Marco Rubio

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, today I recognize Art Linares, a fall intern in my Washington, DC office for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff and the people of the State of Florida. Art is a graduate of the University of Tampa, where he received a degree in entrepreneurship. He is a dedicated and diligent worker who has been devoted to getting the most out of his internship experience. I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Art for all the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, today I recognize Karen Mustiga, a fall intern in my Washington, DC office for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff and the people of the State of Florida. Karen is a graduate of the University of Florida, where she majored in political science and economics. She is a dedicated and diligent worker who has been devoted to getting the most out of her internship experience. I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Karen for all the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, today I recognize Nicole Martinez, an intern in my Miami office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff and the people of the State of Florida. Nicole is a senior at Coral Reef Senior High School in Miami, FL. Next fall, she will be attending the Wharton Undergraduate School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania. She is a dedicated and diligent worker who has been devoted to getting the most out of her internship experience. I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Nicole for all the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, today I recognize Michael Beck, a fall intern in my Washington, DC office for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff and the people of the State of Florida. Michael is a senior at Brigham Young University majoring in political science. He is a dedicated and diligent worker who has been devoted to getting the most out of his internship experience. I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Michael for all the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, it is good to be back at work here in Washington, DC. We have the big State of the Union tonight, which is kind of the beginning of the legislative year. I am looking forward to the challenges and, hopefully, accomplishments we will have together both in this Chamber and in this building in the coming year. As we prepare for the State of the Union, I think it is always a good time for us to reflect on where we are as a nation and where we have been. I think all of us can look back on the 20th century and say it was truly the American century. I was blessed to be born in that century and to be a beneficiary of so much of America's greatness. Those of us who have been beneficiaries of America's past have an obligation--certainly those who serve here--to be defenders of America's greatness in the future. At the core of everything we debate today are these issues about America's future and how we make the 21st century an American century as well. If we examine some of what has really distinguished us from the rest of the world, that has made America and life in America different from life in other countries, there are three things that come to mind. The first is this concept of fairness. We are a people who strongly believe in the concept of fairness. For Americans, fairness has meant equality of opportunity--in essence, the belief that it doesn't matter where you come from, it doesn't matter if your parents are poor, it doesn't matter if you grow up in a disadvantaged background, every single American should have the equality of opportunity, the same opportunity to succeed and accomplish their hopes and dreams. Maybe we take that for granted from time to time, but that is not a universal concept. In multiple societies and economies around the world, I daresay that in the majority of them there is not a strong belief in this notion. In fact, people believe that what you are going to be in life should be determined by the circumstances of your birth. Not in America. This Chamber, the membership here--basically everywhere you go in America--is a testament to people who were born in a very different place or into very different circumstances than the ones they live in now and that which they have been able to achieve. As Americans, we have always embraced the concept of prosperity, the ability to accomplish your economic dreams and hopes. Sometimes that means people make billions of dollars, and sometimes that means you make enough money to provide for your family and give them the opportunity to do even better than yourself, but we embrace the concept of prosperity. Last but not least, we Americans have always embraced the concept of responsibility, the responsibility that all of us have as individuals, as neighbors, as members of a community, as family members. Deep in this concept of responsibility is the notion that while we want fairness and equality of opportunity and while we want prosperity, we are also a compassionate people who do not want to see others left behind. In essence, we do not want the price of our prosperity to be leaving people behind. To that end, Americans, as I outlined in a speech earlier last year, have always struggled and have fought for the notion of balancing those two important goals--being a nation of prosperity and also a nation of responsibility. These are the central things, these are at the core of our values as a people that defined our greatness in the last century, and therefore they must remain at the core of who we are as a nation if we want the 21st century to be an American century as well. Let's examine some of the challenges to those three principles that are so important to our future. On the issue of fairness, on the issue of equality of opportunity, what are the things standing in the way of equality of opportunity in America? In essence, what are the things keeping some people from climbing the ladder, from doing better than their parents did, from being able to pursue and fulfill their dreams as they should in a nation so deeply committed to equality of opportunity? In essence, there are a few things that are standing in the way. The first is skills. There are some Americans right now who do not have access to the kind of training they need to build the skills they need, for example, to create or to have a middle-class job. Part of that is our own doing as a nation. We have, for example, stigmatized career and technical education. For the life of me, I do not understand why we have done that. Not every kid wants to go to a 4-year university. Not every kid wants to graduate with a Ph.D. Some kids want to grow up and fix airplane engines or build things. That is good and important, necessary work. Yet we do not train our kids to do that. A number of jobs in America require more than a high school education but less than a 4-year degree in college. Why can't kids graduate from high school with a high school diploma and an industry certification and a career that will employ them right away? That is one of the impediments that are standing in the way of growing middle-class jobs. If we are truly committed to the principle of fairness, we should invest in that, encourage that, particularly at the State level. There is another thing standing in the way of fairness, equality of opportunity; that is, the playing field is not always even. And there are two things in particular that stand out: our regulations and our Tax Code. It is not me saying that, it is the job creators, small businesspeople trying to make it. Let me tell you what I mean by that. We have a complicated Tax Code, and it is broken. Here is the deal. If you are a large, major, Fortune 500 company, you can afford the best lawyers and accountants in the world to navigate it. You may not like the large, complicated Tax Code, but you can deal with it. The people who cannot deal with a large, complicated Tax Code are the people who are trying to make it--the sole practitioner, the entrepreneur, the small businessperson starting out in the garage or spare bedroom of their home. They cannot deal with the taxes, and they cannot deal with the regulations because they cannot hire the army of specialists it takes to navigate these things. In case you say somehow we are making this up or somehow this is coming out of nowhere, let me tell you that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce did a survey of small businesses earlier this year. They found that 86 percent of small businesses--which are, by the way, not just the backbone of America's economy, they are the backbone of America's prosperity--86 percent of them say they are worried that regulations, restrictions, and taxes are hurting their ability to do business. This is a fact. In terms of there not being a playing field that is even in America, in my opinion, the single greatest contributor to making it more difficult for people who are trying to make it is some of the policies--as well- intentioned as they may be--that are being implemented at the governmental level. We need to invest and commit deeply to this notion of fairness, which is defined in America as equality of opportunity. The second thing we need to continue to believe in is prosperity. Prosperity in America has and must continue to mean private sector economic growth. The private sector grows and creates private jobs which employ people and turn those people into parents who can send their kids on to college and consumers who can spend money in our economy. The creation of middle-class jobs is not just the backbone of our economy, it is the backbone of our prosperity. How are jobs created in the private sector? It is simple. Someone has an idea, they have a business or product they want to invest in, they have access to money, whether it is their own money or someone else's money, and they use that money to put that idea into practice. They start a business, it works, and as a result people get jobs, people are employed, and the cycle repeats itself. The job for us in Washington is to make it easier for people to do that at every level. No. 1 is to make it easier for people to have ideas, and that is the easiest one of all. Americans have not run out of good ideas, and Americans have not forgotten how to create jobs. There are plenty of great ideas. There are great business ideas for the 21st century. There are a bunch of them that exist in the minds of hundreds of thousands of Americans who are waiting for the chance to put that dream into practice. The second thing we have to do is make it easier for them to get access to the money they need to start their businesses, and that means to encourage investment. I do not understand why we would punish or discourage investment. Why raise taxes on people who want to invest in businesses that allow