Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today, the Senate is voting on S. 2873, the ECHO Act. In April, Senator Schatz and I introduced this bill to highlight the impressive work of technology-enabled collaborative learning and capacity-building models. One such model that has brought promising new ideas to our Nation's healthcare delivery system is Project ECHO, which started in New Mexico and quickly expanded to Utah. Today, Project ECHO is thriving in more than 30 States. Our bill draws on the success of Project ECHO to improve health services on a national scale. Our proposal is not political; rather, it is the culmination of a broad bipartisan effort to bring about meaningful healthcare reform that will benefit families across the country in red States and blue States alike. Our legislation improves medical services for all Americans by providing healthcare professionals in rural and underserved communities with access to a network of peers and specialists who can teach specialty care. By connecting doctors and nurses with teams of experts, patients can receive the care they need when they need it. Most importantly, patients will not have to travel long distances to receive treatments; they can stay close to home and receive treatment from doctors they know and trust. In today's bustling healthcare environment, policymakers often forget that healthcare delivery works differently in urban and rural settings. To bridge the urban-rural divide, the ECHO Act brings expertise to providers serving rural populations by enabling them to gain the skills they need to care for people living in their communities. Through this exchange, urban providers in return can learn how rural health is operationalized in real time. Ultimately, our proposal prioritizes rural health needs and reconciles differences in care delivery for diverse populations. Today, I am grateful that a majority of my colleagues have agreed to support this forward-thinking, commonsense legislation. Like the 21st Century Cures bill, our proposal demonstrates our common commitment to improving health care for all patients. Telehealth is a topic of particular interest in my home State of Utah. Under the existing Project ECHO programs, medical experts based at the University of Utah use videoconferencing to train healthcare professionals who are hundreds, sometimes even thousands, of miles away. As we work to improve telehealth, models like those in the ECHO Act will enable telementorship and provider education to occur via avenues more tailored to health professionals' needs. This customization is an essential step to achieving person-centered health care. As a body, we must be dedicated to improving health services for all Americans, no matter where they live. Through this bill, we are making significant progress toward achieving that goal. Using groundbreaking new technologies, the ECHO Act will enable us to take better care of our family members, neighbors, and friends. By putting communication front and center, Project ECHO will allow health professionals to share innovations and new discoveries in an efficient, timely manner. Before turning the floor over to my esteemed colleague from Hawaii, whose collaboration on this proposal has proven invaluable, I first wish to share how our legislation came to be. Several months ago, doctors at the University of Utah--including Dr. Terry Box and Dr. Vivian Lee, as well as some of the most renowned disease experts in the country--reached out to me to demonstrate how Project ECHO was benefiting families across Utah and the Intermountain Region. Their innovative approach to telehealth piqued my interest. As it turns out, Senator Schatz had a very similar experience with his own constituents. After discussing our shared experiences, we joined forces to draft a bill that would allow Americans in rural counties access across the country to reap the benefits of telehealth. The founder of Project ECHO, Dr. Sanjeev Arora, was an instrumental partner throughout this process. He worked with us to share ideas from ECHO hubs across the country, allowing us to incorporate a broad array of viewpoints. With his help, we were able to hear from countless stakeholders and medical professionals who understood the potential of our legislation. We also worked alongside the leadership of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. With the assistance of Senators Alexander and Murray, as well as the majority and minority leaders, we were able to shepherd this legislation through the committee process and bring it to the Senate floor. This bill was born fresh, from a bottom-up approach, which enabled us to solicit ideas and opinions from numerous healthcare professionals across the country. Thanks to their input and the support of Members on both sides of the aisle, we are poised to pass legislation that will dramatically improve the quality of our Nation's health care. I wish to thank all those who assisted in this bipartisan effort. Today is a victory for everyone involved. I appreciate the efforts of Senator Schatz. