Floor Statements

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

Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Colorado, as I pick up where he left off on the space program.

Thirty years ago, the United States launched the first space shuttle mission from Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

It marked a new era of American leadership in space and showed, once again, that Americans would continue to be committed to being first in space and on the cutting edge of scientific progress to improve our lives.

It also showed what free people--committed to discovery, to innovation, to improving the lives of their fellow man--can accomplish.

President Ronald Reagan said it best when he kicked off the space station program in 1984 . . . ``We are first; we are the best; and we are so because we're free.''

Over these 30 years, we have been witness to many heroic triumphs in space that have served as a testament to America's unparalleled ingenuity and imagination.

Over time, the shuttle program would make household names out of some. Sally Ride became the first American woman to travel into space. One shuttle alum even serves with us in the Senate today--our colleague, Bill Nelson.

Of course, space exploration has always entailed risk-taking. It has always required putting one's life on the line. And because of this, the space shuttle program's history also gave us moments of great pain as we lost Christa McAuliffe and the Challenger crew in 1986, and the Columbia crew in 2003.

Each time these tragedies forced us to ask ourselves: Is space exploration worth it?

And thank God, time and time again, America answered with an emphatic: Yes.

Today, on this eve of the final space shuttle launch, we celebrate the shuttle program's remarkable feats, which exhibited many of the qualities that make America exceptional--courage, ingenuity, risk- taking, and an ability to accomplish what once seemed unthinkable.

Space exploration speaks volumes about America--who we are as a people and a nation.

When America was born 235 years ago, surely our Founding Fathers could not fathom that one day our people would fly among the stars. But the truth is, it has always been our destiny.

In the 19th century, it became our manifest destiny to explore and push westward until the American land stretched from sea to shining sea. And once we reached as far west as we could, Americans had no choice but to gaze up to the sky and settle on the stars as our next frontier.

Almost 42 years ago to the day, Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Mike Collins made that giant leap for mankind and left their indelible footprints on the Moon's surface and on human history. And on that night in July of 1969, the whole world witnessed the American miracle firsthand.

Even today, that moment serves as a poignant reminder about the limitless capacity that Americans possess in space and every aspect of our lives.

Even as we face a host of domestic and international challenges, America possesses a remarkable capacity to meet them by setting ambitious goals as President Kennedy did in his Moon speech, persevering in the face of setbacks and rising to the occasion to do what history demands of us.

Our space program inspired younger generations of Americans to pursue careers in the aerospace industry and other related fields. Satellite technologies developed and improved by NASA now connect the world in unprecedented ways, support our military's reconnaissance efforts, and facilitate travel through GPS devices.

For others, it got them hooked on math and science, and led them to other fields whose innovations make our lives better every day.

And then there were the lucky few who would actually go on to fly our space shuttles.

For the rest of us who did not pursue careers in science, math and engineering, our journeys into space have meant a lot--in different ways.

For many of us, Kennedy Space Center elicits memories as the place where imaginations are awakened and where dreams have been born.

And it is also where many children think fondly to their visits for field trips or space camps, and, in my case, of the time my parents took me there for my eighth birthday party before we moved to Las Vegas.

But these types of feelings did not just happen in America. The impact of our space program is a global phenomenon.

One needs to look no further than the various foreign currencies in the donation box at Washington's National Air and Space Museum to understand what our space program means not only for Florida and our country but for all of humanity.

This brings me to my other reason for speaking today.

When this final shuttle mission draws to a close, many Americans will be startled by the realization that we don't have an answer to the question: What is next for NASA?

NASA has no answer. President Obama has no answer. And as we transition to the next generation of space exploration, Florida's aerospace workers are left with only questions about their future.

We know that for the next few years, we will have to rely on the Russians to get to space.

Just a few weeks ago, that only cost $50 million an astronaut. Now the price tag is up to $63 million per astronaut. We can only imagine it will go higher.

Whereas America once led the way to the Moon, we now face the unacceptable prospect of limited options to simply get a human into orbit.

We know that our commercial space partners are working to fill some of the gap in our human spaceflight capabilities. But we need NASA to lead.

And, as I say this, I fully recognize that our Nation faces a debt crisis because politicians in both parties have spent recklessly for many decades. It will require Washington to finally live within its means and for leaders to make tough choices about what our Nation's priorities are. NASA is no exception. It will not be about spending more--it will be about spending wisely.

