Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I rise to speak on the pending Toomey amendment, an amendment that we will be voting on here after a little bit, amendment No. 1472, known as the Earmark Elimination Act. I thank Senators Toomey and McCaskill for continuing this important discussion and commend them as well as numerous other Senators, including my colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, and Senators Coburn and DeMint, who have championed reforms to Washington's earmark culture. The concern, as noted by Senators Toomey and McCaskill, is that the earmark process lacks transparency and scrutiny. I support their efforts to reform the process in a manner that reflects the principles of our Founders and the trust the American people instill in us to represent them. I wish to confirm, however, that this effort does not restrict Congress's ability to protect the American taxpayer from unnecessary expenses and significant legal exposure. In certain situations, the United States is required to fulfill legal obligations. For example, the United States must resolve water rights claims that American Indian tribes assert against the United States and other water users within an affected State. In those instances, as is common in other litigation, it is in the interest of the United States and the American taxpayer to limit ongoing legal exposure by settling the tribe's water rights claims. Effectuating the terms of such a settlement requires congressional review and approval. Congress will undoubtedly employ the searching scrutiny required to understand whether the settlement is in the best interests of the American people. Such settlements, however, are not amenable to a formula-driven or competitive award process. Rather, the settlements must be addressed and negotiated if and when the claims are asserted against the United States. Congressionally enacted Indian water rights settlements have not previously fallen within the earmark moratorium. In that vein, I want to confirm with my colleague from Pennsylvania that the Earmark Elimination Act does not restrict Congress's authority to protect taxpayers by limiting the exposure of the United States to similar legal challenges.

Mr. KYL. I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania. I concur with my colleague in expressing a commitment to ensuring that these positive efforts to reform the earmark process do not result in an unintended consequence whereby Congress's efforts to settle legal claims against the United States are subject to a point of order. I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for his efforts, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions).

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL

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

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, President Obama is campaigning for reelection on a ``soak the rich'' kind of platform. He argues that income inequality and economic fairness are the defining issues of our time. In his narrative, the more prosperous and fair society requires more balance or redistribution. Unfortunately, for the President, polls suggest Americans aren't lining up behind this politics of resentment. For example, a Gallup poll reports that just 2 percent of Americans rank the divide between rich and poor as the most pressing economic issue facing our country, that Americans are now less likely to view U.S. society as divided between the haves and have-nots than in 2008, and that only 46 percent believe reducing the wealth gap is extremely or very important; whereas, 82 percent say that about accelerating economic growth. Despite the class-warfare rhetoric they hear on a daily basis, most Americans instinctively understand that adopting progrowth policies to boost mobility is wiser than adopting antigrowth policies to curb inequality. They realize if Washington increases tax rates, for example, and the size of government to achieve greater economic balance, the result will be less job creation and less opportunity for everyone. Americans don't want the Federal Government to penalize success. They want the Federal Government to make it easier for them to succeed on their own. As American Enterprise Institute President Arthur Brooks wrote in his book, ``The Battle,'' earned success is the key to true human happiness and flourishing. Here is how he put it: If we know we have the possibility of earning success, we know we can improve our lives and our lot. Most Americans, he notes, support principles that aim to ``stimulate true prosperity, not treat poverty.'' If we are looking to expand opportunities for earned success and prosperity, the best place to start is with a sweeping overhaul of our very inefficient Tax Code. Progrowth tax reforms would make the system fairer and simpler. Right now, it functions as a mechanism to deliver wealth to favored constituencies rather than a means to pay for government. In fact, syndicated columnist George Will recently noted the Tax Code has been tweaked 4,500 times in the last 10 years. Most of these tweaks, he wrote, have benefited ``interests sufficiently strong and sophisticated to practice rent-seeking.'' In other words, to get special benefits for themselves. A fairer and more growth-oriented Tax Code would feature permanently lower rates--rates that would flatter but still be progressive. Such a Tax Code would benefit small business owners and entrepreneurs, who are America's biggest job creators. Many small businesses currently have the cash to invest, to innovate, to expand, and to create jobs, but they are sitting on the cash because of the threat of higher taxes. Cutting the corporate tax rate would also fuel stronger growth and greater mobility. The statutory U.S. rate is now the second highest among advanced economies, and it has damaged American competitiveness while holding down wages. Indeed, the most recent Global Competitiveness Index from the World Economic Forum ranked the United States now fifth, behind Finland, Sweden, Singapore, and Switzerland. In 2008, America had the top ranking. Coca-Cola's CEO Muhtar Kent recently underscored this development when he said China now has a more business-friendly environment than America. Kent cited tax policy as a particularly large hindrance. His experience may be different from a lot of others, but even for a major CEO to talk in these terms suggests we have more to do at home. Beyond tax reform, policymakers must also stop shackling entrepreneurs with more and more regulations. The explosion of new highly complex rules over the last 3 years has spawned a new class of bureaucrats entrusted with decoding and enforcing thousands of regulations that will affect American businesses. My Republican Senate colleague Susan Collins of Maine has introduced a bill I have cosponsored that would impose a temporary moratorium on new regulations that adversely affect jobs and the economy. It would also help if we could repeal the Obama administration's two signature laws, the Affordable Care Act and the Dodd- Frank Act, both of which have dramatically increased regulatory uncertainty and created new economic distortions. Obviously, Republicans are not against all regulations, and we support a strong social safety net. But we are against economically damaging regulations that fail a simple cost-benefit test. Both the ACA and Dodd-Frank would fail such a test, as would the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley law. In late 2008 and early 2009, the Securities and Exchange Commission surveyed publicly traded firms affected by section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley and it found that ``a majority felt that the costs of compliance outweighed the benefits. This was especially true among smaller companies.'' While President Obama pays lipservice to economic growth on the campaign trail, many of his policies have undermined that goal. It is hard to create jobs at the bottom when you are obsessed with attacking people at the top. The case for growth and success-oriented policies is not just practical, it is moral. The biggest economic favor policymakers can do for Americans is to support policies that make more opportunity, mobility, and the possibility of earned success.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, important questions have been raised about Judge Gerrard's willingness to follow established precedent in a reasoned way in death-penalty cases. Too often, the Senate has confirmed nominees who are hostile to the death penalty, and who then abuse their authority and twist the law to block the execution of legally sound capital sentences that have been entered by State courts. In his December 15, 2011, written response to questions posed to him by Senator Sessions, however, Judge Gerrard assured the Senate that he ``would have no difficulty'' in following ``binding precedent'' in capital cases, and that he has ``no personal beliefs that would prevent [him] from enforcing the death penalty.'' I take Judge Gerrard at his word and thus will vote in favor of confirming his nomination to be a United States district judge.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul).

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul).

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: The Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul).

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, there is objection on our side. I will object. But I do want to make a point that as a result of Senator Snowe and Senator Merkley's intercession here, our staff has talked to Senator Shelby, who says he will try to work to get it cleared and to hotline it again on our side today. So at this time, I cannot clear it, but there will be an effort to accomplish that result.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask the indulgence of my colleague. If my colleague could make the unanimous consent request to which I can respond, then I can leave.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul).