reasons than the fiftieth anniversary of Castro's revolution. It is timely because in this Omnibus appropriations bill that we have before us there are some who have attempted to sneak in changes to our current policy. But perhaps the greatest irony of all is that 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 been questioned for their impact on both our national interests and our national security. They have not gone through the Foreign Relations Committee. They have not been subjected to a vote on the floor of either the House of Representatives or the Senate. These modifications deserve a full examination. They should be subjected to vigorous debate. We should gather evidence, bring a wide range of voices to the table, and make careful and thoughtful considerations of their implications. But this isn't what is taking place. Instead, this body is being asked to swallow these changes in the crudest process I can imagine: without analysis, without inclusion, and without debate.

Now, supporters of these modifications claimed that they are carrying them out in the hopes of fostering democratic change in Cuba, even as they do so in a way that silences democratic debate in our country. The United States cannot claim to be a model for democratic process and inclusive change if we find ourselves resorting to such undemocratic means. Jamming these foreign policy changes in an Omnibus appropriations package by a handful of Members at the exclusion of the rest of this body, not to mention the rest of the other body, and not to mention the executive branch, whose jurisdictions these changes fall within, is simply not democratic.

These changes come in the same week that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's ranking member, and my very dear, distinguished colleague from Indiana, Senator Lugar, produced a staff trip report. I have seen it quoted as the ``committee's report.'' It is the staff trip report, and I respect that it has some value, but it is not the full committee's undertaking and approval.

The memo suggests some of the very things we see in this omnibus. But instead, in my view of a responsible report, this document presents a loose

set of recommendations based upon a few days of observations on the island by a single source, and none of it quotes the fact that there was an engagement with one human rights activist, with one political dissident, with one democracy activist, with one independent journalist--not one.

Now I ask my colleagues: Does it make any sense that we would see such a basis for a report based upon what are clearly superficial observations, followed by sweeping and untested recommendations about how we should engage with the last totalitarian dictatorship in the Western Hemisphere? Let me point out a few of the main contradictions in that report.

First, the lack of focus on democracy and human rights in the memo was astonishing to me. In a literal and in a legal sense, support for Cuba's prodemocracy movement is at the core of United States policy toward Cuba. It is represented in law under the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996. The report doesn't even mention the centrality of representative democracy in United States policy toward Cuba and the entire hemisphere. By the same token, the memo does not even mention that the United States of America is the world's--the world's--largest provider of humanitarian assistance to the people of Cuba through both individual assistance and nongovernmental organizations.

This fact makes it indisputably clear: The focus of United States policy is the Cuban people--not its regime--advocating for their freedom and empowering them to bring change.

The way the memo addresses the economic situation on the island is no less of an enormous flaw. On the one hand, this memo claims that economic sanctions have been ineffective, but on the other hand, it says: ``Popular dissatisfaction with Cuba's economic situation is the regime's vulnerability.''

What a contradiction. But it would be even more of a contradiction for the United States to do anything to rescue the regime by improving its economic portion, therefore neutralizing its vulnerability. This report says that ``popular dissatisfaction [that people's dissatisfaction] with Cuba's economic situation is the regime's vulnerability.'' But it would be even more of a contradiction for the U.S. to do anything to rescue the regime by improving its economic fortunes, therefore neutralizing its vulnerability.

Yet that is exactly what one of the recommendations in the memo that is included in the omnibus would do. That suggested policy change would give the Cuban regime financial credit to purchase agricultural products from the United States. On its face, that would seem like a concession to American farmers. We certainly want to see American farmers sell all over the world. But let's think about this for a moment.

Anyone applying for even a small loan in our country right now has to undergo--if their credit record is poor, they would be rejected for that loan. Well, 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 it already owes $30 billion, why does anybody 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 brutal dictatorships.

We should evaluate how to encourage the regime to allow a legitimate opening--not in terms of cell phones and hotel rooms that Cubans can't afford to own, 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 evaluation. The process by which these changes have been forced upon this body is so deeply offensive to me and so deeply undemocratic that it puts the Omnibus appropriations package in jeopardy, despite all the other tremendously important funding this bill would provide.

The real reason why so many--and we have seen this barrage of reports that come particularly from outside of this body, whose work, by the way, is often subsidized by business interests--advocate Cuba policy change is about money and commerce; it is not about freedom and democracy.

It makes me wonder why those who spend hours and hours in Havana listening to Fidel Castro's soliloquies cannot find minutes for human rights and democracy advocates. 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. It makes me wonder how they advocate for labor rights in the United States but are willing to accept forced labor in Cuba. They talk about democracy in Burma, but they are willing to sip rum with Cuba's dictators.

There is another report that came out last week, which I hope this body does not vote on the omnibus bill without reading. It is the State Department's 2008 Human Rights Report. I want to read from it at length, in case my colleagues don't have the opportunity. It says, referring to Cuba's human rights situation:

The government continued to deny its citizens their basic

human rights and committed numerous, serious abuses. The

government denied citizens the right to change their

government. . . . As many as 5,000 citizens served sentences

for ``dangerousness,'' without being charged with any

specific crime. The following human rights problems were

reported: beatings and abuse of detainees and prisoners,

including human rights activists, carried out with impunity;

harsh and life-threatening prison conditions, including

denial of medical care; harassment, beatings, and threats

against political opponents by government-recruited mobs,

police, and State security officials; arbitrary arrest and

detention of human rights advocates and members of

independent professional organizations; denials of fair

trials; and interference with privacy, including pervasive

monitoring of all private communications.

It goes on to say:

There were also severe limitations on freedom of speech and

press; denial of peaceful assembly and association;

restrictions on freedom of movement, including selective

denial of exit permits to citizens and the forcible removal

of persons from Havana to their hometowns; restrictions on

freedom of religion; and refusal to recognize domestic human

rights groups or permit them to function legally.

Discrimination against persons of African descent, domestic

violence, underage prostitution, trafficking in persons, and

severe restrictions on worker rights, including the right to

form independent unions, were also a problem.

That is the end of the quote from the latest State Department Report on Human Rights--in this case talking about Cuba.

President Obama often repeats what Martin Luther King understood-- that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. The people of Cuba have never given up on their aspirations for democracy and economic freedom. Now is not the time to give up on them. Because we can't do everything doesn't mean we should not do everything we can.

A new American President does mean an opportunity for change. President Obama, who saw repression in Indonesia when he was a child, promises us this. He said this in a speech in Florida as a candidate:

My policy toward Cuba will be guided by one word: libertad

[that 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.

So here is what I think we can do to help that happen. Much has been written about seeking change in our policy. Let me offer some changes as well, as someone who has followed this his whole life.

In exchange for more liberal remittances to Cuban families, let us insist that the Cuban regime not charge 20 percent of every dollar sent to Cuba. Say I have family in Cuba and I want to send them money to help them out in desperate times, and I send them $100. The Cuban regime takes $20 of that. Why? If you go to Western Union and send money anyplace in the world, it's maybe 3, 4, or 5 percent--not 20. The regime is taking money for itself, denying Cuban families the very opportunity to have more.

Let us also allow remittances, via license, to human rights activists, democracy activists, and other civil society advocates.

Some suggest that there be cooperation with Cuba on narcotics trafficking. Well, let them hand over the 200 fugitives from the United States that the FBI knows are in Cuba, including JoAnne Chesimard, the convicted killer of New Jersey State

Trooper Werner Foerster. Let her come back to the United States and face justice. There are 200 of them.

In exchange for more frequent visits from Cuban-American families who bring money and resources to the island, let us insist that the Cuban regime permit those who want to travel to Cuba and visit human rights activists, democracy activists, independent journalists, and other civil society advocates, be given visas as well.

Today, Members of Congress and others who want to promote democracy and human rights in Cuba, as we do in organizations throughout the world, are routinely denied entrance into Cuba. Those who want to sit with Castro and let him speak for hours about the revolution get a visa. Those who want to go talk to these people in the photos, who languish inside either Cuba's jails or are detained in their homes and are struggling to create democracy, no, you cannot get a visa. They are happy to accept those who bring dollars but not those who speak truth to power.

Let us have the United States offer more visitor and student visas for eligible Cubans to come to the United States 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.

If we want to facilitate the sales of food to Cuba, let us insist 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.

For those who disagree with our policies toward Cuba, let them ask themselves:

What are they doing to promote democracy, human rights, and civil society in Cuba?

What are they doing to support Antunez, Oswaldo Paya, Marta Beatriz Roque, and Oscar Elias Biscet?

What are they doing to cast an international spotlight on Cuba's valiant human rights activists, Cuba's equivalents of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Vaclav Havel, or Lech Walesa?

Do they sit back as they languish in jail or are harassed or do they invite them to their embassies in Cuba, to speak in their countries about their struggles for freedom? Do they raise the issue of human rights in Cuba with the Castro regime? Do they cast a spotlight on these people, as we did in Poland with Lech Walesa, or in the former Czechoslovakia with Vaclav Havel, and with Solzhenitsyn?

In pursuing any proposal or policy change, we have to recognize, as President Obama made clear to repressive regimes throughout the world in his inaugural address, that we extend a hand if they are willing to unclench their fist. However, if the omnibus bill is signed by the President as is, he will be extending a hand while the Castro regime maintains its iron-handed clenched fist.

During his Presidential campaign, then-Senator Obama promised this. He said:

I will maintain the embargo. It provides us with the

leverage to present the regime with a clear choice: If you

take significant steps toward democracy, beginning with the

freeing of all political prisoners, we will take steps to

begin normalizing relations.

He said:

That's the way to bring about real change in Cuba--through

strong, smart and principled diplomacy.

That was the policy that Americans understood he would pursue when they voted for him.

I believed then that Candidate Obama meant what he said, and I believe now that President Obama intends to remain true to his word.

Following our conscience and our laws, we simply cannot let up our pressure on the regime without seeing symbols of progress.

The United States and the international community must continue to work diligently to help bring freedom to Cuba. But we cannot forget how many valiant efforts have come within Cuba itself, how decades of fear and repression have also led to acts of courage. I stand here today in solidarity with all of those brave Cubans who have sacrificed and shown remarkable courage so that one day the Cuban people will finally know the basic blessings of liberty that we are entitled to as human beings and that we in this Nation enjoy.

Just days ago, 130 Cubans kept vigil outside of the Placetas Hospital, waiting for news about the condition of a young activist, Iris Tamara Perez Aguilara, who had gone into hypoglycemic shock after a hunger strike to protest the regime.

This is not the best picture, but it is what we got out of Cuba. It is a picture of some of them talking about:

In this home live those who are having a hunger strike for peaceful change and for respect for human rights and specifically talking against the torture of one of their colleagues.

She has been joined in her hunger strike by her husband Jorge Luis Garcia Perez ``Antunez,'' along with Segundo Rey Cabrera and Diosiris Santana Perez. They have avowed 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's 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.

Imagine that: Your home is lost in a hurricane. You want to rebuild it, and the regime stops you from being able to rebuild the home as further punishment because of your peaceful efforts to try to create change and respect for human rights in the country.

When Iris emerged from the hospital the other day, the Cuban citizens waiting outside surrounded her to express their thanks and support for what she was doing. They hoped she would keep up her work for an organization named after an American pioneer they deeply admire. It is called the el Movimiento Feminista de Derechos Civiles Rosa Parks--the Rosa Parks women's civil rights movement.

The hundreds of political prisoners and all Cubans who live with the daily chains of political repression have shown their commitment that Cuba will change, and this change will come from within, from the Cuban people. But they need our help. We must continue to fight here to do what we can to empower them. We must continue to acknowledge them when they empower themselves.

Let me close with what President Obama has quoted. He quoted Jose Marti who once wrote:

It is not enough to come to the defense of freedom with

epic and intermittent efforts when it is threatened at

moments that appear critical. Every moment is critical for

the defense of freedom.

This year, 50 years later, Cuba is still in the cold winter of poverty and oppression. But I hold up hope that people all around the world, and most importantly within Cuba itself, will use this remarkable moment and every moment, as they are doing, as these men and women are doing, to bring about a new birth of freedom, to rise up in a groundswell that will thaw the frost of tyranny and bring about a spring of hope and change--change the Cuban people can believe in, change that they are praying for.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the majority leader yield for a moment?

