Floor Statements

Mr. President, I have had the opportunity to work out with the Senator from Massachusetts an amendment to the resolution, which I will be offering in a second.

To my colleagues, what this does--we had this discussion the other day on the treaty. This is an amendment to the resolution that would require, within a year's time of ratification, that the President of the United States certify to the Senate that the United States will seek to initiate with the Russian Federation negotiations on the disparity between nonstrategic or tactical nuclear weapons and to make sure we secure those weapons and reduce the number of tactical nuclear weapons in a verifiable manner.

Remember, the Russians have a 10-to-1 ratio of tactical nuclear weapons over us--3,000 to 300--not talked about in this treaty, an important issue. This requires that the President will certify within a year's time that the parties are going to sit down and have a negotiation about the disparity, about verification, and about securing these weapons. It has been agreed to by all parties.

With that, amendment No. 4908 has been cleared on both sides. I now ask that the amendment, as modified by the changes at the desk, be offered and agreed to.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for working on this with us. I think this is an important improvement that will require that the United States seek to initiate negotiations with the Russian Federation within a year's period of time. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts, as well as other colleagues who were willing to make this happen as part of the ratification.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes on the New START Treaty.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily set aside and that amendment No. 4847 be called up.

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

Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to the New START Treaty--this important treaty that we are discussing between the United States of America and Russia concerning strategic nuclear weapons.

I have a lot of concerns about this treaty. Many of those concerns have already been expressed by my colleagues. I have concerns about the verification procedures, that they are weakened from the previous START Treaty. I have concerns about the linkage of missile defense systems with strategic offensive weapons. Those concerns have been addressed as well, and I share them.

The biggest concern I have about this treaty is its failure to deal with what are called tactical nuclear weapons. Now, to those folks at home who may be listening to this, it is probably not readily apparent--it wasn't initially to me--the difference between what a strategic nuclear weapon is and a tactical nuclear weapon. A strategic nuclear weapon is usually considered to be a large vehicle, like an intercontinental ballistic missile, or ICBM. It travels over a very long range. These strategic nuclear weapons can also be delivered by a submarine or a long-range bomber. A tactical nuclear weapon is generally much smaller in size. It has a smaller range and has a delivery vehicle that may be on the back of a truck, for example.

In many ways, in the world we live in today, where we are not in the Cold War atmosphere with the former Soviet Union, the tactical nuclear weapon is of much more concern than the strategic. The great fear we all have is that one of these nuclear weapons would get into the hands of a terrorist. A tactical nuclear weapon, by its very nature, is portable, and it could be something that is even capable of being moved by one person or, as I said before, on the back of a truck.

Why this treaty doesn't deal with tactical nuclear weapons is beyond me. I realize in the past, when we were in the Cold War environment with the Soviet Union, we didn't deal with tactical nuclear weapons because we were concerned about these big missiles that could cross the ocean and strike our country. We were concerned about heavy bombers delivering missiles or bombs that would hit the homeland. That makes sense. But we are in a completely different environment now. While we should still be concerned with those strategic weapons, the tactical weapons are actually much more of a danger to us because they are the very weapons that could get into the hands of a rogue nation. Those are the very weapons that could get into the hands of a terrorist.

This treaty doesn't have anything to do with that. It doesn't address it at all. It would be as if we were going to enter into a treaty about guns, and we had a big negotiation in a treaty where we talked about long arms, shotguns, and rifles, but we failed to talk about pistols. It doesn't make any sense to me. It doesn't make any sense to me because these are the very weapons about which we should be the most

concerned. It also doesn't make sense to me because of the disparity between how many tactical nuclear weapons we have versus how many the Russians have. This treaty limits the amount of those weapons to each country to around 1,500. But the Russians have 3,000 tactical nuclear weapons, and we have 300. So the Russians have a 10-to-1 advantage over us in tactical nuclear weapons. If we approve this treaty, the Russians then will approximately have 4,500 nuclear weapons, and we will have 1,800. That doesn't make a lot of sense either. They have a 10-to-1 advantage on these tactical nuclear weapons.

I think it is incumbent upon us to realize that we have to have a treaty on tactical nuclear weapons. It should have been part of this treaty. It wasn't part of these START treaties in the past because the total number of weapons that the United States had and the former Soviet Union had was immense. When we had 20,000 or 30,000 strategic nuclear weapons, the fact that they had 3,000 tacticals didn't matter. It wasn't an important number in the overall scheme.

But now that we are in this new world where we are concerned about nuclear proliferation, and we don't want terrorists to get these weapons, plus the fact that they are going to end up having 4,500 and we are going to end up everything 1,800, it matters a lot.

My amendment says that within a year of the ratification of this treaty, the Russians and the United States must sit down and negotiate a tactical nuclear weapon agreement. It doesn't require that it be resolved within a year. It requires that it be started. That seems to me--I am a little biased, but that seems to me eminently reasonable. I am proud that Senators Chambliss and Inhofe have joined me on this amendment. Who could be against having the Russians and the United States sit down within a year's time of ratification and begin the negotiation on tacticals? Who could be against that?

You will hear from my friends on the other side, who are defending this treaty and voting down all of the amendments being offered on this side of the aisle, that we can't amend the treaty because, if we do, it is a poison pill, and the Russians will not accept it.

