Marco Rubio

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, September marks the start of a month-long celebration of the Hispanic community's contributions to America's exceptionalism and the strength of the common values that unite our Nation. We celebrate a community whose accomplishments and stories remind us that the American Dream is as alive today as it has ever been. During this same time, our Nation faces an unemployment rate of 9.1 percent, and the Hispanic community struggles with a rate over 11 percent. Now more than ever, we must fight for pro-growth policies that will allow my generation to continue the great tradition of leaving our children a stronger and more prosperous America than the one we inherited from our parents. Hispanic Heritage Month is a time to celebrate the American dream. We celebrate people like my parents, who came from Cuba, worked hard and opened doors for their children that were closed to them. We celebrate a community where the number of young adults enrolling in college has grown by 349,000 in the last year. We salute the many Hispanic men and women fighting for our freedom in our armed forces. We also remember how lucky we are to live in a country where success is not limited by the circumstances of one's birth. I am proud to be an American of Cuban descent, and today I would like to celebrate the many Hispanic Americans whose talents, accomplishments, and cultures have strengthened America.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, due to health concerns of my mother, I was absent for the motion to table amendment No. 599 offered by Senator Coburn to H.R. 1249, the America Invents Act, final passage of H.R. 1249, and on S.J. Res. 25. Had I been present for the motion to table amendment No. 599 offered by Senator Coburn to H.R. 1249, I would have opposed the motion in support of the underlying amendment, and would have voted ``nay'' on final passage of the America Invents Act. H.R. 1249 is significantly different than the original Senate bill that I supported, and will ultimately not accomplish the goal of modernizing the patent process in the United States in the most effective manner. The patent process in our country is painfully slow and inefficient. It takes years from the time an invention is submitted to the Patent and Trade Office, PTO, to the time that the patent is granted and the holder of the patent gains legal rights to their invention. Currently, there are over 700,000 patents waiting for their first review by the PTO. I supported the original Senate bill, S.23, which would have ensured that the PTO was properly funded, reducing the time between the filing of a patent and the granting of the same. This bill, which passed the Senate by a 95-5 margin on March 8, 2011, included critical provisions that would have ensured that user fees paid to the PTO would stay within the Office to cover its operating costs, rather being diverted to fund unrelated government programs. Unfortunately, the House of Representatives removed these important provisions, which were critical to securing my support for patent reform. A modernized patent process that restricted ``fee diversion'' would have spurred innovation and job creation. Small inventors have raised concerns about the new patent processes that the bill sets forth, and without adequate protections against fee diversion, I am unable to support this bill. Additionally, I have concerns about House language that resolves certain legal issues for a limited group of patent holders. I support the underlying goals of this bill, but for the aforementioned reasons, I would have voted ``nay'' on H.R. 1249 had I been present. Had I been present for the rollcall vote on S.J. Res. 25, I would have voted ``yea.'' I strongly disapprove of the surge in Federal spending that has pushed our national debt to $14.7 trillion, and firmly believe that Congress must cut spending immediately and send a strict constitutional balanced budget amendment to the States for ratification. We must also give job creators the certainty they need to hire new workers and expand operations, growing the economy and increasing revenue in the process. Instead of pretending that more debt-financed spending will create prosperity, Congress should take job-destroying tax hikes off the table, overhaul our burdensome regulatory system, and immediately pass the pending free trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the following articles highlighting the resilience and strength of the Cuban people as they continue to struggle under an oppressive regime. These stories and videos which continue to surface out of Cuba have underlined the Cuban Government's inhumane actions against its people. Santa Maria Fonseca is one of these brave ``Ladies in White'' who continue to peacefully fight for liberty in Cuba. She explained, ``Our objective is that one day the people will join us.'' Ms. Fonseca and the Cuban people deserve our unyielding support in their courageous efforts to reclaim freedom in Cuba.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I cannot support this plan because it fails to actually solve our debt problem, fails to diminish the risk of a credit rating downgrade and is not a long-term solution to avert a debt crisis. This plan still adds at least $7 trillion to our debt over 10 years. It fails to immediately start downsizing government, leaving 98 percent of deficit reduction until after the 2012 election. By not addressing the biggest driver of our debt, health care spending, this plan ensures Medicare's looming bankruptcy, while protecting ObamaCare's $2.6 trillion blank check. It contains no real structural reforms to spending, such as a constitutional balanced budget amendment. It fails to reduce spending by what credit rating agencies say is at least $4 trillion to avert a downgrade. Worst of all is that at a time of 9.2 percent unemployment, this plan fails to include pro-growth measures to help get people back to work and create new taxpayers to help us pay down the debt. In fact, I fear that the new ``Supercommittee'' in this bill could lead to expedited consideration of big tax hikes on our struggling economy. And if Congress rejects new taxes, then up to $850 billion of devastating automatic defense spending cuts would be triggered at a time when the world is as dangerous as it has ever been. Americans are looking at Washington with anger, disgust and concern that maybe America's problems are just too big for our leaders to solve. As I outlined in the Wall Street Journal on March 30, 2011, keeping America exceptional will require spending cuts and caps, saving Medicare and Social Security from bankruptcy, a constitutional balanced budget amendment, tax reform and regulatory reform. Above all, it will require courage.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. I thank my colleague from Alabama. He does a phenomenal job always in outlining the economic realities. I enjoyed listening, and I could have sat here longer. According to some, I may be one of the last speakers today, so I don't want to keep the Senate open any longer than it should be. We have done a lot of work here over the last few days. I went back and forth over whether I wanted to speak, because I think almost everything that can be said has been said regarding the events of the last few days. But I did ultimately want to share my thoughts for a moment as we head into the August recess, as they call it here in Washington, and many of us here in the Senate will be returning to our home States to explain to the people we represent what we did or did not do in the last few days. I will start by pointing out that our Republic is an amazing thing. As heated as the rhetoric may have been over the last few days, I think all of us should stop for a moment and understand that all around the world there are countries that solve the problems we solved through debate with civil war and conflict, armed and otherwise. Our Republic is amazing. It isn't always pretty. Quite frankly, more often than not, it is very messy. But it has withstood 230-some-odd years of pressures and choices, and it continues to do so. Even if ultimately what it gives us is not always solutions to our problems, we are blessed to have it. I would remind many, such as like myself, who were elected in the last election cycle, tightly embracing the principles of our Constitution, that our Constitution is not just a set of words that outline our principles. It gives us a system of government. It gives us this Republic. This Republic is valid, and it matters even when the people who are running it may not be people with whom you agree. We should always remember that. What we have here is special and unique, and we should embrace it and be thankful to our God each night that we have the opportunity and the blessing of living in a nation such as this. Moving aside from that, however, the facts still remain that this coming month, and every month to come, more or less, this government will spend $300 billion a month. That is a lot of money. It is more than any government has ever spent in the history of man. And $180 billion of that $300 billion is money we collect from the people of our country through taxes and fees and other ways. But we borrow $120 billion a month to pay our $300 billion a month bill. That is too much money. That is too much money for Republicans, it is too much money for Democrats. It is too much money. Although we should be happy that tomorrow and in the days to come, we are not facing a default and an inability to meet our bills, the truth is--an undeniable one that I don't think anyone here would disagree with me when I say it--we can't keep borrowing $120 billion every month or more, because the point and the day will come when the people who lend us that money will stop lending us that money. If we keep doing this for long, we will one day reach a day in this country where we will face a debt crisis, but it won't be