I wish to thank the distinguished majority leader for his longtime support for the Cuban people, for taking the votes and positions when it is not within the popular mainstream. And I appreciate his expression of support today as a continuation of that long history. He has my personal admiration. More importantly, those who are struggling for freedom and democracy inside Cuba appreciate it as well.

Mr. President, I rise today to give my strong support to President Obama's choice to lead the Department of Labor.

It is hard to stress enough how urgent it is for us to have a Labor Secretary at work in the face of this economic crisis: 3.6 million Americans have lost their jobs since this recession began in December of 2007--almost 600,000 in the last month alone--workers are losing their health care, their pensions, and their life savings.

The American men and women who have been damaged the worst by the financial crisis we have had--the worst financial crisis in generations--need full unemployment benefits to carry their families through this period of transition and the benefit of job training to be able to meet the challenges of the 21st century economy.

Those who still have a job to go to every day need a champion for their rights and their safety. As the American people struggle through these difficult economic times, it is more important than ever to have a fully functioning and fully staffed Department of Labor.

At this moment, we need a Secretary of Labor who believes workers should not be intimidated when they try to organize. We need a Secretary of Labor who believes that after decades of stagnation, it is time for wages to rise. We need a Secretary of Labor who believes it is not acceptable for women to make 78 cents for every dollar a man earns, for African Americans to earn 80 cents and Latinos to earn 68 cents for every dollar their white counterparts earn.

Some will argue that a recession is an inconvenient time to pay workers a fair wage or to protect them from exposure to dangerous chemicals because the economy will suffer under the weight of additional benefits or rights for employees. We need a Secretary who understands how false that argument is.

For 8 years, we have seen administration policies punish workers for their efforts and treat their rights in a way that ultimately can't sustain their hopes, dreams, aspirations, and their families.

The Bush administration virtually gutted the Department of Labor, drastically cutting its budget, choosing instead to trust CEOs and big business to look after the welfare of workers. In 8 years, the Department issued only one worker safety rule on its own accord. While the Department was neglecting to address safety in the workplace, it focused its attention on helping corporate interests weaken the rules for overtime compensation. After 8 years, we have seen who actually benefits from these policies: No one.

We now know that being pro-labor is pro-economic growth. We know a rising tide of wages can lift the ships of business as well, as American workers are also the customers who purchase our products and services. It is time we acted on a clear principle: An economy that works is an economy that works for everyone.

I can think of no one better to take up the challenge than Hilda Solis. She has the best interests of American workers in her heart and her blood. She is the daughter of union workers, the first in her family to go to college. I had the privilege of serving with her in the House of Representatives. She has served the people of southern California in Congress for 8 years, not just advocating for their rights but for recovery, not just expanded help for workers but creating jobs to expand the workforce. She knows that with the right investments, we will fuel the creation of millions of green jobs, bring down energy costs and end our dependence on foreign oil.

She has won friends on both sides of the aisle, and even when they don't agree with her on every issue, they cannot help but respect her work ethic, her intelligence, and her integrity. I know very much so that she is eminently capable to lead the Department of Labor. Also people throughout the country cannot help but admire history in the making. Hilda Solis would be the first Latina to hold the position of Secretary in a President's Cabinet. That is incredibly powerful for young Latinas across this country, a growing part of America's population who will look to a Hilda Solis and say that in fact everything is possible.

I look forward to voting to confirm her today because America's workforce and our economy cannot afford to wait.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I understand we are in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. President, what we are debating in the Senate is about fighting for the economic future of America.

Dr. King talked about the ``fierce urgency of now'' in the context of a struggle for civil rights. We have to remember the fierce urgency of now when we are tackling the worst economic crisis our country has seen in generations.

We have to understand the urgency for the 3.6 million Americans who have lost their job since December 2007--almost 600,000 in the last month alone. It is an urgent situation when millions of American families are in danger of losing their homes. It is a dire situation when State budgets are stretched so thin they have to watch school buildings crumble. It is an emergency situation when local communities are forced to consider cutting police or firefighters who protect their residents. It is an immediate crisis when a young girl needs an operation but her parents cannot afford health insurance. The Dow lost 40 percent in a year's time. Businesses are closing. Life savings are being drained.

Even for the hard-working Americans who still have their jobs, pensions, and health care, there is still a lot of fear out there that their careers and health insurance aren't secure; that the job loss or foreclosure that hit their neighbor might knock on their door next. Yet in the midst of all of that, I hear so many of my colleagues basically saying: Oh, no, do nothing.

Without bold and decisive action, the country faces the possibility of a prolonged economic collapse rivaling the worst we have ever seen.

In a crisis this severe, the Federal Government has the responsibility to step in and to stabilize the economy and lay the groundwork for recovery. We are not just talking about the financial recovery of individuals; we are talking about the renewal of a nation.

We have before us a tremendous opportunity to strengthen the 21st- century economy, to make investments so the private sector can create the innovations that will help our country prosper in the future, to transition away from fossil fuels and stop sending our money abroad, enhance America's energy security and meet the climate crisis that threatens our planet.

We have an opportunity very soon to vote on a bold plan to create and maintain more than 3.5 million jobs in America and 100,000 in my home State of New Jersey, helping workers damaged by this crisis and laying the foundations for economic growth well into the future.

Is the bill we are considering perfect? No. But in my many years of legislating, I have never seen a perfect bill. People are losing their jobs, their homes, and their life savings. The unemployment rate in New Jersey is the highest it has been in a decade and a half. More Americans are filing first-time jobless claims than any time in a quarter of a century. This isn't a time for delay, and it isn't a time for games or political posturing. It is time for quick, bold action. This is a complicated piece of legislation, so I will take a little time to lay out its most important provisions.

First, this bill brings tax relief to the middle class--about $230 billion worth of tax cuts. In the Finance Committee, I introduced an amendment to save over 1 million New Jerseyans from the alternative minimum tax, saving families up to $5,600.

That AMT tax was originally designed to ensure that the wealthiest Americans could not use creative accounting to avoid all taxes, but it was never intended to hit the middle class as hard as it is hitting them now. If we don't act, millions of taxpayers could wake up next tax season to realize they owe more in taxes even though their income hasn't changed.

The cornerstone of this legislation, in terms of tax relief, is a making work pay credit--the credit that is available to those who are working. The average working family--95 percent of all working families--are going to get a tax cut of up to $800 to put money back into their pockets to support their families and, at the same time, create demand for goods and services in this economy that will be provided largely by the private sector that creates other jobs for those who provide those goods and service.

It expands the earned-income and child tax credit to help low-income working families get through these difficult times. Those are the individuals who need money, and when they have it, they spend it in an economy that also creates demand for goods and services, created largely by the private sector. In fact, 90 percent of all of the jobs created under this bill will be from the private sector. It supports tax incentives for businesses to make new investments and hire new employees.

This recovery package would not just create jobs; it will create a new generation of green jobs. What we are considering today is a green recovery package, which will help change the direction of our economy for one based on fossil fuels to one based on clean renewable energy. It makes important investments in building efficiency, renewable fuels, clean vehicles, and green job training. It makes a massive investment in weatherizing homes, which will reduce emissions while bringing down energy costs. All along the way, each of those initiatives creates a different sector of the job marketplace that Americans will be able to fulfill.

Just like the rest of it, the energy piece of this legislation isn't perfect. I would have liked to have seen more support for mass transit. They are facing major budget crises and have to consider service cutbacks, just as ridership is growing and climate change is accelerating. Transit funding is essential if we are going to meet our emissions goals, get cars off the streets, and keep efficient transportation affordable.

The Federal Government has been dragging its feet on energy security and climate change for too long. Our local governments have been leading the way. That is why I am proud to have created the energy efficiency and conservation block grant in 2007, along with Senator Sanders, to help fund and reward them for that work. I am thrilled this Economic Recovery Act contains substantial funding for these grants, including tens of millions of dollars for New Jersey. Cities and communities across the country can use the funding to promote efficiency, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and invest in renewable energy and the jobs that will go along with that in doing that work.

A municipality could work to insulate office buildings, install fluorescent light bulbs, install solar panels, invest in LED lighting for traffic signals or purchase more efficient municipal vehicles. Of course, what a municipality would do for energy efficiency in New Jersey would be different from what one might do in Alaska or Arizona. So the funding allows for flexibility.

There is strong support for solar energy, including a manufacturing tax credit and tax incentives for homeowners to install solar panels. That is good news for New Jersey, which is the second-biggest solar- producing State in the country and where the solar cell was invented.

The support for energy efficiency is complemented by important investments in infrastructure. With this recovery plan, we can start building and rehabilitating scores of roads, bridges, and bypasses.

We have the chance to secure a stream of funding to start construction on the ARC rail tunnel, to ease commutes across the Hudson, reduce traffic, and clean our air. Most important, those kinds of projects put people to work. Not only the construction people but the engineers and architects, the clerical workers in their office, and everybody who creates supplies for these jobs at their places of work, and the transportation that brings it to the job site. This is how we create all of these jobs, and they're mostly in the private sector.

We understand a major part of helping the economic recovery is allowing workers who have lost their jobs to keep their families afloat, develop the skills necessary to maintain long-term employment and find new jobs.

This economic recovery package makes exactly this type of bold investment. It helps States close gaps in their unemployment programs. It rewards States for innovative reforms, providing benefits to more than 500,000 workers a year who are now falling through the cracks of the unemployment program. It stimulates the broader economy as every dollar put into the hands of temporarily displaced workers and their families generates $1.64 in economic growth, whether it is spent on housing, groceries, or other basic necessities.

For those who have fallen on the hardest of times--who have been laid off and haven't been able to find work and are having trouble putting food on the table or keeping a roof overhead--the recovery package includes important support for food assistance, as well as housing programs that will help prevent foreclosures, rehabilitate homes, and provide emergency housing in New Jersey.

This legislation that we are talking about is not only recovery but investment. This legislation also means about $4 billion for worker training and employment services. The labor market has fundamentally changed. If we are going to stay competitive in our State and country, we need to invest in human capital and give our workers the skills to thrive in the 21st-century economy.

Preparing those students and workers and those who will prepare them for the high-tech, high-paying jobs means investing in education at every level. That is also not only going to lay the foundation for long-term economic growth but give immediate opportunities for jobs as well. These are ways in which we, in fact, can modernize our schools. At least 205 New Jersey schools will have the opportunity to modernize themselves with the technology necessary and the laboratory necessary for preparation for this 21st-century economy. It is an investment that could mean the difference between a crumbling schoolroom and a science lab that prepares a child for a career in biomedical engineering.

I was raised in a tenement, poor, the son of immigrants, the first in my family to go to college. I know I would not be standing in the Senate today if it weren't for the Federal Government's support and those opportunities. Whether it is our public education program or in college through the Pell grants and the opportunities in the American opportunity tax credit to make college more affordable, it will produce a workforce that can compete anywhere in the world and be able to capture the new jobs created under this bill.

Any parent in America knows the challenges of affording health care, even if you haven't lost your job. Families working in low-wage or even moderate-wage jobs struggle every month just to pay the bills, not to mention the medical bills on top of that. Those who have recently lost jobs are pretty much out of luck. Unfortunately, a child's illness doesn't always wait for a good-paying job with health care to come along.

That is why we have included provisions in this bill to help States continue to provide health coverage to those children and families they are serving. For those who lose their jobs and their health insurance with it, we have included a tax break to help them pay for the COBRA coverage they are eligible for in between jobs.

I will end where this whole crisis began, in housing. This bill includes provisions that will allow more families to get tax relief when they buy a home, provide additional funding for those who recently lost their home, and provide additional funding for a provision I authored to help children affected by a home foreclosure stay in school.

This plan may be detailed; the investments it makes may be diverse. But we are not talking about just throwing money haphazardly. We understand every dollar in the plan belongs to the American taxpayer. They deserve assurances that their money is invested wisely. So we are going to ensure unprecedented transparency, oversight, and accountability to the plan so Americans can see not only how their money is being spent, but also the results of their investments.

This includes requiring the President to report quarterly on the plan's progress, as well as establishing an oversight panel to review the management of taxpayer dollars.

We have had a vigorous debate in the legislation. That is part of our democracy and it is always welcome. It has been troubling to me to see such a bad case of amnesia in some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I think it would make every American who loss his or her job in this recession cringe to hear that some of my Republican colleagues want to repeat the policies that helped create this crisis in the first place.