If that is true, then we are not really fulfilling much of a function, are we? Under the Constitution, there are some special privileges that are imbued to the Senate.

One of them is the treaty privilege, the treaty power, where all treaties must be confirmed by the Senate on a two-thirds vote. If we can't amend it, and all we are doing is either saying yes or no, to me that limits our ability. If my friends on the other side think this is a poison pill, I ask them to look at the language. I am just putting in the treaty, if they accept this, that within a year's time, we have to sit down at the table and enter into these negotiations on tacticals. It is not a heavy lift, it seems to me.

They will say we can't do this because the Russian Duma will not accept it. What does that say? If the Russian Duma, their legislature, will not accept an amendment--if the treaty is as it is now, as negotiated by the U.S.--and I have said before that I have concerns about what is there for verification and about missile defense. Putting that aside, if it goes the way it has been drafted and agreed to between the President and the leaders of Russia, with just this one amendment that says that the two sides will sit down within a year's time, will the Russian Parliament not approve that? And if they don't approve it, if they will not say they will sit down within a year's time and negotiate about the 3,000 tactical nuclear weapons they have, about the security of those weapons, about our ability to verify where they are and about a reduction of them, because of the disparity in the 3,000 they have and the 300 we have, what does that say about the Russians?

What it says to me is that they are not, in good faith, really trying to come to an agreement about nuclear weapons. Would we want this treaty if the Russian Duma said they are not going to agree to sit down within a year's time to talk about tactical nuclear weapons?

I think this is a very important amendment. I have great respect for the people who have stood up and supported this treaty. I think there are problems with it, but I don't see any reason why a fair-minded person could not agree that within a year's time the two parties should sit down and talk about what, to me, is the most dangerous part of our nuclear challenge with Russia, which is tactical nuclear weapons. We don't know where they are, what they are doing, we can't verify them, and there is a 10-to-1 advantage that the Russians have over us.

Mr. President, my amendment is at the desk and has been called up. I hope we will have the opportunity to debate this amendment in the coming hours and days as we wrap up our consideration of this treaty.

With that, I yield the remainder of my time.

Madam President, this amendment says simply one thing: that within 1 year's time of the ratification of this treaty, the United States and Russia would sit down and negotiate a tactical nuclear weapons treaty. Why do I bring this forward? Because we know-- and we heard a lot about it today in our closed session--that there is a tremendous disparity between the number of tactical nuclear weapons our country has at 300 and the Russians have at 3,000--10 to 1. If this treaty is ratified, the Russians will have 4,500 nuclear weapons. We will have 1,800.

This is not a poison pill. You will hear that; it is not. It does not change a material term of this agreement. It just says within a year's time, we will sit down and enter into these negotiations. We need to put it into the treaty because that is the only way we can make sure it will happen.

If we send this treaty with this amendment back to the Russian Duma and they don't approve it, what does that say? It says they know they have a significant advantage over us. It is the right thing to do. It is something I think all of our colleagues should be able to agree to. It is not a poison pill. Let's approve it. Thank you.

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

Madam President, I rise to pay tribute to the body with which I have had the privilege of serving for the past 15 months. Being a U.S. Senator, representing 18\1/2\ million Floridians, has been the privilege of my lifetime, and now that privilege is coming to an end. As I stand on the floor of the Senate to address my colleagues this one last time, I am both humbled and grateful, humbled by this tremendous institution, by its work, and by the statesmen I have had the opportunity to serve with, who I knew only from afar but now am grateful that I can call those same men and women my colleagues.

No endeavor worth doing is done alone. And my time here is no exception. In the past 16 months, I have asked the folks who worked with me to try to get 6 years of service out of that time, and they have worked tirelessly to achieve that goal.

My chief of staff Kerry Feehery, my deputy chief of staff Vivian Myrtetus, my State director Carlos Curbelo, Ben Moncrief, Michael Zehy, Ken Lundberg, Melissa Hernandez, Maureen Jaeger, Danielle Joos, Brian Walsh, Frank Walker, Spencer Wayne, Vennia Francois, Victor Cervino, Taylor Booth, and many, many others have made our time here worthwhile, and I thank all of them. I specially thank Vivian and Maureen who left their families and gave up precious time with their children to come to Washington to support me in these efforts.

I am also thankful to the people who work in our State office. Time and time again when I travel around Florida I am encountered by people who have received such a warm reception from the men and women who serve us in Florida and help people deal with problems with the Federal Government. I am grateful for their work.

Senator McConnell has provided me with opportunities beyond my expectations. He is a great leader, and I am grateful to him. Senators Alexander, Burr, Cornyn, Kyl, McCain, Corker, and many others have taken me under their wings and mentored me, and I am appreciative of them.

Chairmen Rockefeller and Levin, we have had the opportunity to do great work together in your committees. I thank you for that. Senators Cantwell, Klobuchar, Landrieu, Whitehouse, and Baucus, we have worked together in a commonsense way to pass legislation that is good for the American people, and I am appreciative of your efforts.

