Floor Statements

Mr. President, I wish to thank the majority leader for that. I will be brief. I think my colleagues touched upon it and the public policy behind this.

Lost in all the things happening around the world that are very important, I think we need to remind ourselves that a few miles off the coast of

the United States the most repressive government in the Western Hemisphere conducts its business and is able to fund it through a lot of this interaction going on as we speak between commercial interests in the United States and in Cuba.

By the way, I know these are folks in business and are not doing anything with bad intentions, but the practical intention of this agreed interaction with the Castro regime is hard currency--money they take and use to pay for this repressive arm. This is happening at a time when we have seen this year more repression than we have in recent years as the Castro government continues to fear it is losing its grip on power and on influence over its own society.

I would say I am supportive of what Senator Menendez is trying to do, and I urge our colleagues to keep a watchful eye on what happens in Cuba.

Mr. President, I rise in support of this resolution to disapprove the FCC's open Internet order.

The FCC wants to regulate the Internet. Why? There must be some sort of market failure that needs correcting or some Internet issue that needs fixing or out-of-control provider that needs regulating, right?

That is not the case at all. We are talking about one of the most successful sectors of our economy--one that has flourished with limited government regulation and continued to create jobs in the midst of a very deep recession and economic downturn.

Since the Internet was privatized in the midnineties, it has prospered. The industry's growth and impact on our economy, as well as its development of new, life-changing technologies and applications, is staggering.

Twenty years ago, the Internet as we know it did not exist. Today over 2 billion people use it.

Ten years ago, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Skype did not even exist, and hundreds of millions of people are now users.

Five years ago, mobile applications didn't exist. At the end of last year, there were over half a million apps, applications, and well over 10 billion will be downloaded this year. Hopefully, they will soon be downloading mine. We came up with one yesterday for our office.

Two years ago, the iPad didn't exist. Now, over 25 million have been sold.

All these advancements expanded broadband access and encouraged private investment.

In 2003, only 15 percent of Americans had access to broadband and now over 95 percent do. This growth will only continue.

In its annual report on the Internet, Cisco projected that the Internet will quadruple over the next 4 years, and the 1-year growth, from 2014 to 2015, will be equal to all the Internet traffic in the world last year.

Clearly, the Internet industry is growing and innovating at lightening speed. Why has the industry been able to do this? It is because the environment for innovation and job creation has been ripe, with government regulation not getting in their way.

Imagine that, the government has stayed out, has taken the ``light touch'' approach, and the industry has prospered as a result.

The broadband expansion we have seen, the innovation that has occurred with computers and tablets and explosion of smartphones and mobile devices and the increased job creation have all occurred without the FCC's open Internet order.

So why does the government want to start regulating now? Is it because the Internet endangers public health or environment? Clearly not. Yet the proponents of Internet regulation claim the freedom and growth of the Internet are in jeopardy. Quite frankly, in my opinion, that is ridiculous.

To suggest that some type of regulation is needed flies in the face of the growth of the Internet economy. This is one of the problems facing our economy and plaguing our country. We are regulating where regulation is not needed. We are regulating based on speculation and in search of a problem.

This is not how we encourage innovation. This is not how we create certainty in the marketplace, and this is definitely not how to encourage job creation.

Over the past few weeks, all we have talked about is jobs and rightfully so because, throughout America, the No. 1 issue facing Americans is jobs--or the lack thereof.

Yet here we are debating whether to overturn a regulation on one of the few growth areas of our economy, one of the few sectors that has created and is creating good, high-paying jobs.

This should be common sense. It is no wonder people watching think that in this place, Washington, DC, the Federal political process is out of touch and dysfunctional.

As the FCC drafted the open Internet order, the Commission heard from broadband providers, including small businesses, about the problems the order would create and the negative impact it would have on consumers.

One small Internet service provider stated that the imposition of network management rules will hinder its ability to obtain investment capital and deploy new services in unserved areas.

The regulations would also increase costs and hamper innovation, which would only further discourage outside investment in the company.

In other words, the Internet regulation we are talking about today would lead to lower quality of service and would raise operating costs, which would result in higher prices on consumers.

So we can clearly see the impacts of Internet regulation--less investment, less innovation, higher prices for consumers, lower quality services, increased business costs and, ultimately, fewer jobs.

Companies will spend more money on compliance, basically complying with regulations, instead of investing in innovation and driving down prices. More money will be spent on lawyers, not on engineers.

Let me be clear. The Internet will still exist if Washington bureaucrats get their way. But the order's impact will be profound, and it is going to disrupt what has become one of America's proudest entrepreneurial and industrial achievements in our history.

I have heard proponents say this regulation will preserve the open Internet as it exists today. But it is my humble opinion this is shortsighted.

