Floor Statements

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator McCain and myself, I am pleased to introduce the Navajo-Hopi Little Colorado River Water Rights Settlement Act of 2012. This is S. 2109.

It is propitious as the State of Arizona today celebrates its centennial--its 100th birthday--that we also have the opportunity to resolve significant water rights issues for the Navajo Nation, the Hopi Tribe, and water users throughout the Southwest. Indeed, the legal arguments for the claims being settled predate Arizona's induction into the Union. It is also worth noting that for more than two decades--more than 20 percent of Arizona's statehood time--hundreds of individuals in Arizona and here in Washington have worked hard to settle all these claims.

The protracted, and at times contentious, negotiations are a reflection of water's fundamental importance as well as the care and attention communities in the Southwest have given to managing this very limited resource. For many on the Navajo and Hopi Reservations, however, management of the resource is nothing more than a mirage.

It shocks the conscience in this day and age that many on the Navajo and Hopi Reservations only have access to the amount of water they can haul--in some instances literally by horse and wagon--to the remote reaches of the reservations. While this picture of conditions near Dilkon on the Navajo Reservation could be confused as a depiction of conditions at the time Arizona became a State in 1912, it was taken in just August of last year.

We can see that it depicts, as in many other areas of the reservation, that between one-third and one-half of the households lack complete plumbing facilities, with many families being forced to haul water significant distances. That is what we see depicted in this photograph. This has become a way of life on the reservation--a full- time job that limits economic opportunities and perpetuates a cycle of poverty. What is more, this lack of clean, readily available drinking water significantly impacts the health and safety of the Navajo and Hopi people. There are higher rates of disease and infant mortality and a lack of sufficient water supplies to meet fire-suppression needs. It is inconceivable in 2012 that Navajo and Hopi families are still living in these conditions.

Legally, the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe may assert claims to larger quantities of water, but, as seen here, they do not have the means to make use of those supplies in a safe and productive manner. Among water law practitioners, the tribes may be said to have ``paper'' water, as opposed to ``wet'' water. Those claims are far-reaching, extending beyond the mesas and plateaus of northern Arizona and calling into question water uses even in California and Nevada.

The legislation we introduce today, however, would resolve many of those issues. In exchange for legal waivers, the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe would receive critical drinking water infrastructure. The three groundwater projects contemplated by this act would deliver much needed drinking water supplies to the impoverished areas of the Navajo and Hopi Reservations.

It is also important to note that this settlement would facilitate water deliveries to the eastern part of the Navajo reservation through the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project, a project that has not only been approved by Congress but was one of 14 projects chosen by the President in October for expedited environmental review and permitting. Although that expedited project may deliver 6,411 acre-feet of water to Navajo communities in Arizona, such deliveries cannot occur until the Navajo claims in Arizona have been resolved. This settlement accomplishes that goal, reallocating water for delivery through the Navajo-Gallup pipeline.

Importantly, this settlement would not only inure to the benefit of the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe, but it would also provide immeasurable benefits to non-Indian communities throughout Arizona, California, and Nevada. Without a settlement, resolution of the tribes' claims would take years, require parties to expend significant sums, create continued uncertainty concerning water supplies, and seriously impair the economic well-being of all of the parties to the settlement.

For example, municipalities, farmers, ranchers, and industrial water users in northern Arizona would be able to better plan for their water future without the uncertainty and expense of continuing costly litigation against the tribes. Likewise, water users from the Imperial Valley of California to the Las Vegas Strip would be

able to take comfort in the knowledge that lower Colorado River water- management regulations that they spent years developing would no longer be subject to challenge by the Navajo Nation.

In addition to resolving the tribes' claims to the Little Colorado River, this settlement sets the table for future negotiations regarding the lower Colorado River. The settlement, among other things, reserves water for future negotiation of those claims. In doing so, this bill acknowledges the importance of those settlement negotiations to the tribes and the non-Indian communities throughout the Southwest.

I have had the privilege to work on a number of water settlements throughout my career. Each has been rewarding and served to meet significant needs for both the American Indian and non-Indian communities involved. In that same regard, I am pleased to have had the opportunity to work with the many parties who have negotiated this settlement, and I am committed to bringing it to fruition through congressional enactment.

I believe this bill represents the best opportunity for all of the parties and for the American taxpayer to achieve a fair result. The settlement resolves significant legal claims, limits legal exposure, avoids protracted litigation costs, and, most important, saves lives. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

As we move forward with the request for hearings that we will need to hold and hopefully, after that, bringing this legislation, after properly marking it up, to the floor of the Senate, Senator McCain and I will have much more to say about how the settlement came about, what its importance is to the people of Arizona, describing the legal consequences of it, and what it means to the future of my State.

I am particularly pleased that all of the parties in Arizona-- literally hundreds of people came together to reach an agreement that we could then embody in legislation that I could introduce on the day of Arizona's birthday, its centennial, its 100th birthday, as another important event in the history of our State. I think it would be a fitting birthday present to the people of the State Arizona if our colleagues will help us in ensuring that this legislation can be adopted in this centennial year.

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

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), and the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint) would have voted ``nay.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).

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

Mr. President, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released a new employment report last week for the month of January with some good news: more jobs created in the private sector than had been projected and unemployment dropped to 8.3 percent. President Obama has been taking a victory lap and touted the jobs report as a sign that his economic policies are working. But it reminds me of the two fleas on the back of the chariot in Stephen Leacock's famous fable. They look behind them and say: My, what a fine cloud of dust we've kicked up.