these businesses to grow and hire more people? It is important we make that easier as well. I would like to talk again about small businesses. The survey I outlined a minute ago showed that 78 percent of small businesses say taxes and regulations coming from Washington also make it harder for them to hire more employees. So in addition to making it easier for people to make money available to investors to allow these ideas to go into practice, we also have to lower the cost of doing business and the barriers to entry, and the equation is pretty straightforward. If you are an employee working for somebody and decide you can do a better job than your boss and want to start your own business and want to compete against him, well, the regulations that impact that industry and the tax code that applies to that industry are too complicated and too burdensome so you cannot do it. If you are a small business trying to grow, no matter how much money you have invested, you may not be able to deal with that as well. By the way, there are two industries I hope we will look at as real growth opportunities and prosperity in America. We are an energy-rich country and advances in technology have made certain deposits of energy once inaccessible to us accessible. Natural gas is a great example. We need to stop punishing investment in the energy sector by raising taxes. We need to stop passing regulations that put entire areas of this country completely off limits and make it difficult to access our energy deposits. I think energy is an area on which we should focus. The other is manufacturing. As labor costs rise around the world, there is no reason more and more manufacturing cannot return to the United States. But this is not going to happen if we regulate people looking to do manufacturing in a way that they decide America is not the place they should do business and if the tax treatment of America puts us at a competitive disadvantage. Let me close by saying that the opportunity before us is real. The 21st century holds promise, promise that holds no parallel in human history. I don't think it is an exaggeration to say we can see the kind of economic growth here and around the world that we have never seen before. That is how promising the 21st century is. It all comes down to a choice. We have to make a choice. Are we prepared to abandon the principles and ideals that made us unique and special or are we going to reembrace those principles and ideals and in so doing make this new century an American century as well? When I hear some of the talk in this building, it concerns me. When I hear people telling the American people that the way to protect their jobs is to raise their bosses' taxes, I think that is counterproductive. When I hear policymakers in Washington pitting the American people against each other, telling people that the only way they can do better is if someone else is worse off, I get concerned. Not only is it not true, that type of thought has never worked anywhere in the world. In fact, people flee from countries that think in that way. The American experience has been something very important. The American experience has been that this is a country where everybody can do better, where the people who have made it can stay there, and the people who are trying to make it can join them. We have never believed that the way for us to do better is for other people to do worse. We have never believed in order to climb the ladder, we have to pull somebody else down. For me, it is not theory, it is the experience of my life. My parents raised me with middle-class jobs in the service sector. My dad, for example, was a bartender, and I thank God every night there was someone out there willing to risk their money to build a hotel in Miami Beach and later in Las Vegas where he could later work. I thank God there was enough prosperity in America so people could go on vacation and leave tips in my dad's tip jar. With the money he raised as a bartender, he gave me the opportunity to do what he never had a chance to do. We had help along the way. I had student loans and grants from the government to help me get my education. I went to a public school system, and that is an important role for government to play. Let's not forget we cannot have more government than our economy can afford. That is why those of us who desperately want to see a country that continues to have prosperity but also compassion believe safety net programs should exist to help those who cannot help themselves and help those who have fallen to stand and try again. That is why we believe we have to have a strong and robust economy. What is startling is that we, the largest and most prosperous Nation in human history, have built a government so massive that not even the richest country in the history of the world can afford it, and we cannot continue on that road either. I will close by saying that I hope this new year will be the beginning of our work toward a new American century. I know it worked in the past. I know this is a nation where anyone from anywhere can accomplish anything. It is not just something I read about in a magazine. I have seen it in my own life. There is no reason it cannot continue here if only we are creative. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. RUBIO

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

Mr. RUBIO. I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized to speak as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. RUBIO

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

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

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. It is a pleasure to be here. This will be my last speech of the year. As I said yesterday in another speech, it has been an extraordinary honor and privilege to serve in the Senate. I look forward to the next 5 years of doing that, God willing. It is a phenomenal institution and I am proud to be a part of it, even though some days make you scratch your head. I am here on two things before we close out the year. I have a specific interest on items that impact the Western Hemisphere. I wish to take this opportunity to say that one of the real treats of the last year is being able to work with Senator Menendez on the Western Hemispheric Committee. We share a lot of views in common, and even on the ones we don't we have a very cooperative working relationship. It has been a great experience working with him on that, and I look forward to more of that next year on that committee and with everyone on Foreign Relations. I know there are a lot of big domestic issues happening, but the things around the world matter. They matter a lot to us. I know when times are tough economically, sometimes we wonder: Why should we care what is happening halfway around the world? We are not Luxembourg, with all due respect to Luxembourg. We are the United States of America. What that means is that virtually every aspect of our life is directly impacted by things that are happening sometimes halfway around the world. One of the things that is always in our interest is the promotion of freedom and democracy. It is one of the things that sets us apart from other nations. Our greatest export is the American example, the fact that people look to this country and see it is possible for people to have self-government. I know self-government and this Republic sometimes look messy from the outside looking in. As I tell people often, if you saw the way some of your food is made, you wouldn't eat it. I think sometimes when you look at the political process and the lights that shine on it, there are some things about it and the process that I don't like and you don't like. But it is still better than virtually any other form of government that has ever existed on the Earth. We are all privileged and blessed to be able to live in this Republic. Any time we have the opportunity to speak out on behalf of democracy and freedom, we should. I had, this week, the opportunity to engage on that issue, and I wish to publicly acknowledge the work of Under Secretary Sherman, who has spent a lot of time talking to me this week about Nicaragua and about elections in Nicaragua that were, in my opinion, fraudulent and unfortunate because the rest of the hemisphere is moving toward democracy, the rest of the hemisphere is moving toward free and fair elections. In Latin America, sometimes people whom we don't agree with win elections, people who don't like us, who believe the national interests of their country are contrary to ours. But the people chose them. Unfortunately, what happened in Nicaragua is grotesque. This person Daniel Ortega, who was a Sandinista, who was once a dictator of that country, basically has ignored the Constitution and ran for office again. There were extraordinary irregularities. The Carter Center, for example, wasn't allowed to come in and observe it. The OAS has already talked about real problems with that election and we hope to see their report soon. Let me publicly acknowledge the time and effort the Department of State spent talking to me on the phone about ensuring that the United States is a forceful voice on behalf of democracy and freedom in Nicaragua and in the hemisphere. I appreciate their work on that behalf, and I know we are looking forward to the OAS's report fairly soon. Senator Menendez and I have filed a resolution in this institution that I hope we will pass that recognizes the need for this country to stand firmly on the side of the Nicaraguan people on behalf of freedom and democracy. There is another topic I touched upon the other day; that is, the people-to-people travel to Cuba. I kind of went through these itineraries a couple days ago that show basically what these trips are all about is nothing more than tourism--just tourism. It is just people going to Cuba. The reason why this is problematic is because it gives money to the Castro government. Today in the Miami Herald is a very disturbing article. The article is from Juan Tamayo, who is a reporter who writes for the El Nuevo Herald and Miami Herald: Cuban dissidents have sent out photos and videos of a large police crackdown in the eastern town of Palma Soriano that left at least five government opponents with head wounds, black eyes and other injuries. One photo of the Dec. 2 roundup of 46 dissidents shows Henry Perales with two wounds on his shaved head that required nine stitches to close. Another shows AbrahanCQ Cabrera with one stitch on his forehead. "That wound bled a lot because it was on a blood vessel, but it was a kick to the ribs on the right side that made me fall to the ground. . . . It still hurts,'' Cabrera told El Nuevo Herald by phone from Palma Soriano. The images were sent to the newspaper by Luis Enrique Ferrer Garcia, U.S. representative of the dissident Cuban Patriotic Union. His brother, former political prisoner