Republican policies dominated the last Presidency over the last 8 years and dominated Congress for a good part of that period of time. All of a sudden, they are guardians of fiscal responsibility, after taxing the middle class while passing capital gains and dividend tax cuts aimed at the wealthy, after turning President Clinton's record surpluses into President Bush's record deficits and doubling the national debt to more than $11 trillion--$11 trillion. If we did absolutely nothing, if President Obama did absolutely nothing, he will have inherited a $1.2 trillion debt. I hear these voices now of fiscal responsibility. Where were they when they were driving this enormous deficit to the Nation?

Now, to top it all off, they added amendment after amendment that added to the debt, and then they turned around, after adding to the debt and complaining about it, and voted against the package because they said it adds too much to the Federal debt. Only in Washington can one believe that.

Finally, I hope our Republican colleagues are not of the belief that by hoping this package does not succeed they will achieve political victory because, in essence, they would be voting and betting against an American economic recovery, against the American people's hopes and dreams and aspirations to live a better life.

I fear, after reading some of the articles today, that is exactly where they are: no plan to meet the economic challenges we have, complain about the

plan that is there, and then ultimately find ourselves in a set of circumstances in which they are betting against the American people and this economic recovery. That is not only bad politics, it is pad policy for the Nation. I hope they will see the light when it comes time to vote.

I yield the floor.

I appreciate the remarks of Senator Enzi. Comparative effectiveness research should focus on clinical outcomes and produce information that patients and providers can use to make better decisions about their treatment options. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, which amendment are we talking about?

How much time?

Could we move that to 20 minutes equally divided?

Mr. President, I rise in very strong opposition to this amendment. It is interesting--I guess the arguments for and against this bill move, depending upon your point of view, especially those who are against the bill overall. They have certain standards, and then they obliterate those standards when it doesn't work for them. For example, targeting. What does the Government Accountability Office say? They say targeting is important.

According to a letter from the GAO--Members of Congress implied that it is more efficient to target funding to States with what? Greater need. That larger amounts of funding are needed to get the same stimulative effect if an across-the-board approach is used. With less targeting, more funding goes to States with less need; less funding goes to States that need it the most. So much for it being targeted. The Government Accountability Office says targeting means you want to do it the way that was devised originally--by the way, this came over from the House with a 50/50 proposition. Then the chairman of the Finance Committee said, well, let's try to work that out in a more conciliatory way and put it at 60/40. Amendments were offered that made it 80/20. We are talking about States that have higher unemployment, more people who don't have a job, who cannot put food on the table, and at the end of the day find themselves in desperate need. So States with higher unemployment clearly have a greater need for assistance. The higher the State's unemployment, the more people qualify for Medicaid and the less revenue a State has to pay for those increased Medicaid rolls.

Therefore, increases in unemployment, which is where the underlying bill is, and was even in a greater way, is the recognition. It is not about just spreading the wealth across the process and, more importantly, spreading the amount of taxpayer money across the

process; this is about targeting where greater numbers of people are unemployed. States like my own that have high percentages of unemployment, would be happy to give you the unemployment in your States and not realize it in our States at higher levels. But it seems to me the way this is being pursued--this particular amendment--by eliminating targeting, that reduces assistance to the States with the worst economic problems and thus the greatest need for relief.

So by eliminating the portion of assistance targeted based on a State's unemployment rates, the amendment significantly reduces assistance for States facing the largest increases in their unemployment rate. That doesn't make sense. In addition, this amendment, at a time in which we are saying we want it to be stimulative--and I have heard arguments on how the money doesn't get out there quickly enough--well, this amendment permits the States to delay by 6 months, potentially reducing the stimulative effect of this portion of the legislation.

Finally, 19 of the 20 States facing the smallest increase in unemployment would get more assistance under this amendment--a little counterintuitive. If the State has more unemployment, it would get less money. For all of those reasons, and because this is already dramatically shifted in the way my colleague from Iowa wants, this amendment should be defeated both in the Nation's interest, in the pursuit of targeted and stimulative and, at the same time, basic fairness.

I reserve whatever time I have remaining.

I reserved the remainder of my time.

How much time do I have?

Mr. President, I appreciate what my distinguished colleague from Iowa is trying to do--bring more money to his State. The question is whether it is fundamentally fair. The answer is no.

Let me tell you the States that will get hit pretty badly here: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Washington, to name a few.

The fundamental question is whether we are going to live to this credo of whether targeted is important or whether timely is important. Well, we have the Government Accountability Office saying that the way we are doing it--the way that would be undone by the Senator from Iowa would undo the targeted; it would undo the ability to have the greatest impact to be stimulative. In essence, it would hurt States that have the greatest need. We are one country. I often have voted for issues that have very little benefit for my State, but I understand that at a given moment in time, they are in the greatest interest of the country. Agriculture is one example, and there are others. The bottom line is that we have rising numbers of people, higher unemployment rates, more demand on Medicaid, and less opportunity for individuals to be able to get the resources in States that are already cash strapped. I have listened to moral hazard. There has been no talk about that. We want to teach the States a lesson now. There was no talk about moral hazard when the regulators were asleep at the switch and Wall Street was getting billions. You want to teach States a lesson now? You are going to hurt people. This amendment will hurt people who otherwise would have resources under the bill that have already been adjusted to give States such as my colleagues' more research.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will my colleague from Kansas yield for just a moment?

Will my colleague from Kansas yield for a moment?

For a unanimous consent request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time from now until 5:30 be for general debate purposes only and that it be evenly divided.

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

Madam President, I come to the floor to speak again on behalf of children of New Jersey and others in the country and the working families in my home State who seem to be under attack by some of our colleagues here on the floor. I did not know there are different values to the importance of the health care of a child regardless of the happenstance of where they live, but it seems some think so.

On behalf of these children and families, I rise strongly to object to Senator Bunning's amendment. In New Jersey, we cover over 130,000 children and, yes, we cover children to a higher percentage of the Federal poverty level. But there is a reason for that, and I will go through that right now. But there are only 3,300 New Jersey children who are covered under that higher Federal poverty level from the 130,000 who are covered below the poverty level Senator Bunning and others would want to maintain. So we are talking about 3,300 children but 3,300 children whose health and development and well-being depend upon the ability of States such as New Jersey to do this.

The families who are covered at this level are paying toward this. They are not getting a free ride. They are paying $128 each month in premiums and between $5 and $35 in copays each and every month. So this is not a free ride. These families in New Jersey are working, and they are working at some of

the toughest jobs we have. But they work at jobs in which they do not have health care coverage, and they are working at jobs that do not give them enough in the context of what it costs to live in New Jersey to afford health care insurance. So somehow those people have to be penalized when you listen to the other side.

Now, let me talk to those who want to talk about fairness. New Jersey followed the law. The former administration approved New Jersey's waiver to continue insuring kids at up to 350 percent of the Federal poverty level because they understood the reality that a family living in New Jersey--to make essential elements of their costs for housing, food, transportation, childcare, and, yes, insurance--just was far behind others in the Nation who, in fact, could achieve those goals for a lot less money. So the Bush administration gave a waiver. They gave a waiver. They understood it.

New Jersey needs to cover children up to 350 percent because New Jersey families face higher living costs and they get less return on their Federal dollar. Let me talk about that. I hear my colleagues bemoaning the fact that my State allegedly wants some sort of special treatment, that because we want to provide health benefits to children, we are somehow taking advantage of the Federal Government. That is simply ridiculous.

Let me put it in perspective. For every $1 a New Jersey taxpayer pays in Federal dollars toward the Federal Government, our State only gets back 65 cents. My colleague from Kentucky, who was on the floor and whose amendment we are debating now and who rails about New Jersey--his State gets $1.51 for every $1 Kentuckians send to the Federal Treasury. So they get more back than, in fact, they pay.

Let's talk about fairness. The reality: One size does not fit all. As shown on this chart, for a family in New Jersey, living in Middlesex County, whose monthly income is about, roughly, $4,600, for their housing, it is going to cost them $1,331; for food, it is about $645.70; for childcare, it is $844.80; for their transportation, it is $393.80; for their taxes, it is $479; and for their health insurance, it is almost $1,800. So what do they end up with? They end up with a negative amount in terms of their budget. These are people who are working--working--trying to sustain their families. But they end up in the negative if they try to provide health insurance for their families. So the answer is, they cannot provide health insurance for their families unless they get some help. Yes, one size does not fit all.

So let's look at that same family. For that family in New Jersey to get the same ability in terms of their purchasing power as a family in Louisville, KY, that needs about $55,808--for that same family, whose happenstance is that they live in New Jersey versus Louisville, KY, for the same exact things, they need $77,000, roughly, in purchasing power.

Now, why do I have to hear an argument that says those families, in fact, whether they be in Kentucky or Arizona or Oklahoma or Georgia or Tennessee or Utah or in all these other States, who, in fact, deserve to have their children covered--they deserve to have their children covered, and I am fighting for their children to be covered as well-- but why do I have to listen to that, in fact, their children are more valuable than my children in New Jersey who need this amount of money to be able to meet the same goals and dreams and aspirations and health care that they have? So they can get benefits under the bill, but my children in New Jersey should be denied? That is the core of the argument here. One size does not fit all. I would love for a family in New Jersey at $55,000 to be able to make ends meet. That is simply not the fact. So we need to ensure all children are covered within this class.

I am simply baffled and I find it embarrassing that some in Washington--those who have some of the best health care coverage in the world--would propose to jeopardize coverage to some of America's neediest families.

In this economy, in this recession, we cannot allow our children to be the silent victims. It is morally wrong to jeopardize the health care of these children. What have they done? What have they done to deserve this? It is even more outrageous during a time when jobs and homes are being taken away from their parents.

Where is the moral compass in this Chamber? I hear my colleagues speaking eloquently about how our children are our most precious asset, and they certainly are. But they are also our most vulnerable asset. Is a child in New Jersey worth less than a child in other parts of the country simply because of the happenstance of where they live and the costs that are necessary in order for them to meet the same quality of life?

So I hope my colleagues, as other amendments have been rejected, will once again reject this amendment. This is about being for the value of life. You cannot fulfill your God-given potential if you do not have good health. You cannot say you are profamily when, in fact, you would take away the insurance necessary for that family to be able to realize their God-given potential. This is about all children, regardless of where they happen to reside, the happenstance of what station in life they were born into, that if they fall into this criteria that, in fact, they should be covered.

That is why this amendment should be defeated. I hope, after having considered amendment after amendment after amendment on the same fundamental issue, we can finally move to final passage of this bill.

Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 28, 2009, at 10 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``Addressing Global Climate Change: The Road to Copenhagen.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 28, 2009, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Lessons from the Mumbai Terrorist Attacks, Part II.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct an executive business meeting on Wednesday, January 28, 2009, at 10 a.m. in room SH-216 of the Hart Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 28, 2009.

The Committee will meet in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building beginning at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 28, 2009, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``The Impact of the Economic Crisis on the U.S. Postal Service''.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 28, 2009 at 2:30 p.m.

Madam President, I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, today, this Congress is facing a fundamental test of our values: whether to reauthorize the State Children's Health Insurance Program and expand it to cover millions of children who would otherwise be left uninsured. We must ask ourselves: Is this good for our Nation's children? The answer is, clearly, yes. And I say this as a father. There is nothing more important to parents than the health of their children, and there is nothing more important to helping them grow up to achieve their potential and contribute all they can to our society.

It is no secret what a major financial burden health care can be. We are reminded of the costs every time we go to the doctor or fill a prescription at the pharmacy. There are parents who work every day in some of the toughest jobs in our country, but their jobs don't offer health insurance and their paychecks don't cover the cost of private coverage.

They are not the only ones whose health is at serious risk because of this lack of insurance. It is also a major risk for children. Parents stay up at night worrying about whether the hard cough they hear coming from their daughter's room means she has asthma; hoping that the pain in their son's stomach doesn't mean he is going to need surgery; wondering how they are going to pay for a routine checkup; and just praying--praying--that everyone stays healthy until they can afford to get the health care they need.