It could be in the 2\1/2\ years since the great recession technically ended and the 3 years since the passage of the stimulus bill that the President promised would keep unemployment below 8 percent, that whatever recovery we have had is not necessarily the result of the President's policies. Why has unemployment remained above 8 percent for the last 35 months? Why are there more unemployed today than when President Obama took office? Is it more likely that some people are finding work in spite of and not because of President Obama's policies?

Today I would like to speak about that for a few minutes and try to put these numbers into perspective. The obvious point, of course, is that we still have a long way to go before anyone can claim that we have an economic success story.

Let's start with the recovery itself. The fact is, this has been the weakest recovery since the Great Depression. Consider this comparison: 31 months after the recession ended in June of 2009, payroll employment has increased by only 1.5 percent. During the Reagan Presidency 31 months after the end of the 1981-1982 recession, payroll employment had increased by 9.8 percent. So 1.5 under President Obama, 9.8 percent comparable timeframe with President Reagan.

At a comparable point in time during the Reagan recovery, payroll employment was 6.2 million jobs or 6.8 percent higher than the prerecession level. In contrast, today we have about 5 million fewer jobs since peak employment of 2007--not more but fewer--and more than 1.1 million jobs have been lost since President Obama took office.

How can that be? It takes a certain number of jobs just to keep up with the new entrants into the labor market. In fact, economists believe we need on average about 130,000 to 150,000 jobs per month just to hold even. So even though we have created more jobs--and the President's supporters say we have been creating now more jobs for the last 23 months. That is fine, but if it does not keep up with the number we need just to keep up with new entrants into the workforce; namely, 130,000 to 150,000, we are not making progress. In fact, we are regressing. If this recovery we are currently experiencing had duplicated the path of recovery from the 1981-1982 recession, there would be 14.9 million more payroll jobs than we have today--in other words, almost 15 million more jobs. That is a better measure of the success--or lack of it--in coming out of this recession.

Now, to make matters worse, much of the recent decline in the unemployment rate can be attributed to a decline in labor force participation--in other words, people who are still looking for work. Labor force participation dropped to 63.7 percent in January, meaning that many have simply stopped looking for jobs. This is the lowest labor force participation rate in nearly three decades. Labor force participation stood at 66 percent at the beginning of the recent recession. If the rate had remained at the prerecession level, the unemployment rate today would be approximately 11.4 percent. In other words, 3 percentage points more than it is today is accounted for by the fact that that many people have simply stopped looking for work. According to many economists, this is a better measure of the true employment situation in the country.

A commentator on one of the news shows that I heard yesterday gave this analogy: If we heard that fewer elderly people in America were sick, at least initially we would think that was really good news. But if the reason there were fewer sick people is that more of them had died, we wouldn't think that was a cause for celebration. And that is the problem here--too many people have just decided it is not possible for them to get a job and they are going to stop looking.

Finally, there is the underemployment and long-term unemployed situation. The plight of the folks who have been unemployed for a long period of time or those who are underemployed--they have a job but could be getting something that pays more--has really not changed. These are the Americans who want good jobs. In the latest report, the number of those who have been unemployed for 27 weeks or more has hardly changed at 5.52 million people, accounting for almost 43 percent of the unemployed population. Those are the folks who are really hurting. The underemployment rate, which includes part-time workers who would like to have full-time work and those who want to work but have given up looking, has remained largely unchanged, dropping to 15.1 percent from 15.2 percent.

I say all of this not to pile on President Obama and certainly not to denigrate the fact that we finally have a little bit of good news coming out of the economic picture but, rather, to make the point that the employment numbers from 1 month--last month--hardly tell the whole story. We have to have better progrowth policies if we are really going to have a stronger economy, if we are going to create more jobs and, over the long term, improve the employment opportunities for all Americans who want work.

It was very disappointing for the President to have rejected the Keystone Pipeline. That is a project which would have created as many as 343,000 private sector jobs, according to the Congressional Research Service, and all of that without having cost the taxpayers a dime.

We also need to consider how the policies of the last 3 years, which include the exploding debt and the massive new taxes and regulations that are contained in ObamaCare and the so-called financial reform bill, have put a drag on the economy. It has increased uncertainty for job creators, and it has actually weakened the economic recovery. If President Obama wants to continue any jobs momentum, I believe he ought to reconsider his position on the tax hikes coming at the end of this year. They are automatic. If we don't do anything, taxes will go up on everyone next January 1st, the largest tax increase in the history of our country, over $3.5 trillion. Will businesses want to expand and hire new workers in the face of a tax increase that size over the next 10 years? Will they want to create

jobs if they are faced with an avalanche of new regulations? Will they be able to invest in growth if the government keeps crowding out private investment with massive borrowing and spending?

The bottom line is that there is a recipe for turning the economy around in a very strong way and providing the jobs people are going to need in order to get the work they can do and need in order to support their families. What the President has done has impeded and slowed down that growth. Of course, one can argue that he didn't create the problem, he inherited the problem, but that his policies have made it worse, not better; that we would have a stronger recovery had we not wasted that money on the stimulus program and had we not passed some of the highly regulatory and depressing legislation such as ObamaCare.

With the opportunity before us to support progrowth policies, I am convinced the private sector of this country is strong enough to rebound. We are beginning to see that in these employment numbers. If we work with businesses, understanding that they create the jobs, not the government--all we can do is to provide the best foundation for job creation--if we do that, then this eventually can be a strong economic recovery, and then we really will have something to brag about. It is my hope that in the remaining months of this year, before politics completely consumes Washington, DC, Republicans and Democrats, the House and the Senate, can work together with the President to create that kind of climate in which all Americans who want to can find economic opportunity and work.

I note the absence of a quorum.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) would have voted ``nay.''

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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).

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. 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.

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.''