Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback).

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback).

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback).

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback) and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg).

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I think what we have just heard illustrates why it has been so hard for us to reach a bipartisan agreement on how to resolve the tax issues all Americans face in just 4 short weeks. Last Tuesday, a group of us went down to the White House to visit with the President, the Vice President, and some of his folks in a spirit of cooperation, I must say, and a spirit in which the President reached out to us and said: All right, the elections are over. My party didn't do so well, but it is time now for us to get together and work together, and the first piece of business we have to resolve is this tax issue. We have to figure out how we are going to fund the government for the remaining 10 months of the fiscal year, and we have to figure out how we are going to prevent Americans from getting a big tax increase come January 1. What I would like for you all to do-- talking both to Democratic and Republican leaders in the House and Senate--is to sit down and try to negotiate this in a bipartisan spirit that truly would give credit to the Congress and give the American people some confidence that they can move forward with some degree of clarity about what their tax obligations are going to be. We agreed. The President asked us if we would be willing to sit down, literally immediately, to begin these discussions. We said yes. He named two of his chief spokesmen--the Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, and Jacob Lew, the head of OMB, to discuss those issues on behalf of the administration, and each of the four leaders in the House and Senate named someone to join the discussions as well. Leader McConnell asked me to do that on behalf of Senate Republicans. We immediately scheduled a meeting and we got together to discuss the parameters of how we should move forward, and it was a very productive discussion. But it also became apparent, and it became apparent the second time we met, that actually there weren't going to be any bipartisan negotiations to reach a decision until there had been a political catharsis on the Democratic side. So let me respond briefly to comments made by the majority leader this morning, who seemed to lay at the feet of Republicans the delay in getting this tax issue resolved, when, in fact, it has been due to the fact that House and Senate Democrats have had to demonstrate to many of the people in their political base that they can't accomplish what their base would like them to accomplish and, therefore, ultimately, they will have to negotiate something with us. I understand sometimes you need to go through a process whereby it makes it easier for you to make concessions, and I suspect that is part of what this is all about. I certainly don't denigrate the motives of any of my colleagues because this is hard, and they are getting a lot of pressure from people in their political base about not giving in to the Republicans and so on. But the President asked us to discuss this in a bipartisan way, and Republicans have been willing to do that. But, first of all, Speaker Pelosi scheduled a vote in the House that was the Democratic position to allow taxes to be increased on hundreds of thousands of small businesses and others in this country. A vote was finally held, and I might add that 20 Democrats left the fold and joined Republicans in saying: No, that is not the way to reach a consensus. Then the Senate Democrats decided to schedule the same vote and one more vote to try to accomplish the same purpose. Because of the lateness of the time in which that was done, the cloture didn't ripen until this morning, which is why we are here this morning getting ready to cast these two votes. But I wish to make it clear that I have a disagreement with the majority leader if he is suggesting that somehow it is Republicans who have delayed these negotiations. The fact is, we have had three meetings and I have sat there and we have been very genial with each other, but it has been very clear we are not going to be negotiating anything until this political process is over with--until the partisan votes have been cast--and then and only then will people sit down to seriously negotiate how we are going to resolve the issue. The problem is, of course, there is very little time before Christmas. The President has some other things on his agenda, as does the majority leader. I now understand we are going to have to schedule time next week for an impeachment trial, for example, that can take about a day and a half. The President would like to see the START treaty brought up in the Senate and resolved before Christmas. There are other things that have to be done. I wish to make it clear that it is not the Republicans' fault that these things are taking time and we still don't have the tax issue resolved. It is interesting, we have now been in the lameduck session for 2 weeks and we have accomplished exactly one thing: the Senate has passed a food safety bill which now turns out to be unconstitutional. So 2 weeks of lameduck session and essentially nothing accomplished. Our Democratic colleagues have been in caucus for hours--hours-- trying to figure out what to do while Republicans are ready to negotiate, ready to act. But until this political catharsis has finally run its course, it appears there will be no more negotiation. I am assuming that the next time the negotiators get together--I hope it will be Monday morning; whenever we can get together--we will then be able to actually sit down and work through the process so we can extend the tax policies that have been in place for the last decade so that no Americans have their taxes increased, so that businesses will have certainty and families will have certainty about what their tax obligations will be going into the next year. If that process can begin quickly, then I think we can reach a bipartisan agreement that would make the American people proud and would demonstrate that we actually can come together on an important issue such as this for the benefit of the American people. But let there be no mistake, the votes that were taken in the House of Representatives and that will be taken here are not because Republicans wanted to take these votes. These are votes the Democrats believed were necessary to demonstrate essentially that they cannot get the support they need to do what they would prefer to do, therefore enabling them to sit down and talk to Republicans. Those are the facts. We understand this takes time. I just don't want to be blamed for taking the time when it is, in fact, not the Republicans' fault that negotiations have not been completed.