Here is one story: A boy named Jonathan took a trip to the New Jersey shore with his family. His head started to throb on the ride from his home in New Hampshire, and finally the pain became unbearable. I want to read what Jonathan wrote about his experience. He wrote:

The pain was so bad; I had to crawl on the ground. My mom

drove me to the medical center. I remember my mom calling my

dad and asking the question, Do we still have medical

insurance? I remember being really scared. The doctor

explained that I had an arachnoid cyst about the size of an

ice cube growing on the left side of my brain. My mother

started to cry. There was another problem: Our insurance

coverage had ended. Going to the hospital and having all of

the CAT scans and MRI testing was super expensive. Suddenly,

insurance was a huge issue. Friends told us about a program

called New Hampshire Healthy Kids. My parents had to act

quickly and register my brothers and me for the program. The

people at NHHK were really helpful. I was able to get the

medical attention I needed.

Thank goodness Jonathan was okay. But stories such as this are why the Federal Government and the States teamed up to create the State Children's Health Insurance Program. It has been a great success across the country, covering almost 7 million American children. In New Jersey, it covers almost 130,000 of those American children. This year, Congress has an opportunity to make children's health even more inclusive, to pass a bill that will continue to provide health care to the almost 7 million children already enrolled, and expand the program to include 4 million children across America, and that includes another 100,000 in my home State of New Jersey.

As we are considering whether to reauthorize and expand children's health, we all have to ask ourselves two questions: One, would we have wanted Jonathan's story to have turned out differently? Absolutely not. And two, are we going to sit back as millions of other stories such as Jonathan's don't end up as happily? The decisions we make today have very clear implications for hardworking families across the country. The difference here between no and yes can mean, for millions of children, the difference between helplessness, suffering, and pain versus opportunity, health, and a better quality of life. That is how high the stakes are.

Now, some in this Chamber may question whether we can afford health care for our children. Let us look at the facts. First, this legislation won't cost us a dime because it is completely paid for. Second, making sure kids can get regular checkups and focus on preventive care has the potential to reduce emergency room visits and save costs down the line.

We also need to be very clear that public health insurance does not mean free health insurance. Many families across America and in New Jersey are responsible for copays and have to pay a premium every month. They are part of supporting their children's health care coverage.

But all that aside, let us look at the bigger budgetary picture, at where our priorities have been for the last several years. The war in Iraq is currently costing us $5,000 every second. With what is spent on the war in Iraq in 40 days, we could insure over 10 million children in America for 1 year. In fact, with the amount that has been spent on the war, we could provide 2 years of health care coverage for all of the 47 million Americans who don't have health insurance, who play Russian roulette every day with their lives and their wallets. And even after providing all that health care for every American who doesn't have it, we would still have $30 billion remaining.

If we are willing to look at our priorities and choose our children-- as we often say, and I have heard many of my colleagues speak on the floor about how our children are our most precious resource, and they are, but they are also our most vulnerable resource--tackling America's health care crisis is something we can absolutely do within the reasonable constraints of our budget.

Now, some of our colleagues have also objected--I have heard it here on the floor--to how States such as New Jersey are treated under this legislation. They object to my home State's ability to cover children whose parents' salaries are up to 350 percent of the Federal poverty level.

I want to give a round estimate of the monthly costs facing a family living at 250 percent of the poverty level, or about $4,594 per month, in one of our counties, in Middlesex, NJ.

When you look at that monthly income and then look at the costs for housing, for food, for childcare so you can go to work, for transportation, for the taxes paid there, and then what it costs for health insurance, the reality is you have a set of circumstances where that family has a monthly deficit, a debt of $898, which means they do not have the wherewithal to do all of this. These are the basics. These are no frills. They find themselves in debt.

On top of that, comparable private health insurance in my home State can cost almost $1,800 a month.

What does a family have left at the end of the month? The answer is a staggering load of debt. If they are making 250 percent of the Federal poverty level, they are going to be in debt almost $900.

It is the same in other parts of the State as well. For example, if they are living at that income level in Trenton, NJ, the State's capital, they are going to be in debt about $856 every single month to do the basics--to have a place to call home, to put food on the table, to have childcare, to go to work, transportation to be able to achieve that, to pay their taxes, and then to have health insurance. They do not have enough money to make ends meet.

The Federal poverty level does not reflect the difference in cost of living between States. For example, if you are a family making 250 percent of the Federal poverty level in Phoenix, AZ, after all is said and done, under the same set of criteria--housing, food, childcare, transportation, and taxes and health insurance--you have a monthly surplus of about $1,347. That is left over at the end of the month because the cost of living is lower.

There is a huge difference in the family's reality with a surplus and being able to have all of these essentials versus having a debt in the two examples I showed before.

Let me give another example. In Salt Lake City, UT, the same set of circumstances--housing, food, childcare, transportation, taxes, health insurance--you have a $1,469 surplus, so you

have disposable income to be able to make other choices for your family with the same set of circumstances in terms of the Federal poverty level.

The reality is, we face a much higher cost of living. The consequences are real to New Jersey families. Let's compare State by State.

I understand 350 percent of the Federal poverty level sounds somewhat high if you do not see the numbers. But what it takes to meet that amount in New Jersey is, it takes a much less amount in all of these States--from Kentucky, Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia, Tennessee, Utah, Missouri, North Carolina--much less. It takes much less to meet the same level of the Federal poverty level.

The bottom line is, we simply have a higher cost of living and one size does not fit all. I wish our citizens could get the same quality of life in terms of the essentials for much less money, but that is not the reality. So it makes perfect sense for different States to cover children at different levels of income in order to accomplish the same goal, which is ensuring that children at the end of the day are covered.

Even former President Bush understood that when he approved New Jersey's waiver, as he did for a long time. Even then, I would like to point out, the number of New Jersey children who fall into that category is just about 3,300 children, a tiny fraction of those enrolled nationally. Only about 2.5 percent of our children are covered under this level of the Federal poverty level.

Finally, the last time legislation to expand children's health came up, hundreds of thousands of children were left out, children who are legal--underline legal, emphasis legal--permanent residents of the United States. They follow our laws every step of the way, children whose parents work hard and pay taxes. Some of them are actually in the service of their country. These children are eventually eligible for Medicaid or CHIP, but the law says we have to bar them from coverage for 5 years first.

To a young child, 5 years is a lifetime. Here is what it means to bar legal permanent resident children and pregnant mothers from affordable public health for that long. As it stands, a girl with asthma has to go through 5 years of attacks before she can get an inhaler. A boy whose vision gets so blurry he can't see the chalkboard in the fourth grade has to wait until high school before he gets glasses. A pregnant woman who urgently needs prenatal care can't get it until her child will be ready for kindergarten.

I have not met anyone who is not outraged when they hear kids with cancer would have to wait 5 years for chemotherapy. Most people cannot believe that is the law, and it should not be. Children should not have to wait a single day to get the care they need to save and improve their lives. Good health care is essential for them to be able to fully realize their God-given potential. Children, whether they be in a classroom or on a playground, are contagious. So whether it is a legal immigrant child or a U.S.-born citizen, the bottom line is they are playing in that playground together, sitting in the classroom together. If one has health care and the other doesn't because we have an arbitrary bar, it is easy to get some cold or disease that is contagious, so there is a public health interest for all of us.

We have the opportunity to do what is right and make a major step in ensuring no child goes to bed at night without health care in the greatest Nation on the Earth. This would bring a half million kids nationwide into the State health insurance programs in this category.

Let me conclude. For all of us, this is a matter of values. Do we value our children and do our actions match our values? For those who value life, who have spoken very eloquently in this Chamber about its sanctity, and those who value family, who consider it the bedrock of our lives and our country, now is the time to show the depth of that belief because if children's health is not about protecting life, I do not know what is. If this bill is not profamily, I do not know what is.

Now is the time to give new security to millions of young lives to help America's children achieve their God-given potential and to replace fear in millions of minds with hope for a better day. That is the opportunity before the Senate, and that is the one I hope we will adopt at the end of this process.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I am honored to rise today in recognition of the Honorable H. James Saxton, on the occasion of his retirement from the U.S. House of Representatives after 24 years of remarkable service to our country.

As a Representative for New Jersey's diverse Third District, Mr. Saxton was truly an advocate not only for his constituents but for New Jersey's interests, as well. Throughout his tenure, he remained an exceptional voice for environmental protection and conservation, and was a fervent advocate for our service men and women and the military bases situated in his district.

Encompassing the Jersey Shore, Pinelands Preservation, suburban communities, and countless areas of open space, the landscape of the Third District is special and complex. Mr. Saxton was a tireless fighter for protecting our waterways, preserving our open spaces, and maintaining the health of our oceans.

While New Jersey is now home to the Nation's first Mega Base, including Fort Dix, McGuire Air Force Base, and Lakehurst Naval Air Engineering Station, such an installation would not be possible without the contributions of Mr. Saxton. Twice the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission chose to close down one of our bases and twice Mr. Saxton defended and defeated the measure. With the many jobs that were saved as a result of this reversal, the new Mega Base will reenergize our communities by adding even more opportunities to the area.

In addition to these and many more accomplishments, Mr. Saxton honorably served on the Armed Services Committee, the Air and Land Forces Subcommittee, the Terrorism and Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee, the Natural Resources Committee, the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans, and the Joint Economic Committee. His dedication and commitment on behalf of his constituents has earned him the respect and admiration of his peers and colleagues.

Mr. President, I would like to recognize, commend, and applaud Mr. Saxton in light of his extraordinary service to the U.S. House of Representatives and his unwavering dedication to the people of New Jersey's Third District.

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

Madam President, is there a time limitation?

Madam President, I rise today to support the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in order to defend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and to protect all Americans from the evils of discrimination.

Yesterday, millions of Americans rejoiced as Barack Obama was sworn in as the 44th President of the United States. Hope for a more inclusive America, a more unified America, a more just America swept across this land from our biggest cities to our smallest towns. There was a sense of wonder that someone who wouldn't have been allowed to eat in certain restaurants or drink from certain water fountains over 40 years ago had just become the freely elected leader of the greatest country on Earth. We should be incredibly proud of the progress we have made since the errors of slavery and Jim Crow.

But while we believe our Union can be perfected, we know it still isn't perfect. We know that equal opportunity and impartial justice for all have yet to be attained. And we know what the consequences are, for, as Dr. King so eloquently put in his letter from a Birmingham jail, ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.''

Despite the progress we have made, we live in a country where women still earn 78 cents for every dollar a man makes, where African Americans earn only 80 cents for every dollar a White man makes and Latinos earn only 68 cents for every dollar a White man makes. Our country, therefore, is still far from perfect.

Today, the Senate has a historic opportunity to narrow the gap between our ideals and our practices. We have the opportunity to say that women should be treated the same as men. We have the opportunity to say that people should be fairly paid for their labor. We have the opportunity to loudly proclaim in a unified voice that discrimination will not be tolerated in America.

As of last year, after a misguided Supreme Court decision overturned what had been the law of the land for decades, a worker can't bring an action for wage discrimination if the original decision to discriminate happened more than 180 days beforehand. The Supreme Court said employers can get away with discrimination if they hide it long enough, even though the effects of that bigotry have no expiration date.

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act would recognize the long-term, continuous, systemic discrimination as it really is and not let offending companies get away with it through loopholes and disinformation. If a woman sees her wages continuously fall behind those of her male counterparts or a worker gets paid a wage far lower than the company average just because she is Black, they should be able to challenge their employers even if the original decision to discriminate was made years ago.

Narrowly defining discrimination as merely the original decision to discriminate makes no sense at all. Let's say, for example, that a criminal hacks into your bank account and decides to steal a portion of your paycheck every 2 weeks. If we were to apply a precedent similar to the Ledbetter case, if the hacker doesn't get caught 180 days after the initial decision to hack in, he can keep stealing forever with no fear of prosecution. Current discrimination law makes about that much sense.

Now, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will ask why workers often don't file their claim within 180 days from the first instance of discrimination. Well, there are several reasons. To begin with, workers generally find it difficult to compare their salaries to coworkers, and many businesses actually prohibit it. Even if a worker sees her pay is lower than her coworkers, she might not recognize it was a result of discrimination. And if workers do recognize it as discrimination, they often wait to contact the EEOC--the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission--or decide not to due to feeling ashamed or more often they fear retaliation by their company.

They fear the consequences of ``rocking the boat'' and figure a job in which they are discriminated against is better than being fired and having no job at all. And certainly, in these incredibly tough economic times, that is a rising reality. To make matters worse, skyrocketing unemployment rates have only put these vulnerable workers in a more precarious and often helpless position.