Jose Daniel Ferrer Garcia, heads the Union and was one of the men arrested in the Palma Soriano crackdown. Union members and supporters took two weeks to smuggle out the photos and the videos, via emails, because they had to work slowly and carefully to avoid police agents who were trying to find and seize the images, Luis Enrique said. The Palma Soriano roundup was one of the largest and harshest police crackdowns on dissidents in recent years. All were freed hours or days later--one of them 12 days later-- without charges. Forty-six men had gathered in a Palma Soriano house starting on Nov. 30 with plans to stage a street protest two days later to demand the release of all political prisoners and respect for human rights. Those sound like pretty reasonable requests to me, release of political prisoners and respect of human rights. This is what they were going to protest on behalf of. Cell phone videos shot inside the house showed many of the dissidents saying they wanted to show they were not U.S. paid ``mercenaries,'' as the government brands them, but rather ``defenders of human rights.'' The unidentified narrator of some of the videos referred to the police already deployed outside ``and the repression that awaits us.'' So these protesters knew what was about to happen. They have seen this before. This is what happens in Cuba when you speak out in favor of human rights and against political prisoners. You get your head cracked open. These guys knew this was going to happen, but yet they had the bravery to go forward with it. Police indeed arrested the dissidents as they left the house in groups of four and five, and a video taken from a second-story balcony showed them punching some of the protesters and forcing them onto a U.S.-styled yellow school bus parked at the end of the block. Cabrera said the bus driver, dressed in civilian clothes, hit him as well as Perales and several other dissidents with a wrench once inside the bus. The bus driver hit them with a wrench once they got inside the bus. Other photos show dissidents Misael Valdes Diaz and Alexis Yanch OiCQ with black eyes and Emilio Dinza with a large bump on his forehead. Other dissidents reported black and blues from police strikes. Angel Moya, a former political prisoner who was reported beaten in a police station after his arrest in Palma Soriano Dec. 2, said police punched him on the way from the house to the school bus but not afterwards. How nice of them not to punch him afterwards. Moya said Friday that he spent 12 days in a police lockup, in a cell that was smelly and had no water or lights and that he shared with common criminals. This is Cuba. I doubt this experience is something these tourists traveling on U.S. licenses are going to get to see on their next visit to Cuba. The other day I talked about one of these visits that the United States has licensed called Ethics and the Cuban Revolution. How interesting--Ethics and the Cuban Revolution. I wonder if part of that ethics course will be a part about schoolbus drivers dressed as civilians hitting protesters with a wrench. I wonder if that is part of their itinerary. I wonder if the part about cracking people's heads open because they are going to peacefully protest in the street is part of the itinerary in this Ethics and the Cuban Revolution. Why do I bring this up again? No. 1, it is outrageous. It should be denounced, and this is a great forum to do it because the world needs to know what happens 90 miles from our shores. It is one of the most repressive regimes in the Western Hemisphere's history. It is still in place. It is still ongoing. But here is No. 2. Where do they get the money to pay these people? Don't you think those guys are getting paid, the civilian busdriver is getting paid to hit people with a wrench or do you think he is doing it for free? How are they paying these police officers? How do you get people to do this stuff? You have to pay them. Where do they get their money to pay them? Their government is a fiasco. They don't know anything about the economy. Do you want to know why the Cuban economy is in the tank? It is because the people who run Cuba are incompetent. They have no idea about what a modern economy looks like or how to create one, apart from the fact that they cling to a broken ideology. So where do they get the money to pay for all these things? Sadly, where they are getting a lot of the money to pay for these things is from us. It is from people who live in this country who are curious about what happens in Cuba, who are curious--and some who outright sympathize with this idea that somehow Cuba is this socialist paradise--and they travel there and they leave money there. All these trips, Cuba gets a huge take, and they use it to fund this repressive apparatus. As I said the other day, I understand and I don't have any false illusions that the President is going to change his travel policy toward Cuba or this people-to-people program. But at least make sure these programs are furthering what you say you are trying to further, which is bringing freedom and democracy to Cuba, instead of being a source of hard currency and hard revenue. A few days ago, I denounced two specific itineraries. I didn't denounce 5 or 10; I pointed out 2 of the most outrageous ones on this floor in a speech I gave. Then I sent that to the State Department and said: Would you look at this for me? They responded that they would. They told me they would send me a letter. In fact, in conversations I had, they gave me great hope that in fact they too were troubled by these itineraries and that they would start to look at these more seriously. Sadly, as a result of what they told me--because one of the things that has been going on around here is I had placed a hold on two nominations in the Western Hemisphere as a result of their inaction on this issue. After I spoke to them on the phone, I was hopeful about it and I lifted those holds. We were going to vote on those today. Then I got this letter today that, to summarize, basically says: Thank you for your letter, but we can't talk to you about it. That is not what I expected to get, and so we are going to hold those nominations again until we take this seriously. This is a problem. This is a problem. We have these companies in America that are advertising tourism to Cuba--tourism that is not just a source of irritation, it is a source of hard currency. It is the money this regime is using to crack people's heads, to pay so-called busdrivers to beat people with wrenches. It is the money they are using to stick people in jails with common criminals, with no access to food or water for 12 days, without charges. We are funding a repressive regime through these practices, and it has to stop. Someone better take this seriously. When they take this seriously, then we can talk. I hope where we are headed here in the coming year is that we will stand not just on the side of the Cuban people's desire for freedom and democracy--no political prisoners, respect for human rights--but stand for that in the hemisphere and the world, because our voice still matters, and I hope this country will always stand firm on those issues. Before I left today, I wanted to stand on the floor and talk about this because it is something very important to me and should be important to our country. I hope in the coming year we will have the opportunity in our Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere and in this body and in our conversations with the White House and State Department to bring these programs into focus. This people-to-people program is a sham. Maybe they are very well intentioned but some of these trips are nothing more than tourism that plows millions of dollars into the hands of one of the most disgusting and grotesque, repressive apparatuses this hemisphere has ever seen, and it has to stop. Someone has to start cracking down on these people, someone has to start cracking down on these agencies, someone has to start cracking down on these trips, and make sure they do what they are intended to do, and that is real access to the ways of freedom, to the ways of opportunity, to opening the eyes of the Cuban people to the fact that the rest of the world does not live under what they live under--even though most of the Cuban people already know that. It is time we start holding these people accountable. If they are filing these licenses under false pretenses, they need to be prosecuted, their licenses need to be suspended. They have to be barred from having these trips. We have to have people actively monitoring these itineraries that are being sold. We need to match their applications for these licenses, and we need to stop approving licenses for these tourist trips. I hope we will make progress on that in 2012 and I hope that is what we will focus on in the year to come. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. RUBIO

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

Mr. RUBIO. I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized to speak in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I thank those who have listened to our e- mails back in Florida that we just sent out alerting them I will be speaking on the Senate floor, maybe the last time I will speak this year. I want to take a few minutes to update everyone on what this first year in the Senate has been like. First of all, it has been a tremendous privilege and honor. There is not a day goes by that I do not come to this building early in the morning, when I can get to the gym--I probably should do that more than I do--and see this building lit up in the darkness. It takes my breath away that I actually get to work here in this building on behalf of the people of the State of Florida. I recognize what an honor and privilege it is to have this position, not just in this unique institution--which is different, perhaps, than any legislative body in all of history--but this Republic that stands out in the history of mankind. As Americans, we should always take a moment to recognize that in America, on this floor, we debate and sometimes solve issues other countries fight wars with each other about. That is a real blessing and a real opportunity to be an example for the world. I am grateful and feel blessed to be a part of it, and I thank the people of Florida for the opportunity to do it. I want to share two observations as this year comes to an end--and, hopefully, today or tomorrow, sometime this week, we will wrap up our work in this body for 2011--observations I have after my first year. I think I am 3 weeks from having been sworn in for the first time. There are a couple of things that concern me. First is a real lack of urgency. There are some major issues that confront America. These have to be confronted. We need look no further than Europe to see what our future holds, unfortunately, if some of the issues that now confront us