Tomorrow, Americans will proudly watch as Atlantis takes off for its last flight. It will be a poignant opportunity to recall the entire 30- year history of the shuttle program and all that has been achieved in 50 years of NASA's existence.

And it will be another opportunity to thank the thousands of men and women in Florida who have made this program possible and who take such pride in the shuttle and what it has accomplished.

For NASA, just like our Nation, is at its best when it is looking forward, not looking back.

Mr. President, may I inquire of the Chair what my remaining time is?

Fifty-three sounded like too much, even for a Senator.

I briefly wish to use the second half of my time to talk about the issue of the day and that is the issue that is being discussed here in town about the debt--an important issue. It is happening at a time when many Americans from all across the country are traveling here on their vacations to show their children and their families how government works--or maybe in the case of this issue, how government does not work--in any event, how our Republic is trying to work its way through this issue, an important one.

I know that a few moments ago there was a meeting at the White House that concluded, and we wait with great anticipation--I see my colleague, the Senator from Illinois, has arrived and perhaps he will update us here on the floor in a few moments. But we are all interested in this issue because it goes well beyond partisanship or party politics; it is about the future of our country.

I think there is growing consensus on some of the outlines of what it will take to solve this issue. I think it will take two things, because I have heard this terminology we use about a balanced approach. It will take two things. First, it will take reductions in spending and it will take cuts, but we cannot simply cut our way out of this process. We must also grow our way out of this process.

My point is there is no way we can simply reduce spending enough to get America out of the predicament it is facing. We must also grow our economy at the same time. And growing our economy leads us to the No. 1 issue facing our country. For America, for the government, for us here in Washington, the national debt is the No. 1 issue on our minds, and rightfully so. It is a serious issue. But for the rest of our country, the No. 1 issue is joblessness. It is the fact that people are struggling to find a job.

These people did everything that was asked of them. They went to school, got a degree, worked hard, and now they have lost their job and their homes. If they did find a job, maybe they are making half as much and working twice as long. So we have to grow our economy. The logic behind it is very straightforward. If we have more people working, we have more people paying into our tax system. If we have more people paying into our tax system, that is more money available for our government to pay down its debt.

So I want to focus on the growth aspect and what we can do to grow our economy and help job creators create jobs. Don't ask the politicians, ask the job creators. They will tell us there are two things standing in the way of job creation in America. No. 1 is a broken Tax Code that is uncertain, complicated, difficult to navigate and, in many instances, unaffordable for them. No. 2, it is runaway regulations. So any deal that deals with the debt in a serious way has to encompass growth policies that involve, in my mind, both regulatory reform and tax reform. I hope that is what they are working toward--tax reform. Because what we need in America is not more taxes, we need more taxpayers.

The other part of the deal, of course, is going to have to involve some spending reductions. That is why I proudly stood with my colleagues to point out three things we have to clearly do to bring it under control. The first is we have to reduce spending this year. Obviously, we can't solve the budget deficit and debt in 1 year, but we have to begin to address it this year, so meaningful cuts this year.

The second thing we need to do is a spending cap that limits the amount of money this government can spend in

the future or the growth in the amount of money the government can spend in the future. Our government should not grow faster than our economy.

Finally, we need some sort of balanced budget amendment.

To top it all off, we have to save Social Security and Medicare. I was encouraged this morning to read that the President is interested in this issue. It is important. It is not about balancing the budget on the backs of anyone. It is about saving Social Security and Medicare so that there will never have to be benefit reductions for current beneficiaries, and so that these programs exist for me when I retire and for my children when they retire, and so they will never grow insolvent.

With that, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Well, first I want to thank the Senator from New Hampshire for allowing me the opportunity to do this together because it is important. She brings a tremendous amount of credibility to this discussion. She is not just a mother and a Senator, but she is also a small business owner who has run a small business, been there on the front lines with her husband running a small business, who recently got off the campaign trail, as I did, and heard from job creators all across the State as to what they are talking about, and we are going to get back to that in a moment.

But as the Senator rightfully outlined, I am the father of four young children, four children whom I think deserve to inherit a country that is as great as the one my parents and their generation left us, and that is what we are debating here at the end of the day.