because of the debt limit or because of gridlock in Washington. It will be because folks are no longer willing to buy America's debt because they seriously doubt our ability to pay it back. That is not hyperbole. It is not an exaggeration. It is a mathematical, indisputable fact that no Member of either party would dispute. There is general agreement on this. And there is general agreement the only way to solve this problem is a combination of two things: No. 1, this government needs to generate more revenue; and No. 2, this government needs to restrict its growth and spending. Because as bad as the $300 billion a month looks, it only gets worse from here on out, in ways I don't have time to explain in the next 10 minutes. Suffice it to say our economy isn't growing. It is not producing enough revenue moving forward. Meanwhile, all the programs we fund are about to explode in their growth because more people than ever are going to retire, they will live longer than they have ever lived, and the math doesn't add up. These are facts. No one disputes that. The debate in Washington is not about that fact but about how do we solve it. How do we generate more money and reduce the spending at the same time? I will tell you this is not a debate we will solve in the month of August. In fact, I believe it will characterize the rest of this Congress, the 2012 elections, and the years that lie ahead. The division on how to solve it goes to the root of the dispute we face in America between two very different visions of America's future--by the way, one not more or less patriotic than the other. Patriotic, country- loving Americans can disagree on their future vision of what kind of country we should be. But this division--this difference of opinion--is the reason why even though this bill passed, this debate we have had is going to move forward for some time to come. On the one hand, there are those who believe the job of government is to deliver us economic justice--which basically means an economy where everyone does well or as well as possibly can be done. There is another group who believes in the concept of economic opportunity--where it is not the government's job to guarantee an outcome but to guarantee the opportunity to fulfill your dreams and hopes. One is not more moral than the other. They are two very different visions of the role of government in America. But it lies at the heart of the debate we are having as a nation. Washington is divided because America is divided on this point, so we have to decide what every generation of America before us has decided, and that is what kind of government do we want and what role do we want it to have in America's future. The fault lines emerge from that. The solutions emerge from those two visions. For those who want to see economic justice, their solution is to raise more taxes. They believe there are some in America who make too much money and should pay more in taxes. They believe our government programs can stimulate economic growth. They believe that perhaps America no longer needs to fund or can no longer afford to fund our national defense and our military at certain levels. Another group believes that, in fact, our revenues should come not from more taxes but from more taxpayers; that what we need is more people being employed, more businesses being created that will pursue tax reform, that will pursue regulatory reform. But, ultimately, we look for more revenue for government from economic growth, not from growth in taxes. We believe the private sector creates these jobs, not government and not politicians; that jobs in America are created when everyday people from all walks of life start a business or expand an existing business. I believe and we believe in a safety net program, programs that exist to help those who cannot help themselves, and to help those who have tried but failed to stand up and try again but not safety net programs that function as a way of life, and believe that America's national defense and our role in the world with the strongest military that man has ever known is still indispensable. These are two very different visions of America and two very different types of solutions. Ultimately, we may find that between these two points there may not be a middle ground; that, in fact, as a nation and as a people we must decide what we want the role of government to be in America moving forward. Let me close by saying this has been a unique week for me in a couple ways. One has been, of course, the debate that has happened. The other is my family has been here for the better part of a week, young children. We had an opportunity today after the vote to walk around a little bit and look at all the statues and the monuments that pay tribute to our heritage as a people. It reminds us that we are not the first Americans who have been asked to choose what kind of country we want or what role of government we want in our country. It is a choice every generation before us has had to make. Even in this Chamber, as I stand here, you can sit back and absorb the history of some of the extraordinary debates that took place on this very floor, debates that went to the core and to the heart of what kind of country we wanted to be moving forward. The voices of those ancients call to us even now to remind us that every generation of America has been called to choose clearly what kind of country they want moving forward. And that debate will continue. It will define the service of this Congress and for most of us who are here now. I pray we choose wisely. I look forward to the months that lie ahead that we will choose and make the right choice for our future and for our people. I yield the floor.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I condemn in the strongest possible terms the Cuban regime's unjust incarceration of Alan Gross. As the editorial highlights and as the Castro regime well knows, Mr. Gross is simply a humanitarian who was seeking to help the Jewish community in Cuba access the Internet. Only the most oppressive, totalitarian regime would seek to jail someone for trying to expand access to uncensored information. As this editorial notes, ``The regime in Havana is so brittle and creaky that it blanches at the idea of its subjects communicating too freely with the outside world, lest they undermine a communist system whose attempts at economic development have delivered scanty results.'' I also take this opportunity to once again call on the Obama administration to halt its new Cuba policies that liberalize travel and expand allowable remittances to Cuba. This unilateral gift to the Castro brothers by the Obama administration is totally unwarranted, especially in light of Mr. Gross' case as well as the ongoing repression of the Cuban people. I ask unanimous consent that a July 29, 2011, editorial by the Washington Post entitled ``Cuba Should Free Alan Gross'' be printed in the Record. [From the Washington Post, July 29, 2011] Cuba Should Free Alan Gross Alan P. Gross, the U.S. Agency for International Development subcontractor who committed what Cuba considers the unconscionable offense of making the Internet available to members of its minuscule Jewish community, has almost exhausted possible judicial appeals of his 15-year prison sentence. Mr. Gross, 62, a resident of Potomac, was arrested in December 2009 as he prepared to fly home from Havana. Convicted on trumped-up charges in March this year, he appeared a few days ago before Cuba's highest tribunal to appeal his conviction and plead for release. The outcome of his appeal, expected in the coming days, is certain to be dictated one way or another by Cuban leader Raul Castro--and will be a sign of whether Cuba is remotely interested in better relations with Washington. Cuba, besides its repressive ally Venezuela, is virtually the only place in the Western Hemisphere where distributing laptop computers and satellite phone equipment intended to connect people to the Internet--Mr. Gross's supposed ``crime''--could be construed as subversive. The regime in Havana is so brittle and creaky that it blanches at the idea of its subjects communicating too freely with the outside world, lest they undermine a communist system whose attempts at economic development have delivered scanty results. There are plenty of humanitarian reasons to release Mr. Gross, who has been confined for 19 months. Somewhat overweight when he was arrested, Mr. Gross has lost 100 pounds, according to his wife and other American visitors who have been allowed to meet with him; he also suffers from gout, ulcers and arthritis. His daughter is struggling with cancer, and his mother is reported to be in poor health. Cuban authorities have portrayed Mr. Gross as a spy involved in an enterprise aimed at undermining the regime. That seems unlikely in the extreme. In fact, Mr. Gross, a veteran development worker who had minimal command of Spanish, was part of a democratization project of the sort the U.S. government runs in countries all over the world. At the time of his arrest, Mr. Gross was working for Development Alternatives Inc., a Bethesda firm that had won a $6 million government contract to promote democracy in Cuba. His work consisted mainly of providing computers and satellite phones to Cuban Jews, a community thought to number about 1,500, so they could access the Internet, whose use is restricted in Cuba, and contact Jewish communities beyond Cuba's shores. Not exactly a cloak-and-dagger project likely to bring the Castro brothers to their knees. The Obama administration has made it clear that any improvement in relations with Cuba is on hold pending Mr. Gross's release. That's a fitting response to the communist regime's knee-jerk behavior in persecuting an American whose ``crime,'' if any, may have been an excess of naivete.

Mr. RUBIO

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

Mr. RUBIO. Then 12\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. RUBIO. Yes.