are not confronted. That is not hyperbole, it is not partisanship, it is reality--it is math. This country borrows more money than it needs to or should. This is a country that is now spending more money than it takes in at an alarming pace, and there is no plan in place to prevent that. That is not a partisan observation; that is not a Republican concern or a Democratic concern; that is the concern of every person who is grounded in reality, that we cannot continue doing what we are doing now. There are specific programs that are in trouble that we should be very concerned about. Medicare is one example. I have a very special place in my heart for Medicare. No. 1, there are a lot of people in Florida who are on Medicare; and, No. 2, in my own life, both in my father's illness last year before he passed away and this year when my mother suffered some setbacks in her health, I have seen firsthand how important Medicare is. There are two things that worry me about Medicare. The first is that it will not be there when my generation and future generations retire. The other is just as important: that somehow, if we fail to act in a timely manner, people like my mother, who are currently on Medicare, may at some point in their lifetime see their benefits change dramatically or see the program and quality of access decline. We need to do everything we can to save Medicare. We know for a fact, and no one can dispute, if we leave Medicare the way it is right now, that program is going to be in a lot of trouble. I hope there is a sense of urgency about that. Also, the fact that our economy is now smaller than our debt--$15 trillion is a lot of money we owe, that our children and our grandchildren will owe. That is a lot of money. That is a big deal. The national security threats we face are significant and have to be confronted. The sense that somehow the major issues can wait until another election or another moment concern me because these issues have a tendency to sneak up on us and a problem becomes a crisis. It is a lot harder to solve a crisis than it is to solve a problem, so I hope we have a sense of urgency with regard to these issues in the coming year. There is another issue I would like to talk about, which is a troubling emergence in the last year in politics. It is this rhetoric that, in my opinion, seeks to divide Americans against each other, basically pits Americans against each other. The way the rhetoric basically goes is, there is a reason there are Americans who are struggling, hurting; a reason that people have lost their jobs; that people are working twice as hard and are making half as much; that people have lost their homes, and people have graduated from college but cannot find a job. And there is a theme by some, including, frankly, many in our political leadership and from time to time even the White House, saying to people the reason they are doing worse is because there is a handful of people out there doing too well. The reason they have lost their jobs is because someone else is being too greedy. The reason they are losing their homes is because someone else owns too many homes. The reason they are making less money is because someone else is making too much money. I am troubled by that rhetoric that pits people against each other because the second part of that argument is give the government more power; give us, government, more power so we can step in and right this wrong, so we can take away from the people who have too much and give to the people who do not have enough. Let me tell you why I am troubled by that. The first reason I am troubled by that is because it is absolutely not the kind of country we have been for 220-some-odd years. It is not in our nature. Americans have never been a people to drive through a nice neighborhood and say: Oh, I hate the people who live in these nice houses. Americans are people who drive through a nice neighborhood and say: Congratulations on your nice house. Guess what. We will be joining you soon. We have never been people who go around and confront people or look at people who have been financially successful and say: We hate you. We envy you because of how well you are doing. Americans have celebrated their success, and they say: Guess what. We are going to be successful soon as well. I remember growing up, I always tell people I am a child of privilege because I have the privilege and the honor of being born in the greatest country in human history and of having a mother and a father who were married, loved each other and lived in our home. These are two of the most important benefits anyone could have. But my parents were working-class folks. My dad was a bartender for most of his life. My mom was a maid and cashier and stock clerk at K-Mart. We were not people of financial means in terms of significant financial wealth. I tell them I always had what I needed. I didn't always have what I wanted, but I always had what I needed. My parents always provided that. I don't remember them telling us or teaching us the only way we could be more successful was if other people were less successful. They never inculcated in us the belief that somehow in order for us to climb the ladder, other people had to come down from the ladder. On the contrary, they would hold up these examples of success to inspire in us the hope that someday we could be there as well-- financially, in our careers, what have you. We are people who have always celebrated other people's success so long as we always had the opportunity to meet that success ourselves. That is the American nature. That is the American character. That is what makes us different from the rest of the world. I am afraid we could lose that or are on the verge of losing that. I am concerned that there are those in America's political leadership who are advocating that we abandon that in favor of something else. I think it is wrong because it does not work. That thought process that somehow other people have to be worse off in order for us to be better off does not work. People get on boats, people jump fences to get away from that kind of thought process. People flee countries that do that because it does not work. It never has. It will not work here. The proof is in the numbers. Let's put aside partisan political rhetoric for a moment and look at the numbers. In January of 2009, when the President was sworn in, he inherited a very bad economy. He inherited a bad economy. He inherited an economy, for example, that had 12 million people out of a job, an economy where gas was $1.85 a gallon, where the debt was at $10.6 trillion, where we were 39 million Americans living in poverty in January of 2009. He inherited a bad economy. But for the first years of his Presidency, at least one of the first 2 years, he had 60 votes in the Senate which I quickly learned is the way everything seems to happen around here, by 60 votes. He had a majority in the House. He could have anything he wanted, and he said: This is what I want. This is what the President said: He wanted a stimulus package, and he got it. He wanted his health care package, and he got it. He wanted financial services reform, and he got it. So what happened? Let's look at the numbers. He became President, bad economy, got everything he wanted. What has happened since? Now there are 13.3 million people unemployed, gas is now at $3.27 a gallon on average, the debt is now up to $15 trillion, and people in poverty--39 million when he took office, 46 million people now. Put aside the partisan rhetoric for a moment--just the numbers. He became President, got everything he wanted, and everything got worse. Those are the facts. Is that because he is a bad person? Of course not. It is ridiculous. It is because his view of government and politics is wrong and those who share it are wrong. They are not un-American, they are not bad people, but the proof is it doesn't work. It has not worked anywhere else in the world to approach it this way, and it is not going to work here. I hope in this new year we will reverse course on these things and instead embrace and take up that which does work in America. What makes America become more prosperous? It is not that complicated. It is not Fortune 500 companies or big corporations. Every country in the world has rich people. Every country in the world has billionaires and millionaires. What makes us different is that here a worker can become an owner, an employee can become an employer. It happens all the time. You cannot walk two blocks anywhere in this country and not bump into somebody who didn't start a business out of the spare bedroom of their home, who didn't take their credit card or their lifesavings and risked it all behind a great idea and today 20 people work for them. That is 20 families being fed, 20 families sending kids to college because somebody had the audacity to take their lifesavings and pursue their dream. So they opened a business out of the spare bedroom of their home; they opened a business out of a corner in their garage; and nowadays you can start a business with a laptop and an empty table at a Starbucks, and it works. We have to get back to that. What stands in the way of that are three things, above everything else. The first is a Tax Code that is crazy. It is not complicated, it is not burdensome, it is crazy. It is the craziest thing you have ever seen in your life. First of all, it is full of loopholes and exemptions built in. That doesn't hurt the big guys. It doesn't hurt billionaires and millionaires and big corporations. These guys can handle this stuff. They may not like it, but they can hire lawyers, accountants, and lobbyists. They can figure this stuff out. You know who a complicated Tax Code kills? The guy or gal trying to start a business out of the spare bedroom of their home. We have to simplify our Tax Code. It has to be reformed. If there is stuff in it that is the result of good lobbying as opposed to good policy, take it out. I hope we will work on that. Everybody here says they are for tax reform, so do it. Let's have urgency. Let's have some urgency behind that. The second is regulations. Look, we need to have regulations. Here is a glass of water. I don't want this to have poison in it. I want our air to be clean. Government has a role to play in those things. Let me tell you what happens when regulations go too far, when they seem to exist only for the purpose of justifying the existence of a regulator. You don't hurt the guys who have made it; you don't hurt the big corporations or the billionaires. These guys can hire lawyers to deal with that stuff, and they can hire lobbyists to change all that stuff. It kills the people trying to start a business out of the spare bedroom of their home. So we have to simplify the regulatory system we have in this country as well. Finally, this debt. The debt is a problem. There is no plan in place to do anything about it. People