Some of my Republican colleagues will also argue that this legislation will open the floodgates, leading to thousands of lawsuits claiming wage discrimination. But this argument simply has no merit. For over 40 years, the courts have interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to be consistent with the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Eight out of nine appellate courts interpreted it that way, and yet there was no flood of litigation then, nor will there be after we enact this vital piece of legislation into law.

Some of my conservative colleagues will argue that this legislation will make companies liable for decades of backpay and will encourage workers to intentionally delay and file claims years later when those accused might no longer be around to defend themselves. Again, these arguments simply ignore the facts. Under this legislation, backpay would be capped at 2 years regardless of how long the victim was discriminated against and the burden to prove discrimination took place is borne by the worker. Any lack of witnesses available to testify would only hurt the worker's efforts to prove their case.

Critics who say this legislation will cripple businesses miss the point. The fact is that companies following the law are currently put at a competitive disadvantage compared to those who exploit their workers. The executive director of the U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce--a strong business advocacy group--succinctly noted:

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act rewards those who play

fair--including women business owners--unlike the Supreme

Court's decision, which seems to give an unfair advantage

to those who skirt the rules.

So we have a strong business advocacy group saying treat those who are obeying the law as it was intended and as it, in fact, has been pursued for over four decades in a way that doesn't put them at a competitive disadvantage. The vast majority of businesses that practice legal hiring procedures will not have to change anything and will no longer be punished for doing the right thing.

Wage discrimination is real. The Fair Pay Act would strike a clear blow against it. So we have to make sure to keep the legislation strong. Unfortunately, I am afraid the amendment offered by our colleague from Texas, Senator Hutchison, would severely undermine it. That amendment would require people to prove they had no reason--no reason--to suspect their employer was discriminating against them in 180 days. The amendment is pretty confusing just on its face. I have to ask, how does an employee prove she doesn't suspect discrimination? And when should she have to? In general, I don't see how it is relevant whether a victim suspects discrimination; the issue is whether there is discrimination. If it is happening, it has to be stopped, plain and simple. You can't ultimately be in a position in which you are allowed to discriminate and get away with it. If we send that message in our society, then all the progress we have made will be rolled back.

Madam President, I would like to believe that every Member of this body champions principles of equality, justice, and liberty as much as I do. But principles are meaningless without practice. Without vigilantly ensuring that no person is discriminated against because of their gender, their race, their religion, their ethnicity, or their sexual orientation, our principles become just empty words.

I would like to remind my colleagues that inaction on this issue is akin to tacit acceptance. And as Dr. King said:

We will remember not the words of our enemies but the

silence of our friends.

I urge my colleagues to remember those wise words and put their votes where their values are by supporting this vital piece of civil rights legislation.

I thank my distinguished colleague from Maryland for leading the charge. She has been an exceptional fighter on this issue, and I know she will soon see the fruits of her labor, not for herself and her advocacy but for millions of women, Latinos, and African Americans who find themselves discriminated against and who deserve the ability for all to be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor without such discrimination.

Madam President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Minnesota for allowing me to move forward in this time, during this process, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, a few days ago, we all counted down the final seconds of 2008. In Israel they had something else to count all through last year. From January until December of 2008, a terrorist group launched more than 3,262 rockets and mortar shells into Israeli cities. These were deliberate acts of violence, provocation, and murder. The group responsible was Hamas. Hamas is a terrorist organization founded on one principal goal: destroying the state of Israel. Its charter says there is no value to international conferences, political initiatives, or dialogue. It says there is only one approach to the political situation in the Middle East, and that is jihad.

So it was no surprise when the terrorist group Hamas staged an illegal coup against the forces of President Mahmoud Abbas, the legitimate President of the Palestinian people. It was no surprise that Hamas rejected Egyptian and Arabian calls for an extension of the cease-fire Egypt had negotiated.

It was no surprise that when Israel voluntarily and unilaterally dismantled settlements and withdrew from Gaza in 2005 that Hamas saw this not as an opportunity to build peace but to instigate war, to continue to terrorize and kill Israelis in their places of worship, their schools, and their homes.

Since that year, Hamas terrorists have used Gaza to fire more than 6,300 mortars and rockets into Israel, reaching major cities, and pushing ever closer to the capital.

No country would be expected to sit on its hands and simply allow its citizens to endure these kinds of vicious attacks without taking action to stop the responsible party. If I am sitting in New Jersey, and rockets are landing around my house, near my children, and near our schools, my No. 1 goal, my immediate goal, is to stop the rockets. So in December of 2008, Israel sent its military to Gaza to achieve a direct goal: stop the rockets.

And now we all hope strongly that this goal can be achieved as quickly as possible. But we recognize it must be pursued if Israel is to have the sovereign right to protect itself and its citizens. Israel's acts to stop the Hamas rocket attacks are a response to the daily risk of death faced by the 900,000 Israeli citizens who live within rocket range. These innocent civilians have been forced to live constantly under the threat of mass casualties. No nation--no nation-- should have to wait for the death toll to rise enough before it can act. No nation needs to wait until enough schoolchildren have fallen victim to a rocket attack before it stops rockets from falling on its cities. The launching of rockets and mortar fire is an invasion of Israel's sovereign territory. It is no different from dropping bombs out of airplanes. It is no different from any other act of war. There is no question that Israel has a right and an obligation to defend its people.

We mourn the loss of all innocent life, and the death of Palestinian civilians as a result of this conflict is tragic. There are a great many Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank who completely reject the Hamas ideology. They want to live in peace and build the Palestinian state for themselves and for their children. They are, however, Hamas hostages. Hamas has hijacked Gaza, not to build a state in which you can live in peace and prosperity but to use it as a base to launch attacks against innocent civilians in Israel.

Let us remember it was Hamas that chose to end the cease-fire, Hamas that chose to fire a continuous barrage of rockets. To date, it is Hamas that deliberately uses civilians as human shields and launches its attacks from heavily populated civilian areas, putting them at risk. It is Hamas that has spent its money on rockets rather than on food for the hungry. It is Hamas that would rather focus on the rhetoric that calls for the destruction of the State of Israel than on relief for its own people.

Israel and the United States have proven their commitment to helping innocent civilians in Gaza. In stark contrast to the terrorist group of Hamas, Israel has taken significant steps to prevent civilian casualties. They give warnings of impending attacks, they drop leaflets, and make phone calls to targeted areas to warn the citizens they are in danger, even if that means losing the element of surprise and putting the lives of their own soldiers at risk.

Israel and the United States have actively provided humanitarian assistance to Gaza. Since December 26, 10,000 tons of humanitarian aid have been delivered to Gaza in coordination with Israel, the Palestinian Authority, international organizations, and various other donors.

The United States Government, through the U.S. Agency for International Development, is continuing to deliver humanitarian supplies to the people of Gaza. The United States has provided medical and food supplies to health care facilities. We support the UN, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and other nongovernmental organizations as they continue their relief efforts.

We all want peace in Gaza and hope it can come very soon. But peace cannot be achieved so long as Hamas continues its missile attacks. If a just and lasting cease-fire is to occur, it is incumbent upon Hamas to immediately and permanently halt all attacks against the Israeli people.

I rise today to express unwavering commitment to the welfare, security, and survival of the state of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. That is what the resolution before us affirms. As the resolution states, the ultimate goal of the United States is a ``sustainable resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, that will allow for a viable and independent Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security with the State of Israel.'' This will not be possible as long as Israeli civilians are under threat from rockets. As this resolution correctly lays out, Hamas must end the rocket and mortar attacks against Israel, recognize Israel's right to exist, renounce violence, and agree to accept previous agreements between Israel and the Palestinians.

Today, the Senate must stand in support of the state of Israel, stand in support of its right to defend itself against terrorists, stand in support of its right to exist. Having said all of this, of course, we urge Israel as it defends its sovereignty and its people to use every option it can to limit the loss of innocent lives. So let us vote for a resolution that demonstrates our commitment to one of the strongest allies the United States of America has in the world, and let us do all we can to make it a peaceful 2009.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester.) The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. President, today I honor the life of Pablo Raul Alarcon. His dedication and achievements in overcoming the tyranny of the Castro regime to found the largest publicly traded Hispanic- controlled media company in America stands as a powerful example of the realization of the American dream. While we mourn the passing of this broadcasting pioneer, we celebrate his legacy and the profound impact his life has had on the United States.

Today, the Spanish Broadcasting System owns and operates 20 radio stations across the country, including the No. 1 Spanish-language radio station in America--which I have the privilege of listening to when I am home in New Jersey. They own a popular television station and operate a bilingual Web site dedicated to Latino culture and news. Under the exemplary leadership of Mr. Alarcon's son, Raul Alarcon, Jr., SBS continues to be the gold standard in Hispanic-operated broadcasting.

The Alarcons were born in Cuba, where Pablo Raul Alarcon founded his first radio station in 1951. He found success creating a network of 14 stations across the country, which were ultimately seized by the Castro dictatorship. The Alarcons fled to America with few possessions. But the tyranny of Castro could not crush the spirit of their entrepreneurship. Mr. Alarcon worked his way up in Spanish language radio, doing programming, sales, and advertising. In 1983 Mr. Alarcon and his son, Raul Alarcon, Jr., fulfilled their long-held dream of once again owning a broadcast station. They purchased a small AM station licensed in my home State and created the first Spanish language format to be introduced into the New York/New Jersey market in over 25 years.

Since 1983, the Alarcons have overseen the expansion of SBS to become one of the premier Hispanic-controlled broadcast companies in America. Soon after its founding, SBS expanded to Los Angeles and Miami. In 1993, their KLAX-FM station achieved a historic overall No. 1 ranking in southern California.

As the torch was passed from father to son, SBS continued its rise. In 1999, SBS completed the second largest IPO in radio history and continued expanding their network of broadcast stations. That same year, SBS went online with the purchase of lamusica.com. In 2001, SBS produced a sell-out Madison Square Garden charity concert to honor the victims of September 11. In 2006, SBS entered the television broadcasting business with the creation of the MEGA-TV network.

Raul Alarcon, Jr., is well known for his tremendous successes as the president and CEO of SBS. He has been recognized as one of the 100 most influential Hispanics and as one of the 40 most powerful people in radio. In 1994, Raul Alarcon, Jr., was given the Lifetime Achievement Award for Business Excellence. In 1995, he received both the Ellis Island Medal of Honor and the Human Rights Committee Radio Contributions Award. He has testified before Congress and his position as an authority in the field of minority media ownership is unparalleled.

There is no doubt that the Alarcons exhibit the embodiment of the American dream. When a cruel dictatorship destroyed their life's work, they came to America and started over by creating a company that impacts the lives of millions of Americans. So I am pleased to pay tribute to the Spanish Broadcasting System, to honor the passing of Pablo Raul Alarcon, and to recognize the tremendous achievement of Raul Alarcon, Jr., in carrying on his father's legacy.

Madam President, I am as angry as any New Jerseyan, as any American, about the economic situation we have been put in. But the truth is, for those who are honest with themselves, they know we are in an economic crisis and doing nothing is not an option. If we don't get credit flowing again, businesses won't be able to operate. People in our neighborhoods will lose their jobs. Getting a loan for a car, an education, or a home will become increasingly difficult, if not impossible. I believe the American dream itself is facing one of the greatest risks in recent history. What we have before us is an economic stabilization plan. It is not perfect. But it will help protect and create jobs by restoring stability and confidence to our economy.

We have taken the plan the administration sent us. We rejected it and reworked it. George Bush first sent us a plan with no accountability, a plan where the idea of checks and balances was: We write the check, and they fill in the blank. But we have changed that plan, made vast improvements, and put taxpayers first. The plan provides for oversight, accountability, an oversight board, and a special inspector general. The plan makes sure there is congressional review and, ultimately, approval for any additional funding over $350 billion. In this plan, taxpayers will be treated as investors. If we take on a risk, we will be given warrants, the equivalent of a shareholder, given a stake in any future profit that might lie ahead for that company.

If we step in during the decline, taxpayers must be allowed to share in the profit. So the plan is structured to reward taxpayers with profits while protecting them from losses.

This plan says there will be no more golden parachutes. People who led us into this mess cannot be rewarded for failure. Besides strengthening our economy's foundation, it creates jobs, provides relief for struggling homeowners, and will help small businesses access credit, the small businesses that create 75 percent of America's jobs.

