Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Madam President, I stand here to talk about the case of an abuse of another kind than we are currently speaking of with regard to China and its currency manipulation. Youcef Nadarkhani was arrested in October of 2009 in Iran. I will read the charges against him, pursuant to a document signed by two judges, and I will say their names because I think one day they will be held accountable: Morteza Fazel and Azizoallah Razaghi. I think I got the pronunciation right. Here is what the document says, as reflected in a news article: ``Mr. Youcef Nadarkhani, son of Byrom, 32 years old, married, born in Rasht in the state of Gilan, is convicted of turning his back on Islam, the greatest religion the prophesy of Mohammad at the age of 19,'' the document states.

The article goes on to say:

He has often participated in Christian worship and

organized home church services, evangelizing and has been

baptized and baptized others, converting Muslims to

Christianity. He has been accused of breaking Islamic Law

that from puberty . . . until the age of 19 the year 1996, he

was raised a Muslim in a Muslim home. During court trials, he

denied the prophecy of Mohammad and the authority of Islam.

He has stated that he is a Christian and no longer Muslim.

During many sessions in court with the presence of his

attorney and a judge, he has been sentenced to execution by

hanging.

He was sentenced to hanging for this alleged crime, and that is what he has been convicted for. That conviction was upheld by an appeals court in Gilan in September 2010.

In July, the Supreme Court of Iran overturned the death sentence. Again, this is according to media reports. They did not overturn the conviction, just the death sentence, and sent the case back to his hometown of Rasht. Here is what has happened since it has gone back to his hometown.

The deputy governor of that province says, while he is guilty of apostasy, that is not why he was sentenced to death. They have come up with some new charges. They say he is a security threat--in particular he is an extortionist and, they claim, he is a rapist.

By the way, they had never said this before until the case came back to them. By the way, he is also a Zionist, which in and of itself, according to them, is punishable by death in Iran. That is where the case stands today.

There have been reports time and again about what has been happening in Iran with this case. His lawyers have now been publicly saying they expect to know by Saturday whether their client will be executed in Iran, quite frankly for the crime of not just being a Christian but of converting others to Christianity.

Obviously, this is an outrage. I am glad to see that the voices from this government and from all over the world have expressed themselves against it. But I think it is important for us to express ourselves against it for another reason. This is a time when Americans in this Nation have increasingly been asked to turn to international bodies to resolve disputes. Let's visit that for a moment because we have international bodies and we have international conventions that Iran has signed--particularly two. One is the Declaration of Human Rights. They signed it in 1948. The other is the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights. They signed that in 1966. Any nation that signed on to these covenants--any action like this in the courts of your country are unconscionable, illegal. They violate these agreements.

I hope we will see some action on the part of the United Nations and nations such as Russia and China, for example. Of course it would be difficult for China to speak out against oppressing religious minorities when they do that quite often in that country as well. But that being said, we are interested in seeing where some of these countries will be on this matter. We are obviously very encouraged that the European Union has spoken about this matter. We would like to see some of these other countries step up. We would like to see the United Nations take a break from figuring ways to sanction and take on Israel and maybe focus a little bit on these sorts of things, where people are facing a hangman's noose because of their religion.

By the way, in Iran this sort of thing is not just happening to Christians. Not only Christians feel oppressed, but non-Shiite Muslims experience great oppression.

But here is the greater point. Beyond this outrage, let me say I encourage everyone to pray tonight for the safety of Youcef Nadarkhani and his family. We hope this will resolve itself. We hope, in that nation and in that Government of Iran, there are reasonable people who realize what an outrage, what an atrocity, what a human rights violation, what a crime it would be for this man not just to be sentenced to death but even to be in jail.

We should be sorry for the people in Iran. It is hard to believe that the vast

majority of people in that country agree with us. In fact, they look at their government and say: You are isolating us from the world.

If the people of Iran want to know what it is that is isolating them from progress in this 21st century, they need to look no further than Tehran and the people running that government. It is sad because I think, going back to 2009, the evidence is there that especially young people in that country just want to have normal lives and live in a normal country. Instead, their country is being run by individuals who think this sort of thing is OK.

By the way, I also point out to leaders in places such as Venezuela and other nations of Latin America who so warmly welcome leaders from Iran when they visit that this is whom you are doing business with. I encourage those people in Latin America to turn to their leaders and ask them: Why do we have a relationship with people like this? Why are people like this being invited to come into our countries and do business with us and tour our streets as heroes?

This is who they are. Forget the rhetoric, put everything aside, if you want to know what the leadership and Government of Iran is about, it is about this. This is who they are. I can think of no other case before us today with regard to Iran that more clearly outlines the monsters we are dealing with within that government than this case I have outlined.

I believe there is a broader conversation to be had about what Iran means. There is a lot going on in the world, but what is happening in Iran is important, and Iran's neighbors know it. Whether they will admit it publicly, Iran's neighbors know what a danger that government and its vision for the region and the world poses.

But I think this case is one we should all speak out about. The eyes of the world should be turned to this case. It is an absolute outrage, and there is no way in the world we should stand by and allow anyone to be silenced or anyone to be silent, particularly our allies around the world and other countries and members of the so-called international community. It is time to step to the plate and condemn these acts because Youcef Nadarkhani should not--not only should he not be facing a death sentence, he should not even be in jail.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Viviano Bovo, a member of my staff, be granted the privilege of the floor during today's session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article highlighting the Castro regime's continued abuse of the Cuban people as they organize efforts to create a freer Cuba. The people being held unjustly and abused in Cuban prisons--as well as those being intimidated and repressed outside of prison--need the continued support of America.

Mr. President.

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

Mr. President, I call up Rubio amendment No. 651 and ask for its consideration.