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I rise on the floor today to speak on the tremendous issue that has captivated the attention of our country. I do not enjoy or relish the partisan role of attack dog. I never found any fun in that. I don't think it is constructive, and I don't intend to become that in the Senate. I have only been here for 7 months, which means I haven't been here long enough to think any of the stuff that is going on is normal. I certainly don't think anything that goes on around here too often is normal. So I think the fact that I have only been here for 7 months has served me well in that regard. One of the things I have noticed this week is that Washington is full of--and rightfully so--people from all over the world and our country who have traveled here this week to come and watch their government at work and to see the monuments of the city, and they have found themselves in the middle of this debate. I think it is important to remind people about what we are debating. It is not a complicated issue. It is straightforward, and here is the way I describe it. The United States--and these are rough numbers but accurate--spends about $300 billion a month. It has $180 billion a month that comes to the Federal Government through taxes and other sources of revenue. That means that in order to meet its bills at the end of every month, it needs to borrow $120 billion. For much of the history of this country, there have been increases in the debt limit and the ability to borrow money. But what has happened over the last few years is that it is no longer a routine vote because the people who give us our credit rating are saying: Too much of the money you spend every month is borrowed, and we want you to show us how over the next 10 years you are going to borrow less as a percentage of what you spend. So that is why, for years, where the debt limit was routine, it can no longer be routine. This wasn't just made up in a conservative think tank. The reality is that we cannot continue to borrow 40 to 41 percent of every dollar the government spends, which is what brought us to this point. You would think that, seeing that, our government and leaders in both parties would react to that immediately and work on it. I have heard a lot of talk today about delaying tactics and delaying votes. I argue to you that this issue has been delayed at least for the last 2\1/2\ years. In the 2 years before I even came here, neither this Chamber nor the other proposed or passed a budget. It is a startling figure that for the last 2 years this government has operated without a budget. Think about that. Two years have gone by without a budget. The first 2 years President Obama was in office, no budget. Some people would stay: Well, that is because of the partisanship in Washington. That is not true. In the 2 years before I got here, the House and Senate were controlled by members of the Democratic Party, the President's party. In this Chamber, in at least 1 of those 2 years, they had 60 votes; 60 out of the 100 Members here caucused with the Democrats. On Christmas Eve of 2009, they were able to pass a health care bill that was very controversial because they had the 60 votes in the President's party. Do you know how long it has been since this Chamber proposed a budget? It has been 822 days. That is a long time. A lot of things have happened in the last 822 days, but proposing a budget is not one of them. We got here in January. Seven months have passed, and there is still no budget. Again, there has not been a budget passed, proposed, or offered, and there is still no budget--822 days and every single day I have been here. In the last 7 days on this debt debate, we have finally seen a proposal from the Senator from Nevada, the majority leader. You would think he would have brought it to the floor. Not until last night. Again, he offered a proposal over the weekend, and still for 6 days we sat around and we did nothing around here. It was never brought to a vote. You would think these issues would have been worked on in January, February, and March--nothing. This Chamber has done nothing. Talk about delay tactics--they have been delaying for 2\1/2\ years. The President doesn't have the luxury of some of these things. By law, he has to propose a budget. And he did. I will tell you how ridiculous that budget was. Not a single Member of the Senate voted for it, including Democrats. It increased the debt. That is how absurd the budget was. Where is the President's plan? We have not seen it. Here is the President's plan: a blank sheet of paper. He hasn't offered a plan. Again, if this were a Republican President, I would say the same thing. I do not understand how, on an issue of this magnitude, of this generational importance, the President of the United States has not offered a plan. If somebody has seen the President's plan, please send it to me because nobody else has seen it. It doesn't exist. This has been their plan all along, by the way. The plan all along was not to take a position, let the days count down until we got to this point, with 72 hours to go, and force a vote on something they wanted. I believe that has been the plan the entire time. You can see it carrying itself out. Do you want to know why people across America get grossed out by politics? It is by watching this kind of stuff happening. First of all, today and for much of this time, I have heard attacks and name-calling. If we had $1 billion for every time I hear the words ``tea party extremists,'' we could solve the debt problem. Let me read some quotes about the debt limit. I found some pretty extreme quotes, and here is one: The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit. That is from a tea party extremist, right? No. This is a quote from March 16, 2006, from then-Senator Barack Obama of Illinois. I found another extremist quote: Because this massive accumulation of debt was predicted, because it was foreseeable, because it was unnecessary, because it was the result of willful and reckless disregard for the warnings that were given and for the fundamentals of economic management, I am voting against the debt limit increase. That must be a tea party extremist Member of the House, right? No. This is from March 16, 2006, from Senator Joe Biden of Delaware. Last but not least is a quote from September 27, 2007: I find it distasteful and disturbing to increase the debt limit yet again. Clearly, we need to change course. And this debt limit bill is just another reminder of that. That is Majority Leader Reid from Nevada on that date in 2007. Yet now these same quotes in this context, where we are talking about raising the debt limit more than it has ever been raised in one vote, is extremism? This name-calling is absurd, and it sets this process back. The other thing I hear: Oh, it is not reasonable. It is a waste of time. This bill cannot pass the Senate--talking about the House bill. Does that disqualify a bill? Well, the Senate bill cannot even pass in the Senate.

Mr. RUBIO. I just ask, is it possible to negotiate with someone who does not have a plan or will not offer a plan or put a plan on the table? The finger-pointing is relevant, but it is not an essential issue here. Also, in March of this year--March 30, to be exact--I wrote an op-ed piece that ran in the Wall Street Journal which outlined the things I was looking for to be a part of this debate. I was told in March of this year that we didn't have enough time to do all those things, although later we found that perhaps we did--this grand bargain. I am prepared, as I stand here today, if there is a meeting going on after this, I am prepared to discuss the things I believe we need to do, not just to raise the debt limit--raising the debt limit is the easiest thing this country has to do right now. That is one vote away. It is hard to show the world we are serious about putting our spending in order so that we can pay our bills down the road. That is a combination of things I have outlined very clearly not just in March of this year in the Wall Street Journal but in repeated speeches on this floor. We need to do two things. We need to grow our economy. While the debt is the biggest issue in Washington, jobs are the biggest issue facing America. If we can get more people back to work, we will have more people paying taxes. If we had more people paying taxes, we would have more revenue for our government. So that is the first thing we need to do, figure out how we can create jobs in America, and I think there is bipartisan agreement on what we can do to do that. The President himself mentioned regulatory reform as a necessity in his State of the Union. Let's do it. We have all talked about tax reform--flattening and simplifying our Tax Code. If there are things in that Tax Code that do not belong there because they are the process of good lobbying instead of good policy, then let's go after those things. Let's talk about that. I think we all agree there have to be some changes in discretionary spending. But we also agree that doesn't solve the problem. That is a small piece of our overall budget. We have to save Medicare, because it goes bankrupt if we leave it the way it is. We have to save Medicaid, because it goes bankrupt if we leave it the way it is. I can tell that you history will back me up on what I am about to say. There is no government--run by conservatives, Republicans, Democrats, put whoever you want there--if given the opportunity, that will not spend more money than it has. It will do it. It will do it every time. That is why I believe there are at least 20 Members of the Senate in the other party who have voted for some version of the balanced budget amendment. Yet it is something we cannot get a vote on, much less discuss here in the Senate. I believe there can be compromise on those outlines. But since I believe my time is about to expire, let me close with this. Compromise is fantastic. I would love nothing more than to leave this building tomorrow night having said the Republic still works; I was able to stand shoulder to shoulder with people from States far from mine, with views different from mine, but who love their country so much we were able to come together and save it when it faced this catastrophe. I would love nothing more than compromise. But I would say to you that compromise that is not a solution is a waste of time. If my house is on fire, I can't compromise about which part of the house I am going to save. You save the whole house or it will all burn down. We either save this country or we do not. To save it, we must seek solutions. I yield the floor.