Tonight's vote provides also tax relief for the middle class by taking care of the alternative minimum tax in the next year. It pushes for loan modifications to help struggling homeowners stay in their homes and stop property values from falling in our neighborhoods. This vote tonight invests in America's renewable energy, to drive down gas prices and create American jobs that can't be outsourced.

Now, this plan is not perfect, but it is necessary. We still have a long way to go toward tackling the root of this crisis, which is the housing market. I hope we will set the goal of saving at least a million families from foreclosure. We still have a long way to go to establish the strong regulatory enforcement I have called for in the past that prevents the kinds of abuses that got us into this situation in the first place. But, again, doing nothing is not an option. Jobs are on the line. People's cars, houses, and educations are on the line. Those who would reject this plan tonight out of ideology will be punishing not the CEOs but hundreds of thousands of Americans who will lose their jobs.

Madam President, I am going to heed the call of Senator Obama. It is time for us to come together and act in the best interests of this country. Clearly, we are experiencing unprecedented times. I, along with some of my colleagues, warned many times in the past about the gathering specter that irresponsible lending posed, but we were dismissed as alarmists. This is one instance where I wish I had been wrong.

But tonight is not about looking back and pointing fingers. It is about looking forward and preventing even further damage to our economy before it is really too late. Tonight is about keeping the American dream stable enough that we can make it a solid promise for tomorrow, and that is why I will be voting yes.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Chairman Dodd, with the scale of this undertaking and the volume of assets that will be managed, I want to ensure that the contracting provisions for asset managers under the package lead to the engagement of financially sound institutions that have the best and brightest financial minds.

The package gives the Treasury Secretary broad authority, including the explicit authority to waive certain portions of Federal acquisition regulations when retaining asset managers. Along those lines, I want to ensure that, despite the safeguards that have been provided, the Secretary does not take a narrow approach but, rather, seeks the broadest collection of asset management experts to assist him. Therefore, I ask my colleague from Connecticut, the chairman of the Banking Committee, do you believe that it is the intent of Congress that the contracting process must be as full and open as possible and that the Secretary should consider a broad range of asset managers, including broker-dealers, insurers, and other experts?

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, if I may.

Mr. President, I had intended to speak, but with an understanding that is the presentation by the Senator from Maine, I ask unanimous consent that after the Senator from Maine is recognized by the Chair, I would be recognized following that.

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I was happy to yield to the distinguished Senator from Maine on her recognition of Senator Warner. I certainly join in her comments about Senator Warner, as we did recently when the Senator appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and recognized his tremendous service to this institution and to the country. I often say, as I said to him before at the hearing, that, in fact, I am privileged I came to the Senate at a time when I got to serve with John Warner and to see some of the finest traditions of service in this country. I appreciate his tremendous service, not just to the people of Virginia but to the people of this Nation.

I thank the distinguished Senator from Virginia.

The Economy

Mr. President, I rise to talk about the financial crisis our country is facing. I think to classify it as such is an understanding most Americans have. It is not an overstatement. The reality shows that today in a Washington Post ABC News poll, most Americans see the current financial situation as a crisis, and there is overwhelming concern that the failure of the House of Representatives to pass the economic recovery package may very well deepen that problem.

I think it is important to note the poll also revealed significant public concern with the bill that Congress rejected yesterday. Few voters have said the package did enough to protect ordinary Americans and nearly half said it did not go far enough to shore up the Nation's economy. Half said the failed plan did not do enough to help the broader economy, and 61 percent said there was insufficient assistance for the general public.

I think it is important, as we try to move forward in this institution and show some leadership, to keep those realities in mind-- of what our constituents back at home are saying. They recognize there is a crisis. They also recognize there is a challenge to them in the mainstream economy, and they felt as though that specific package didn't do enough for them. So many Americans--I would say the great majority of Americans--who are meeting their obligations with tremendous stress and challenges, who meet their monthly mortgage payments--have for years and have continued to do so--what they reasonably want to know is what do they get out of this?

As my home State newspaper, the Star Ledger, said: Why, they continue to ask, should taxpayers have to subsidize the stupidity of people who were either greedy or maybe failed to do their homework? They go on to say in the editorial the real problem in Washington is that no one has made a cogent argument for why, in essence--this is paraphrasing--for why, in essence, we need to have a response and what does it mean to those who are not investment bankers or whose homes aren't in foreclosure.

I think the economists generally agree the Nation's economy is at a serious risk of the flow of credit threatening to freeze beyond where it is already. We see the interest rates at which banks lend to each other rising each and every day, suggesting that lenders are hoarding cash. I think that gets to the question of what the editorials have said in my home State and others as well: So then what is the case to be made?

Well, with banks leery of lending to each other, credit markets contract, making it difficult for businesses to obtain loans for expansion, to start new ventures or even to cover bills until unanticipated revenue comes in; car loans dry up, causing further suffering among the already ailing automakers; credit card interest rates rise, and all that forces, in essence, markets to shed jobs, creating more unemployment. Overall, this bleak fiscal picture causes consumers to scale back on spending, and then the little shop on Main Street closes as well. That is a broad brush. I would like to get to some of the specifics of how that affects us.

When we have watched the news or picked up a newspaper over the last few months, we see top stories about the problems of big institutions: Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual and Wachovia. It has been easy to see what dire straits our financial system is in, but what is not making the headlines is what this economic crisis means for people in our hometowns.

We have heard a lot about mortgage-backed securities, credit default swaps, and overnight lending rates. To be very honest with my colleagues, to a large number of Americans that is a foreign language-- but not about what they actually mean in terms of mortgages, credit card bills, and week-to-week budgets of our families. Those are items which they clearly understand and speak about around the kitchen table as they face challenges.

I think some of us have been left with a mistaken impression that this crisis is just about Wall Street. I am worried people on every street in this country, who are being powerfully affected by this crisis, are being forgotten.

Now, the heart of this crisis is the housing market. So many houses are going into foreclosure that now it is hard for anybody to get a loan of any kind, to buy a home, to invest in a business or have that business grow, to get a college education. There is a credit freeze so businesses can't grow. They can't pay expenses. They can't look to the future. It is becoming a financial wildfire, ravishing our economy and burning away at the fabric of our communities. The crisis stretches across every city in, for example, my home State, but it is replicated across the landscape of the country, North and South and East and West.

In Newark, there is a single mother who has lost her job and now holds down three different part-time jobs to make up for it, while her kids are at home by themselves. In Clifton, there is a couple who work two jobs and bring in $4,000 a month together, but when the mortgage payment, the car payment, the electricity and gas, utility bills come in, and the grocery bills and the credit card bills come in every month, they worry they can't make ends meet. In another part of the State, there is a builder who is finding it almost impossible to get funding to keep his business going. Banks want bigger deposits, bigger monthly payments, and stricter payment deadlines.

Today, I wish to focus on what the credit crunch means for every New Jerseyan and American--the jobs, the businesses or anyone who needs a loan to drive a car or go to college--and what it means for those who are closer to the twilight of their life and are thinking about their retirement and what that retirement has meant to them in terms of what is taking place and what will continue to take place if we see no action and how they may very well have to extend the time in which they thought they could retire.

Let's talk about businesses, especially small businesses, because they are the ones that create 75 percent of all the jobs in America. We have always been an entrepreneurial people. We have always had the ideas and are willing to take intelligent risks to start a business, and those businesses are the ones that create jobs. They rent stores. They buy buildings. Those people who are employed ultimately are gainfully employed in a way that they have income to spend in other businesses for goods and services they

need, which employ other people, and, of course, these businesses pay revenues, to their local, State, and Federal entities. So we can see the cycle of how important they are.

Now, if you want to start a business, this is one of the worst climates in our history to do so. Loans aren't available, even to people with good credit, and especially not to entrepreneurs who are getting started. So that dream of Americans having business ownership is now miles further away. But the credit crunch hurts small businesses. There are those of us who every day are feeling restricted in our spending and frugal when we open our checkbooks. That means we aren't going, for example, to see this lady at the counter. She is ultimately at the other end of the business cycle. We are restricted in our spending. This is a reality. It is a reality we feel in our lives. We see what is happening in the country. We may already have faced some pressures in our own economic circumstances in a personal family way, so we hold back. We say: Let's see what will happen. How do I decide? So we restrict our spending and we are frugal when we open our checkbooks. That is probably in many ways smart, but there is also a consequence. That means a lot of us aren't going out to eat as much, which means the waitress isn't getting the tips she depended on to bring home for her family and the challenges her family has, and owners of that business aren't getting the checks they depend on, which means restaurants have to either contract dramatically the size of their workforce, or, in the acute set of circumstances, they have to close. It means the local retailer--perhaps from whom we buy the treat we have once a week at the end of a long week or a gift we are buying for a family member or a friend's birthday--will see depleting sales. As their cash input decreases, they have to decrease their output, and they will be giving pink slips to their employees. It means we see more of this sign that says ``store closed'' for business. It means the local lunch spot or the barber will not have the same lunchtime rush or the same Saturday appointments. While we certainly can all live without a haircut as frequently or without eating our favorite sandwich, those shop owners depend on our steady business. They depend on that appointment to make ends meet. When, in fact, that doesn't happen, there is a consequence to them and those who work there and the families of all who are situated there.

Small businesses don't have access to capital because banks have severely cut back in lending. So, for example, when my dear father was alive, he was an itinerant carpenter, and he used to go to the lumber shop where he had a little bit of credit to get some supplies as he did the business--the work for the people who hired him--but that lumber store obviously had to get their suppliers and the credit that, in fact, they needed to get those supplies there, to then extend credit to him so he would be able to go ahead and do the job and then get paid and then pay for his supplies and the chain goes on. When, in fact, that chain is broken, there is a consequence, and the consequence of that is people lose their employment. There is a ripple effect. It is not only they who lose their employment but all the resources they had in making the purchase of goods and services that ultimately hired other people and who had families and who had needs and who made expenditures. So we see the consequences of that.

In the construction field, for example, we have a set of circumstances where, in fact, you have contractors who get a job in southern New Jersey, but he doesn't get paid for that job upfront.

He makes a bid. It might be a public contract or it might be a private construction project. He doesn't get paid up front. So that contractor needs credit.

What does he need the credit for? He needs the credit for the supplies to bring to the job to do the work. He needs credit for floating so that he can keep his payroll going for the people he has to pay up front every week so they can do the work that creates the home or the building or the business structure that ultimately will pay them, and they will repay their credit from their suppliers and then ultimately be able to make a profit.

Again, all of those construction materials that are provided to that contractor, those people, those entities have credit as it relates to those who provide the supplies that they sell to contractors. So there is, again, an intricate balance of all of these interests coming together in a way that affects the person wearing a hard hat on the front lines of building the infrastructure, the homes, the churches, and the businesses of our community.

Again, the reality: When a credit freeze takes place, the pink slips start getting printed, and the workforce is suddenly unemployed. Now the contractors cannot pay their suppliers, so their cash inventory drops and their ability to issue payroll at the end of the week is also jeopardized, and it pushes more families into the ranks of the unemployed. It is a vicious cycle occurring far away from Wall Street, but it is affecting our families, our neighbors, our friends on Main Street.

The credit crunch changes our ability to shop. Every business to some degree depends on this credit process for what they sell and the supplies they get. We often use our credit cards in the process of purchasing those goods. But when manufacturers cannot get loans that they need to keep the manufacturing process going to create the products that ultimately get consumed at a store where the store takes credit and purchases it from them but gets maybe 30 days, 60 days the manufacturer needs to continue to produce the product so that ultimately it goes to that store where ultimately consumers seek to purchase, in fact, they cannot get the money to keep the product on the shelves, and, of course, the cycle is clear.

Look at farmers. New Jersey is called the Garden State. I often tell my friends you have to get off the turnpike if you want to know what the Garden State really looks like. We have spinach. We are in the top two or three in spinach. We have a whole host of speciality products-- peach orchards, cranberry bogs, blueberries, to mention some.

For farmers, crop planting depends greatly on the amount of available credit. Farmers cannot plant next year's crop if they cannot get this year's loans. So from cranberries to blueberries to all of these other products, everything you buy at the grocery store is going to be more expensive. Some food products may wind up in very short supply. They are going to be more expensive because even if you have a great credit history--as the cranberry bogs in the pinelands of New Jersey--if you have a good credit history but the credit crunch creates a higher and higher standard for what you will borrow and under what terms and conditions you will borrow, that is going to be reflected ultimately in the end cost of the product we consume on the dining room table.

We have a challenge that is direct for farmers, for family farmers, and for all of us as consumers as we put fruits and vegetables on the table for our families to consume, and that has a direct consequence to us.

Credit cards. As loans become more and more difficult and expensive to get, people will continue to increase their usage of credit cards. I hope if people have some disposable money that they will pay down their credit card debts. That is a good thing to be doing in these times and not be looking at spending a lot of interest on credit card debt. This is a good time, if you have the resources, to pay down credit card debt.

I know so many families who tell me they are using that credit card as they have transitions in jobs, as they meet some of their challenges. We see credit card interest rates which are already rising, and they will continue to escalate as banks look for ways to recoup the losses resulting from those defaults that are taking place.

This is an issue I raised before about credit card reform. We need to pursue reform in several sectors of our financial industry. We already have credit card debt in this country that collectively equals $850 billion. Now we are seeing the consequences of those who find themselves using their credit cards in this economy who ultimately are facing higher interest rates and, should they be somewhat late, higher fees for those payments for being slightly late. Then we will see a ripple effect of those fees pushing people beyond their limits, and when they get pushed beyond

their limits artificially, they are in default. When they are in that default, they find themselves with a whole host of new charges that continue to push up their debt. We need to do something about this situation. But it is part of the reality of our present existence that, in fact, we see this driving up as we speak. That is a consequence to the average consumer in this country.

I had a teacher in New Jersey who recently showed how hard it is getting for anyone to get a car loan. This teacher is not living within the community in which she teaches. She has to drive there. It is not a location where public transit is easily available. This teacher in New Jersey, who has driven to work every day for the past few years, has to buy a new car because hers is broken down. But the auto lending market essentially has been closed to buyers with credit scores of less than 720.

By the way, 720 is an excellent score. Yet finding the resources for an auto loan, not having the money to put it all out to purchase a car up front in cash--they need the opportunity to get access to that auto loan, and even with scores of 720 or less, they are finding it increasingly difficult to do so. Even if they have some savings and just want a modest new car to take them where they need to go to work, unless they have excellent credit, they quite simply are not going to get a loan to get that car.

If we don't act soon, we are going to see students who will have trouble paying for their education. Parents trying to save for their children's college education will see their investments shrink, along with the stock market. College endowments that invest in the stock market are also getting hit hard, which makes it harder for them to provide financial assistance to students.

If students need loans--and I know in my own life, someone who grew up poor in a tenement, the first in my family to go to college, if it wasn't for what we have done in the Federal Government through Pell grants and Perkins loans and also through other loans, I would not have been the first in my family to go to college and then law school.

Students who manage to find loans will carry a higher interest rate than they would otherwise, leaving our graduates with crushing debt. We are already seeing so many of our children graduate with enormous debt. They graduate with a diploma in one hand and enormous debt in the other one. That is only going to rise under the current circumstances-- crushing debt before they even enter the job market.

When they do leave school and start to look for a job, at this point, these graduates in the next year or two are going to be greeted by one of the worst job markets in 5 years. We are already at 6.1 percent unemployment and rising. We will see inaction only create a greater percentage of unemployment than we have experienced, and that will be some of the highest unemployment we have seen in well over a generation.

In addition to burdening young people who are just about to launch their careers, failing to act will exacerbate the already difficult situation facing those who are winding down their careers and looking forward to retirement. We saw yesterday that the Dow lost the equivalent of $1.2 trillion in value. That is not just about wealthy people who have money to make investments in stocks. That is about those who have 401(k)s, that is about pension plans that make investments on behalf of their pensioners, that is about a broad breadth of all of us.

Failing to act exacerbates the already difficult situation facing those who are winding down their careers and looking forward to retirement. When I looked before, the Dow was going back up, but the problem is that we see no sense of stability. Losses are real. It is not just the point on the Dow; it is the overall S&P performance as well. These people will see their decades of savings continue to shrink smaller and smaller as their IRAs, 401(k)s, and mutual funds drop in value.

Yesterday's stock market alone accounted for approximately a $1.2 trillion loss. Without action, those losses will only get worse.

I know that a lot of people do not want to look at their 401(k)s right now, but everyone is going to have to look at them eventually. Those on the cusp of retirement cannot afford to wait several years for the market to stabilize on its own. They will be forced to stay in the job market long after they planned on retiring. That is a cruel reality for people who have worked a lifetime to help create families, build communities, and now find themselves in this challenge as they go into those years in which they thought their hard work would pay off. These hard-working Americans, who worked hard their whole lives, need us to act in a strong and sensible way to ensure that 30 years of savings do not get largely eliminated within 30 days.

Let's talk about mortgages, which is at the heart of what our challenges are and the foreclosures that are mounting.

The credit crunch affects your mortgage even if you pay it on time because if you have a mortgage, whether you pay it on time or not, you are going to find it difficult, if not impossible, to refinance your mortgage or to take out a second mortgage if you need it for the college education of your children or if, God forbid, there is an illness in your family that isn't covered by the insurance you have, if you have insurance, or if you are underinsured. You are going to find yourself with higher rates and different lending conditions.

Your neighbors who are struggling and who are walking away from their homes because there is a padlock on the front door--their loss; you may think they maybe didn't make the right decisions, maybe they are part of that 6.1 percent unemployment who lost their jobs and now find themselves in a set of circumstances where they cannot meet the mortgage payment, maybe some should have known better. But regardless of the circumstances, whether they lost their job, don't have the income stream they had before to pay their mortgage, or whether it is because they were led to bad mortgages--I have people come into my Senate offices in New Jersey, and when we look at their information, we see they could have been very responsible borrowers at fixed rates, but they were led to mortgage instruments that, yes, were lower at the beginning but ultimately ballooned later. It is a crime that those mortgage lenders drove them to those products, knowing they could have been a very responsible borrower and had the ability to pay a long-term loan at a fixed rate, they led them to those products and had them choose a mortgage product where now they find themselves losing their home.

Neighborhoods with foreclosures bring down home values for everyone in that community. I looked at the Center for Responsible Lending, and I looked at what they are saying about some of our challenges. In New Jersey alone, there are approximately 53,000 homes, and rising, in foreclosure. By the way, we are not the worst State in the Nation in this regard but by way of example. What does that mean? That affects neighborhoods and other homes and becomes a multiplier effect of enormous proportions.

When a home forecloses in your neighborhood, the overall value of homes in that neighborhood falls. In New Jersey, that is the equivalent of about an $11,000 loss on your home. Having done absolutely nothing, paying your mortgage, being responsible, you still lost $11,000 on your home because of foreclosures taking place in your neighborhood. When there is a multiplicity of those foreclosures taking place in your neighborhood, it drives the value down even more.

That has a consequence too. When values are driven down, as a former mayor I can tell you that means the ratable base begins to shrink. When the ratable base of all values begins to shrink, that is less taxes being paid. When that happens, there are two decisions to make. Either you cut services--police, fire, education--or you have to raise taxes collectively. Of course, that has a spiraling effect in and of itself.

This foreclosure crisis is very much a reality not only for those who are losing and/or have lost their homes, but it is very real for those of us who still have a home because our home simply isn't worth as much as we paid for it.

The credit crunch makes it harder to get financing to go buy a home presently. We have a story of someone who, totally responsible, good job, buys a condo and gets preapproved for their

loan and they sign a contract. But a week before the closing, they are told the market in which they have purchased is declining and now they have to come up with twice the downpayment they had originally been approved for. So that may mean that home doesn't get sold, that person has to make other choices or, if they have any assets to meet the greater downpayment, they now have to make other choices in their lives as well. So the house sits on the market continuing to lose value and affects the values of all other homes in that neighborhood. That has a consequence for all of us.

I have tried to outline what some of the challenges are. Let me talk about what I hope we will consider moving toward. As bad as the situation has gotten, with hundreds of thousands of Americans losing their jobs and millions losing their homes, energy and health costs sky-high, with businesses in trouble and loans of any kind incredibly hard to come by, most Americans have been morally opposed to the rescue plan leaders in Congress and the administration presented. Most Americans aren't too interested in a plan that risks rewarding those who got us into this mess, and they are absolutely right to be outraged.

I, personally, as someone who in March of 2007, at a Senate Banking Committee hearing, raised the fact that we were going to face a tsunami of foreclosures and that we should be ahead of the curve and deal with that reality, unfortunately, had the administration say to me at that hearing that it was an exaggeration. Well, unfortunately, we haven't even seen the crest of that tsunami, and this is the issue that is at the core of our challenge. So I am, personally, incredibly angry that the greatest economy in the world has been brought to this point.

But let us be very clear: Those people who brought us into this process have to be brought to justice, but while we consider that, the reality is we are all facing a consequence. That said, the need for accountability doesn't take away the need for action to rescue the system they damaged. As much as maybe some reckless CEO deserves to lose their job, we can't watch 2 to 3 million Americans lose their jobs to achieve that result. We can't let the entire system fail to punish the few who brought us to where we are today.

We have already lost over 600,000 jobs this year alone. We have a 6.2-percent unemployment rate--the highest in 5 years. In some communities, such as the Latino community, it is 8 percent unemployment and rising. We have to be very clear. If the crisis continues, it is going to drastically change our way of life for the worse. So doing nothing is not an option. If we don't shore up the economy's foundation, the floor is going to cave in on all of us. We have to do something to thaw out the credit market, restore trust in our financial system, and put out this economic wildfire before it is too late.

Once we saw centuries-old financial institutions fail, once we saw our credit markets freeze up and Americans' savings begin to disappear, the question wasn't do we have to act, the question was how to craft a plan that would work and would give maximum protection to the taxpayers who might fund it.

Now, I believe there is something that wasn't in the plan but that should be included, and I appreciate Senator Obama's suggestion of it today, where he proposed lifting the current limit on the Federal Deposit Insurance from its current limit of $100,000 to $250,000. He said he believed it would be:

A step that would boost small businesses, make our banking

system more secure, and help restore public confidence in our

financial system.

Right now, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation guarantees deposits up to $100,000 for every citizen or business. Meaning that if the bank goes down, the Federal Government guarantees your first $100,000 are safe. This would raise that limit, at least for a period of time.

The FDIC has a long history of experience in protecting taxpayers from an infusion of public capital, especially by preferred stocks and warrants. They know what is the right stock and warrant. These are the guarantees for taxpayers. It would stop the flight by small businesses from some banks to those banks that are considered too big to fail but leaves other institutions without the resources to be part of the lending that is necessary in the community. Deposits would stay in these institutions because there would be newfound confidence, and others would now be depositing their money because they would have a higher insurance level, of up to $250,000, which would provide liquidity to lend to those very businesses that may be placing their resources there. Again, these are the small businesses that create 75 percent of all the jobs in the country.

So I hope we will look toward including that provision. I think it is a good one. Change is a good part of what we are seeking to do with an institution that has a long history of being successful on behalf of the taxpayers.

I also hope we will look at homeowners. I had a pastor in my home State of New Jersey who had been working with not only his congregation but others with his community development organization to try to save homes. We are told that, in fact, we are getting the lenders and the banks to reconsider the mortgages and refinance them and work with people so they can stay in their home and be responsible borrowers. It is better to have a performing mortgage versus one that is nonperforming and is a negative asset to that bank. So if we can keep people in their homes, making it a performing mortgage and making sure it is, in fact, an asset and not a liability to those institutions, we should do that.

Yet recently we had a situation--one example--of a home in New Jersey with a $238,000 mortgage. The homeowner was in foreclosure crisis. They offered to give $220,000 of the $238,000 through the community development corporation. The bank said no. So they are getting zero. Instead of getting zero, they were going to get $220,000 of the $238,000--an $18,000 difference--and they said no. So the community development corporation went to the foreclosure sale and bid the $238,000, the full amount of the mortgage. What did the bank do? They bid it up to $240,000. So they preferred to have this person go in foreclosure. They bid more than they were even getting on the mortgage, even though they could have been made whole, and at the end of the day they had a mortgage that was nonperforming. So we need to do a lot better, a lot better at what is the core of the problem.