are afraid, concerned, worried--and rightfully so--about investing money in an economy that doesn't have a plan to pay its bills. I hope we reverse course on all of these issues. If we do, it will lead to prosperity. Let me tell you what prosperity will lead to. It will lead to more jobs, more jobs will lead to more taxpayers, more taxpayers will lead to more revenue, and more revenue means we will have money to pay down our debt and do what government should do, such as our national defense, invest in infrastructure and in our people, and provide a safety net to help those who cannot help themselves. To do that, it all starts with embracing the fundamental principle of America's prosperity. We have never been a nation of haves and have- nots. We are a nation of haves and soon-to-haves, of people who have made it and people who will make it. That is who we need to remain if we desire to provide our children with what we had, an American century, which is what the 21st century can be, should be, and will be. If in 2012 this body and our leadership reverse course from the direction we are headed, it will place us on a path that is true to our heritage as a people and embrace for our children and grandchildren a future they deserve, a prosperous and growing America where all things are possible, where anyone from anywhere can accomplish anything, where the son of a bartender and a maid can be a U.S. Senator, and where anyone watching, no matter where you start out in life, can accomplish and be anything you want to accomplish if you are willing to work hard, play by the rules and have the ability to do it. With that, I want to wish all of my colleagues and the people of Florida and the people of the United States a merry Christmas, a happy Hanukkah, and a happy New Year. May God always bless our country and may 2012 bring us the safety and prosperity for our Nation and for the world. I thank the Chair. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, there is a lot of conversation in the building today about one of the provisions that is holding up the omnibus; they are saying this is Cuba travel, families traveling back to Cuba. I have strong opinions about that as well. Suffice it to say that it is important to let my colleagues know what is being asked for in the omnibus, and what will be coming over here if it is kept in, will not prohibit families from traveling to Cuba. It will limit the amount that they can. That is a wise policy, one that I support, because it limits access to hard currency to a tyrannical regime. I am here to talk about a different part of the Cuba policy, however, Cuban travel, which does not get a lot of notice these days, but it is part of conversations that are ongoing with the administration and the State Department with regard to some of the appointments they have in the Western Hemisphere, and that is the so-called people-to-people travel. I have here in my hand an immediate release from January 14, 2011, titled ``Reaching Out to the Cuban People.'' It came from the President, where he announced a series of steps to continue efforts to reach out to the Cuban people in support of their desire to freely determine their country's future. One of the changes they made is to something they call purposeful travel. It says here: The President believes these actions-- Which I am about to describe-- combined with the continuation of the embargo, are important steps in reaching the widely shared goal of a Cuba that respects the basic rights of all its citizens. Right here in this release--and I am glad he wrote it--the President is stating that in combination with the embargo, the steps that he wanted to take, the goal of these steps was reaching the widely shared goal of a Cuba that respects the basic rights of all of its citizens. That is the reason why he made these policy changes. So far so good. Let me tell you one of the policy changes. It is called ``restore specific licensing of educational exchanges not involving academic study pursuant to a degree program under the auspices of an organization that sponsors and organizes people-to-people programs.'' What that means in plain English is this is not colleges or universities; these are organizations not for degree credits-- educational in purpose, but not for degree credits. What we want to do is encourage them or allow them the opportunity to take Americans to Cuba under their auspices. Again, remember, the goal here is to bring about, as the President stated, ``the widely shared goal of a Cuba that respects the basic rights of all of its citizens.'' That is the purpose of these trips. I decided to look up some of these trips, and let's look at some of the itineraries. They are very interesting. Let me read you one. This one is from an organization called Insight Cuba. It is located in New York. I am not going to advertise their Web site. Let them pay for it. But I will tell you this. There is an itinerary for something called the Cuban Music & Art Experience. Sounds interesting, the Cuban Music & Art Experience. Let's go to some of the highlights. Day 2 in Havana. You are going to get to meet with the Castro Ministry of Culture to learn how Cuba promotes the arts on this diverse island. You are also going to get to spend the evening--and this will become a familiar theme here--dusting off your dancing shoes, because tonight you are going to head off to Casa de la Musica. Here you will enjoy performances by local Cuban artists and, of course, dance. They put an exclamation mark after it. This is an important part of this trip. This is day 2 of this trip designed to promote, as the President wrote, ``the widely shared goal of a Cuba that respects the basic rights of its citizens.'' Day 3 is interesting too. You get to go to this place Casa de la Amistad, which basically means Friendship House. There you will meet with your Cuban ``host'' which I would bet you right now is members of the Castro government and perhaps enjoy another exciting musical performance. Then you spend the evening of day 3 back at Casa de la Musica for some incredible salsa music and dancing. Day 4 is the real highlight of this trip. This is not to be missed. You get to fly to Santiago de Cuba. Guess where you get to visit. You get to visit a place called Quartel Moncada, which is basically an old army barracks where, on July 26 of 1952, Fidel Castro launched the Cuban revolution. You get to visit this place where Fidel Castro's revolution actually began. Imagine. I can see where that begins to further ``the widely shared goal of a Cuba that respects the basic rights of all of its citizens.'' Guess what you get to do at night. You guessed it. You get to spend the night at a music and local dance club to hear performances by Cuba's most popular artists and you get to dance. It goes on and on. Day 5 has dancing. Day 6, you get to visit the historic Granma Province, which is known as the birthplace of Cuban nationality. You get to meet with the Cuban Institute for Friendship Between the People, which is a very catchy title. That night, you get to spend the evening at Casa de la Trova to dance and take in a performance of Cuban artists. It goes on and on. Day 7. Day 8. This is quite an adventure and in pursuit of the government of Cuba that respects the basic rights of all of its citizens. Let me share another one. Before I get to one, I think this is another Insight Cuba one. This one takes you, on day 1--this is called the Havana Jazz Experience, and on day 1, it takes you to explore the famous Cathedral Square, the City Museum, and the Havana Club Rum Museum. This is part of this effort to bring about freedom and democracy in Cuba. You get to go there. At night, you go to the jazz club La Zorra y el Cuervo. There you get to do some of the best dancing you can ever imagine, in a very intimate setting. Day 3 brings you to Cojimar, which is a village which is the setting for ``The Old Man and the Sea'' which won the Nobel prize for literature in 1954, Ernest Hemingway, very interesting. You get to sit there at night and then you do get to go up to the hills where you get to learn about the religion of Santeria, which is an Afro-Cuban religion. You get to learn all about that. Then at night you get to go back to Havana--you guessed it--for dancing at a local jazz club. Day 4, you get to go to the infamous now--I have already mentioned it before--Casa de la Amistad, a historic mansion, where you will have the opportunity to observe a forum regarding United States-Cuba relations put together by the Cuban government, very interesting, in pursuit of the goal of a Cuba that respects the basic rights of all of its citizens. You spend the night at a jazz cafe, where the seaside view is almost as impressive as the musicians who play there nightly. I am guessing now, I am not sure, but there might be some dancing involved on night 4 in Cuba. Night 5 is quite interesting too, because there you get to learn from the actual Cuban musicians about the sensual and passionate rhythms of their music, and you round out the day with a 2-hour salsa class, in furtherance of freedom and democracy. That is trip No. 2. There are a lot of these. There is one more. This one is good. This one is called ``Cuba for Educators: Ethics & The Revolution.'' So you go to Cuba to learn about ethics from the Castro regime. On day 2 you get to visit the Museum of the Revolution where you will learn about the ethical foundations of the Cuban revolution. This is not to be missed. Clearly we want to learn about ethics from the Castro regime. Then you get to go to the Literacy Museum, where you get to learn about Cuba's war on illiteracy, which was one of Fidel Castro's goals in his 1960 speech to the United Nations. Day No. 3, you get to meet the Ministry of Public Health, which I assure you is a government employee, because it sounds like it, Ministry of Public Health, and you get to discuss why revolutionary ethics demand free public health care, while our own society will not even consider it. Very interesting. It goes on and on. And, by the way, there is a bunch of dancing in this one too. But I think you get the point. This is run by a group called the Center for Cuban Studies. Why do I say all of this? It is pretty simple. There is this sports show, I think it is on ESPN on Sunday nights where they review NFL highlights. Michael Irvin, who was a great player, has a segment called ``Come On, Man,'' where they put on some ridiculous things that happened during the day. He is like, ``Come on, man.'' When I look at this stuff, you know what I want to say? Come on, man. This is about promoting democracy and freedom in Cuba? This is not about promoting freedom and democracy in Cuba. This is nothing more than tourism. This is tourism for Americans who at best are curious about Cuba and, at worst, sympathize with the Cuban regime. You may ask: We are a free society. Why would we restrict