Senator Mel Martinez, who ably held the seat before me, has been generous in his advice and counsel. Senator Nelson and his wife Grace have been warm and welcomed Meike and I to Washington. I am thankful for your courtesy. I thank Governor Crist. He has afforded me tremendous opportunities for public service, and I am grateful.

I want to say a special thank you to my parents. My grandfather, in 1951, drove his 1949 Pontiac from Waterbury, CT, to Fort Lauderdale, FL, with his wife and five kids piled in the back. He didn't know anybody. He didn't have a job. But he went there to make a better life for his family. He worked in the trades, in construction. He built houses and he taught my father the same thing. And as my father worked in the hot Florida Sun, his ambition for his son was that he would one day get to work in air-conditioning. I have achieved that goal and so much more because of their sacrifice. Mom and Dad didn't go to college but they sent me to college and law school, and I will be forever grateful for what they have done for me.

My most heartfelt appreciation goes to my wife Meike. When I learned of this appointment, I met her at the door of our home in Tallahassee and she was crying. She was not just crying because she was happy; she was crying because she was worried. We at the time had three small sons--Max, Taylor and Chase, 6, 4, and 2. She knew something that others didn't know--that we were going to have another baby and that baby was born here in Washington, our daughter Madeleine.

Throughout all of my travels, she has been an unfailing support for me, I love her dearly, and I am appreciative to her.

It has been the privilege of my life to serve here, but I would not be fulfilling my charge in my final speech if I did not tell you what weighs on my mind and lays upon my heart about the direction of this country. So what I say to you now is with all due respect, but it is with the candor that it deserves.

The single greatest threat to the future of our Republic and the prosperity of our people is this Congress's failure to control spending. In my maiden speech, I lamented a world where my children would one day come to me and say they would find an opportunity in another country instead of staying here in America because those opportunities were better there. In 1 year's time that lament has proven to be too optimistic, because the challenge that confronts us will not wait until my children grow up.

When I came to Congress just 15 months ago, our national debt was $11.7 trillion. Today, it stands at $13.7 trillion. It has gone up $2 trillion in 15 months. It took this country 200 years to go $1 trillion in debt. Our interest payment on our debt service is nearly $200 billion now. At the end of the decade, when our debt will be nearly $26 trillion, that interest payment will be $900 billion.

When that interest payment is $900 billion, this government will fail. And long before that time the world markets will anticipate that and our markets will crash. This is not hyperbole; it is the truth. Not since World War II has this country faced a greater threat. Not since the Civil War has this threat come from within.

How has Congress arrived at this moment? For the past 40 years, Congress has spent more than it could afford. It has borrowed from Social Security and foreign governments, delaying making honest choices and prioritizing on what it should spend. Budgeting in Washington seems to be nothing more than adding to last year's budget. We are funding the priorities of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s without any real evaluation of whether those are still good priorities and certainly not to see whether they are being done efficiently and effectively: It is as if a teenage child received not only all the gifts on their Christmas list this year but the gifts on all their Christmas lists going back to when they were three.

It is clear Congress is capable of solving this problem with business as usual. What is needed is across-the-board spending caps to right the ship. An across-the-board spending cap will necessitate oversight and require prioritization. Congress will finally have to do what businesses and families do all across this country: Make tough choices, make ends meet.

I have proposed such a cap. I have proposed going back to the 2007 level spending across the board. Was our spending in 2007 so austere that we could not live with it just 3 years later? If we did, we would balance the budget in 2013 and we would cut the national debt in half by 2020 and you would save America.

Unlike most problems that Congress addresses, this problem is uniquely solvable by Congress. Congress can't win wars. Only the brave men and women in our military, who we especially remember on this day, December 7, of all those who have served for our country in all of our wars to keep us safe and free, only those men and women can win a war. Congress cannot lead us out of recession. Only job creators and businesses can create jobs. But this problem is solely of Congress's making and uniquely solvable by this body.

What Congress should do is strengthen its oversight. The lack of oversight in Washington is breathtaking. Evaluate all Federal programs. Keep what works; fix what you should; get rid of the rest. Return the money to the people and use the rest to pay down this cataclysmic debt.

The recent work of the Debt Commission is a good start, and I commend my Senate colleagues who voted for this measure. It was courageous for them to do so.

But out-of-control spending is not just a threat because it is unsustainable; it is also changing who we are as Americans. Remember, our Founders told us that the powers delegated to the Federal Government were ``few and defined,'' the powers to the State ``numerous and indefinite,'' extending to ``all the objects which in the course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people.''

The current size and scope of the Federal Government is corrosive to the American spirit. The good intentions of Members of Congress to solve every real or perceived problem with a new Federal program, and the false light of praise that attaches to the giving away of the people's money, endangers our Republic. Every new program chips away at what it means to be an American, harms our spirit, and replaces our self-reliance with dependency, supplants an opportunity ethic with an entitlement culture. It is at its base un-American.

It is not the Government's role to deliver happiness. Rather, it is its role to stay clear of that path to allow our people to pursue that God-given right.

What has created our prosperity, after all, is not our government, it is our free market system of capitalism. It is through the healthy cut and thrust of the marketplace that new technologies, new jobs, and new wealth are created. Through that dynamic process some win and some lose, but it

allows all of our people, regardless of their race, gender, creed, color, or background the opportunity to succeed or fail. And it ensures for us that unique expression ``only in America'' is not just a refrain from the past but an anthem for the future.