If you look at the numbers, they are absolutely startling. I think these numbers have been said before, but you cannot say them enough-- $14.3 trillion of debt. Trillion is not a number or a figure I have ever used in my life until I got to Washington. I do not know where else in the world that applies other than in the Congress, the term trillion--$14.3 trillion is our debt.

Our kids already owe $46,000. My oldest is only 11 and already owes $46,000. Our total debt is about to reach the size of our entire economy. That is kind of the framework in which we are operating when we discuss this.

I actually think we are closer to some sort of an agreement than a lot of people realize. I have heard the term

thrown around in the last couple of days, ``a balanced approach'' to dealing with it. And I think there is agreement that there has to be a balanced approach. I certainly have always said you cannot simply cut your way out of this problem. You have to have a combination of cuts and growth, growth in revenues to government. I think the debate is-- the debate is--how do you accomplish these two things. I am not going to focus so much on the cut part of it today. I want to focus on the revenue part of it, because that is the part the President and some of my colleagues here have focused on over the last days, this idea of getting more revenue, or this new term ``revenue enhancers'' which is Washington talk for more money to the government.

According to the President, for some in his party--most in his party, I should say--the idea is simple. They think there is a bunch of people out there in America who are making a lot of money, more money than maybe they should be making, and they need to pay more in taxes; if these people pay more in taxes, then all of these problems will get a lot easier to deal with. That is kind of the viewpoint they bring to this debate.

I know tomorrow we will be voting here on the floor on something the majority leader has offered, something called a sense of the Senate, which people watching at home are probably wondering what that is about. Well, that basically means what is on the Senate's mind.

The sense of the Senate we are going to be voting on tomorrow is basically that you have a bunch of people in this country who make over $1 million, and that these people need to do more to help with the debt. That is basically the sense of the Senate that there is going to be a vote on tomorrow. It is very interesting. So I looked at it, because ultimately this is a serious issue. So let's explore this with an open mind. Let's not be doctrinaire. Let's not be blindly ideological. Let's look at this from a commonsense perspective, this idea that if all of these millionaires and billionaires paid more taxes, these problems will be solved. Let's analyze it, because this is all about math.

Here is the fact. The fact is it does not solve the problem. First of all, if you taxed these people at 100 percent--basically next year you said: Look, every penny you make next year the government is going to take from you--it still does not solve the debt.

Not only does that not solve the debt problem, but I looked at a host of other--there are some great publications that came out today from the Joint Economic Committee. Our colleague Senator DeMint is the chairman. It kind of outlines some of the tax increases being proposed by our colleagues in the Democratic Party and the President to solve the debt problem.

You add them all up, you add all of these things up--the jet airplanes, the oil companies, all the other things they have talked about. You put them all together in one big batch, and you know what it does? It basically deals with 9 days and 23 hours worth of deficit spending--9 days and 23 hours--it does not even get to 10 days of deficit spending. That is how much it solves.

So all of this talk about going after people who make all of this money, it buys you 9 days and 23 hours. Let's round it off. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt. It buys them 10 days of deficit spending reduction. That is what all of this rounds up to.

Here is the bottom line. These tax increases they are talking about, these so-called revenue enhancers, do not solve the problem. So what do we do then? Because clearly we have to do two things. One, we have to hold the line on spending. If you keep digging yourself in the hole, the hole is going to bury you. But the other thing is, how do you start generating revenue for government so it can start paying down this debt. That is what the debate should be about.

We already know these taxes they are talking do not work. So here is what works. Here is what I would suggest works, in a balanced approach--using the President's terminology. Let's stop talking about new taxes and start talking about creating new taxpayers, which basically means jobs.

Here in Washington, this debt is the No. 1 issue on everyone's mind, and rightfully so. It is a major issue. But everywhere else in the real world, the No. 1 issue on people's minds is jobs. And I will tell you every other problem facing America--the mortgage crisis, home foreclosure crisis, this debt problem--all of these issues get easier to deal with as people are gainfully employed across America. The impact that unemployment is having across this country is devastating. We hear about unemployment in facts and figures. They give us numbers: Oh, X percent people are unemployed. Well, there are stories behind every one of those people.

