Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), and the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint) would have voted ``nay,'' and the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, tomorrow this body will vote to advance legislation that will grant permanent normal trade relations with Russia and, in so doing, repeal the Cold War-era Jackson-Vanik sanctions that denied most-favored nation status to China. As part of this comprehensive package, the Senate will also pass the so-called Magnitsky bill. This piece of legislation was inspired by a young Russian attorney, Sergei Magnitsky, who died in police custody in 2009 after he was jailed on trumped-up charges for exposing a vast web of corruption and tax fraud by some of Russia's most senior officials. Sergei's story, extensively reported and documented by human rights activists, business leaders, journalists, and others, helped stir a bipartisan group of Senators led by our colleague Senator Ben Cardin to draft legislation to hold accountable officials from all over the world who disregard basic human rights and fail to uphold the rule of law, including those responsible for the murder of Sergei Magnitsky. Unfortunately, the legislation before us is deficient. While I do not intend to make perfection the enemy of the good, this bill falls short of the longstanding objective of this body to demonstrate a sustained commitment to the long tradition of U.S. leadership in the fight against corruption and human rights abuses around the world. Regrettably, the House-passed bill deals only with Russian officials. Sergei Magnitsky's story could have been lost. It was kept alive by impassioned and inspired friends and supporters in Russia. But from Pyongyang to Minsk, to Harare, and elsewhere, there are many who remain voiceless under despots and strongmen and lack the advocates and resources to detail their abuses and seek justice, whether through documentary film or newspaper stories. That is why the Senate bill went beyond the particular case of Sergei Magnitsky. Much like Jackson-Vanik forced Budapest, Warsaw, and Moscow to allow citizens to freely emigrate or travel, I believe a global approach would help to deter future abuses throughout the world. I am puzzled and, frankly, disappointed that our House colleagues did not recognize our government needs tools that will allow it to stand up for these individuals regardless of where they are in the world. Because some have elevated the subject of commerce above human rights, there is a view that it is more important to pass PNTR than a global Magnitsky bill; thus, we should settle for a Russia-only bill. While the Jackson-Vanik sanctions we are about to repeal have obviously outlived their usefulness, there is an urgent need for additional tools to protect the invisible around the world. I hope our collective failure to give voice to their struggles, except in Russia, will not discourage these brave men and women, whether in Beijing, Tehran or elsewhere, from their continued efforts to root out corruption or expose rule of law abuses. For now, at least, we address the problem in Russia. While I will not be here next year, I hope my colleagues in both the House and Senate will seek to uphold U.S. values and to do justice to Sergei Magnitsky and his legacy by passing a global bill sometime in the future.

Mr. KYL

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

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities or the CRPD. The United States has a long and proud tradition of protecting human rights, especially those of the disabled. I do not believe we need to ratify an international convention to demonstrate our firm commitment in this area. CRPD ratification would do nothing to improve the lives of the disabled in the United States, and if other countries are looking for good examples of how to improve their laws, they could do no better than to refer to U.S. laws. Just as with many treaties before this one, the CRPD would offer cover to regimes that have no intention of actually helping their citizens, while needlessly tying the hands of countries such as the United States that have actually made great strides in this area. I take China as just one example. According to Human Rights Watch, Chinese citizens even suspected of having a mental disability can be arbitrarily committed to institutions because Chinese law offers almost no protections against involuntary civil commitment. Moreover, Beijing is now considering a draft mental health disability law that would ``permit the indefinite involuntary detention, forced medication, and forced labor of persons suspected of having a mental disability.'' Obviously, this is in direct contravention to both the spirit and the letter of the CRPD even though Beijing has ratified it--I repeat: even though Beijing has already ratified the treaty. So while this convention has no mechanism to force countries such as China to actually respect their disabled citizens, what it does do is allow their leaders to falsely present themselves as forward-leaning on disabled rights just as they continue to run roughshod over such protections at home. Supporters of this convention claim that ratifying it would allow our country to assume the moral high ground when it comes to addressing other countries' gaps in disabilities rights. I would argue just the opposite. As I just mentioned, becoming a party to this convention would actually put us in the company of nations that are nowhere near the high ground on this issue, moral or otherwise. Moreover, we already have the most comprehensive disability rights laws and protections in the world, period. In fact, the U.S. record of disabilities rights-related laws stretches back more than four decades, unequivocally demonstrating our commitment and leadership in this area. That is why many nations look to us for guidance in developing their own disability laws and discrimination protections. We do not need a treaty to provide that guidance, obviously. For example, the European Union is looking to current U.S. law as a model for its own accessibility initiatives. In January of 2011, European Commission Vice President Viviane Reding discussed proposals for what is designated a ``European Accessibility Act,'' citing progress made in the United States under the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,'' which I was proud to support. Reding believes ``that the EU should learn from this positive experience and go ahead in Europe too.'' The convention's supporters also erroneously contend that U.S. ratification would result in tangible benefits for Americans with disabilities who choose to live, travel, or work abroad. They assert that it would allow the United States to have greater influence over disability rights in such areas as employment or accessibility among other states that are party to CRPD. I think this is far from certain. To be sure, Americans with disabilities face serious challenges when they travel abroad precisely because those nations' laws are not as supportive as are those here in the United States--the matter I spoke of a moment ago. But it is the example we have set through our legislation, not ratification of this convention, that could improve their access, for example, to technology, as our Telecommunications Act of 1996 does, or accommodations that would be available, as the American Fair Housing Act does, for example. Only individual member states can draft and implement and enforce the type of wide-ranging laws that are necessary to actually protect the rights of persons with disabilities--laws, I might add, that are already in place here in the United States of America. We know all too well from experience with other treaties that states such as China routinely flout their treaty obligations. I believe it boils down to this: Countries look to the United States for leadership in this area not because we are party to an international treaty but because we have actually demonstrated our commitment through tangible and sustained action. Our commitment to the rights of the disabled does not end with the passage of laws or the enforcement of regulations; rather, it is an ongoing commitment through civil society and a myriad of civic groups, NGOs, and religious organizations, many of which work abroad to help improve the lives of persons with disabilities. It also extends to individuals, including entrepreneurial Americans who continuously seek to develop new cutting-edge technologies to improve the lives of anyone who might benefit from such tools. I am not naive regarding the challenges we face in ensuring that persons with disabilities around the world can benefit from the kind of education, employment, and housing access Americans with disabilities already enjoy here in the United States. I firmly believe the United States must continue to pursue this disability diplomacy on both a bilateral and multilateral basis where it is appropriate. But it is not at all clear to me that it is necessary to ratify this convention to achieve our goal of promoting disability rights and protecting the disabled from discrimination. At the end of the day, I believe the proponents argue two contradictory positions: first, that it is really important that the United States ratify the convention so that nations will have to respect the rights of disabled persons. The second argument they make is that the United States need not be concerned about obligations under the treaty because it is not enforceable, it really has no effect on us. Well, both things cannot be true. Either it is a problem or it is not effective. In either event, it is not an argument for ratification of the treaty. So while I respect the goals and the aspirations of the proponents, they do not justify committing the United States to another international obligation. As a result, I will oppose the resolution of ratification.

Mr. KYL. First of all, I want to say to my colleague from Massachusetts that I very much have enjoyed the conversations we have had, and perhaps more so when we have been in disagreement because I think we have brought out a number of important points on a variety of issues. So I always appreciate his views. Secondly, since the Senator has specifically referred to the points I have made, let me just respond in one way. I don't gainsay the argument that people who have a deep belief in trying to pursue a particular human right or other goal believe that getting together in the international community and talking about these things is a useful exercise. It is hard to argue in the abstract with that proposition, so I can understand the letters that would be written. The hard reality is, however, that there are nation states such as China that do like to sign up to these organizations and gain the reputation for doing good things while, in fact, not doing things, as I pointed out. So to some extent it can serve the opposite goal of giving cover to countries that really have no intention of acting in good faith or in good ways that we have demonstrated as the United States, and that is one of the problems here. I do acknowledge, and I will not use any more of the Senator's time, but when one of two things is true, either it is fairly meaningless or it is really meaningful. I don't think that we can make both arguments as arguments in support of our signing up to the treaty.