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, 1 year ago I came to the Senate floor for a series of eight speeches on a subject central to the identity and character of our country's religious freedom. As Congress unanimously declared less than two decades ago, religious freedom undergirds the very origin and existence of the United States. In that series of remarks, I started with the first principles to establish why religious freedom matters and must be given special protection. I reviewed the central role of religious freedom and the central role that religious freedom has played in shaping our country beginning long before independence. I have an example of how I phrased it on this chart. From the earliest settlers to the revolutionary generation, to the 19th century, to the modern day, religious freedom has been a driving force in American life. Without the quest for religious liberty, there would be no United States, and without the continued guarantee of religious freedom, there can be no American ideal. I also outlined the substance and status of religious freedom in America. In other words, I answered the questions of what religious freedom is and how important it is. From the pen of James Madison to the words of the First Amendment, from statutes to international treaties, religious freedom has always been understood to include both belief and behavior in public and in private, collectively and individually. The status of the importance of religious freedom can be summed up in two words used repeatedly by America's Founders and leaders from the beginning: Religious freedom is both inalienable and preeminent. In last year's series of speeches, I also described the ways our government institutions are increasingly undermining religious freedom. These attacks come from, of course, the executive branch and even State legislatures, and they occur because our leaders have forgotten, ignored, or never really learned the fundamentals of religious freedom. A philosopher, George Santayana, wrote that ``those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'' Put another way, as President Andrew Jackson warned as he left office, ``Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.'' ``You must pay the price,'' Jackson said, ``if you wish to secure the blessing.'' Unfortunately, we are no longer paying the price necessary to maintain this fundamental right. Either by negligence or intention, political forces in our society are radically changing what has been the very heart and soul of our great country. They want to restrict the substance of religious freedom so that it includes belief but not behavior; in private but not in public; individually but not collectively. They want to demote the status of religious freedom from inalienable and preeminent to optional and secondary. Examples abound in just the last several years. When the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress fashioned ObamaCare, for instance, they gave no thought to the law's impact on religious freedom. This is especially shocking given that Federal law required them to do so. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act sets a high standard for government actions that burden religious freedom and explicitly requires that Federal laws and regulations meet that standard. The Obama administration and congressional Democrats, however, ran roughshod over religious freedom in fashioning mandates and policies that force people to violate their deeply held religious beliefs. The Supreme Court has twice held that the birth control mandate in ObamaCare is incompatible with the protections for religious freedom that Congress previously and nearly unanimously enacted. Another example is before us today. Two years ago, President Obama issued a sweeping Executive order prohibiting Federal contractors and grant recipients from taking into account sexual orientation or gender identity when making employment decisions. The order itself is not a surprise. President Obama has been a supporter of LGBT rights throughout his Presidency and believes that gays and lesbians deserve the same job opportunities as everyone else. On that latter point, I-- along with most Americans--agree. What was remarkable about President Obama's order was that it contained no exemption for employers with religious affiliations. For years, laws prohibiting discrimination in employment and housing have routinely included religious liberty exemptions to protect religious organizations from having to take actions that contravene their beliefs. Such exemptions, for example, permit a religiously affiliated school that holds traditional views on marriage and human sexuality to offer married housing only to couples of the opposite sex or decline to hire as a faculty member an individual in a committed, same-sex relationship. These exemptions enable religious organizations to hold true to their beliefs while still complying with the law. President Obama's decision not to include a religious liberty exemption in his Executive order marked a sharp turn in the wrong direction. One year earlier, Senate Democrats had agreed to include a robust religious exemption in the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, or ENDA, a bill that would have prohibited sexual orientation discrimination in hiring by employers with at least 15 employees. ENDA's exemption tracked similar provisions in numerous State laws, including Utah's. Notwithstanding requests from religious groups, President Obama refused to include a similar exemption in his Executive order. His refusal means that a religious organization that wishes to compete for Federal funds may be forced to hire individuals who hold views or engage in conduct that contravenes the organization's religious beliefs. This is a direct attack on the ability of such organizations to preserve and promote their religious identity. Earlier this year, the House of Representatives took action to reverse the President's troubling refusal to protect religious employers. Back in May, the House passed the annual National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, to fund the Armed Forces. At the markup on the bill, Representative