Can you imagine the tragedy if the downfall of the American experiment was caused by a failure of this Congress to control its spending? The challenge of this generation is before you and it is not beyond your grasp. There is nothing we as Americans cannot do. We have fought imperial Japan and Nazi Germany at the same time and beaten both. We have put a man on the Moon. We have mapped the human genome. And in the spare bedrooms and garages and dorm rooms of our people, our citizens have created the greatest inventions and the greatest businesses the world has ever known, which have employed millions of people and allowed them to pursue their dreams, all in the freest and most open society in the history of man.

We are that shining city on the hill. We are that beacon of freedom. We are that last best hope for mankind upon which God has shed his grace.

President Theodore Roosevelt said that one of the greatest gifts that life has to offer is the opportunity to do work that is worth doing. I can't think of a greater gift than the work that lies before you: righteous in its cause, noble in its purpose, and essential for the prosperity of our people.

I will always cherish the relationships I have gained here and the work we have done together. God bless you, God bless the U.S. Senate, and God bless our great country.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor, as many of us have done in recent weeks, to pay tribute to a Member of Congress who is retiring--to a great Floridian and a great American, a man I am proud to call a colleague and a friend, Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart. Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart is retiring after 18 years of service in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Born in Havana, Cuba, Lincoln came to the United States in 1959, at the age of 4 years old. His father, Rafael Lincoln Diaz-Balart, had just been elected a senator in Cuba, but he could not take office or remain in Cuba because of the rise of the dictator Fidel Castro.

Lincoln Diaz-Balart rose in the House of Representatives to become a senior member of the Rules Committee, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process, and is now the cochairman of our congressional delegation. He is also the chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Leadership Institute.

Lincoln grew up in south Florida. He attended public schools there and high school, but he also attended school in Madrid, Spain. He received a degree in international relations from New College in Sarasota and obtained a diploma in British politics in Cambridge, England. He received his law degree from Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.

Lincoln started the practice of law in Miami. He worked for Legal Services of Greater Miami, providing free legal services to the poor. He was subsequently an assistant state's attorney, prosecuting those who committed crimes, and a partner in the prestigious Fowler, White law firm.

Lincoln was first elected into politics in the Florida Legislature back in 1986, but quickly--just 3 years later--ran for the U.S. Congress. In 1992, he served his first term as a Representative of Florida's 21st Congressional District and served as a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

In 1994, Lincoln became the first Hispanic in history to be named to the powerful Rules Committee. In 1996, he drafted much of the legislation that strengthened the embargo against Cuba and its dictatorship.

In 1997, he showed his penchant for helping those in need by successfully carrying out efforts to restore the supplemental security income and food assistance to legal immigrants who were denied aid by the welfare reform law of the previous year.

As a member of the House Rules Committee, on September 14, 2001, Congressman Diaz-Balart took to the floor of the House the joint resolution authorizing the use of force in Afghanistan after the September 11 attacks.

Congressman Diaz-Balart lives in Miami with his wife Cristina and their two sons Lincoln and Daniel. When he retires, Florida will lose one of its strongest voices, as will this country and all those who care about freedom around the world.

He has fought for Florida's families with integrity and effectiveness. From his time in the State senate to his service in Congress, he has served with passion, drive, and a steadfast determination to do what is right. Most of all, and what I appreciate him most for, he has been a champion of freedom and democracy, not only in Cuba but throughout Latin America and the world.

No one in Congress is more passionate about ending the oppression that Cubans suffer under the current regime. His efforts are known not only here but throughout the world. He is a voice of change, and he is a passionate believer in the rights of people everywhere to be free. He speaks for political prisoners held in the regime's prisons, he speaks for those who suffer beatings for speaking out against their captors, and he speaks for everyday Cubans who hunger for the freedom they have never felt.

I have heard Lincoln speak many times about the plight of the Cuban people. I have seen his desire to see the people of Cuba enjoy the prize of liberty that has been denied them for more than 50 years. When he speaks about these issues, you feel his passion. His voice has been a great voice for a life of liberty throughout Florida, this country, and the world.

To know Lincoln is to know one of his heroes--his father Rafael Diaz- Balart, a well-respected public servant. When he had to leave Cuba in 1959, he arrived in the United States and established the White Rose, the first anti-Castro civic organization. When Lincoln returns to Florida, he will lead a nonprofit inspired by the White Rose. I know his father is looking down from Heaven and will continue to be proud of his son.

The House of Representatives will not be the same without his talents, but Florida will continue to benefit by having him back at home full time. As an article in his hometown paper--the Miami Herald-- noted, even though Lincoln has announced his retirement, the pulpit will change but the passion will not. To me, Lincoln will always be a steadfast ally in the cause for freedom 90 miles away from our shores in Florida. He knows that freedom is not negotiable, and its cause is the most noble cause in the world. Our country and our world is better off because of my friend Lincoln Diaz-Balart.