Do you know who a lot of these people are who are unemployed in America? They are people who have done everything they have been asked to do and they have done it right. Maybe they served their country overseas. Maybe they went to college and got a degree and now came back home. Maybe they worked for 10 or 20 years and did a good job at work. And now you know what, they cannot find a job, or maybe they were lucky enough to find a job after losing their original job, but it pays them half as much and they work twice as long. That is the real face of unemployment in America, of people who are hurting.

Our job here is to do everything we can to make it easier for them to find a job, not harder. I think that is what we have to do when it comes to a balanced approach and when we talk about revenue. We do not need new taxes. We need new taxpayers, people who are gainfully employed making money and paying into the tax system. Then we need a government that has the discipline to take that additional revenue and use to it pay down the debt and never grow it again. That is what we should be focused on. That is what we are not focused on.

So you look at all of those taxes that are being proposed. Here is what I say: I say we should analyze every single one of them through the lens of job creation, issue No. 1 in America. I want to know which one of these taxes they are proposing will create jobs. I want to know how many jobs are going to be created by the plane tax. How many jobs are going to be created by the oil company tax that I heard so much about? How many jobs are created by going after the millionaires and billionaires that the President talked about? I want to know how many jobs do they create.

Because I will tell you--and I am going to turn it over to Senator Ayotte in a second, because I am interested in her perspective of this as a job creator, as a spouse of a job creator who runs a small business, as someone like me who just came off the campaign trail.

Let me tell you something. I traveled the State of Florida for 2 years campaigning. I have never met a job creator who told me they were waiting for the next tax increase before they started growing their business. I never met a single job creator who has ever said to me: I cannot wait until government raises taxes again so I can go out and create a job. I am curious to know if they say that in New Hampshire, because they do not say that in Florida.

So my view on all this is, I want to know how many jobs these tax increases the President proposes will create, because if they are not creating jobs and they are not creating new taxpayers, they are not solving the problem.

I do not know what the Senator's perspective is on that.

Well, the truth is that throughout the campaign and even now, that is what I hear all of the time from people, that these regulations are making it harder, not easier, for them to create jobs. That, combined with the uncertainty of the Tax Code--they do not know what the taxes are going to be next year. But they read the newspaper, they listen to the news, and every time they hear talk about this tax increase stuff, it scares job creators. They make this decision: Oh, wait. You know what, maybe this is not the year to hire people, because we still do not know how much it is going to cost to hire people.

The other great phrase here--both Senator Ayotte and I have only been here a few months so I think we are still learning the language of Washington; I hope it never becomes part of my permanent vocabulary, but one of the things I have been hearing recently is this notion of everything should be on the table, which is funny because everything is not on the table according to the President and others.

For example, there is no serious discussion of a spending cap. I would love to have a vote. Why do we not have a vote on the balanced budget amendment? Why is that not on the table? Why is a balanced budget amendment not on the table? Why are we not voting on that tomorrow? Because a balanced budget amendment basically says you cannot spend money you do not have, which makes all of the sense in the world for the rest of the people who live in the real world. But, apparently, that doesn't apply here, and the results are these problems we face. I think something should be off the table. Bad ideas should be off the table. If something is a bad idea, it should not be on the table. It is a bad idea to pass things that will make it harder to hire people. How much higher do you want unemployment to be?

Here is what I think we have to ask ourselves: These tax increases Senator Ayotte pointed out, along with the regulations that kill job creation in America--these do not raise enough money to do anything significant about the debt. They don't create jobs; in fact, they kill them. How could the tax increases they are outlining be part of the solution? Why is it being offered? These are smart people. They know the math. The answer lies in the politics of this, which is clear.

This appears to be an effort to save face. Everybody here knows there will have to be spending reductions at some level because we have a spending problem. It is the reason we are in this mess today. It is not because we don't pay enough taxes. We spend more money--a lot more money--than we have.

It appears to me that the President and others in his party are positioning and looking for some pound of flesh in return for these cuts so they can go to their political base and say: We got something out of this. We went after the people who make all this money--the greedy billionaires and millionaires and the oil companies--even though it has nothing to do with the debt.

That is the only explanation for why this is even on the table. I think anything that kills jobs should be off the table. I think anything that hurts the ability of the job creators to grow their business should be off the table. I think anything that helps increase the unemployment rate should be off the table. I think that is what should be off the table--anything that hurts our ability to grow our economy.