I think the New York Times said it well when they said:

Homeowners were also given short shrift with provisions

that mainly urged lenders and the Treasury to do more to help

them. That's unconscionable. The financial crisis is as much

a problem for homeowners as for Wall Street investment

bankers. Appeals to lenders' better natures has not worked to

bring lasting relief to homeowners. If they are still not

working in the coming months, Congress needs to revisit the

issue.

I agree with them totally. It should be a basic principle of our actions now, that if we have to rescue Wall Street from their profit- seeking failures, we should also rescue homeowners, many of whom are in trouble through no fault of their own. Remembering Main Street is beneficial to all of us, and remembering that a foreclosure in our neighborhood affects the value of every house on the block and brings down the broader economy, it doesn't make sense to simply sign off on a plan that keeps the CEO in their office but kicks a family out of their home.

If we are going to solve the problems that are at the root of the crisis, we have to provide real relief for struggling homeowners. That is incredibly important. One of those ways is through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They are now Federal entities. Not only were they federally backed at one time, but they have now been taken over by the Federal Government. They do not need legislation to have a 90-day freeze on mortgages that may be in foreclosure. We can try to rework those mortgages and make them performing loans and keep people in their homes. We can make them positive assets versus negative assets for the bank, and that is one thing we can do without any action. But we need the Government and the administration to move in that direction. That also further limits taxpayer exposure.

Finally, let's go back to that poll. What did Americans say? They understand this is a crisis, but they don't see the connection in their lives, and I have tried to make that. They also didn't think there was enough in the package to deal with the challenges they face. Therefore, I know our colleagues, many on the other side of the

aisle, didn't vote for the stimulus package we offered as Democrats. But it is time to hear what Americans are saying to you. It is time for a new economic stimulus package targeted at creating hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs so we can offset the 600,000 that were lost over the course of this year and to prevent cuts in critical services for millions of Americans. I hope we will revisit that.

We should institute a loan program to help jump-start one of the most important economic engines in America--small business. As I have said before, because of this severe credit crunch, many small businesses-- especially those starting out but many well-established businesses--are having trouble finding credit on the private market. I think emergency loans should be available to small business along the lines of what we provide during a natural disaster. This is a pretty big financial storm, and temporary relief can make a big difference. After all, these are the businesses that create 75 percent of America's jobs.

Tom Friedman put it well when he said:

If our economy were a car, the financial markets would be

the transmission, but they're not the engine. The engine of

American prosperity is American innovation. And until we get

that engine revved up again, investing in higher education

and advanced energy, we are going to be driving over a rough

stretch of road.

Most importantly, if the Federal Government is either going to take on these bad assets or find some other way of capitalization, there must be regulatory reform as well. Those regulations must be robustly enforced. We can't have the cop on the beat, which is the regulator, ultimately hitting the snooze button instead of being at their post and making sure we don't have excesses in the marketplace in a way that ultimately leads us to where we are today.

So we never find ourselves in this position again if we pursue robust regulation and its enforcement. If we do not do that, we will send the message that it is okay for firms to behave recklessly, and we will be forced to follow this challenge further down the line.

I do not mean to say that the movement toward a rescue plan, with some of the additions I talked about, whether in that plan or following on, is going to bring the sunlight of prosperity tomorrow. I think no one here should believe that. But the consequences would be far greater.

I think it was said best in the past when President Hoover said, ``The fundamental business of the country is on a sound and prosperous basis.'' Well, we are not on a sound and prosperous basis. It sounds similar to some of the comments being made today. We need to address some of these fundamentals. This in and of itself will not be it.

So I hope the Senate will stay even after we meet this challenge in the next day or so, and hopefully the House will follow the leadership that has taken place here. I hope we will understand that there are still challenges in the days ahead. The administration has left us with bad choices, but they are choices, nonetheless, that we have to deal the best and act on in the Nation's interests at the end of the day.

As a member of the Banking Committee, I agree with Chairman Dodd. We should have sessions to look very closely at the regulations we need, this administration and the one in the future. This one does not have too much left to it to adopt. We need a strong response, but we need one that is well calibrated, has the appropriate oversight, and we want to make sure Main Street is protected as much as Wall Street.

The financial crisis we face is not an academic exercise. I know some people talk about this esoterically. It is not an academic exercise. I hope people do not treat it that way because in an academic exercise, you can be wrong and the consequences are not great. If we think this is an academic exercise and we are wrong, then the consequences will be very significant. It is a threat to our everyday way of life, and if we do not act, we risk the flood of suffering washing over the entire country.

This is one of those moments that each Member of the Senate and each Member of the House must look to determine the courage that is necessary to act in the face of something that is not very popular, obviously.

We might take a page out of John F. Kennedy's book ``Profiles in Courage.'' In that book, which is stories of courage that have taken place in this institution and in the other in moments of great importance to the country, he said in that book: In whatever arena of life one meets the challenge of courage, no matter the sacrifices he makes--the loss of his friends, his fortune, his contentment, even the esteem of his fellow man--the stories of past courage can teach, they can offer hope, and they can provide inspiration, but they cannot provide courage itself. For this, each man--and, I would add, each woman--must look into his own soul.

Preventing collapse, helping those in need--that is our challenge. I hope that, with some changes and a commitment to do more in the mainstream economy, we will have every Member look in their own soul and provide the courage that is necessary to do what is right for our country and its people.

I yield the floor.

I appreciate Senator Dodd's words, and I appreciate, above all, his leadership on the Banking Committee and here in this institution. You took a document that was sent to us that had no protections, no guarantees, and certainly nothing for the homeowner, and you dramatically made it better. I know you are working to look at what else can be done.

Above all, I appreciate the statements you have made moving beyond the immediate crisis, the leadership you will exert on the committee to have us immediately look at some of these other challenges which are incredibly important for the Nation and a reassurance to the American people. I appreciate the Senator's leadership.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Passenger Rail Improvement and Investment Act and the rail safety bill.

I thank Senator Lautenberg, the senior Senator from New Jersey, for being a tireless advocate for rail travel and for successfully shepherding these two essential bills to the floor and hopefully to final passage. In a time of high gas prices, rising air fares, increasing traffic congestion and concerns about greenhouse gas emissions, rail travel can give Americans a sensible alternative mode of travel.

Unfortunately, we have not provided rail travel the funding it needs to truly flourish. Every year since 2002 Amtrak has had to scrape by and continue operations on a yearly basis without adequate funds to maintain the rail system over the long haul. The system is at a breaking point. Amtrak's equipment is aging and no amount of maintenance can keep old equipment in service forever.

And our rail infrastructure is at the breaking point at a time when our citizens need this system the most. In July Amtrak had more passengers than in any month in its 37 year history. But Amtrak is not just a transportation system that serves 25 million people each year. Amtrak is also an economic engine that creates jobs, fights sprawl, and fosters economic activity. I know firsthand the benefits of Amtrak because over one hundred thousand New Jersey commuters depend on Amtrak's infrastructure every day.

Some critics want Amtrak to be the only major transportation system in the world that operates without government subsidy. This prompts a question. Do we ask roads to pay for themselves? Some of my colleagues like to think that gas taxes pay for roads, but this has never been the case. The Texas Department of Transportation recently revealed that not a single road in Texas has ever been fully paid for by a gas tax and most roads recoup less than half their costs from the gas tax.

Asking transportation to pay for itself is a standard that is simply impossible to meet and a standard we do not hold any other mode of transportation to. Over the last 35 years we have spent less money on Amtrak than we will on highways in this year alone. When you factor in State and local subsidies for infrastructure and parking some studies suggest that up to 8 percent of our gross national product is spent on subsidies for automobile use.

This bill will not give all the funds I think Amtrak deserves or needs to meet its full potential, but I think this legislation finally authorizes the funding Amtrak needs over the next 6 years to plan ahead, adequately fund its operations and finance some critical capital improvements. But these funds are not free.

The bill requires Amtrak to tighten its belt while simultaneously improving service. The bill requires reforms that will reduce Amtrak's operating costs by 40 percent. In addition, the bill provides funds for States to provide new passenger rail service between cities. In some instances these State operations will likely provide service that complements existing Amtrak service just as the recent light rail projects in New Jersey have done. But in other cases these funds may actually create competition for Amtrak for service between some cities. And this bill will

also require Amtrak to use its resources to provide a new level of service that improves on-time performance, upgrades on-board services, and provides easier access to other transportation systems.

The Amtrak bill has also been combined with critical rail safety legislation that would strengthen our railroad security apparatus by investing $1.6 billion in critical transportation safety initiatives.

Tragically, we learned just over 2 weeks ago how important railroad safety is when a Metrolink commuter train plowed head-on into a Union Pacific freight locomotive just outside of Los Angeles. Twenty-five people lost their lives and over 135 people were injured in the deadliest train crash this nation has seen in 15 years.

Every one of those 25 Americans woke up and got ready for work that Friday morning just like any other day. Mothers and fathers kissed their children goodbye after breakfast, never assuming this would be the last time they would see their loved ones. Weekend plans were made--but were never fulfilled. That fateful Friday morning not only ended the lives of these 25 Americans, but took away 25 mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters from family members who will never be the same.

When people board a train in the morning on their way to work, they deserve to have peace of mind that they will reach their destination safely. This legislation would take significant steps to give the American people this peace of mind. It ensures that railroad officials have the resources and tools to do their job safely and effectively by implementing training standards for all safety-related railroad employees and requiring train conductors be certified that they are up to speed with the newest systems in place.

The bill also reforms hours-of-service requirements for crews and signal employees so that these critical workers are at their sharpest and most alert while on duty. In addition to these measures designed to reduce human error, we must also address the shortcomings in our rail infrastructure. Crumbling tracks, deteriorating bridges, and failing signals create an environment where it is only a matter of time before the next rail disaster strikes. This legislation fills many of these gaps by authorizing millions of dollars for critical improvements to infrastructure and safety features to make our rail network as safe as possible.

This bill also ensures that safety rules are strictly adhered to by strengthening the Federal Railroad Administration's enforcement tools and increasing the penalties for safety violations.

It is important to remember that our railroad network is not just critical to commerce and transportation but to national security as well. When the terrorist attacks on September 11 crippled our aviation sector, our Nation relied heavily on trains to make up the shortfall. This illustrates just how important a safe, efficient, well-operated rail transportation network is to all aspects of our nation's well- being--from commercial and economic capacity to national security.

With record high gasoline prices, congested highways and airports that are experiencing record delays, we need all of the alternative forms of transportation we can provide to the frustrated American traveler. I urge my colleagues to recognize that a strong, well-funded and safe rail system is essential to our country. Please join me in voting for this critical bill.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the 2009 Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, a bill better known as the continuing resolution.

Keeping the government running, particularly as so many Americans are

struggling in these tough economic times, is vital. Besides ensuring that basic services continue to be provided, we are also providing some additional measures of assistance that will benefit millions of middle class and working Americans. Now more than ever, we can't simply tell Americans who are having a rough go of it, ``Tough luck, you're on your own.'' It is important to responsibly offer a helping hand where we can and help spur the economy.

As families face increasing energy bills that have stretched their budgets thin, and as we head toward cold winter days and nights, we are providing some relief. This resolution contains substantial low-income energy assistance and weatherization assistance--programs that are essential for seniors and low income families this upcoming winter.

The CR will also provide much-needed resources for families struggling to keep up with increasing grocery bills and rising college tuition fees. It will provide urgently needed disaster assistance to those hit by recent hurricanes, substantial funding or veteran's health care, and an important investment in Pell grants and emergency food assistance.

As the author of the COAST Act, I am adamantly opposed to expanded coastline drilling along eastern and western seaboards of the United States, especially the Jersey shore. I want to continue the moratorium that has protected our Outer Continental Shelf for over two decades. Expanded OCS drilling is bad energy policy, bad environmental policy, and it will do nothing to lower the prices at the pump, now or ever.

This country deserves a serious debate about energy and not just election year posturing. Though this resolution does not extend the moratorium on coastline drilling, it allows us to revisit this issue in March, when we can have a serious policy discussion. In the meantime, drilling would not commence between now and then--or for years into the future--anyway. With a new Congress and a new administration I will continue to stand up for the development of a real, comprehensive energy policy that achieves our goals without endangering the Jersey shore.

With this action today, we have avoided a shutdown of the Federal Government, provided much-needed relief to middle-class and working Americans struggling in this economy and allowed Congress to focus on finding a bipartisan solution to the urgent financial crisis.