Steve Russell of Oklahoma offered, and the committee adopted, an amendment to the bill to clarify that religious organizations that contract with or receive grants from the Federal Government do not lose religious liberty. They do not lose religious liberty protections that they enjoy under other laws merely because they choose to work with the Federal Government. These protections, which are found in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act, include the ability to hire ``individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the [organization's] activities'' and to ``require that all applicants and employees conform to the [organization's] religious tenets.'' Such protections enable religious organizations to preserve their religious identity by hiring employees who share the organization's religious beliefs. Now, the Russell amendment affirms that religious organizations and schools enjoy these same protections when they contract with or receive grants from the Federal Government. The amendment embodies the commonsense, longstanding principle that religious organizations should not have to surrender control over their religious mission in order to interact with government. Unfortunately, there has been a lot of misinformation spread about the Russell amendment and what it does and does not do so let me take a moment to clear it up. Some have claimed the amendment would allow contractors to deny service to gays or lesbians or would enable any contractor who so wishes to make hiring decisions on the basis of religious beliefs. It would do no such thing. The amendment is limited only to hiring and employment practices and only to religiously affiliated corporations, associations, educational institutions, or societies, in conformance with the existing protections in the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The amendment clarifies that religious organizations do not lose religious liberty protections merely because they enter into contract with or receive grants from the Federal Government. That is it. We might think that a position reaffirming existing religious liberty protections would not raise eyebrows. Unfortunately, we would be wrong. President Obama swiftly expressed his opposition to the Russell amendment. Not only that, but he threatened to veto the entire NDAA, cutting off funding for the entire Department of Defense rather than allow the amendment to take effect. President Obama would rather shutter our Armed Forces than enable religious employers to select employees who share their particular values. Regrettably, the President has been joined in his opposition by 42 Senate Democrats who recently wrote a letter to the President outlining their ``strong opposition'' to the Russell amendment and asking the President to ``ensure that [the amendment] is removed from the final version of [the NDAA].'' The President and my Democratic colleagues are concerned, it seems, that if religious organizations that contract with the Federal Government are able to select employees who share the organization's religious beliefs, they may make decisions that liberals would disapprove of. For example, a religious family services charity may choose to hire individuals who hold traditional views on marriage and human sexuality. Because the President and my colleagues across the aisle do not share these views, they think religious organizations should be unable to take them into account when seeking employees who will promote the organization's mission. It is difficult to imagine a position more at odds with our heritage of religious freedom. President Obama and Senate Democrats would empower the Federal Government to compel religious organizations to hire individuals who do not share the organization's religious beliefs. They would insert Federal tentacles into fundamental decisions regarding religious mission and identity. They would have the Federal Government declare off-limits traditional views on sexual orientation and gender identity that many Americans hold as a matter of religious conviction. But there is an even more pernicious aspect to the Democrats' position on this issue. Many liberals argue that claims of religious liberty are nothing more than a front for discrimination. They contend--with some force--that religious liberty claimants just don't like gay people or don't like women and use religion as a cover for their deep-seated animus toward disfavored groups. That is, of course, ridiculous. I would challenge anyone who holds this view to actually interact with a religious person. They will find, contrary to their own prejudices, that people of faith are loving, gracious, and polite and, more often than not, go out of their way to help the poor and the downtrodden. Religious believers don't treat others with kindness and charity despite their faith; they do so because of their faith. To my liberal friends, I say: Before you tar religious believers with whatever benighted stereotypes you see portrayed on TV and in the news media, get to know some of them. You will find your assumptions about them are totally wrong. Nevertheless, many liberals claim that religious liberty is a guise for discrimination. There is no reason, they say, for a religious organization or individual to seek an exemption from an otherwise equitable law, other than animus toward those the law is designed to protect. But what, then, are we to make of President Obama's Executive order and the left's reaction to the Russell amendment? President Obama could have included a religious liberty exemption in his order--such exemptions are standard in other laws, and numerous