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) would have voted ``nay,'' and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) would have voted ``nay'' and the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback).

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback).

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback).

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback) and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr).

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback) and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr).

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback) and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr).

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``nay'' and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, last June, President Obama promised on national television that ``Government is not going to make you change plans under health reform.'' In his September 2009 address to Congress he told Americans, ``If you have health insurance through your job, nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.'' Many Americans doubted this would be the case, and they have been proven right. In the months after the health care law was passed, the administration wrote the regulations for plans with grandfathered status. Grandfathered status was supposed to allow employers to continue offering current health plans, even if those plans don't meet all of the government's new cost-increasing mandates and requirements. And we were told it was intended to help protect Americans enrolled in these plans from ``rate shock,'' or significant premium increases, as a result of the new government mandates. The consulting firm Mercer has bad news for people hoping to keep what they currently have. It released a new survey of employers on the impact of the health care law. One-quarter of employers surveyed estimate that the law would raise premiums by at least 3 percent. That increase is beyond this year's normal rise in costs due to medical inflation. A majority of respondents--57 percent--said they will ask employees to pay a greater share of the cost of coverage in 2011, meaning higher deductibles and copays. As the Mercer study notes, ``The rules for maintaining grandfathered status were tougher than many employers expected. As they start to get a clearer picture of projected costs for 2011, many are finding they need more flexibility to get their cost increases down to a level they can handle.'' Yet the administration's regulations expose employers and employees to extensive bureaucratic redtape just so they can keep their current plans. In fact, the administration's own experts at the Department of Health and Human Services estimate that between 39 and 69 percent of businesses won't be able to keep the health plans they have now. Small businesses will fare even worse. By 2013, up to 80 percent of small businesses could lose their grandfathered status. All of this means that few health plans will qualify for grandfathered status, so many Americans will not get to keep what they have. Employers that lose grandfathered status for their health plans will be forced to comply with all of the new mandates included in the health care law and all of the administration's regulations. Subjecting employers' health plans to these mandates will either force them to change their plans and increase their costs of insurance or pay a fine and dump their employees into the Federal Government's new insurance exchange. I do not support the health care law at all, but I believe Americans should get to keep what they have, as promised, so I support the Enzi resolution of disapproval. The resolution would nullify these regulations and direct the administration to develop true grandfathering protections that allow Americans to keep their current coverage. These latest developments are consistent with the pattern that has emerged ever since this bill passed and was signed into law--one of broken promises. Americans never liked or wanted this bill, and we are continually reminded why they opposed it in the first place.

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).

Mr. KYL. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I offer my condolences to Catherine Stevens and to the entire family of Senator Ted Stevens and to the families of those who also lost their lives in that tragic August 9 accident. I knew Ted for many years and will always remember his devotion to the U.S. Senate and, of course, to the State of Alaska. Ted tirelessly committed himself to help transform Alaska into a modern State. Even if he had not become the longest serving Republican Senator in history, with a career spanning over 38 years, ``Uncle Ted'' would still have become an Alaskan legend. He was beloved throughout the State. And his love for his State was well known, from the largest cities to the smallest towns. Ted devoted his whole life to public service. Before he was elected to Congress, Ted went through pilot training in Douglas, AZ, and earned his Army Air Corps wings in May 1944. For his service in World War II, he received the Air Medal and the Distinguished Flying Cross. Incidentally, Ted often told me of his appreciation for the time he spent training in Arizona, my home State. He often spoke, too, of the town of Wickenburg, AZ, where his wife is from. During his time in the Senate, Ted became a master of Senate procedure. Republicans would often ask him to sit in the Presiding Officer's chair during an important vote because we knew he would handle all of the procedural details and intricacies perfectly. Not only was he a good legislator, he was a tough legislator. Ted was not shy about inviting comparisons with the Incredible Hulk. When he debated an issue that meant a lot to him, he would wear his Incredible Hulk necktie. Indeed, that necktie saw many a political battle. As much as I admired Ted for his tough side, I will most fondly recall his gentle spirit and his compassion for the people he was so proud to represent. His soft side and kind nature were so apparent I sometimes wondered how much of his feistier side was for effect. It was an honor to have known him and a privilege to have served alongside him here in the Senate.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent, the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).