Mr. RUBIO. I will say two things. First, if the Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, had gotten his way, we would have been in the same position we are in right now. He voted against it. The President has now said he made a mistake and would not have said that were he here today. My point is that the rhetoric 2 years ago was not considered extremist language. Now, I think it is a myth. There may be a handful of people in the House and Senate, perhaps, who believe the Nation doesn't have to raise the debt limit, but by and large everybody recognizes that something must be done about it. I speak for myself, not for any other Member of the Chamber. What I have also said is that it would be a terrible mistake to lose this opportunity to do something meaningful about the debt and that the debt limit gives us an opportunity to do something meaningful about the debt because the crisis America faces is not one I have defined but one defined by the ratings houses and agencies that have said: If you do not get spending in order, we don't care whether you raise the debt limit or not, we will downgrade you. What that means is an increase in interest payments for every American.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I oppose the motion to table the motion to concur in the House amendment to S. 627, the Budget Control Act of 2011. Although I do not support the bill as written, I believe that the Senate should proceed to it in an effort to amend the bill to include greater spending cuts, caps, and provisions which will boost our economy like progrowth tax and regulatory reform. I strongly oppose the proposal put forth by Senate Majority Leader Reid. The bill is filled with accounting gimmicks and does nothing to encourage enactment of a constitutional balanced budget amendment--an essential step towards ending our unsustainable deficits and debt that enjoys bipartisan support in both Chambers of Congress. Amazingly, as our economy continues to struggle, the Reid proposal appears to assume a tax hike upwards of $3 trillion, which would kill jobs and impede efforts to grow the economy and reduce our staggering debt in the process.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. I was witness a few minutes ago to an interesting and informative exchange and wanted to comment on that briefly. Both the leader and the senior Senator from New York had some comments that I think are important in the context of what is being discussed here today. But I wanted to come to the floor today because we have been getting a lot of phone calls and letters from people back home who are wondering--people--what this is all about. These are folks who are out working every day and raising a family and running their businesses. They want to understand what the debate here is about. They get the gist of it, that there is this debt limit fight, and that Congress, if it does not do anything, may not be able to pay some bills beginning August 2. But what is behind all of this? The best way to explain it to people is to equate it to the lives of real people in the real world. Every single one of us as adults has a credit rating. In essence, there are two or three companies out there that basically rate you as an individual. What they do is give you a credit rating that determines, No. 1, whether you are willing to pay back; and, No. 2, whether you have the money to pay people back. Based on that you get something called a credit score. People are familiar with that. Every time you try to go lease or buy a car or buy a house or anything on credit, they are going to run your credit. It is going to tell them: This is John Smith, this is so-and-so, and this is his credit rating. Based on that, people will decide whether to lend you money. Countries have credit ratings too. It is based on two things. No. 1 is your history of paying people back; and, No. 2, on your ability to pay them back in the future. There are three major companies in the world that give credit ratings to countries--three major companies. What those companies are saying right now is we are looking at America and we are worried. We are worried about two things. They are worried about this debt limit issue, and the fact that if the debt limit is not raised, they are going to downgrade us because we are going to miss payments on this, that, or the other. They are worried about that. But they are a lot more worried about something else. It is not our willingness to pay back, it is our ability to pay back people who lend money to the United States. Let me read you some of the quotes. This is from Moody's, which is one of the top ones. They write: ``If the government avoids default, we will likely affirm America's AAA rating.'' America has the highest credit rating in the world right now that you can possibly get. They say: If we avoid default, they will likely affirm our AAA rating, but they will still assign us on something called a negative outlook, unless there is--this is the money line--``a substantial and credible budget agreement to cut the deficit.'' What they are basically saying is, if you raise the debt limit, you may temporarily avoid being downgraded, but ultimately we are still putting you on a watchlist and we ultimately are still going to downgrade you unless we have a substantial and credible budget agreement to cut the deficit. What does that mean? They go on to elaborate. They say: The agreement should include a deficit trajectory--basically a path of deficits--that leads to stabilization and ultimately a decline in your deficit, particularly in how much money you owe compared to how big your economy is. That is what they want to see, a plan in place that shows how we stop growing the deficit and then how we start reducing it. That is what they are saying. Then they actually talk about specific numbers. They have said, their analysts have said we think $1.5 trillion of cuts this year--over the next 10 years--is a plan that is too little. We think $4 trillion might be enough. That is from Moody's. Standard & Poor's, the other rating company, wrote very clearly that even if the parties--meaning Republicans and Democrats--agree to raise the debt limit, it may not be enough to avoid downgrade. That is the second credit house. They are saying: Even if you raise the debt limit, we may still downgrade you. In order to avoid a downgrade, you need a plan that reduces annual budget deficits by at least $4 trillion over the next 10 years. We hear the $4 trillion number again. This is the second rating company basically saying: Yes, the debt limit is a problem. What we are worried about is, do you have a plan to deal with the debt and the deficit? Then the third major company, called Fitch, wrote that they are looking for an agreement on credible fiscal consolidation strategy in order to secure America's top credit rating, a triple A. So the three major houses' rating which is what this is all about at the end of the day, because if our credit rating goes down, interest payments go up on everything from your mortgage, to your car, but, more importantly, on America's debt, which means we are going to have borrow more money to pay the interest on the debt we already owe. So we cannot allow our credit rating to go down. The three major companies that give us our credit rating are all saying the same. Here is what they are saying in plain English: The debt limit is a problem, but it is the least of your problems. Your bigger problem is the debt. If all you do is pass an increase to the debt limit and it does not come with a serious, credible, substantial plan to deal with the debt, you are in big trouble. I would submit to you that the biggest issue facing us on this issue is not the debt limit. The debt limit is actually the easiest issue. That is one vote away from being raised. Our biggest issue is the debt, and the fact is that as we speak, there is no plan in place to begin to do anything about it. Our credit is in danger because of this. That is what we should be focused on like a laser. What will a substantial plan look like? Let's take it from the words of these credit companies: It has to stabilize deficits and begin to show how the deficits come down. We know that $1.5 trillion in cuts is not enough. We know that $4 trillion might be enough. This is what we need to do. How do you do this? How do you get there? It is not rocket science. It is a pretty simple mix of two things that have to happen. The first thing you have to do is you have to stop spending money at the rate you are spending. You cannot keep spending more money than you have. If you are in debt and you keep borrowing a lot more money than you take in especially, it is only going to get worse. So you have got to control the amount of money you spend. Also what you have got to do is generate more money for government. So if you can do those two things, if you can control how much you spend and you can generate more money for government, and you can do both things at the same time, that is how you dig yourself out of this. The debate we should be having here is how do you accomplish that. On the do-not-spend side, we have two choices: You can either trust that future Congresses will do what virtually no Congress in the history of this Nation has ever done; that is, control themselves. And I say this when Republicans were in charge, Democrats were in charge; they have never been able to control spending. If you let politicians spend money they do not have, they will spend it, I do not care who is in charge. That is what history teaches us. So we can either trust that somehow in the future Congress will not do that or we can put into law limits on their ability to do that. That is why I am for things such as a spending cap and a balanced budget amendment, because I think if you do not have restrictions in place, it is not going to happen. Almost every State in the country has a balanced budget amendment. I come from a State where there is a balanced budget amendment. I assure you, I do not care who is in charge or how conservative they claim to be. If you do not have laws in place that keep politicians from spending money they are borrowing, they will borrow the money and spend it. History will back that up. The second is, how do you generate more money for this controlled government? That is the crux of the debate we are having today. Some of my colleagues believe the way you do it is you raise taxes, especially on rich people. To some people this may sound appealing. Here is the problem. It does not raise nearly enough money, if you could even collect it. It does not raise nearly enough money. From the only tax plans I have seen put out there by the administration