I will always be grateful to him because when I came here to the Senate with him and his brother Mario Diaz-Balart, another great champion for freedom, I was mentored in the issues that affect my State and so many of the people in my State who come from Cuba and other countries in Latin America. Through their mentoring and through their passion and through the education they provided to me, I was better able to understand his plight, a plight that I don't think most of my colleagues can know as well as we can in Florida--that just 90 miles from our shore is an evil dictator who oppresses his people.

When I am in Florida talking with folks, oftentimes I will make the remark, if I am, say, in Orlando, FL: Can they imagine that just 90 miles away, say, in West Palm Beach, FL, that it would be illegal to speak out against the government, illegal to practice your religion, illegal to gather together in association to express your political views--all of the freedoms we sometimes take for granted? Just 90 miles from our shore, people are jailed, are killed for trying to exercise those freedoms.

It was brought home to me most when I was visited recently by a man by the name of Ariel Sigler. Ariel was a political prisoner in Cuba for 7 years. He has recently been released, and he was in Miami receiving medical care. Ariel is a man who was a professional boxer, a large, strapping man. But he didn't just fight with his hands; he also raised his voice for freedom in his native Cuba. When he did so, he was thrown in jail, and now he is a man who is about 100 pounds less in weight, whose once towering frame is relegated to a wheelchair because for 7 years he was imprisoned just for wanting to criticize his government. He was put in a small cell with several other prisoners. He was fed maggot-infested food, and he had to wash in a pipe and drink from a pipe sitting outside his cell, as did all the other prisoners. It made him sick, desperately sick. This happens just 90 miles from the shore of this country. It is intolerable.

But I know of this, and my heart bleeds for the Cuban people because of the great work of Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart. So we will miss him. His voice has fought for freedom in this body, in the U.S. Congress, for 18 years. But as the Miami Herald said: The pulpit will change but the passion will not.

We know he will continue to hold that lamp of freedom and be an advocate for free people and people who yearn to be free throughout the world.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the issues and the topics this body badly needs to get to. Just a month ago there was an election in this country, and the people of this country spoke loudly and clearly. What they said is they wanted this Congress to focus on two things: No. 1, they wanted us to focus on creating jobs. This is the most difficult economy anyone who is working now has ever had to experience.

In my home State of Florida, unemployment is nearly 12 percent. If you figure in all the people who are underemployed--who have lost their job and now must work two or three jobs to make even less than what they used to make to barely get by, to provide for their families-- nearly one out of five people of working age in Florida are unemployed or underemployed.

We are in the top three in mortgage foreclosures. In the first half of the year, Floridians were No. 1 on being behind on their mortgage payments. Although there are some spots of hope and some things to look at as potentially growing our economy again, we just recently found out that in southeast Florida--which in many ways has been ground zero for mortgage foreclosures--mortgage foreclosures have gone up in the third quarter more than 25 percent over the second quarter.

Times are tough in Florida. Times are tough all across this country. So the people of this country spoke, and they sent new people to Washington who will be taking office--some have already taken office, most will take office in January--to get this country back to work. What they asked this Congress to do is to focus on job creation.

The second thing they want this Congress to do is to stop the out-of- control spending. This government is putting this country on the brink of financial disaster. We know from the Congressional Budget Office, which keeps count of spending in this country, that this last year, 2010, the Congress spent $1.3 trillion more than it took in--$1.3 trillion more than it took in. It took 200 years for this country to go in debt. Yet just this last year, this Congress went $1.3 trillion in debt.

Our national debt--the total amount of deficits that have accumulated over time--is nearly $14 trillion. In the past 4 years, the national debt has gone up $5 trillion. The American people are worried about this. When I go around Florida and talk to my constituents, they tell me they are concerned about the future for their kids, for their grandkids. They wonder whether our children are going to grow up in a country that has the same promise and opportunity that we have all experienced.

So these have been the two big issues. They are resounding. If you turn on the television and watch any of these cable talk shows, the two issues that come up are jobs and the out-of-control spending. Yet despite the overwhelming chorus from the people of this country--which manifested itself a month ago on election day--this Congress is failing to address these two primary issues.

Why in the world are we talking about a bunch of ancillary issues-- albeit important in their own right--when the most pressing issues facing this country, and what the American people want us to do, is to focus on these two issues?

Part and parcel of the economic problem is the uncertainty that is being caused by Washington. For the past 2 years, instead of focusing on creating jobs, creating an environment that would allow businesses to create jobs, we have created all sorts of uncertainty for American entrepreneurs. I come from a State of small businesses. There are not a lot of big businesses in Florida. When I meet with small business, they tell me there is so much uncertainty that it is preventing them from hiring.

They cite the health care bill. How do we know if we can hire a new person? If we do we may be under some new mandate, some new penalty or fine that will make us pay more. We don't know whether we can afford that new employee. Therefore, they do not hire. No wonder unemployment is so high and has not come down.

They wonder about the financial regulatory reform bill. One business in Florida told me they will move some of their employees overseas so as to not come under the restrictions of that bill.

Most of all what they tell me is they do not know what their taxes are going to be next year. They do not know what they are going to pay in taxes. Because they can't plan, they cannot hire. Because they can't plan, they do not buy that new piece of equipment. Because they can't plan, they do not take on that extra lease space or hire the construction company to build an addition on their building or build a new facility.