Personally, I don't want to continue using the Internet of today. I want the Internet of tomorrow. I want the devices and applications I use today to soon be obsolete and out of date because the industry has continued to churn out something newer, something better and faster.

I want technologies to continue to develop and industries to continue to emerge. We are now using fewer devices for more telecommunications services, and it is not hard to imagine a day when we will use one device for all of them.

The industries are headed in that direction. When we throw the government in the middle of it, the pace will slow, uncertainty will enter the marketplace, and future innovations may just go unrealized.

One of the beautiful aspects of the Internet industry is that we don't know what is around the corner in terms of new technologies and innovations. If a few years ago we had told someone we would Google them, they probably would have been offended. But today that actually means something.

Going forward, we have no idea what the future holds, what the new innovations or ideas or technologies will be. We know technologies we cannot even imagine today will very soon be part of our everyday lives. The question is whether we are going to encourage that and particularly whether we are going to encourage that to happen here or whether we are going to discourage that from happening.

Regulating the Internet--and this specific measure we are trying to knock down today, if it passes--will discourage that development.

The FCC and Federal Government cannot keep pace with the Internet and technology industries, and the government should not attempt to catch up through regulation or legislation. That is important. We are asking this government--this bureaucratic structure, which struggles to keep pace with issues we have been facing for the last 20 years--to somehow keep pace with the issues and technology and innovations that arrive in the Internet world. Not only do I think it is asking too much, I think it is impossible. Therefore, the government should not be looking at ways to preserve the status quo. Our government should be involved in looking at ways to promote the future of these industries, and this Internet regulation does not promote the future.

I have frequently spoken on this floor about the new American century, about whether our country will continue to be a leader in this new century. I believe with all my heart--I do, even with all the bad news and the

noise we hear every time we turn on the television--there is no reason this 21st century should not be every bit as much the American century as the last century. One of the reasons I believe that is because of the advances our entrepreneurs and innovators are making in this field of the Internet.

If there is any sector of our economy that will ensure that the next century is the American century, it is the Internet and the technology sector. That is an industry where we are the leader, and it is the one where we must continue to lead. To do that, we must encourage innovation, incentivize investment, provide certainty in the marketplace, and promote the competitive environment this dynamic industry needs.

That will require passage of this resolution of disapproval. So I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the resolution.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized to speak as in morning business.

I also ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Rhode Island be recognized immediately after me.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today for a moment to introduce an issue I have become interested in in the last few months, one that, quite frankly, I didn't know a lot about--the issue of human trafficking and slavery.

For many Americans, for many of us in the 21st century, we think of slavery as a concept of the 18th and 19th centuries, something that happened in other places a long time ago, when, in fact, it exists today around the world. The issue is actually pretty startling. The State Department estimates that there are between 700,000 and 800,000 people in the world each year who are trafficked. The number of people trafficked in the United States is about 16,000 to 17,000. That is a lot of people in the 21st century who are being trafficked and are held in bondage. I saw a special on a cable network recently that outlined this issue. I then started researching it. I was shocked to learn that my home State of Florida is particularly affected by this issue.

Recently, I had the honor and the privilege of being appointed to the Helsinki Commission, the group here in the Senate that works, along with the House of Representatives, as Commissioners on that Commission. We held a hearing yesterday on the issue of human trafficking, and it is an issue I am going to be increasingly speaking about over the next few weeks because I truly believe it is one of the great humanitarian causes of this new century. It begins with awareness, with a clear understanding of what is happening around the world with regard to this issue, the fact that there are these people. As we speak, as I stand here today, perhaps within walking distance of this very building there are people held against their will in servitude.

The one that gets all the publicity--and rightfully so because it is so painful and outrageous--is sex trafficking, children and young girls and young women brought into this country and held against their will as sex slaves. It happens all over the world. It is sad to learn there are governments around the world that cooperate with this and tolerate it and are corrupted by it. That gets a lot of publicity and attention, and we are going to be paying a lot of attention to that.

We heard stories of diplomats who work in this city, diplomats from other nations who come here and bring domestic workers with them to their homes and hold them here against their will and take their entire paycheck. We are going to be denouncing some of these people on the floor by name in the weeks and months to come.

The other thing that is shocking--although I said the sex trafficking gets a lot of attention--is the forced-labor aspect of it. People are recruited in other countries, brought here, and they are told: We are going to bring you to the United States, and you are going to come here, you will make a living, make some money, and you can send some back home. When they get here, they are held against their will, and they are not paid. In fact, sometimes they owe traffickers money, and they are held in squalid conditions. That is happening here in this country underneath our very noses, not to mention the egregious cases around the world, and we are going to focus on those cases around the world as well.