religious groups asked him to include one here--but he chose not to. Senate Democrats could easily have agreed to the Russell amendment, which does nothing more than reaffirm existing protections for religious employers--but they chose not to do so. What reason is there to exclude religious contractors and grant recipients from religious liberty protections that are otherwise generally available? Why single out such contractors and grant recipients for disfavor? It makes you wonder. Do my Democratic colleagues not see that the very argument they make against religious liberty can be turned against them? They are seeking to withdraw from religious contractors and grant recipients rights and protections that would otherwise be available under existing law. They are undermining the ability of believers to navigate between secular and spiritual demands. They are bringing to bear the sword of the State when they could easily stay their hand. It is difficult for me to look at the President's actions and those of my colleagues across the aisle and see anything other than discrimination against people of faith. They could give room for believers--as our Nation has done for centuries--but they choose not to. Rather, they cut and nip at religious liberty until all that remains is a hollow shell. I am left to wonder when the drive for equality became the drive to exclude and to undermine religion because that seems to be where we have arrived. Give a place for us, say people of faith. Allow us to live out our beliefs. We will abide the law, but we ask you to make reasonable accommodations. Surely a simple religious liberty exemption--indeed, one that is already part of our existing laws--would be reasonable. I close with an appeal to my Democratic colleagues. The outcome of the fight over the Russell amendment is not in doubt. Even if President Obama vetoes the NDAA or the Russell amendment is removed during conference, President Obama's Executive order will be withdrawn or else amended by the President-elect to include a religious liberty exemption. The Russell amendment will become law whether it is through congressional action or Executive order. The question for my colleagues across the aisle is whether they will stand up for the rights of religious contractors and grant recipients or whether they will join President Obama's losing battle against religious liberty. Will they protect people of faith or will they prosecute them? President Obama has cast his lot with the prosecution. It is not too late for my Democratic colleagues to choose a different course, and I hope and pray they will. These are not itty-bitty issues. These are issues that go right back to the core values of our country and our beliefs. Religious liberty is not something that can be cast aside. It is not something that should be cast aside. Religious liberty is a fundamental right, and we should not be playing around with it in the Congress. When there is prejudice and there is discrimination, that is another matter, but in virtually every case of religious liberty, I don't find that prejudice or discrimination. Our churches are a vibrant part of America, and we sure as heck ought to stand behind them and make sure religious liberty is always protected. I hope my colleagues will think these things through, I hope the 42 Democrats who voted to remove the Russell amendment will change their minds, and I hope they start to realize that religious freedom is not some itty-bitty thing. It is the thing in many respects that has been part of making America the greatest land in the world and the freest land in the world and the place where liberty includes real liberty. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the attached documentation from the Office of Compliance be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we are currently in the middle of an election year. Like most Americans, I look forward to the end of the political campaign season and the end of the rhetoric, spin, and constant battle to win the latest news cycle. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying this election is meaningless. In fact, there is quite a bit at stake this coming November. And the American people have some clear choices to make. Unfortunately, some of the more complex and consequential policy matters are the ones that most frequently end up in the middle of the political echo chamber, surrounded by hyperbolic rhetoric, empty promises, and overly simplistic answers to some very difficult questions. This includes, among many other areas, tax and health care policy, both of which fall largely under the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee, which I chair. Let me be clear: I understand why both tax and health care policy are fertile grounds for political gamesmanship. When we are talking about the Tax Code or our health care system, we are taking about issues that impact the lives and livelihoods of individuals, families, and businesses throughout our country. As a result, people are particularly sensitive to the notion that one party or candidate might raise their taxes or enact policies that will increase--or decrease--their health care costs. Politicians are usually more than willing to promise that, if elected, they will make sure that the people in category X will ``finally pay their fair share in taxes,'' while simultaneously promising that the intended audience will not see their taxes go up. Similarly, politicians are quite fond of telling people that their policies will bring down their health care costs--or even eliminate them altogether--while promising that the people in category X