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

Mr. President, we have had this important conversation this week about trade policy in the United States, and it is an important one. Clearly, one of the great things that will help us grow our economy in the years to come is further free trade. As we have these pending free-trade agreements--and most everyone around here I have run into says they are in favor of, including the President, the one with South Korea, the one with Panama, the one with Colombia--there has been a prerequisite put in place by those in charge in the Chamber, and that is we deal with the TAA issues. That is why we are on the issue today, which clearly has been linked, free-trade agreement and the TAA law.

I wish to talk a little bit about the free-trade agreements because we are continuing to wait for them to be sent down to us. These agreements would increase U.S. exports by billions of dollars and create jobs here in the United States. For example, there are exports of about $12 billion annually, adding about $14 billion to the U.S. economy. These are real numbers.

The South Korea agreement alone, for example, is estimated to add as many as 70,000 American jobs. These benefits are not realized because the President has not submitted these for approval to this body or to the Congress. The debate we are having is not a new one. The trade adjustment assistance, or TAA, has been a policy of the United States, for better or worse, since the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.

Interestingly, this policy was first proposed by Senator John F. Kennedy when he aptly titled it the Trade Adjustment Act. The initial goal was to respond to perceived effects of trade policy. In essence, you enter into a trade policy, such as a free-trade agreement with another country, and American workers may lose their job in the short term, but you create a fund to help them transition to what you hope will be the new jobs created by the free-trade agreement. As you create this new relationship with new countries and new economies, the effect of it is while some jobs may be lost, those jobs are replaced with new opportunities and new jobs. In the process of that transition, between the job you once had and the job you hope to have in the future as a product of free trade, you create this fund to help workers adjust from point A to point B. That is the purpose of it. That is why it has been included in things such as the Trade Act of 1974. It was ushered in with the North American Free Trade Agreement under President Clinton. It was also included in the Trade Act of 2002, the last authorization of the trade promotion authority so vital to promoting the free-trade policies in the United States.

From its inception, TAA has been linked to free trade. Basically the understanding is when you enter into free-trade agreements with another country, there are short-term disruptions and you need a fund available to help workers transition during the disruption. Very simply put, you have a job, maybe it goes overseas in the free-trade agreement, but a new job is created in America as a result of that agreement and we are going to help you transition through this fund.

That was the purpose of it until 2009 when under the stimulus bill that has been changed and has been vastly expanded. Now in order to qualify for it, all you need to prove is that somehow your job or the company you work for has moved operations potentially overseas. That is a big problem in America. It is a big problem in Florida.

If you talk to people, they will tell you, we are losing our jobs. Other countries are taking our jobs. Jobs are going overseas. There are a lot of reasons for that. The first is unfair trade practices. This body should address that, beginning with China and other nations that unfairly deal with the United States, whether it is manipulation of their currency, whether it is dumping, among other things they do that are unfair, not to mention some of these nations have no environmental regulations, no protections for their workers or wages. There are incredible amounts of headwinds we face with regard to that. That should be dealt with. It should be dealt with seriously through public policy, and it is something we should look at. That is not a temporary issue. That is permanent. That is ingrained and entrenched. Unless we deal with the issues involved in that and those unfair trade practices, no temporary measure like TAA is going to help us deal with that. We have to deal with that on a permanent basis. That was not the purpose of the TAA.

The second thing we need to deal with is some of the impediments we are creating ourselves. That is why I am encouraged when I hear bipartisan talk of tax reform, things that will make it easier for people to build in the United States and open businesses here. Also, regulatory reform. Let there be no doubt that while there are significant currency manipulation problems and significant trade impediments in terms of unfair trade practices by other countries, some of the wounds are self-inflicted through a regulatory and a Tax Code that makes it difficult for people to do things and do business in the United States.

Again, I am encouraged when I hear bipartisan talk about regulatory reform and tax reform. These are the kinds of things that can deal permanently with a permanent and entrenched problem. That is not the purpose of TAA. Today we stand here considering this as a gateway issue because we have been told we have to pass this bill before we can get to the free-trade agreements, and so clearly it links the two. If we are going to link the two, we have to make it very clear that this sort of existence was created for the define purpose and the specific purpose of helping people to transition because of a disruption created in their job status as a result of a free-trade agreement.

This is a pretty simple amendment. It says this assistance is only available to those workers who lose their jobs to a country we have a free-trade agreement with because this is designed to deal with the unintended consequences and the temporary disruptions that might be created by a free-trade agreement with another country. So that is what the amendment does, and I am hoping to have the support of as many of my colleagues as possible in putting this program back into its historical purpose.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I will be brief.

The amendment is simple and straightforward. It just returns the TAA Program back to its original intent. It was designed to help workers who were displaced from their jobs or lost their jobs as a result of trade practices, primarily as a result of free-trade agreements between the United States and other countries. It is one of the reasons why, I believe, the majority has brought this issue before us before proceeding to the free-trade agreements with South Korea, with Panama, and with Colombia. What this does is it returns it back to that. It clearly recognizes there are workers who have been hurt by unfair trade practices unrelated to trade agreements, whether it is what China does or other nations do, and those things need to be dealt with, but they need to be dealt with separately.

This program was originally designed to help workers who were harmed in the short term. That is why it is called adjustment. These are workers who are trying to adjust as a result of some disruptions that may have occurred as a result of a trade agreement.

I think what we can take solace in knowing is that the best thing you can do for a worker who has lost his job is to get him a job. Ultimately, that is what free-trade agreements do. They create jobs in America, as the White House has recognized.

My hope is that we will proceed quickly to the passage of the three free-trade agreements, and again I urge the White House to submit those and that this body take them up as soon as possible.

I yield the floor.

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. 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. 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. 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.

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

Then 12\1/2\ minutes.

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.

Yes.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.