and some of my colleagues here on the other side of the aisle, it adds up to less than 10 days' worth of deficit spending. We do know, however, that these increases in taxes could kill jobs. The other way you can generate more revenue for government--and it is the way I think we should do it--is to grow your economy. You get more people back to work, and so now more people are paying taxes. You get people who are working to make more money because their businesses are doing better and so they are paying more taxes. The government uses that money not to grow government, it uses that money to pay down its debt and control itself. How do you create more jobs and economic growth? You do it by encouraging people, not in this building but outside this building, to start businesses or grow existing businesses. If you ask those people--not economists, not people on Wall Street, not journalists, not professors, not politicians--if you ask people to create jobs: What would it take for you to start creating jobs again, what they are looking for is a tax system that is fair and regulations they can comply with and then get out of the way and they will do what Americans have always done. Those are our ideas. Here is the problem. Even as we stand here today, there are few plans on the table to do it. I have watched the President give press conferences. I have watched the President give speeches. I have yet to see a plan from the President. With all due respect to my colleagues in the other party in the Senate, I have not seen a plan from them either. They are the majority party. They control this Chamber. They control the Senate. I have not seen a plan from them. A moment ago we heard this talk about we have to compromise. It is hard to compromise when the other side does not have a plan. What do you compromise on? Where is your plan? You cannot compromise if only one person is offering plans. There is only one plan that has been voted on by any House to deal with this issue, and it is the one we are on right now--cut, cap, and balance. I would submit if you do not like cut, cap, and balance, if you do not think we need to cut spending, cap spending, and balance our budget, then show us your alternative. Or maybe you do believe we do need to cut, cap, and balance, but you do not like the way this bill cuts spending, caps spending, and balances spending. Fine. Offer your version of cut, cap, and balance. Let's proceed to this bill. Let's get on this bill the House has passed. If you do not like it, change it. You have got the votes here to do it. If you have got a better idea, bring this bill up and amend it and put your ideas on it. But how could you ask for compromise? How could you scold Republicans in the House for refusing to compromise if you do not have a plan of your own? How can a person compromise if they don't have any ideas of their own? It is not a fair thing to say. So I urge the leadership of the Senate and the President of the United States to offer their ideas on paper--put their ideas on paper and offer them so we can begin to work on this concept of compromise they have offered. We cannot compromise and negotiate with people who will not offer a plan. Why don't we vote to proceed to cut, cap, and balance--proceed to this bill so we can debate it and they can offer their ideas on this bill. This is the perfect opportunity to do it. Stop negotiating in the media and through press conferences and start doing it on the Senate floor, which is what the people sent us to do. I hope that is what will happen. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. RUBIO

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

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

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I stand here today having spent some time over the last few days thinking about this dispute regarding the debt limit, as we are hearing from our constituents across the country who are looking at Washington and asking: What is going on? What are you guys doing? It is a difficult process for people to understand. They elect us and send us here to serve our country and to solve problems. Yet they read in the newspapers all these startling statements--the President saying a few days ago he can't guarantee Social Security payments, others saying our bond rating might be at risk. And, of course, the reality of daily life is that, more than ever, Americans are finding it difficult to find a job, and the ones who do are working twice as hard and making less. So things have gotten tougher over the last couple of years, unfortunately, and people have a right to be upset with the direction we are heading. And that was one of the reasons I felt compelled to run for the Senate--to come up here and be part of trying to make a difference, be part of putting this country on a track that helps us to embrace all the things that make us exceptional and unique and continue to make us exceptional and unique. When I look at this dispute, I see two things that are very clear. No. 1, we can't continue to do what we are doing now, and anyone who argues we can is not being realistic and is doing a great disservice to the future of our country. It is this simple: You can't have a government that spends $1.5 trillion more than it takes in every single year. You can't have a government that borrows 40 cents out of every dollar it spends. Look what happened yesterday. Greece was downgraded. They are on the verge of being in default. Not Greece--I apologize. It was Ireland. Why is that happening in Europe? Why are these countries in trouble? It is not because they refuse to raise their debt limit; it is because people don't think they can pay back the money anymore. The people who lend the money, the people who sell the debt, they are saying: We don't know how you are going to pay us back. Your economy doesn't produce enough money. You have no plan to bring spending under control. We have lost confidence in you. That is the message being sent to Europe today, and if we keep doing what we are doing now, that is the message that will be sent here to America very soon. The impact that will have not just on our country but on the world is, quite frankly, devastating. That is what we are facing. The fundamental problem is twofold: We have a government that spends too much money--more money than it takes in--and we have a government that doesn't take in enough money to pay its debts because its economy is not growing. That is why I have argued from the days on the campaign trail to when I got elected that the way out of this problem is a two- pronged approach. You have to do them both. You have to cut spending. We have to have spending cuts and spending discipline. It doesn't all have to happen overnight, but we have to stop spending $1.5 trillion a year of money we do not have. We cannot continue to do that. That is why I support the cut, cap, and balance plan, because it says we are going to begin to cut spending this year in a real way, we are going to cap the ability of government to continue to grow its spending in future years, and we are going to give the States the right to ratify a balanced budget amendment for our country that basically says: You cannot spend more money than you take in. States balance their budgets, businesses have to balance their budgets, families have to balance their budgets. If this Federal Government doesn't begin to balance its budget sometime in the near future, we may cross a line that is irreversible and puts us in a place similar to what we are seeing in Europe today. So on the spending side, it has to happen. Again, to people who pretend we can do it overnight, I say: Of course not. It took a long time to get into this predicament, and it will take a while to get out, but we have to start trending in the right direction. It is critically important that some sort of spending discipline plan be put in place. Look, I know this is a political place. The debate is always framed by politics. I, like everyone else here, fully participate in the political banter. But today, for a moment, I want to step back from that and just say this. Ultimately, I want to see a solution to the spending plan. I will welcome that solution whether it comes from the White House, from the minority leader, or from the majority leader. I just want someone to step up and offer a plan that begins to bring spending discipline under control. I know I have endorsed one. It is called the cut, cap, and balance plan. If there is a better way to do it, offer it now. What are you waiting for? Now is the time to offer it. If someone in this building has a better way to bring spending under control, now is the time to offer it. Don't negotiate in the shadows. All these negotiations going on we are hearing about in the press--where is the plan? Where is the document that tells us and shows us how we can bring spending under control? Now is the time to show it. Now is the time to do it. What are you waiting for? That is on the spending side. Spending cuts are important. They are essential. We cannot do it without fiscal spending discipline, but that is not enough. We also have to grow. We have to grow. That is where the crux of this debate has really gotten to. You hear in the press that this fight is because certain people don't want to raise taxes on certain people. That is really not what this issue is about. I think everyone agrees that we need growth, that government needs growth in its revenue so it has a way to pay down this debt. The debate is about from where this revenue comes. Some argue: Well, the way you get more money for government is to raise taxes on people--raise taxes on very rich people. I have two problems with that, and neither one is ideological. The first problem is it doesn't work. You can't possibly raise taxes high enough to collect enough money to make a difference on the debt. I looked at some of the tax increases the President and others have proposed. It adds up to less than 10 days of deficit spending. Even if you raise the taxes on what they define as rich to 100 percent next year, it is still not enough money to pay for just 1 year's deficit. So tax increases don't work because they don't work. They do not generate enough money to do anything. The second reason I can't support tax increases is because it will kill jobs. And while this debt is a huge issue--it is very important-- the jobs issue is even more important. The No. 1 issue in Washington is the debt--rightfully so because it is a huge, enormous, generational issue--but unemployment is the No. 1 issue in America. We are talking about people who have worked hard their entire lives, who went to school and did