So all of this uncertainty created by Washington not having its focus on what the American people want Washington to have its focus on is exacerbating the problem with the economy. So why in the world--knowing for the past 2 years that these tax cuts were set to expire--have we not addressed them?

When we voted to adjourn before the election, I voted not to adjourn because I thought it was fundamentally unfair to the businesses and job creators in this country for us to leave and not finish our work with them not knowing what their taxes would be next year. I knew that would hurt the effort to employ more people in my State. Yet here we are, the first day of December, just a month left in the time of this Congress, and we still have not addressed the tax issues.

We are talking about food safety, we are talking about the DREAM Act, we are talking about the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. However you feel about those issues--and I respect that people have differing views--that is not what the American people are focused on. We should be about the work of focusing on the issues that matter most, putting first things first. What should be first is creating an environment so that entrepreneurs and job creators can get people back to work.

Secondly, we must tackle this issue of spending. We just saw the report from the debt commission, and we are all still reviewing the good work they have done. Let me say, first of all, this is a serious proposal from serious and responsible people, and it is the kind of work that should be done in Washington. I don't agree with all of its provisions, but I am proud of the work they have done because it is serious, it is sober, and it addresses the compelling crisis that confronts us and threatens the very future of this country.

As the cochairmen of that commission--Erskine Bowles and former Senator Simpson--have said this crisis will not wait 10, 20 years. This crisis is now.

But as much as I respect the work they have done, it doesn't go nearly far enough. Realize that the proposals they have made will cut the national debt and deficit $4 trillion. That is a lot of money. It is a good start. It is being widely condemned by Democrats and Republicans. It tackles defense spending, so some Republicans don't like it. It tackles Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, so some Democrats don't like it. I think the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, dismissed it because of what it does on Social Security. But realize this: It only cuts $4 trillion out of the next $12 trillion that will be incurred in the next decade.

So let's put it in perspective. Right now our national debt is nearly $14 trillion. It is projected to be $26 trillion by 2020. If we adopted every proposal of the debt commission--every single one of them--we would reduce the projected national debt from $26 trillion to $22 trillion, and that is not enough. It is not even close to being enough.

Now, why is that the case? It is the case because we spend $200 billion a year right now in our current budgetary environment on debt service--$200 billion a year paying interest on money we have borrowed for things we should not have spent money on in the past.

Here is the truth the American people have not been told: For the past 30 or 40 years, this government has spent much more money than it has taken in. What it did first was it took the money out of Social Security and wrote an IOU to Social Security. When the Social Security money was unable to be raided anymore by Congress, which has been just recently, then this government had to go out and borrow the money from foreign countries such as China and Japan. That is why we have this huge unfunded portion of Social Security that is tens of trillions of dollars and that is why we have this national debt that is racking up.

For the last 30 or 40 years, this Congress has spent way more than it has taken in. Now we are in a situation where we put the future of this country in peril. At the end of this decade, if we have a $26 trillion national debt--and even if it is $22 trillion if we adopted every measure from the debt commission--we will still be $800 to $900 billion in debt service by the end of the decade, $800 billion to $900 billion. When

we are that far into our debt service payments--basically for the average American family this is similar to, thinking of this like a credit card, when you can't pay the minimum balance and every month the amount you owe keeps cascading more and more. That is where the American Government is headed.

When we get to $800 billion or $900 billion a year in interest payments, the government will not function. As Erskin Bowles said today, the world markets will not wait for that point. So what you are seeing in Europe right now with Greece and Ireland and Portugal and Spain will happen here, except there will not be a European Union or anybody else to bail out the United States of America.

It is a crisis. Yet this Congress is not doing anything about it. We are talking about adopting a continuing resolution because this Congress will not do an appropriations bill. A continuing resolution at its best will freeze spending at last year's level.

Some of my colleagues will say: That is good. See, we are not increasing the spending.

It is not an accomplishment, when last year we were more than $1 trillion in deficit, to freeze spending at that level.

The two issues the American people want us to deal with are jobs and out-of-control government spending. Yet we are failing to do both. There is a lot of frustration in this Chamber. I watched some of my colleagues on the other side today come speak on the floor, and they are frustrated that we are not getting things done. I am frustrated too. Two of my colleagues are proposing a change to the way the procedures of this body work. They do not think it should take 60 votes for us to do some things.

I do not agree with them, but I share their frustration because, as much as I am privileged to be here--and I am in awe of this institution--the way this Congress works and this body works is dysfunctional. The way it should work and the way it used to work, from what people tell me who were here before, is that a proposal would come up, a piece of legislation, and it would come to the floor and we would all have a chance to offer an amendment. We would all have a chance to make it better.

My constituents in Florida think I have the opportunity to offer amendments and let their voices be heard through my actions. If my proposal is not good or not worthy, then it should not pass. But it should see the light of day. This was a time when Senators stayed by their desks and listened to the proposals and amendments of other Senators and were able to quickly call home to the group that the proposal might affect. Say it was an agricultural proposal. They might call their local farmers or if it would affect banks, they might call banks to see how it would affect their constituents in their home State, and the level of discourse was better.