that? Here is why. Because this is not just a source of irritation; this is a source of hard currency, of millions of dollars in the hands of the Castro government that they use to oppress the Cuban people, and to jail and hold hostage an American citizen, who today is being held hostage in Cuba, Alan Gross. By the way, after they took him hostage, we implemented this policy. So this policy is a reward for what? Here is my challenge to the administration and the State Department. I know you are not going to change your mind. I know you people in this people-to-people stuff. I know someone has sold you a bill of goods that this people-to-people travel is a good idea, it will further democracy and freedom in Cuba. I get that. You are not going to change your mind. But at least examine how this is being implemented, because this is a charade. This is an embarrassment. These people are getting licenses to conduct this outrageous tourism, which, quite frankly, borders on indoctrination of Americans by Castro government officials. I hope we will continue to look at this, and that this administration, as part of its Western Hemispheric approach, will look at these trips for what they are. They are an outrage. They are grotesque. They are providing hard currency to a regime that oppresses its people, that jails people because they disagree with the government. It is wrong. This is not what we are about as a country. This cannot be what we defend. Even if you agree with this people-to- people theory and concept, you cannot justify how this program is being implemented, or these people who are getting licenses to conduct these kinds of trips. I hope in our conversations with the State Department about their appointments in the Western Hemisphere, and specifically the nomination of Roberta Jacobsen, we will use that as an opportunity to examine how these programs are being implemented. Because, quite frankly, they are an outrage. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, Washington politicians do not live by the same rules that virtually all families and small businesses play by. It is your responsibility to balance your budget, spend no more than what is in your bank account, and have a plan to manage common expenses such as student, home, and car loans. But in Washington, money is routinely borrowed from Peter to pay Paul, or in America's case, money is borrowed from China and others to pay for more government than we could ever afford. As a result, politicians have dug us into a hole of $15 trillion in debt, with no end in sight. Now more than ever, we need a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In Florida's State government, we worked under a balanced budget amendment, and every year we worked tirelessly, had contentious debates, and made very tough choices to pass a balanced budget year after year. That responsibility and accountability is not unique to Florida, as practically every other State also works under a balanced budget amendment. We need to bring this same kind of fiscal restraint to Washington. And unless we enshrine strong balanced budget principles in our Constitution, Washington politicians will never stop. That is why it is critically important that the Senate approve a strong balanced budget amendment. The national debt is now over $15 trillion. When I was sworn into office about a year ago, the debt was just over $14 trillion. That means that in just 1 year, Congress has allowed our debt to increase by more than $1 trillion. Virtually nothing could stop it from happening, despite the fact that 2011 has given us a startling glimpse into our future as European nations face their day of reckoning for decades of reckless spending. This year's debt ceiling debate gave us an opportunity to get serious about controlling our debt and reform the way Washington spends money. But not enough people have been willing to come to grips with the reality that decades of reckless spending by both parties is leading us to a diminished future. As the Senate debates a balanced budget amendment this week, it is important to note that not all balanced budget amendment proposals are created equal. The version that I have joined all 47 of my Senate Republican colleagues in supporting, S.J. Res. 10, includes three elements I believe are key to truly handcuffing out-of-control politicians: a two-thirds supermajority to raise taxes, a three-fifths supermajority to increase the debt limit, and a cap on all Federal spending at 18 percent of gross domestic product. The proposal put forth by Senator Mark Udall, S.J. Res. 24, contains no cap on spending, no taxpayer protections, and no strict mechanisms to ensure that the amendment is actually followed. Unfortunately, if ratified, this proposal would simply be another ineffective, disingenuous Washington move that would make it easier to raise taxes and still allow for more spending. The idea of not spending more money than we have is common sense for working families and small businesses. We need to bring that common sense to Washington, and we need a strong balanced budget amendment that is truly worthy of being added to our Constitution. The Senate must seize the moment by passing a real balanced budget amendment.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Earlier this week in Kansas, President Obama tried to score political points by chiding Senate Republicans for refusing to vote on the confirmation of Richard Cordray to be Director of the so- called Consumer Financial Protection Bureau--CFPB--saying we refuse to let him do his job. And the President asked, Why? I am happy to answer his question, again. Earlier this year, I joined 44 other Senators in recommending to the President three necessary reforms for the CFPB in order to improve accountability in its operations. Specifically, we asked that a board of directors be established to oversee it, that the agency be subjected to the regular congressional appropriations process, and for the establishment of a safety and soundness check for the prudential regulators. We made clear to the President that without these reforms we would not vote to confirm any nominee to run the CFPB, regardless of political affiliation or qualifications. The President chose to ignore our suggestions. Although the President frequently pays lip service to accountability in the regulatory process, when push came to shove, he made this serious issue just another talking point. President Obama is now trying to pressure my colleagues to vote to confirm Mr. Cordray by traveling around the country giving speeches. I want to reiterate that I will not vote to confirm any director for this rogue bureaucracy until appropriate checks and balances are put into place. President Obama promised that ``transparency and accountability will be a hallmark of my administration'', making his refusal to make CFPB more transparent especially disappointing. Without reform, CFPB's director would serve with unprecedented and unconstitutional amounts of power. The director would have the power to decide what rules are issued in the name of consumer protection, how funds are spent, and how its enforcement authority will be used. In short, it empowers a single, unelected person with seemingly endless and unchecked authority. This bureaucracy holds the sweeping ability to limit choices when it comes to commonly-used financial products such as home equity loans, credit cards, and student loans. Simply put, a designation from the CFPB director saying these products are ``abusive'' could restrict the availability of credit to consumers and increase the cost of goods or services for all Americans. This year alone, over 70,000 pages of new regulations have been added to the books from agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Labor Relations Board, oftentimes without any compelling justification for their existence. The last thing job creators in America need is more uncertainty from a powerful government agency such as the CFPB that will receive a blank check for a half billion dollar budget with virtually no input from Congress. President Obama has urged the American people to ``help hold [him] accountable''. I stand with my Republican colleagues in an effort to do just that. The truth is we need transparency in government that provides greater confidence that regulations are designed to protect consumers from unfair practices, without destroying jobs. Until basic transparency requests are made, I will not support allowing the CFPB to operate with unaccountable leadership.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, some people are wrongly suggesting that the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012, this legislation will allow the military to capture and indefinitely detain any American citizen, and that the U.S. Armed Forces would be able to perform law enforcement functions on American soil because of the authority conferred under sections 1031 and 1032 of the act. Several people have asked about my votes on the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012. In particular, some people are wrongly suggesting that this legislation will allow the military to capture and indefinitely detain any American citizen, and that the U.S. Armed Forces would be able to perform law enforcement functions on American soil because of the authority conferred under sections 1031 and 1032 of the act. While I do have other serious concerns with this legislation, those particular assertions could not be further from the truth. I want to take this time to explain what the law actually does, what my position is on these issues, and why I joined with Senators Demint, Coburn and Lee to vote for those specific sections but against cloture on the final bill. Section 1031 of this act merely affirms the authority that the President already has to detain certain people pursuant to the current authorization for use of military force. In fact, this same section of the bill specifically states that nothing stated in section 1031 is intended to expand the President's power. In addition, this section sets specific limits on who can be detained under this act to only those people who planned or helped carry out the 9/11 attacks on the United States or people who are a member of, or substantially support, al-Qaida, the Taliban, or their respective affiliates. There is no language that could possibly be construed as repealing the Posse Comitatus Act and allowing the U.S. military to supplant your local police department in carrying out typical law enforcement activities. In particular, some folks are concerned about the language in section 1031 that says that this includes ``any person committing a belligerent act or directly supported such hostilities of such enemy forces.'' This language clearly and unequivocally refers back to al-Qaida, the Taliban, or its affiliates. Thus, not only would any person in question need to be