everything that was asked of them, and now they go out into the job market and they can't find a job. It is especially astonishing among young people--25, 30 years of age--who went to college and got their degrees and now they can't find a job, certainly not in the areas they studied. We have to get that turned around. Every other problem we face in our country--the housing crisis and all these other problems--becomes easier to deal with if you have more people working, people making money, paying taxes, and spending money in our economy. So unemployment is what we have to get at, and we are not going to create jobs by tax increases. If someone in this building, if someone in Washington has a tax increase that creates jobs, I invite them to offer it. We are all ears. If someone in Washington has a tax increase that helps create jobs, right now is the time to offer it. I would submit we will not find one because there are no tax increases that will create jobs. If you don't create jobs and you don't grow this economy, there is no way out of this debt. You can't cut your way out of it, and you certainly can't tax your way out of it. Does that mean we don't do anything about taxes, as I hear some commentators in the press saying? Of course not. Our Tax Code is broken. There are a bunch of things in the Tax Code that do not belong there, and I think there is bipartisan support--whether the media tries to ignore it or not--in the Senate, in the House, in Washington for tax reform. Tax reform we can get done. Tax reform means we are going to look at the Tax Code, and if there are things in the Tax Code that are there because somebody hired a lobbyist and got it put in the Tax Code but it is not really good policy, it shouldn't be in there. And if we find enough of those unfair things in the Tax Code, then we can lower everybody's rates. We can make the rates flat, we can make the Tax Code simpler and easier to comply with, and that is what we should aim for because that is what job creators tell us. I swear to you, I have never met a job creator who told me they are looking for a State with high taxes and burdensome regulations. I have never met one. There may be one, but I invite anyone here in Washington, DC, to produce for us a job creator--a company or an individual--who says that what they are looking for is to open a business someplace where the taxes are high and difficult to understand and the regulations are expensive to comply with. And that is what we have in America. You want to know why jobs aren't being created. Because that is what we have in America. So if someone knows of a job creator anywhere in the world who is looking for a high, complex tax environment or looking for a high regulatory environment, I would like to meet them because I have yet to meet a job creator who is looking for that, and that is what we have. I will submit to you that there is bipartisan support for the idea of tax reform, of simplifying our Tax Code and making it easier to comply with, of--if we do it the right way-- lowering everybody's tax rates so that people have more money in their pockets to spend into the economy and grow their business or to start a new business because that is how jobs are created. I know all of us would like to think that Senators and Presidents create jobs but not outside this building they do not. Jobs are created when everyday people from all walks of life decide, you know what, today I am going to open a business and operate from the spare bedroom of my home or out of the garage or when somebody has an existing business and decides: I want to grow this business, so I am going to hire a couple more people because I have a belief this business can do better. We need to get people excited about doing that again, and we are not going to get them excited about doing that again if our taxes and our regulations are out of control. So let's begin to focus with regard to this debt limit on some of the things that there has to be agreement on, and there are two things: We must control our spending, and we must put a plan in place that shows the world how America will bring its spending under control, and we have to do something to grow our economy. Ask any job creator in the real world, What are you looking for to grow and create jobs? They will tell you, We are looking for confidence. And we get confidence from knowing that regulations are predictable and easy to comply with, and the Tax Code is predictable, affordable, and easy to comply with. I submit that if we focused on that and not all the other noise that goes on in the back and forth of this place, we can actually start moving toward a solution. The last point I would make is the word ``compromise'' is a very popular word around here, and there is nothing wrong with compromise, so long as the compromise also happens to be a solution. Because if your compromise doesn't solve the problem, you have created a new problem. There is nothing wrong with compromise. Maybe your ideas of tax reform are different than my ideas of tax reform, but ultimately we have to solve the broken Tax Code. So compromise is not a dirty word, unless the compromise makes it worse, not better. Too often in politics compromise leads to things that make things worse, not better. If you raise taxes in this economy, with 9 percent unemployment, you are going to make things worse, not better. I hope we will rally in a bipartisan fashion around the concept of tax reform, of creating a Tax Code in America that encourages people to create jobs here once again, because if we can solve the jobs issue, if we can begin to solve the unemployment issue, all these other issues we face as a nation become easier to face. Mr. President, I thank you for your attention and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, had I been present to vote on the motion to proceed to consider S. 1323, I would have voted no. There is broad consensus in Washington that a ``balanced approach'' between spending cuts, controls, and increased revenue is the only possible way to reduce our $14.3 trillion national debt and avert a Greek-style debt crisis. I share this perspective. As the ongoing debt negotiations advance, Members of Congress should evaluate the components of a debt package through one question: Will this make it harder or easier for the American people to create jobs? For my part, I have never met a job creator in Florida that has told me they are waiting for Congress to pass another tax hike before they start growing their business. Unfortunately, as evident by S. 1323, some in Washington believe higher revenues in a debt package should come from massive tax increases, even at a time when the unemployment rate is 9.2 percent and 25 million Americans are unemployed or underemployed. I vehemently disagree with this approach and will oppose a net tax increase on the economy that makes its way into a debt reduction deal. To be clear, new revenues are an essential component of debt reduction. We can't simply cut our way out of this debt; we also need to grow our way out of it. The best way to do this is by increasing the number of taxpayers gainfully employed in our economy and by easing burdensome regulations, not by raising taxes. We can generate lasting economic growth and trillions in new revenues for the Federal Government through pro-growth tax reform. Senator Pat Toomey has a budget proposal that lowers top marginal tax rates to 25 percent in a revenue-neutral way and eliminates loopholes and deductions, resulting in $1.5 trillion of additional real growth over the next decade and millions of new private-sector jobs, according to the Heritage Foundation. His budget recognizes that tax cuts and an overhaul of our 70,000 page Tax Code will create jobs and generate trillions in new revenue. Net tax increases are poor economic policy. Will raising taxes on manufacturers make it easier for them to hire new workers? Will raising taxes on American energy companies make it easier to create jobs? Will raising taxes on the businesses that Democrats refer to as ``millionaires'' allow those businesses to expand? Across the board, the answer is no. Instead, these tax increases will kill jobs in every district, State, and industry in the country. Regardless of the rhetoric coming from Washington politicians, these taxes will also have a mathematically insignificant effect on deficit reduction. I proudly support a ``balanced approach'' in the context of debt reduction that grows the economy and boosts tax revenues in the process, but when presented with the option of choking our weak economy with yet another tax increase, I will oppose it. Our country needs new taxpayers, not new taxes.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Colorado, as I pick up where he left off on the space program. Thirty years ago, the United States launched the first space shuttle mission from Kennedy Space Center in Florida. It marked a new era of American leadership in space and showed, once again, that Americans would continue to be committed to being first in space and on the cutting edge of scientific progress to improve our lives. It also showed what free people--committed to discovery, to innovation, to improving the lives of their fellow man--can accomplish. President Ronald Reagan said it best when he kicked off the space station program in 1984 . . . ``We are first; we are the best; and we are so because we're free.'' Over these 30 years, we have been witness to many heroic triumphs in space that have served as a testament to America's unparalleled ingenuity and imagination. Over time, the shuttle program would make household names out of some. Sally Ride became the first American woman to travel into space. One shuttle alum even serves with us in the Senate today--our colleague, Bill Nelson. Of course, space exploration has always entailed risk-taking. It has always required putting one's life on the line. And because of this, the space shuttle program's history also gave us moments of great pain as we lost Christa McAuliffe and the Challenger crew in 1986, and the Columbia crew in 2003. Each time these tragedies forced us to ask ourselves: Is space exploration worth it? And thank God, time and time again, America answered with an emphatic: Yes. Today, on this eve of the final space shuttle launch, we celebrate the shuttle program's remarkable feats, which exhibited many of the qualities that make America exceptional--courage, ingenuity, risk- taking, and an ability to accomplish what once seemed unthinkable. Space exploration speaks volumes about America--who we are as a people and a nation. When America was born 235 years ago, surely our Founding Fathers could not fathom that one day our people would fly among the stars. But the truth is, it has always been our destiny. In the 19th century, it became our manifest destiny to explore and push westward until the American land stretched from sea to shining sea. And once we reached as far west as we could, Americans had no choice but to gaze up to the sky and settle on the stars as our next frontier. Almost 42 years ago to the day, Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Mike Collins made that giant leap for mankind and left their indelible footprints on the Moon's surface and on human history. And on that night in July of 1969, the whole world witnessed the American miracle firsthand. Even today, that moment serves as a poignant reminder about the limitless capacity that Americans possess in space and every aspect of our lives. Even as we face a host of domestic and international challenges, America possesses a remarkable capacity to meet them by setting ambitious goals as President Kennedy did in his Moon speech, persevering in the face of setbacks and rising to the occasion to do what history demands of us. Our space program inspired younger generations of Americans to pursue careers in the aerospace industry and other related fields. Satellite technologies developed and improved by NASA now connect the world in unprecedented ways, support our military's reconnaissance efforts, and facilitate travel through GPS devices. For others, it got them hooked on math and science, and led them to other fields whose innovations make our lives better every day. And then there were the lucky few who would actually go on to fly our space shuttles. For the rest of us who did not pursue careers in science, math and engineering, our journeys into space have meant a lot--in different ways. For many of us, Kennedy Space Center elicits memories as the place where imaginations are awakened and where dreams have been born. And it is also where many children think fondly to their visits for field trips or space camps, and, in my case, of the time my parents took me there for my eighth birthday party before we moved to Las Vegas. But these types of feelings did not just happen in America. The impact of our space program is a global phenomenon. One needs to look no further than the various foreign currencies in the donation box at Washington's National Air and Space Museum to understand what our space program means not only for Florida and our country but for all of humanity. This brings me to my other reason for speaking today. When this final shuttle mission draws to a close, many Americans will be startled by the realization that we don't have an answer to the question: What is next for NASA? NASA has no answer. President Obama has no answer. And as we transition to the next generation of space exploration, Florida's aerospace workers are left with only questions about their future. We know that for the next few years, we will have to rely on the Russians to get to space. Just a few weeks ago, that only cost $50 million an astronaut. Now the price tag is up to $63 million per astronaut. We can only imagine it will go higher. Whereas America once led the way to the Moon, we now face the unacceptable prospect of limited options to simply get a human into orbit. We know that our commercial space partners are working to fill some of the gap in our human spaceflight capabilities. But we need NASA to lead. And, as I say this, I fully recognize that our Nation faces a debt crisis because politicians in both parties have spent recklessly for many decades. It will require Washington to finally live within its means and for leaders to make tough choices about what our Nation's priorities are. NASA is no exception. It will not be about spending more--it will be about spending wisely. Tomorrow, Americans will proudly watch as Atlantis takes off for its last flight. It will be a poignant opportunity to recall the entire 30- year history of the shuttle program and all that has been achieved in 50 years of NASA's existence. And it will be another opportunity to thank the thousands of men and women in Florida who have made this program possible and who take such pride in the shuttle and what it has accomplished. For NASA, just like our Nation, is at its best when it is looking forward, not looking back. Mr. President, may I inquire of the Chair what my remaining time is?

Mr. RUBIO. Fifty-three sounded like too much, even for a Senator. I briefly wish to use the second half of my time to talk about the issue of the day and that is the issue that is being discussed here in town about the debt--an important issue. It is happening at a time when many Americans from all across the country are traveling here on their vacations to show their children and their families how government works--or maybe in the case of this issue, how government does not work--in any event, how our Republic is trying to work its way through this issue, an important one. I know that a few moments ago there was a meeting at the White House that concluded, and we wait with great anticipation--I see my colleague, the Senator from Illinois, has arrived and perhaps he will update us here on the floor in a few moments. But we are all interested in this issue because it goes well beyond partisanship or party politics; it is about the future of our country. I think there is growing consensus on some of the outlines of what it will take to solve this issue. I think it will take two things, because I have heard this terminology we use about a balanced approach. It will take two things. First, it will take reductions in spending and it will take cuts, but we cannot simply cut our way out of this process. We must also grow our way out of this process. My point is there is no way we can simply reduce spending enough to get America out of the predicament it is facing. We must also grow our economy at the same time. And growing our economy leads us to the No. 1 issue facing our country. For America, for the government, for us here in Washington, the national debt is the No. 1 issue on our minds, and rightfully so. It is a serious issue. But for the rest of our country, the No. 1 issue is joblessness. It is the fact that people are struggling to find a job. These people did everything that was asked of them. They went to school, got a degree, worked hard, and now they have lost their job and their homes. If they did find a job, maybe they are making half as much and working twice as long. So we have to grow our economy. The logic behind it is very straightforward. If we have more people working, we have more people paying into our tax system. If we have more people paying into our tax system, that is more money available for our government to pay down its debt. So I want to focus on the growth aspect and what we can do to grow our economy and help job creators create jobs. Don't ask the politicians, ask the job creators. They will tell us there are two things standing in the way of job creation in America. No. 1 is a broken Tax Code that is uncertain, complicated, difficult to navigate and, in many instances, unaffordable for them. No. 2, it is runaway regulations. So any deal that deals with the debt in a serious way has to encompass growth policies that involve, in my mind, both regulatory reform and tax reform. I hope that is what they are working toward--tax reform. Because what we need in America is not more taxes, we need more taxpayers. The other part of the deal, of course, is going to have to involve some spending reductions. That is why I proudly stood with my colleagues to point out three things we have to clearly do to bring it under control. The first is we have to reduce spending this year. Obviously, we can't solve the budget deficit and debt in 1 year, but we have to begin to address it this year, so meaningful cuts this year. The second thing we need to do is a spending cap that limits the amount of money this government can spend in the future or the growth in the amount of money the government can spend in the future. Our government should not grow faster than our economy. Finally, we need some sort of balanced budget amendment. To top it all off, we have to save Social Security and Medicare. I was encouraged this morning to read that the President is interested in this issue. It is important. It is not about balancing the budget on the backs of anyone. It is about saving Social Security and Medicare so that there will never have to be benefit reductions for current beneficiaries, and so that these programs exist for me when I retire and for my children when they retire, and so they will never grow insolvent. With that, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Well, first I want to thank the Senator from New Hampshire for allowing me the opportunity to do this together because it is important. She brings a tremendous amount of credibility to this discussion. She is not just a mother and a Senator, but she is also a small business owner who has run a small business, been there on the front lines with her husband running a small business, who recently got off the campaign trail, as I did, and heard from job creators all across the State as to what they are talking about, and we are going to get back to that in a moment. But as the Senator rightfully outlined, I am the father of four young children, four children whom I think deserve to inherit a country that is as great as the one my parents and their generation left us, and that is what we are debating here at the end of the day. If you look at the numbers, they are absolutely startling. I think these numbers have been said before, but you cannot say them enough-- $14.3 trillion of debt. Trillion is not a number or a figure I have ever used in my life until I got to Washington. I do not know where else in the world that applies other than in the Congress, the term trillion--$14.3 trillion is our debt. Our kids already owe $46,000. My oldest is only 11 and already owes $46,000. Our total debt is about to reach the size of our entire economy. That is kind of the framework in which we are operating when we discuss this. I actually think we are closer to some sort of an agreement than a lot of people realize. I have heard the term thrown around in the last couple of days, ``a balanced approach'' to dealing with it. And I think there is agreement that there has to be a balanced approach. I certainly have always said you cannot simply cut your way out of this problem. You have to have a combination of cuts and growth, growth in revenues to government. I think the debate is-- the debate is--how do you accomplish these two things. I am not going to focus so much on the cut part of it today. I want to focus on the