The people of this country expect us to get to work. They expect us to get to work on the issues that matter most. They are suffering and we should get about the work that they want us to do because the future of the country is at stake.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the distinguished career of Mr. Dominic Calabro of Tallahassee, FL, who is in his 30th year of public service with Florida TaxWatch, a nonpartisan, nonprofit government watchdog and research institute that has served the taxpayers for decades in my home State of Florida. The group has been chaired for the past 2 years by the distinguished leadership of David A. Smith of Jacksonville, FL.

Florida TaxWatch first hired Mr. Calabro in 1980 as a senior research analyst. His hard work and dedication was quickly recognized, as he was promoted to executive director in 1982 and CEO in 1986. Mr. Calabro has guided the growth of TaxWatch into a dynamic, influential organization dedicated to improving government productivity and taxpayer value through research and civic engagement. Approximately 70 percent of TaxWatch's recommendations have been adopted by Florida's government, saving billions of dollars for Florida taxpayers.

Under Mr. Calabro's leadership, Florida TaxWatch has grown from an organization with a membership of approximately 30 and annual revenues of approximately $64,000 to a statewide organization boasting a membership of nearly 1,000 individuals and organizations and revenues that have grown more than twentyfold to over $1,500,000.

In addition to identifying and working to improve government spending in the public interest, Mr. Calabro and TaxWatch are the key players in the annual Prudential-Davis Productivity Awards, a nationally unique public-private partnership that recognizes and rewards exceptional Florida state employees whose innovative work measurably increases productivity and saves taxpayer money. Mr. Calabro has received numerous honors and awards, including being named by the National Junior Chamber of Commerce as one of Ten Outstanding Young Americans for 1994.

Mr. Calabro has been supported in all of his endeavors by his loving wife of 31 years, Debbie. They are devoted to their four children, Diana, Dominic, Christina, and Danny.

Mr. Calabro is also a driving force for improvements in public education. He is on the Board of Advisors for Florida State University's Graduate School of Social Work. Mr. Calabro also serves on the Florida Education Foundation and Communities in Schools of Florida.

Many Florida TaxWatch recommendations have served as the impetus for important changes to Florida budgetary and taxation policy, including the Taxpayers Bill of Rights of 1992, the Government Performance Accountability Act of 1994, the complete phase-out of the Intangibles Tax, and a recent Government Cost Savings Task Force that so far has saved the state nearly $3 billion to weather the current economic climate.

I congratulate Mr. Calabro on his 30 years of service with Florida TaxWatch, and to wish him nothing but the best in his future endeavors.

Before I start my remarks, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor to Senator Coburn's amendment.

Mr. President, it occurs to me that when I address this august Chamber tonight--and I follow my colleagues who have served here for a very long time and with distinction; I am new to this Chamber--I have a different perspective.

But my comments tonight are not meant without respect because I have a great deal of respect for those who have spoken in opposition to this amendment, but I have a differing view. I am new to the Senate, as you know. I came here last year, in 2009. I did not have a specific position on earmarks before I got here. I knew that there was a problem with Federal spending. But I had not yet made a decision as to whether I would support earmarks.

When you hear about a project for your home State, whether it be for a hospital or for a road or for a bridge or for a sewage treatment plant--and for the folks who are at home who are watching this, if they have not yet found Monday Night Football on their television and may have stumbled across C-SPAN, these projects all sound very good, and a lot of them are very good.

I hear from a lot of people in my State wanting me to support a particular project via an earmark. An earmark is a Member-driven appropriation, where a Member of Congress says: I want this specific spending for my home State or for an issue or project that I think is important.

They come to me and they say: We need this project. We need this funding. We need this research. It all sounds good. I think in a world where our financial house was more in order, there could be a role for those earmarks, if transparent.

But I cannot support them in the situation we are in. The chairman of the Appropriations Committee, just a few moments ago in his speech, raised the point that this Congress in last year's budget was $1.3 trillion in deficit.

It is our constitutional responsibility to appropriate. That is what article 1 says. The power of the purse lies in the Congress. Congress has not been doing a very good job--$1.3 trillion in debt, in deficit, in just 1 year. It took 200 years for this country to go $1 trillion in debt. We just incurred a $1.3 trillion deficit.

Those who are in favor of continuing earmarks and who are against this prohibition say: Look, it is just a small percentage; it is $16 billion. In light of a $1.3 trillion deficit, what is a mere $16 billion? Frankly, that argument doesn't ring true with the people of Florida. When one talks to a Floridian and says there is $16 billion in spending, that is still a lot of money to regular people.

But it is more than that. When I came here and started to vote on appropriations bills, in the first few months of 2009, I noticed those appropriations bills were 5, 10, 15, 20 percent more than the last year's appropriations bills. No wonder the country is so far in debt, nearly $14 trillion. It is estimated that by the end of the decade, it will be 26. We spend $200 billion a year on interest now, the debt service on programs we couldn't afford in the past. It will be $900 billion by the end of the decade because the appropriations bills go up and up and up.

I believe, sitting here, with all due respect, and listening to my colleagues, part of the reason those appropriations bills get support is because there are Member projects in them. You can't vote against the bill once your hometown project is in it. It is the engine

that drives the train. So it is not losing weight by shaving, as my distinguished colleague analogized. It is, as Senator McCain said, the gateway drug. It enables the spending we can't afford.