Mr. KYL

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. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

Mr. KYL

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

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. To make about a 45-second statement.

Mr. KYL. Eventually, but not today.

Mr. KYL. Correct, although I would say I am not going to need a rollcall vote at the end.

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), and the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea,'' and the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``nay,'' and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. KYL. That is correct.

Mr. KYL. If the Democratic manager of the bill has nothing right at this moment, I wish to modify an amendment which is at the desk, No. 3123, and ask that the amendment be withdrawn and the Senate consider, instead, the amendment I have at the desk.

Mr. KYL. I yield to the Senator.

Mr. KYL. That is correct.

Mr. KYL. The original amendment, No. 3123, would be withdrawn. The modification of that amendment, as written by Senator Kerry, and I believe cleared by the Senator's side, would be the modified.

Mr. KYL. Yes. This amendment is also offered by Senators Lieberman, Inhofe, Risch, Lugar, Sessions, DeMint, Cornyn, Rubio, Wicker, Ayotte, Collins, Corker, and Vitter. I do understand it has been cleared by both sides, and I do appreciate the cooperation with Senator Kerry. The amendment provides that the administration shall brief the appropriate committees on the dialogue between the United States and Russia on issues related to or limits on or controls on nuclear arms, missile defense systems, or long-range conventional strike systems. I think it is in the administration's interests to consult with the Congress and keep us adequately briefed on these discussions because they could, of course, eventually lead to an agreement which might then require the advice and consent of the Senate. I note former Senator Arthur Vandenburg first said, ``If I'm going to be in on the crash landing, I want to be in on the takeoff,'' meaning, of course, that it is much easier for the administration to obtain our consent if they seek advice during the consultation process. I would confess this amendment was prompted by recent press stories, including one on November 8, which reported that our Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul said, ``President Obama would like to have a serious conversation with President Putin about a further round of reductions in nuclear weapons to build on the START treaty.'' I conclude that another round of negotiations or discussions with Russia concerning nuclear arms will be extremely complicated and important and is likely to concern the missile defenses as conventional long-range strike systems, about which I know I and others have serious misgivings. I think this suggests the necessity and the desirability of the kind of consultation we would be requesting of the administration prior to any agreement being reached. I appreciate my colleagues' indulgence. At the appropriate time I will ask for approval of the amendment, as modified.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), and the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller).

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint).

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), and the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller).