will be the ones to pay for it. I suppose the factor that most often separates these politicians from one another is whom they include in category X, whom they choose to slap with an unfavorable label so that their audience has no problem raising their taxes or making them foot the cost of an expanded health care system. This type of rhetoric--defining enemies and promising to make them pay--may make for good politics, but it almost never results in favorable conditions for meaningful reforms. That is a big reason why, despite almost universal dissatisfaction with the Tax Code, Members of Congress have for years now been unable to enact meaningful reforms. It is also a major reason why, even though the vast majority of Americans do not believe our current health care system works for them, many politicians refuse to even acknowledge that there is even a problem. Put simply, we need to do better. While I understand the importance of elections to our system, we should not let election-year rhetoric paint us into a corner when it is time to draft and enact policy. Case in point, for years now, the Obama administration has been ramping up its political rhetoric on corporate inversions, fully aware that the American people were rightly concerned about U.S. businesses moving their headquarters offshore. After years of attacking American businesses--and Republican politicians--for a supposed lack of ``economic patriotism,'' they finally had to translate their rhetoric into policy, which resulted in the recently proposed debt-equity regulations that have drawn criticism from observers and businesses throughout our economy and Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle for being too broad and too blind to ways in which businesses legitimately manage their finances. By all means, we should try to prevent inversions and go after earnings stripping, which is a closely related problem. I think most reasonable people want to do that. But the Obama administration's proposed regulations go after many legitimate business transactions-- transactions that are not at all motivated by tax avoidance. Put simply, these regulations will impose substantial burdens on businesses throughout the country and will likely hamper our still fragile economic recovery. Despite the backlash that we have seen to the Treasury Department's proposed regulations under section 385, they show no signs of backing down--and how could they? After years of demonizing American companies and Republicans over inversions, how politically advantageous would it have been to sit down with Members of Congress to craft more narrowly focused, reasonable solutions that would not grab as many headlines? Ultimately, the Obama administration has determined that it is better--politically speaking--to, as the saying goes, go big or go home on its anti-inversion policies and hope that anyone from the opposing party who speaks out against them will be seen as soft on corporate inversions. And, when it comes to tax policy, it appears that the pattern will not be changing if we are faced with another Democratic administration after November. The Democrats' nominee for President has been relatively short on details when she talks about her tax proposals. For the most part, her campaign sticks to the tried and true Democratic tactic of promising everything from tax cuts to ``free'' college tuition, to child care for middle and lower-income workers, while simultaneously claiming that all of it and more can be paid for simply by raising taxes on the rich and closing corporate tax ``loopholes.'' Just last month, a top advisor to the Democratic nominee said that she opposes any reduction of the U.S. corporate tax rate, even though there is a broad consensus among both parties that our corporate tax rate is too high and needs to come down. I suspect that Secretary Clinton's advisors share this belief behind closed doors, as it is, for the most part, conventional wisdom among tax policy experts; yet, as they have in countless other situations, they have made a political calculation that supporting a reduction in corporate tax rates doesn't play well with the Democratic base. Let's set aside the fact that increasing the tax burden on American businesses results in costs that are largely passed along to consumers, including lower and middle income earners. Let's also set aside that their nominee has expressed support for ideas like a carbon tax that would also result in higher costs of living for Americans across the board, particularly on the middle class and lower-income workers. And let's also set aside the fact that she has endorsed taxes on goods like guns and soda, many of which would be predominantly imposed, not on the super wealthy, but the middle class and lower-income earners. If you ignore those statements on her part and focus on her plan, her tax and spending proposals have little basis in reality. Modest increases in the individual tax rates for the highest earners wouldn't cover our current and projected deficits, let alone pay for the massive spending increases she has proposed. Similarly, there aren't enough corporate tax ``loopholes'' that could reasonably be eliminated to cover the costs of her campaign promises. We know this because we have gone through it with the current occupant of the White House. In every major budget dispute and many of the conflicts surrounding the statutory debt limit, President Obama has repeatedly clamored for increased taxes on the so-called rich, often claiming that doing so would solve our budgetary problems. This is, of course, a facade that only serves a political agenda and it has permeated