We have to solve these spending problems. The future is in jeopardy. We can't afford $900 billion in interest payments. What will this Congress do when the interest payment alone is $900 billion? This is not 20 years from now. This is not 40 years from now. This is 10 years--really 9 years from now. I contend this government will not function with a $900 billion interest payment.

Maybe this is emblematic, but I believe it is more than that. If we can't do the easy things, how is this Congress going to do the hard things? How is it going to cap spending? How is it going to cut spending?

The President announced today a moratorium on pay increases for Federal employees. That is a good start. But there are 270,000 new Federal employees since this administration took over, according to the Cato Institute, 270,000 new employees with average salaries of about $70,000 a year. We can't nibble around the edges, not with a $1.3 trillion deficit this year alone, and not with $26 trillion staring us in the face by the end of the decade.

The future of the country is at stake. Our Founding Fathers gave this Congress the power of the purse, but with that power comes a responsibility not to run the country into the ground with deficit spending.

This is an important step. It is a first step. It needs to be done. What needs to be tackled next is much more difficult--the across-the- board spending cuts that will have to come, tackling Social Security, tackling Medicare and making sure those programs are there for our seniors now but are reformed in a way that will save them for the future and not run this country into a financial hole it can't get out of. My friend from Colorado, who was courageous to talk on this issue tonight, said: When you are in a hole, stop digging. This is the first step. If we can't take this easy step, I don't know how in the world Congress is going to take the harder steps that must happen if we are going to save this country.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, may I ask of my colleague from Michigan a couple of questions.

We have just been handed this. I wonder if my colleague could let us know what the cost of this bill is and how it is paid for.

Respectfully, without knowing how much it is going to cost and how we will pay for it, while we are all certainly sympathetic and want to work to make people go back to work--my home State of Florida is certainly suffering with very high unemployment--we need to know what it is going to cost and how we will pay for it so we don't put the debt on our children and grandchildren.

I object.

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

Mr. President, in a moment I will request unanimous consent to address an issue important to the people of Florida having to do with the EPA and a mandate set to go into effect next month. The timing of this effort is critical. That is why I take the extraordinary measure of bringing it to the Senate floor today. I wish to make it clear that this effort is bipartisan. I am joined by the senior Senator from my State, Mr. Nelson, in this request. If we don't act, something is going to happen to Florida that will have a grave impact upon our economy. Although this is a Florida-specific issue now, it will have an impact on other States and set a precedent as time goes by.

Let me describe my amendment. Then I will talk about the issue. The amendment would prohibit the EPA from using any of the funds in the continuing resolution to implement or enforce the water standard rules that it is working on for Florida. Due to a consent decree between a group in the EPA which is part of a lawsuit, the rule setting water quality standards for inland waters in Florida is set to be finalized on October 15. It singles out Florida and only Florida for these new water standards. However, how this rule is promulgated will serve as a template for how rules are promulgated against other States. For example, EPA is already looking into an effort to promulgate these standards for the Chesapeake Bay area.

We are not against clean water. In fact, Florida has been working on clean water issues for some time and has made remarkable progress. However, this proposal is going to have a dramatic impact on the State of Florida without peer-reviewed science as the basis of this rule.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an Article from the Jacksonville Business Journal.

This rule is going to deal a $1.1 billion blow to the State's agricultural industry. A joint study by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services in the University of Florida projects that it could cost in total up to $1.6 billion a year and eliminate 14,500 jobs. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates it

to cost more than between $5 and $8 billion. Water utilities in Florida have estimated that sewer rates would increase by $62 per month or more than $700 per year.

This article from the Jacksonville Business Journal talks about sewer charges doubling in Jacksonville because of the water standard that has not been peer reviewed and does not have the scientific basis it should.

Today, because I was coming to offer this unanimous consent proposal, the EPA has issued a 30-day stay of execution on the implementation of this rule. It was supposed to be October 15. Now it will be November 14. Conveniently, that is the day before we are likely to come back in November and bring Congress back into session. So we will be unable to continue this during our recess. This will most likely go into effect and do damage to Florida.

This is a bipartisan effort. In fact, on the House side, members of our delegation, some 20 of the 25--I believe it is 21, actually--have come together to support not letting this rule go into effect. Senator Nelson and I make this request.

I ask unanimous consent that the LeMieux-Nelson amendment be considered and agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

If I may, that is unfortunate. It is unfortunate because this is a bipartisan agreement. This damage is going to be done to Florida, a State that is suffering from the worst unemployment that anyone can remember, nearly 12 percent, and the worst economy that anyone can remember. Now these ill-conceived rules that don't have a peer-reviewed scientific basis will go into effect and impact our economy to the tune of billions of dollars, hurting our workforce and doubling people's sewer rates at a time when they least can afford it. It is unfortunate we have an objection when we have both Senators from Florida, Democratic and Republican, supporting this; when we have the vast majority of the Florida delegation in the House asking for this measure to be stated. It is not saying it would not go into effect. It is asking for more time so there would not be a rush to judgment and it would not be brought into effect in a hurried manner.

It is unfortunate we have an objection when we have such bipartisan support.