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, first, let me thank my colleague from Texas for her leadership on this and so many other issues that we have worked on over the years. One of my regrets in leaving the Senate is that I will not be able to work with her, and she has said the same thing about me. We will be off doing something else, but we are not going to give up on some of the fights we have been engaged in during these years. I want to just begin where my colleague left off, about the meaning of this fiscal cliff and what is being proposed as alternatives to going over the fiscal cliff. I was interested this week that the President has embarked on what one newspaper referred to as ``the fiscal cliff campaign trail.'' We have seen the pictures. He is out speaking as if the campaign were still going on, and the centerpiece of his pitch--and I heard him say it on TV again last night--is that the House of Representatives should pass a bill that was passed in the Senate related to 2001 and 2003 income taxes. The President is a constitutional scholar, and he served in the Senate. He knows that can't be done. It is unconstitutional. The Constitution requires that all revenue measures must be initiated in the House of Representatives. That is one reason the bill got through the Senate, because everybody knew it couldn't pass. It was simply a statement by our Democratic colleagues. It wasn't serious legislation. But if we look at the legislation itself, we begin to see why Republicans are so opposed to what the President is proposing--because of the job-killing policies contained in that bill the President would ask the House of Representatives to pass. What are we talking about specifically? I don't like to get into this kind of detail very often, but somebody has to at some point just discuss the actual facts of what this bill would do. It would raise the marginal income tax rates from 33 percent to 35 percent in the fourth bracket, and in the fifth bracket from 36 percent to 39.6 percent-- almost 40 percent. Well, what is the problem with that? Let's start with the fact that 53 percent of all income from so-called flowthrough businesses is subject to these higher tax rates. That is because most small businesses are not corporations. They are called flowthrough entities-- subchapter S corporations, limited partnerships, and those kinds of entities that pay their income taxes as if they were individuals. So they are governed by the top two marginal rates. Well, they are governed by all the marginal rates of the income-tax code. So when we raise those rates, we are raising taxes on much of small business income. In fact, almost 1 million small business owners--940,000 to be exact--would be hit by the higher taxes caused by the President's proposal. That is an average, by the way, of well over 18,000 per State of the Union. What else would it do? It goes directly to business taxes, such as capital gains taxes. It raises that from 15 to 20 percent, which is why we are seeing a lot of activity right now taking advantage of the lower rate, and we are going to find virtually none of that after this rate is increased to 20 percent. It is one of the reasons we will go back into recession, as the Congressional Budget Office has pointed out. It also raises taxes on qualified dividends from 15 percent, where it is today. The problem of raising taxes on qualified dividends is, as the Wall Street Journal has reported over and over again, that companies that are paying dividends are dumping them all right now so they will all be paid out before the end of the year. If you are a retired teacher or a retired fireman or have a pension and you are counting on your investments to pay dividends in the future, forget it. Once the dividends rate goes back up, corporations are not going to plow their earnings back into dividends to the shareholders as they do today. But these don't even tell the whole story because, of course, once you are taxed as a corporation--and this pertains just to the corporations, not the flowthrough entities I mentioned--you are doubled-taxed if you also pay a dividend or you have a capital gain. You have to pay not only your corporate income tax but the tax on the gain, or the individual pays the tax on the dividends that are paid out by the corporation. So we already have the fourth highest integrated capital gains and dividends rates in the industrialized world at over 50 percent. Why would we want to make ourselves even less competitive by raising these taxes? We would fall even further behind our international competitors with the second highest capital gains rate, 56.7 percent. Talk about a blow to the economy--which is the way the President put it 2 years ago when he decided not to raise all of these rates. Of course, we all agreed with him on that. It would be an even bigger blow to the economy to do so today. Our growth rate today is less than it was 2 years ago when the President himself said these very policies he is advocating would be a blow to the economy. The last thing I would mention, everybody knows about the death tax. We have forgotten about what would happen with the death tax. The death tax rate would go to 55 percent, up from 35 percent today. A lot of people think 35 percent is way too much and would like to see it eliminated. I would. But think about this. You would only have $1 million of the farm or the business or the estate exempted from the tax. After that, over half--55 percent--of everything you have worked for all your years would have to go to Uncle Sam, leaving your heirs frequently with the requirement of selling off all or part of the business or the farm, whatever it is, in order to pay for the estate tax. It would increase the number of estates hit by the death tax from 3,600 this year to over 55,000 next year. There would be 24 times more farm estates that would be hit, 13 times more small businesses, 15 times more taxable estates. This is not good for our economy, and it is not good for our families. The estate tax raises about 1 percent of all the tax revenue. To hurt the small businesses again by raising this death tax rate is just unconscionable. People need to stop and think. This is not just about hitting the rich; this is about hitting small business folks, the very people we anticipate will create the jobs coming out of the economy. Let's turn to job creation issue for just a second. Ernst & Young, the respected accounting firm, released a study recently that estimated the long-run effects of a plan very similar to the Senate bill that the President is advocating--the top two rates increasing, combined with the ObamaCare tax rates taking effect, all of this together, that study found that 710,000 jobs would be lost just as a result of this, 710,000 jobs. The President likes to brag every now and then that we have an increase of 100,000 or 115,000 jobs in a month. Here is 710,000 jobs they say would be lost just from the increase in these tax rates. Our gross domestic product would decline by $200 billion, and wages would fall by 1.8 percent. I know these statistics make our eyes glaze over sometimes, but these are the facts; these are the results. And poorer families and a weak economy and a lot of joblessness are the result. To put these numbers into perspective, 42 business organizations representing tens of millions of American employees--including those in wholesaling, air conditioning, retail, franchising industries, and others--recently sent a letter to the congressional leadership urging Congress not to raise income taxes during negotiations over the fiscal cliff and instead to pursue comprehensive progrowth tax reform. I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.