The State Department, by the way, ranks every country on the basis of how much they cooperate, on the progress they are making in prosecuting and investigating these issues. Those are available. A report came out recently. It identified the countries that are doing well, the countries that are trying to do well, and the countries that, frankly, couldn't care less and actually do not mind this stuff going on in their jurisdiction. They deserve to be condemned not just on this floor but in the international community, and we will talk about that as well in the weeks to come.

I do not think we can point the finger at anyone unless we look at ourselves as a nation and society and call attention to this issue. So, as I begin to introduce this issue and my involvement in it, there are a couple of things I would like to point out from yesterday's hearing.

The first is that this is largely occurring as a result of criminal enterprises. The same people who traffic drugs and are involved in all kinds of organized crime are also involved in human trafficking. We see that increasingly in major areas, and we have seen prosecutions, but we have also learned that increasingly what we are finding are small-scale operations, sometimes families.

We heard the case of a mother and her two sons who were involved in a human trafficking ring. It is very profitable, very lucrative. It costs about $10,000 to bring a young woman into this country, and they can make that money back in the sex trade within a few days, and after that it is all profit. It is outrageous and has opened the door to small- scale operations that are doing this.

What are the impediments to dealing with this? There are a few, and it will take a long time to work on.

The first, unfortunately, is lack of recognition. I think that at the local level and even at the Federal level, our law enforcement officers and personnel who want to do the right thing probably need more information about identifying these cases, seeing the markers of human trafficking, identifying cases that clearly reek of human trafficking, and identifying those and treating them for what they are.

The second thing we need is better protections for these victims. You know you are not going to be able to prosecute people and put them in jail unless the victims are willing to testify, and victims are not going to testify if they don't feel secure. If they believe you are going to deport them or put them in immigration jails or, worse, if they think these organized crime rings are going to harm their families overseas, it is going to be very hard to get victims to cooperate.

Last but not least--and I know this is a complicated issue--our immigration system is contributing to this. We have a very complicated immigration system, and it is an expensive one, a burdensome one. What it is creating is the need for middlemen, and, guess what, more often than not, unfortunately, nowadays the middlemen, these foreign labor agencies--too many of them--are, in fact, human traffickers who are utilizing this system, the legal immigration system, to bring people into this country and, once they are here, to hold them against their will. We have to focus on that because ultimately that has to be solved. Our legal immigration system has to be modernized. If it is not, one of the problems we will continue to face is this issue of human trafficking.

The good news is that here in Congress there is a bill-- reauthorization of the TVPRA. It passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee in October of this year by a 12-to-6 vote. It does a few things.

It promotes increased cooperation among Federal agencies, between the United States and other countries.

It supports and enhances the victim-centered approach, which basically says we are going to approach this from the viewpoint of the victim and create protections and security for the victims so they can cooperate and help us prosecute these people.

The bill focuses on cutting off human trafficking at its roots by supporting international efforts to focus on this issue. There are a lot of countries out there that want to do the right thing; they either do not have the resources or knowledge base to do it. There are some countries out there that do not mind this. In fact, they cooperate with this stuff. They like that it is going on in their countries. They are on the take, so to speak. They need to be called out for what they are doing as well.

Finally, it promotes accountability. It ensures that the Federal funds are being used for their intended purposes, and it reduces the authorization levels to address fiscal concerns but focuses on the programs that have been most effective.

My hope is that bill, which is a bipartisan bill, will come to this floor soon and that we will have an opportunity to make it better, to get it passed, and to work with our colleagues in the House to send a very clear message that this is a priority, that this is something we should all agree on and work on together. It is a great cause to be involved in. It is one of the great humanitarian, human rights causes of the 21st century, and I think how we deal with it or fail to deal with it will say a lot about us as a people and as a nation. I hope I can encourage as many of my colleagues as possible to take up this cause as their own. I look forward, in the weeks to come, to coming to the floor and talking more about it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I recognize Nicholas Corvino, a summer intern in my Washington, DC office for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the people of the State of Florida.

Nicholas is a rising senior pursuing a major in political science and a minor in history at the University of Central Florida. He is a dedicated and diligent worker who has been devoted to getting the most out of his internship experience.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Nicholas for all the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Timothy Costa, a summer intern in my Washington, DC office for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the people of the State of Florida.

Timothy is a rising senior pursuing a major in philosophy and a minor in political science at Temple University. He is a dedicated and diligent worker who has been devoted to getting the most out of his internship experience.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Timothy for all the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Adrian Dominguez, a summer intern in my Washington, DC office for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the people of the State of Florida.