involved with al-Qaida, the Taliban, or its surrogates, but that person must also engage in a deliberate and substantial act that directly supports their efforts against us in the war on terror in order to be detained under this provision. There is nothing in this bill that could be construed in any way that would allow any branch of the military to detain a law-abiding American citizen if they go to the local gun store or grocery store. What this section of the bill does is help provide for our national security by giving clarity to the military in regard to its authority to detain people who have committed substantially harmful acts against the United States. This is extremely important given that there are al-Qaida cells currently operating within our borders. I would not leave the risk of a terrorist attack that could claim the life of a member of my family up to chance, and I will not leave that risk for your family either. Section 1032 of this bill concerns a smaller group of people who Congress believes are required to be detained by the U.S. military because people who fit within this criteria are a more serious threat to our national security. Any person detained under section 1032 must be a member of, or part of, al-Qaida or its associates and they must have participated in the planning or execution of an attack against the U.S. or our coalition partners. Simply put, the application of this detention requirement is limited to al-Qaida members that have tried to attack the U.S. or its allies. However, this detention requirement is clearly limited by a clause that states that the requirement to detain does not extend to U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. Together, these two sections do the following: They affirm the authority of the executive branch to act within our national interest, and they provide the Federal Government with the tools that are needed to maintain our national security. This bill does not overturn the Posse Comitatus Act; the military will not be patrolling the streets. This bill does not take away our rights as citizens or lawful permanent residents; the authority under this act does not take away one's habeas rights. These sections do not take away an individual's rights to equal protection under the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, nor do they take away one's due process rights afforded under the 5th or 14th. If this bill did such a thing, I would strongly oppose it. I want to thank everyone for reaching out to the office to voice their concerns on this bill. I want to assure them that I always have, and always will, listen to their concerns and address them in a timely fashion. I know this bill is not perfect. In fact, I proposed two amendments to prevent the President from transferring foreign terrorists to the U.S. to be prosecuted in the Federal court system, and I joined with Senators DeMint, Coburn, and Lee to vote against cloture. However, in regard to the assertions that this bill allows the U.S. military to supplant our local police departments or that it allows the Federal Government to detain otherwise law-abiding citizens for simply carrying on in their daily lives, those assertions are entirely unfounded. As always, if anyone has any other questions, please feel free to contact me.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. It has been a very positive response, and I will tell you why, for a couple of reasons. No. 1 is, every time people open a newspaper or turn on the television, what they get from Washington is bad news. A week ago, in a speech I gave, I said it resembles professional wrestling to them. It seems as though there are people from the Republican side and Democratic side who go on TV and scream at each other about what is happening. People watch it. And they get it, that there are differences between us. But is there anything--don't we all live in the same country? Are we not seeing the same economic conditions? What are the things we can work together on? Why are we not hearing that? Let me tell you the impact in the real world of all of that bad news. The impact is that people get scared. So imagine for a moment, you are a job creator. You have got some money to invest this year. You have to decide, do I leave it in the bank or do I take this money and use it to grow my business? Well, the safe thing to do is to leave it in the bank. But what job creators and entrepreneurs want to do is to create new jobs. They want to grow their businesses. Who does not want to grow their business? Who does not want to add customers? Now you have to make a decision. Is now the right time to grow my business or the wrong time? One of the things people look at is the political climate. Are the people in charge of government--in Washington especially? That is the one that gets the most attention. How are they working? Are they getting things done? Is it positive or negative things that are happening? As much as the measures here are meaningful--and we are not claiming this solves all our economic problems, but they are meaningful--if you are a small business looking to invest next year in buying capital investment for your business, there is an incentive to extend the tax credits to help you do that. More importantly, they will be able to open the newspaper and read that Republicans and Democrats came together and passed a piece of legislation on which they agreed. I don't think you can underestimate or, quite frankly, really measure the kind of psychological impact that could have on job creators--to actually have some optimism that the future will be better, that tomorrow may be better than today. That, as much as anything else, is critical. All of us in public service, particularly those of us who serve in this institution--the Senate is a big deal. People pay attention to what we say here, to the good stuff and the bad stuff. They pay attention to what we do here and to what we fail to do here. I think it is important for all of us to recognize that our actions have consequences and the way we speak and comport ourselves in these debates. I think we need to recognize that some of the rhetoric and noise that has been made over the last 6 months to a year has hurt job creation because it has created negativity around the economics of this country. We have an opportunity, with the passage of legislation such as this, to send a message on the things on which we agree; we can get things done. That is the impression I have gotten from people, which is a little bit of a surprise, but it is a sense of optimism that before this year is out, we will be able to pass legislation that is meaningful and bipartisan. Is that the same reaction the Senator from Delaware has gotten?

Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, we are going to start today by talking about job creation in America. I wish to turn it over to Senator Coons to begin this conversation about a very important piece of legislation we filed jointly yesterday.

Mr. RUBIO. The next step is to get as many people in this Chamber and in the House to sign on to this legislation and to get this done. We are open to suggestions about how to improve it. Maybe there are some things that should be in there. Maybe there are questions involving particular measures. We are open to suggestions. We need to get the ball rolling. Our time is about to run out. I want to recognize that one of the ways to lose credibility is to exaggerate. The differences between our parties about the role of government, about the Tax Code, and about the debt situation are real. We will debate those. To my friends on the right and left--both sides-- we have real differences, and this is the place to deal with it. We are blessed to live in a republic where we can debate our points of view as to the role of government. We do agree on certain issues, and we should work on that. Today is an open invitation to our colleagues to join us, look at this bill, analyze it, and see if there is something you would like to add or maybe that we left out that should be in there. The more the merrier. To those who think there are things that maybe should be changed or improved in this bill, we are open to that as well. We want to get this done and deliver something to the American people as soon as possible that shows that here in Washington, DC, we can agree. I believe that would be a positive first step in the right direction. Our time has expired. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. RUBIO. Let me point out a couple of things before we begin; that is there are a lot of issues in this process we are not going to agree on. There is an ideological divide about a lot of major issues--the role of government, how do we get the economy growing again, and what government can do about it. The people of America recognize that. They recognize that issues of that magnitude ultimately are solved at the ballot box. You elect people. People run for office on their competing visions of government's role, and you decide those elections. We are going to have one in November of 2012. But what do we do over the next 12 months? Do we stand around and do nothing and continue to bring up pieces of legislation from both sides of the aisle that we know are going to fail, just to make political points, or do we actually begin to act? There are a lot of reasons why I think we need to act. I want to share with you an e-mail I received from Stephanie, who lives in Vero Beach. It breaks your heart. I think it is very typical of the ones Senator Coons probably has gotten, and I bet you all of the other Members of this institution have gotten. She writes: I am not sure who to turn to with this question. I am a true Floridian. I was born and raised in Florida. As you know, the unemployment rate is horrible and I had to file for unemployment benefits for the first time ever. And I was just informed that I exhausted my benefits. Where do I turn for help? There are no jobs available. I have searched for a job daily and get excuses such as: You don't have enough experience, or you are overqualified, or I am suggested to go back to school. How am I going to go back to school if I have no money to pay for school or have no job and no money to pay my bills. It goes on to outline other problems. But at the end it says: Many people like myself have nowhere to turn. Hopefully you can help me or at least suggest what I can do. Thank you for your time. There is the voice of real desperation, of real people in the real world who want to work, have always worked, and cannot find a job. This is the No. 1 issue in America. There are a lot of issues floating around here and they are important issues. But this is the No. 1 issue in America of everyday, hard-working people who cannot find a job. Can government create jobs for them? In government. But, by and large, there are things government can do to help create an environment for job creation. So what we have done is we have sat down and we have analyzed what things we have agreed on. There are things that are the President's plan, that are also in the Republicans' plan that the House has passed, that our colleagues have filed. What we came up with is this piece of legislation that Senator Coons is going to describe in a moment. It is literally sitting down. It is a collection of bills we have agreed on. What people want to know is, I understand you are going to have arguments about the things you disagree on, but why are you arguing about the things you agree on? Maybe this is a good segue for Senator Coons to start describing some of the measures that are in this bill, the things we agree on, the things we can act on and do right now to help people such as Stephanie and people in your home State and people in every one of the States in this country who are struggling to find a job and are looking for some ray of hope that this process here in Washington has an understanding about what they are going through and are actually willing to do something about.