Things that force this government, once and for all, to put itself back on the path of sanity should be on the table. Sanity means we stop having a government that spends money it doesn't have.

I will turn it back over to Senator Ayotte to close. I thank her for this opportunity. I thought it was important to bring these points to the floor.

I thank Senator Johnson, and I too yesterday watched the President's lecture on television. I watched it again this morning just to make sure I was well informed before I came here.

My reaction is twofold. One, I am disappointed, and the other is I was alarmed. First, I am disappointed because America does not have a tradition of class warfare. It has never been a part of our Nation. In fact, one of the things that distinguishes us from the world is Americans have never believed that somehow we have to take money away from somebody else in order to be better off. On the contrary, we have always looked to advance the cause of everyone in the belief we can all be prosperous and in the hopes of growing our economy that way. That is the American tradition, and that has served our Nation well.

Unfortunately, you wouldn't know that from the speech yesterday--the rhetoric that, quite frankly, was deeply disappointing. The idea that if we raise taxes, as the President said yesterday, on millionaires and billionaires, raise taxes on oil companies, raise taxes on owners of private jets, that will somehow make a difference in America's debt in terms of having a real impact, is not only misleading, it is, quite frankly, disappointing. It is class warfare and the kind of language you would expect from the leader of a Third World country, not the President of the United States.

I am also alarmed and worried about the speech because I think from it you can take only two things. Either the President doesn't truly understand the nature of the problem we face or he has decided this is a political issue and not a policy one. I say perhaps he doesn't understand the nature of the case because, for example, he mentioned the corporate jet tax six different times. Yet the impact that would have is so insignificant, the White House, to this moment, cannot give an estimate of what that means in terms of a dollar figure. Going further, by the way, it is important to note that exact tax provision was part of the President's now infamous stimulus plan that passed in February of 2009.

The bigger problem, though, is maybe the President fundamentally doesn't understand how jobs are created. Politicians don't create jobs. U.S. Senators don't create jobs. Senator Johnson pointed out that jobs are created by everyday people from all walks of life who start a business or expand an existing one. Our job in government is to make it easier for them to do that, not harder. Threatening to raise taxes, threatening to wage class warfare does not accomplish that purpose.

Here is what I would suggest to the President. I would suggest we have done this before as a people in America--things such as a simpler Tax Code; people around here are in favor of tax reform; simpler tax reform; a manageable and sane regulatory environment and, of course, a government that doesn't spend money it doesn't have. These things have worked before and they will work again, and I urge the President to lead us in that direction.

Mr. President, today I recognize John Callovi, 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.

John is a graduate of Wellington High School in Wellington, FL. Currently, he is a rising senior pursuing a major in economics at the University of 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 John for all the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Stephen Casscells- Hamby, 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.

Stephen is a graduate of Trinity Preparatory School in Winter Park, FL. Currently, he is a rising junior pursuing a double major in business and economics at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 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 Stephen for all the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Joshua Fordin, 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.

Joshua is a graduate of Pine Crest School in Fort Lauderdale, FL. Currently, he is a rising senior pursuing a major in international relations at Johns Hopkins 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 Joshua for all the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Cristina Hackley, 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.

Cristina is a graduate of Groton School in Groton, MA. Currently, she is a rising sophomore at the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown 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 Cristina for all the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Charles Klug, 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.

Charles is a graduate of Berkeley Preparatory School in Tampa, FL. Currently, he is a rising senior pursuing a double major in political science and religion at Wake Forest 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 Charles 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 Christina for all the fine work she has done and

wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Anthony Soto, a summer law 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.

Anthony is a graduate of Florida International University in Miami, FL, where he majored in political science. Currently, he is entering his last year at Florida State University 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 Anthony for all the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Madam President, at a time of staggering deficits, dangerously high debt, and lagging economic growth, I oppose S. 679, the Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011.

Our Nation is borrowing $4 billion a day with no end in sight and we have already hit our $14.3 trillion statutory debt limit. Sadly, my State of Florida struggles with a 10.6 percent unemployment rate, far higher than the national average of 9.1 percent. At a time when families and businesses are hurting, the Senate has not passed a budget in over 790 days.