revenue part of it, because that is the part the President and some of my colleagues here have focused on over the last days, this idea of getting more revenue, or this new term ``revenue enhancers'' which is Washington talk for more money to the government. According to the President, for some in his party--most in his party, I should say--the idea is simple. They think there is a bunch of people out there in America who are making a lot of money, more money than maybe they should be making, and they need to pay more in taxes; if these people pay more in taxes, then all of these problems will get a lot easier to deal with. That is kind of the viewpoint they bring to this debate. I know tomorrow we will be voting here on the floor on something the majority leader has offered, something called a sense of the Senate, which people watching at home are probably wondering what that is about. Well, that basically means what is on the Senate's mind. The sense of the Senate we are going to be voting on tomorrow is basically that you have a bunch of people in this country who make over $1 million, and that these people need to do more to help with the debt. That is basically the sense of the Senate that there is going to be a vote on tomorrow. It is very interesting. So I looked at it, because ultimately this is a serious issue. So let's explore this with an open mind. Let's not be doctrinaire. Let's not be blindly ideological. Let's look at this from a commonsense perspective, this idea that if all of these millionaires and billionaires paid more taxes, these problems will be solved. Let's analyze it, because this is all about math. Here is the fact. The fact is it does not solve the problem. First of all, if you taxed these people at 100 percent--basically next year you said: Look, every penny you make next year the government is going to take from you--it still does not solve the debt. Not only does that not solve the debt problem, but I looked at a host of other--there are some great publications that came out today from the Joint Economic Committee. Our colleague Senator DeMint is the chairman. It kind of outlines some of the tax increases being proposed by our colleagues in the Democratic Party and the President to solve the debt problem. You add them all up, you add all of these things up--the jet airplanes, the oil companies, all the other things they have talked about. You put them all together in one big batch, and you know what it does? It basically deals with 9 days and 23 hours worth of deficit spending--9 days and 23 hours--it does not even get to 10 days of deficit spending. That is how much it solves. So all of this talk about going after people who make all of this money, it buys you 9 days and 23 hours. Let's round it off. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt. It buys them 10 days of deficit spending reduction. That is what all of this rounds up to. Here is the bottom line. These tax increases they are talking about, these so-called revenue enhancers, do not solve the problem. So what do we do then? Because clearly we have to do two things. One, we have to hold the line on spending. If you keep digging yourself in the hole, the hole is going to bury you. But the other thing is, how do you start generating revenue for government so it can start paying down this debt. That is what the debate should be about. We already know these taxes they are talking do not work. So here is what works. Here is what I would suggest works, in a balanced approach--using the President's terminology. Let's stop talking about new taxes and start talking about creating new taxpayers, which basically means jobs. Here in Washington, this debt is the No. 1 issue on everyone's mind, and rightfully so. It is a major issue. But everywhere else in the real world, the No. 1 issue on people's minds is jobs. And I will tell you every other problem facing America--the mortgage crisis, home foreclosure crisis, this debt problem--all of these issues get easier to deal with as people are gainfully employed across America. The impact that unemployment is having across this country is devastating. We hear about unemployment in facts and figures. They give us numbers: Oh, X percent people are unemployed. Well, there are stories behind every one of those people. Do you know who a lot of these people are who are unemployed in America? They are people who have done everything they have been asked to do and they have done it right. Maybe they served their country overseas. Maybe they went to college and got a degree and now came back home. Maybe they worked for 10 or 20 years and did a good job at work. And now you know what, they cannot find a job, or maybe they were lucky enough to find a job after losing their original job, but it pays them half as much and they work twice as long. That is the real face of unemployment in America, of people who are hurting. Our job here is to do everything we can to make it easier for them to find a job, not harder. I think that is what we have to do when it comes to a balanced approach and when we talk about revenue. We do not need new taxes. We need new taxpayers, people who are gainfully employed making money and paying into the tax system. Then we need a government that has the discipline to take that additional revenue and use to it pay down the debt and never grow it again. That is what we should be focused on. That is what we are not focused on. So you look at all of those taxes that are being proposed. Here is what I say: I say we should analyze every single one of them through the lens of job creation, issue No. 1 in America. I want to know which one of these taxes they are proposing will create jobs. I want to know how many jobs are going to be created by the plane tax. How many jobs are going to be created by the oil company tax that I heard so much about? How many jobs are created by going after the millionaires and billionaires that the President talked about? I want to know how many jobs do they create. Because I will tell you--and I am going to turn it over to Senator Ayotte in a second, because I am interested in her perspective of this as a job creator, as a spouse of a job creator who runs a small business, as someone like me who just came off the campaign trail. Let me tell you something. I traveled the State of Florida for 2 years campaigning. I have never met a job creator who told me they were waiting for the next tax increase before they started growing their business. I never met a single job creator who has ever said to me: I cannot wait until government raises taxes again so I can go out and create a job. I am curious to know if they say that in New Hampshire, because they do not say that in Florida. So my view on all this is, I want to know how many jobs these tax increases the President proposes will create, because if they are not creating jobs and they are not creating new taxpayers, they are not solving the problem. I do not know what the Senator's perspective is on that.

Mr. RUBIO. Well, the truth is that throughout the campaign and even now, that is what I hear all of the time from people, that these regulations are making it harder, not easier, for them to create jobs. That, combined with the uncertainty of the Tax Code--they do not know what the taxes are going to be next year. But they read the newspaper, they listen to the news, and every time they hear talk about this tax increase stuff, it scares job creators. They make this decision: Oh, wait. You know what, maybe this is not the year to hire people, because we still do not know how much it is going to cost to hire people. The other great phrase here--both Senator Ayotte and I have only been here a few months so I think we are still learning the language of Washington; I hope it never becomes part of my permanent vocabulary, but one of the things I have been hearing recently is this notion of everything should be on the table, which is funny because everything is not on the table according to the President and others. For example, there is no serious discussion of a spending cap. I would love to have a vote. Why do we not have a vote on the balanced budget amendment? Why is that not on the table? Why is a balanced budget amendment not on the table? Why are we not voting on that tomorrow? Because a balanced budget amendment basically says you cannot spend money you do not have, which makes all of the sense in the world for the rest of the people who live in the real world. But, apparently, that doesn't apply here, and the results are these problems we face. I think something should be off the table. Bad ideas should be off the table. If something is a bad idea, it should not be on the table. It is a bad idea to pass things that will make it harder to hire people. How much higher do you want unemployment to be? Here is what I think we have to ask ourselves: These tax increases Senator Ayotte pointed out, along with the regulations that kill job creation in America--these do not raise enough money to do anything significant about the debt. They don't create jobs; in fact, they kill them. How could the tax increases they are outlining be part of the solution? Why is it being offered? These are smart people. They know the math. The answer lies in the politics of this, which is clear. This appears to be an effort to save face. Everybody here knows there will have to be spending reductions at some level because we have a spending problem. It is the reason we are in this mess today. It is not because we don't pay enough taxes. We spend more money--a lot more money--than we have. It appears to me that the President and others in his party are positioning and looking for some pound of flesh in return for these cuts so they can go to their political base and say: We got something out of this. We went after the people who make all this money--the greedy billionaires and millionaires and the oil companies--even though it has nothing to do with the debt. That is the only explanation for why this is even on the table. I think anything that kills jobs should be off the table. I think anything that hurts the ability of the job creators to grow their business should be off the table. I think anything that helps increase the unemployment rate should be off the table. I think that is what should be off the table--anything that hurts our ability to grow our economy. Things that force this government, once and for all, to put itself back on the path of sanity should be on the table. Sanity means we stop having a government that spends money it doesn't have. I will turn it back over to Senator Ayotte to close. I thank her for this opportunity. I thought it was important to bring these points to the floor.