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded, and Senator Coons and I be allowed to engage in a colloquy for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I wish to thank the majority leader for that. I will be brief. I think my colleagues touched upon it and the public policy behind this. Lost in all the things happening around the world that are very important, I think we need to remind ourselves that a few miles off the coast of the United States the most repressive government in the Western Hemisphere conducts its business and is able to fund it through a lot of this interaction going on as we speak between commercial interests in the United States and in Cuba. By the way, I know these are folks in business and are not doing anything with bad intentions, but the practical intention of this agreed interaction with the Castro regime is hard currency--money they take and use to pay for this repressive arm. This is happening at a time when we have seen this year more repression than we have in recent years as the Castro government continues to fear it is losing its grip on power and on influence over its own society. I would say I am supportive of what Senator Menendez is trying to do, and I urge our colleagues to keep a watchful eye on what happens in Cuba.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I rise in support of this resolution to disapprove the FCC's open Internet order. The FCC wants to regulate the Internet. Why? There must be some sort of market failure that needs correcting or some Internet issue that needs fixing or out-of-control provider that needs regulating, right? That is not the case at all. We are talking about one of the most successful sectors of our economy--one that has flourished with limited government regulation and continued to create jobs in the midst of a very deep recession and economic downturn. Since the Internet was privatized in the midnineties, it has prospered. The industry's growth and impact on our economy, as well as its development of new, life-changing technologies and applications, is staggering. Twenty years ago, the Internet as we know it did not exist. Today over 2 billion people use it. Ten years ago, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Skype did not even exist, and hundreds of millions of people are now users. Five years ago, mobile applications didn't exist. At the end of last year, there were over half a million apps, applications, and well over 10 billion will be downloaded this year. Hopefully, they will soon be downloading mine. We came up with one yesterday for our office. Two years ago, the iPad didn't exist. Now, over 25 million have been sold. All these advancements expanded broadband access and encouraged private investment. In 2003, only 15 percent of Americans had access to broadband and now over 95 percent do. This growth will only continue. In its annual report on the Internet, Cisco projected that the Internet will quadruple over the next 4 years, and the 1-year growth, from 2014 to 2015, will be equal to all the Internet traffic in the world last year. Clearly, the Internet industry is growing and innovating at lightening speed. Why has the industry been able to do this? It is because the environment for innovation and job creation has been ripe, with government regulation not getting in their way. Imagine that, the government has stayed out, has taken the ``light touch'' approach, and the industry has prospered as a result. The broadband expansion we have seen, the innovation that has occurred with computers and tablets and explosion of smartphones and mobile devices and the increased job creation have all occurred without the FCC's open Internet order. So why does the government want to start regulating now? Is it because the Internet endangers public health or environment? Clearly not. Yet the proponents of Internet regulation claim the freedom and growth of the Internet are in jeopardy. Quite frankly, in my opinion, that is ridiculous. To suggest that some type of regulation is needed flies in the face of the growth of the Internet economy. This is one of the problems facing our economy and plaguing our country. We are regulating where regulation is not needed. We are regulating based on speculation and in search of a problem. This is not how we encourage innovation. This is not how we create certainty in the marketplace, and this is definitely not how to encourage job creation. Over the past few weeks, all we have talked about is jobs and rightfully so because, throughout America, the No. 1 issue facing Americans is jobs--or the lack thereof. Yet here we are debating whether to overturn a regulation on one of the few growth areas of our economy, one of the few sectors that has created and is creating good, high-paying jobs. This should be common sense. It is no wonder people watching think that in this place, Washington, DC, the Federal political process is out of touch and dysfunctional. As the FCC drafted the open Internet order, the Commission heard from broadband providers, including small businesses, about the problems the order would create and the negative impact it would have on consumers. One small Internet service provider stated that the imposition of network management rules will hinder its ability to obtain investment capital and deploy new services in unserved areas. The regulations would also increase costs and hamper innovation, which would only further discourage outside investment in the company. In other words, the Internet regulation we are talking about today would lead to lower quality of service and would raise operating costs, which would result in higher prices on consumers. So we can clearly see the impacts of Internet regulation--less investment, less innovation, higher prices for consumers, lower quality services, increased business costs and, ultimately, fewer jobs. Companies will spend more money on compliance, basically complying with regulations, instead of investing in innovation and driving down prices. More money will be spent on lawyers, not on engineers. Let me be clear. The Internet will still exist if Washington bureaucrats get their way. But the order's impact will be profound, and it is going to disrupt what has become one of America's proudest entrepreneurial and industrial achievements in our history. I have heard proponents say this regulation will preserve the open Internet as it exists today. But it is my humble opinion this is shortsighted. Personally, I don't want to continue using the Internet of today. I want the Internet of tomorrow. I want the devices and applications I use today to soon be obsolete and out of date because the industry has continued to churn out something newer, something better and faster. I want technologies to continue to develop and industries to continue to emerge. We are now using fewer devices for more telecommunications services, and it is not hard to imagine a day when we will use one device for all of them. The industries are headed in that direction. When we throw the government in the middle of it, the pace will slow, uncertainty will enter the marketplace, and future innovations may just go unrealized. One of the beautiful aspects of the Internet industry is that we don't know what is around the corner in terms of new technologies and innovations. If a few years ago we had told someone we would Google them, they probably would have been offended. But today that actually means something. Going forward, we have no idea what the future holds, what the new innovations or ideas or technologies will be. We know technologies we cannot even imagine today will very soon be part of our everyday lives. The question is whether we are going to encourage that and particularly whether we are going to encourage that to happen here or whether we are going to discourage that from happening. Regulating the Internet--and this specific measure we are trying to knock down today, if it passes--will discourage that development. The FCC and Federal Government cannot keep pace with the Internet and technology industries, and the government should not attempt to catch up through regulation or legislation. That is important. We are asking this government--this bureaucratic structure, which struggles to keep pace with issues we have been facing for the last 20 years--to somehow keep pace with the issues and technology and innovations that arrive in the Internet world. Not only do I think it is asking too much, I think it is impossible. Therefore, the government should not be looking at ways to preserve the status quo. Our government should be involved in looking at ways to promote the future of these industries, and this Internet regulation does not promote the future. I have frequently spoken on this floor about the new American century, about whether our country will continue to be a leader in this new century. I believe with all my heart--I do, even with all the bad news and the noise we hear every time we turn on the television--there is no reason this 21st century should not be every bit as much the American century as the last century. One of the reasons I believe that is because of the advances our entrepreneurs and innovators are making in this field of the Internet. If there is any sector of our economy that will ensure that the next century is the American century, it is the Internet and the technology sector. That is an industry where we are the leader, and it is the one where we must continue to lead. To do that, we must encourage innovation, incentivize investment, provide certainty in the marketplace, and promote the competitive environment this dynamic industry needs. That will require passage of this resolution of disapproval. So I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the resolution. Mr. President, I yield the floor.