The Senate should be focused on legislation that cuts spending and reduces our debt, saves entitlement programs for future generations, reforms our complex Tax Code, and reduces the crushing weight of Federal regulations on job creators. S. 679 does not accomplish any of these goals, and I cannot support it as our Nation careens towards bankruptcy and a diminished future.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded and to speak as in morning business.

Five minutes.

Madam President, over the last 2 weeks, we have seen a deepening divide between the White House and Congress over Libya. It is a clash that was completely avoidable but also counterproductive.

First, for the life of me, I do not understand why this administration did not bring this issue to the Congress from the outset. In the early days of the Libyan rebellion, the President should have come to the Congress, informed us that an armed rebellion had arisen against Libya's anti-American, criminal dictator; that the rebels were asking for our assistance in establishing a no-fly zone over Libyan air space so they could take care of the dictator themselves; and that with our support, he intended to work with our allies to establish such a no-fly zone.

If this President had done this, I believe he would have found support here and Qadhafi would have been gone a long time ago.

But instead, this administration waited. While it did, Qadhafi reestablished momentum and began to carry out a new level of atrocities unprecedented even by his murderous standards. And then, only with the Qadhafi mercenaries on the outskirts of Benghazi threatening to massacre thousands of innocent civilians, did the United States finally agree to participate.

But even that was botched. First, we ceded most of the operation over to our NATO allies. God bless them for trying, but they do not have the military capability to finish the job.

Second, the President never consulted Congress, again ignoring a co- equal branch of government unnecessarily.

And then, when finally he was pressed under the War Powers Act, he claims the United States is not involved in hostilities in Libya.

Why we have reached this point is something history will have to explain. Suffice it to say, it didn't have to be this way. And the reason why it is is 100 percent the result of the President's failure to lead.

Now, all that being said, we need to decide what to do next. This is not about hawks versus doves or interventionists versus isolationists or any of the other labels being thrown around here.

And this cannot be about how upset any of us are at the President for botching the handling of this matter.

What we do next should be decided based on what is in the best interest of our country.

And here is the reality: Whether you agree with it or not, the United States is now engaged in a fight, and it is a fight that only has two possible endings.

It can end with the fall of a brutal, criminal, anti-American dictator or it could end in that dictator's victory over our allies and us.

I would suggest, given these two choices, the best choice for America is the first one, the fall of the anti-American dictator.

Going forward, how do we do this? First, we should officially recognize the Transitional National Council.

Second, we should provide additional resources to support the council, including access to Libyan funds frozen here in the United States. And by the way, we should also make sure the frozen funds are also used to reimburse us, the United States, for the cost of this operation.

Third, we should intensify strike operations to target the Qadhafi regime and get rid of this guy once and for all, and as soon as possible.

Then, fourth, we should go home and allow the Libyan people to build a new nation and a new future for themselves.

I understand that, rightfully so, many here in the Congress and across America are weary of more war and more overseas engagement during a time of severe budget constraints at home.

But the fact remains, whether you agree with it or not, we are already involved. We are already involved in Libya. We have already spent a considerable amount of money there. Are we going to let all that go to waste? Are we prepared to walk away and get stuck with a lose-lose proposition? We spent all this money on Libya, and Qadhafi is still around?

It is in our national interest to get this over with already.

This afternoon, the Foreign Relations Committee will meet to consider a resolution on this matter. I am concerned that rather than push the President to do what is necessary to bring this conflict to a successful conclusion, some are pushing to restrict our campaign.

No matter how you may feel about the original decision, we must now deal with the situation as it now stands. And the bottom line here is that if we withdraw from our air war over Libya, it will lengthen the conflict, increase the cost to American taxpayers, and raise doubts about United States leadership among friends and foes alike.

Here is what withdrawal will mean in real terms:

The coalition would quickly unravel. Qadhafi would emerge victorious, even more dangerous and determined to seek his revenge through terrorism against the countries in NATO and the Arab League that tried and failed to overthrow him.

We would see a bloodbath inside Libya. This killer, Qadhafi, will unleash unspeakable horrors against the Libyan people. And the ripple effects will be felt across the Middle East. For example, the prodemocracy movements in places like Iran and Syria would conclude that they too might be abandoned and the dictators they oppose would be emboldened.

Our disengagement would irreparably harm the NATO alliance.