beyond the election season and into discussions that are supposed to be about actually creating policy. As I mentioned earlier, this problem persists outside of the tax space. We also see it in our debate over health care policy. Here is the reality we are living in when it comes to health care: Costs are going up across the board as insurance premiums continue to skyrocket while the implementation of the President's health law continues to be a disaster. Enrollment numbers in the Obamacare exchanges continue to fall well below the projections made by both the administration and the Congressional Budget Office, and the result is a steady decrease in options for patients and consumers and increased burdens on businesses and hardworking taxpayers. Even without the inherent systemic problems causing the downward spiral of the entire Obamacare system, the implementation of the law has been remarkably inept and unaccountable. For example, nearly two-thirds of the Obamacare CO-OPs have failed, costing taxpayers billions of dollars. In addition, the Government Accountability Office repeatedly reports that criminals and fraudsters are likely able to navigate the Obamacare exchanges and even obtain tax subsidies due to the lack of proper safeguards in the system. Despite all of these failures, which highlight both the shortcomings of the law and the innate inability of government to regulate such a vast and complex marketplace, the Democrats still argue that more government is the answer. President Obama has repeatedly refused to acknowledge that the health law isn't working, writing off unfavorable data points as being anecdotal or irrelevant to the bigger picture. The Democrats' nominee for President takes it one step further, doubling down on the Obama administration's position while promising even more government control of the health care system. She has outlined a number of ``reforms'' she would like to add to the ``progress we've made'' under Obamacare. And, each of her proposals amounts to an expanded role for the Federal Government. Most notably, of course, she has resurrected the so-called public option, by promising voters access to a government-run health care plan. She is not alone. An expanded role for the government in health care is what most Democrats openly say that they want. I am not making that up or casting unfounded aspersions. This isn't paranoia on my part. My colleagues have purposefully chosen to make the creation of a government-run health care plan a central tenet of their 2016 campaigns. Just a few weeks ago, the vast majority of the Senate Democratic caucus signed onto a resolution calling for a government-run health insurance option. It is almost as if the last 7 years didn't happen. It is almost as if my colleagues haven't seen the failures of the existing system and the overwhelming evidence of government ineptitude when it comes to health care. In their resolution, my colleagues are telling the American people that expanding the government's role in health care will ``lead to increased competition and reduced premiums,'' and ``ensure that consumers have the affordable choices they deserve,'' even though virtually everything about the Obamacare experience contradicts that conclusion. The inevitable result of the course my colleagues want to follow is a single-payer health care system, even if many of them won't admit that is their long-term goal. I have noted several times that, in a world where the government dictates both the products on the health insurance market and the prices at which they are sold, the eventual result will be a market where the government is the only available provider. From the time Obamacare was drafted, I have argued that Democrats intended to keep expanding the role of the government in the health care sector until they could argue that, after a series of failures, the only option left is a nationalized, single-payer health care system. And my arguments have been called paranoid and inflammatory by pundits and politicians on the other side; yet, looking at this current campaign season, it is not remotely a stretch to say that my colleagues support and eventually intend to impose a health care system run entirely by the government. Whether we are talking about taxes or health care or anything else, the problem with this type of rhetoric and all of these campaign promises isn't that my colleagues are simply wrong on the facts. The problem is that, when the rubber meets the proverbial road, these kinds of promises don't lead to good results for the American people. And, here is why: While some unfortunately seem to live in a perpetual election cycle, once the votes are all counted, we have an obligation to actually govern the country. I know that fact is sometimes lost on a number of people in this town, but it is the cold, honest truth. The purpose of elections is to eventually enact policies that are preferred by the voters. Yet, in every election, candidates and Members of Congress spend months taking unreasonable positions and making outlandish promises because they play well with the voters. But, once the election is over, all of that rhetoric--the promises as well as the attacks--have to be translated into actual policy. And, far too often, that process of translation leads either to gridlock when elected officials refuse to move off of their unreasonable campaign positions or to results that, in the eyes of many voters, appear watered down in comparison to the promises they heard in the middle of campaign. Is it any wonder, then, that the American people are, by and large, growing more distrustful of the government? Is it any wonder why the vast majority of Americans across the ideological spectrum have a negative view of Congress? As chairman of the Finance Committee, I am well aware that I am going to be tasked with translating election-year rhetoric into workable policies. I am also aware that the policies that fall within the Finance Committee's jurisdiction are often those where we hear some the most contentious rhetoric and unrealistic promises during each and every election cycle, which makes the job of crafting policy that much harder. Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt my own ability to reach policy solutions that can satisfy members of both parties, and, as chairman and previously as ranking member, I have worked very hard to do so. And, prior to that time, I had a great deal of success working through difficult policy matters with members in both parties to find the right answers to complex problems. I believe strongly that we can be successful in coming up with tax policies, health care policies, or any other policies that serve the best interests of the American people. I simply do not believe that election-year rhetoric and hyperbolic campaign promises are the right starting points for these efforts. Allow me to boil it down a little further and get more specific. I believe wholeheartedly that we can reform our broken Tax Code on a bipartisan basis, I just don't think we can do it by starting with the notion that tax reform should be about raising revenue for increased spending and punishing disfavored income groups, unpopular industries, or savvy investors. I also believe we can find a bipartisan way to fix our ailing health care system. But I simply don't believe that it can be done if we are focusing on expanding government in order to keep campaign promises to create a government-run health plan. I look forward to tackling these issues with my colleagues and to reaching across the aisle to find the right answers. In my view, that will be much easier to accomplish if my friends on the other side of the aisle will eventually be willing to set aside the rhetoric they have employed during the campaign to appease their base. I am willing to work with anyone to address these and other issues. We're just going to have to find a way to cut to through the politics and partisanship that all too often slows us down.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, 25 years ago next month, the Senate confirmed, and President George H.W. Bush appointed, Clarence Thomas to be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. To paraphrase John F. Kennedy, I would like to note both what this country has done for Justice Thomas and what Justice Thomas is doing for this country. President Bush made the announcement of then-Judge Thomas's Supreme Court nomination on July 1, 1991, at the Bush home in Maine. In his brief remarks, Judge Thomas said: ``Only in America could this have been possible.'' He was right. It would be difficult to find a more powerful story about how far someone can go in this country. Clarence Thomas was born on June 23, 1948, in a small wood-frame house in the rural town of Pin Point, GA. Six people lived in that house, which had no indoor plumbing. Life in the world of Clarence's youth was fully segregated. In 1955, the year after the Supreme Court ruled segregated education unconstitutional, he and his brother moved in with his maternal grandparents, Myers and Christine Anderson. Myers Anderson lacked the outward material signs of success that many prize so highly today. He grew up poor, without a father, and had only a third grade education. Yet it was what he had, rather than what he lacked, that would make him the most profound influence on his grandson, Clarence Thomas. Mr. Anderson's strength of character, his principles and values, and his example shaped the man whose memoir would later be titled, ``My Grandfather's Son.'' Clarence's grandparents were honest, hardworking, and deeply religious people. They taught decency and respect for others, insisting that Clarence never refuse to do an errand for a neighbor. Mr. Anderson wanted his grandson to be self-sufficient, able to stand on his own two feet even in a hostile world where the odds seemed heavily stacked against him. The other powerful influences for young Clarence were the nuns who taught him at St. Benedict's Grammar School. There, and at St. Benedict's Catholic Church, Clarence learned that all people are inherently equal, no matter what the law or society might say at a particular time. Clarence graduated from high school in 1967, the only Black student in his class, and was the first person in his family to attend college. After graduating from Yale Law School, Clarence went to work for Missouri attorney general John Danforth--known as Jack Danforth by us-- arguing his first case before the Missouri Supreme Court just 3 days after having been sworn in as a member of the Missouri Bar. He came to Washington in 1979 to join then-Senator Danforth as a legislative assistant. Clarence Thomas was confirmed by the Senate for the first of five times in 1981 as Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights. I think I was the chairman at that time. He would become the longest serving chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 1982, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in 1990, and a Supreme Court Justice in 1991 at the age of 43. America gave him opportunities that do not exist anywhere else in the world. Since this anniversary is about Justice Thomas's service on the Supreme Court, let me turn from what America has done for him to what