Adrian is a rising senior pursuing a major in business and economics with a minor in Spanish at Virginia Military Institute. He is a dedicated and diligent worker who has been devoted to getting the most out of his internship experience.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Adrian for all the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Brendan Flanagan, a summer law extern in my Washington, DC office for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the people of the State of Florida.

Brendan is a graduate of Florida State University in Tallahassee, FL, where he majored in political science. Currently, he is entering his second year at John Marshall Law School. He is a dedicated and diligent worker who has been devoted to getting the most out of his internship experience.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Brendan for all the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Andrew Green, a summer intern in my Washington, DC office for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the people of the State of Florida.

Andrew is a rising senior pursuing a major in political science at the University of Central Florida. He is a dedicated and diligent worker who has been devoted to getting the most out of his internship experience.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Andrew for all the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Eitan Heering, a summer intern in my Washington, DC office for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the people of the State of Florida.

Eitan is a graduate of Weinbaum Yeshiva High School in Boca Raton, FL. Currently, he rising junior pursuing a major in government and politics at the University of Maryland. He is a dedicated and diligent worker who has been devoted to getting the most out of his internship experience.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Eitan for all the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Andrew Neal Juneau, a summer intern in my Washington, DC office for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the people of the State of Florida.

Andrew is a graduate of Auburn University, where he majored in public administration and minored in business. Currently, he is pursuing his master's degree in public administration at Auburn University. He is a dedicated and diligent worker who has been devoted to getting the most out of his internship experience.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Andrew for all the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Parker Mantell, a summer intern in my Washington, DC office for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the people of the State of Florida.

Parker is a rising sophomore pursuing a major in political science at Indiana University. He is a dedicated and diligent worker who has been devoted to getting the most out of his internship experience.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Parker for all the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Maggie Martinez, a summer intern in my Washington, DC office for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the people of the State of Florida.

Maggie is a graduate of Lake Highland Preparatory School in Orlando, FL. Currently, she is a rising senior double majoring in art history and English at Vanderbilt University. She is a dedicated and diligent worker who has been devoted to getting the most out of her internship experience.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Maggie for all the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Caleb McCrea, a summer intern in my Washington, DC office for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the people of the State of Florida.

Caleb is a rising senior pursuing a major in political science at the University of Texas. He is a dedicated and diligent worker who has been devoted to getting the most out of his internship experience.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Caleb for all the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Ashley Wahl, a summer intern in my Washington, DC office for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the people of the State of Florida.

Ashley is a graduate of La Salle High School in Coconut Grove, FL. Currently, she is a rising junior pursuing a major in political science and a minor in psychology at Florida International University. She is a dedicated and diligent worker who has been devoted to getting the most out of her internship experience.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Ashley for all the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, I strongly oppose S. 1660, the American Jobs Act of 2011.

I am eager to work with Members of both parties to find common ground on policies that will help grow the economy at a time when our nation continues to struggle with high unemployment and low economic growth. To be clear, there are certain proposals in the American Jobs Act that I would support individually, including an extension of the payroll tax cut, allowing businesses to fully expense the cost of acquiring new capital, and a delay of the three percent withholding penalty on government contractors. These provisions would provide piecemeal relief to the economy.

Unfortunately, the positive provisions in the American Jobs Act are

overshadowed by a massive $453 billion tax hike that would be highly damaging to the ability of businesses that pay individual tax rates to expand operations, hire new workers and compete internationally. According to data from the Department of the Treasury, 80 percent of taxpayers affected by this new 5.6 percent tax increase would be business owners. Furthermore, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that 34 percent of business income would be ensnared by the job- destroying tax increase in S. 1660.

Worse, if the 2001 tax relief expires as scheduled in 2013, this new tax surcharge would push the top marginal tax rate to nearly 50 percent when accounting for the new 3.8 percent Medicare tax on unearned income in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It would also sharply increase taxes on capital gains and dividends investment, hurting small businesses and investors.

Small businesses have been burdened by more than $1 trillion new taxes and penalties in the health care law and regulatory agencies have churned out over 60,000 pages of new Federal regulations this calendar year alone. Simply put, they cannot afford the burden of another tax hike from Washington under the guise of job creation.

This is why the Nation's leading business groups representing millions of American business owners, including the National Federation of Independent Business and the National Association of Manufacturers, all strongly oppose the permanent tax hike in S. 1660. This is why a growing group of Democrats vocally oppose this legislation, and why I oppose proceeding to it.

Since I joined the Senate 9 months ago, I have maintained my strong belief that Democrats and Republicans should work together to pass policies proven to boost economic growth like progrowth tax and regulatory reform, lowering barriers to free trade, and cutting spending to avert our looming debt crisis. Unfortunately, the huge tax increases on job creators and more debt-financed stimulus spending in the American Jobs Act would move our Nation in squarely the wrong direction.