I fully understand the frustration at the way the President has handled this situation, but the answer to any problem is not to make it worse.

Some may think what we do here this afternoon on the resolution is largely symbolic, simply intended to send a message to the White House.

Yes, it will send a message to the President, but it will also send a message to Qadhafi and those around him.

And here is the message that I fear we may send: That the coalition is breaking and the Qadhafi regime might yet win. I know that is not anyone's intention, but that is the very real risk we run.

There is a better, more pragmatic way forward.

Let's pass a resolution backing these activities.

For those frustrated with the President's failure to adequately make the case for our involvement, our job in Congress is to push the administration to do a better job explaining our effort in Libya.

Here is the good news: The tide in Libya appears to be turning against Qadhafi. The opposition in Benghazi has succeeded in expanding the territory under its control, breaking the siege laid by regime forces on Misrata, the country's third largest city.

At the same time, the Qadhafi regime has been shaken by further defections and collapsing international support.

Libya is at a critical juncture. And for the United States, there is only one acceptable outcome--the removal of the Qadhafi regime and, with it, the opportunity for the Libyan people to build a free and democratic society.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, today, the Senate considered the nomination of James Cole to be deputy Attorney General of the United States. I voted against his nomination and want to explain my vote.

Mr. Cole has been a vocal critic of the use of military commissions to try terrorists. Based upon my review of his record, it is apparent that he is an ardent supporter of the use of article III courts to try terrorists. He has advocated a criminal law approach to prosecuting terrorists. By way of example Mr. Cole has stated:

For all the rhetoric about war, the September 11 attacks

were criminal acts of terrorism against a civilian

population.

Testifying before the Judiciary Committee, he refused to say whether he favored a civilian or military trial for Osama bin Laden, should he be captured alive.

I believe that such decisions should be made on a case-by-

case basis, based on all the relevant factors and

circumstances available at the time of the suspect's capture.

Additionally, under Mr. Cole's watch, the Justice Department has announced that it would try two Iraqi nationals who were arrested in Kentucky on charges related to attacking and killing U.S. troops in Iraq, in civilian courts.

While Mr. Cole has the academic and legal background necessary to fill this position, his actions as Deputy Attorney General and history supporting civilian trials for terrorists clearly establishes that he will pursue an agenda that seeks to ensure that terrorists are tried in article III courts. These issues are of paramount concern and I cannot support a nominee who subscribes to these views. Accordingly, I had no choice but to oppose this nomination.

Mr. President, today I recognize Marc Milani, a spring 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.

Marc is a graduate of Christopher Columbus High School in Miami, FL. Currently, he is a sophomore pursuing a major in philosophy at Dartmouth College. 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 Marc for all the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Olivia Voslow, a spring 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.

Olivia is a graduate of the Holton-Arms School in Bethesda, MD. Currently, Olivia is preparing to enter into her freshman year at Middlebury College. 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 Olivia for all the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, it is an honor to stand alongside Senator Hatch today as we introduce the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. This bill, which would help States enforce laws requiring that parents be notified before their child has an abortion, is supported by many pro-life groups and organizations. But perhaps most importantly, it is supported by a broad majority of parents, who are in a much better position to help children with tough decisions than virtually anyone else.

Many States require that a parent be notified before a minor has an abortion, while even more require the consent of a parent before a physician can legally perform an abortion. Unfortunately, these laws are undermined and circumvented by those simply willing to travel to a State without these restrictions.

This important legislation would put an end to this practice permanently by simply enabling States to enforce their existing laws, which are designed to protect our children and defend parents' rights. While this legislation serves that goal, it also promotes a culture of life in our nation that is critical to ensuring we continue to cherish and defend the self-evident, fundamental right to life, especially as it applies to the unborn.

Specifically, this bill has two parts: First, it prohibits the act of knowingly taking a minor across State lines with the intent of obtaining an abortion if this action evades the parental involvement law in her home State. Second, it would require abortion providers to notify a parent of an out-of-State minor before performing an abortion.

Sadly, many are willing to circumvent State law and shuttle young girls across State lines in order to avoid parental notification laws. With the help of my Senate colleagues, we will put a stop to this and ensure that parents are aware of profound medical operations involving their children. With that thought in mind, I ask you to support this legislation to help keep parents informed.