he is doing for America. I have known Clarence for 35 years and chaired or served on the committees that oversaw each of his appointments. His impact on our Nation comes from his own strength of character fueling his deep conviction about the principles of liberty and other great principles as well. I have already touched on some of the building blocks of Clarence's character, including his grandfather's example of standing firm in his beliefs. In one interview, Clarence said that his professional career is a vindication of the way he was raised. He described that upbringing in this way in a 1986 article: But my training by the nuns and my grandparents paid off. I decided then . . . that it was better to be respected than liked. At the time of Clarence's Supreme Court nomination, reporters noted that he defied categorization and refused to uncritically accept orthodoxy of any stripe. Even liberal columnists acknowledged the nominee's intellectual independence was great. This strength of character has not changed and makes it possible for Justice Thomas to advance his deep conviction about the principles of liberty. The first principle is the inherent equality of every human being. As the Declaration of Independence states, government exists to secure the inalienable rights of individuals. Justice Thomas has called the Constitution ``a logical extension of [the Declaration's] principles.'' The second principle of liberty that defines Justice Thomas's service is the necessity of limits on government, including judges. In 1988, while Chairman of the EEOC, he made an important presentation at the Federalist Society's annual symposium. The related principles of equality and God-given inalienable rights, he said, are ``the best defense of limited government, of the separation of powers, and of the judicial restraint that flows from the commitment to limited government.'' Justice Thomas has said many times that he resists a single label or category for his judicial philosophy or his understanding of the power and role of judges in our system of government. In that 1988 speech, however, he said that liberty and limited government are the foundation for what he called ``a judiciary active in defending the Constitution, but judicious in its restraint and moderation.'' This judiciary, he explained, ``is the only alternative to the willfulness of both run- amok majorities and run-amok judges.'' To put it simply, Justice Thomas draws a direct connection between equality and God-given inalienable rights, limited government, and liberty itself. This means that each branch of government, including the judiciary, should be active but only within its proper bounds. A judiciary consistent with liberty will be active in properly interpreting and applying the Constitution and will be restrained in declining to exercise power to manipulate or change the law. In 1990, after being appointed to the U.S. court of appeals, Clarence had lunch with a friend and reflected on his new judicial role. He said: Every time I put on the robe, I have to remember that I am only a judge. The only reason that sounds unusual today is that we live in an era of run-amok judges engaging in what the late Justice Antonin Scalia called power-judging. Justice Thomas's statement would not, however, have sounded strange to America's Founders. Alexander Hamilton, after all, wrote that because the judiciary may exercise judgment but may not exercise will, it is the weakest and least dangerous branch. In 2008, two legal scholars wrote about Justice Thomas in the Wall Street Journal. They quoted him describing his basic yet profound judicial philosophy this way: ``It's not my Constitution to play around with,'' he said. ``I just think that we should interpret the Constitution as it's drafted, not as we would have drafted it.'' A properly active judiciary will interpret the Constitution as it is already drafted, and a properly restrained judiciary will refuse to interpret the Constitution the way judges would have drafted it. That is what judges are supposed to do in our system of government. They are supposed to interpret the Constitution as it was drafted. Judges must take the law as they find it and apply it impartially to decide cases. That is their job, their part of the system of government that supports liberty and freedom. This is the kind of Justice that we knew Clarence Thomas would be: A Justice who knows both the purpose and the limits of the power the Constitution gives him. This is also the reason that many fought so hard against his appointment and continue to criticize his service. The debate over Justice Thomas's Supreme Court nomination was a debate over what kind of Justice should be appointed in America. His opponents and critics want Justices who will interpret the Constitution as those particular Justices would have drafted it. In other words, they want a judiciary that is inconsistent with liberty, a judiciary that will control the law rather than be controlled by the law. They are concerned more about power than about liberty. Thankfully, Justice Thomas is the kind of Justice that our liberty requires, and defending liberty is what he is doing for America and for each one of us. We have all passed by the National Archives building, which sits on Constitution Avenue just a few blocks from here. One of the statues in front bears the inscription, ``Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.'' Justice Thomas is paying that price of vigilance. A Justice's clerks, in a unique and special way, become a family. Justice Thomas's clerks have become partners in America's best law firms and professors at her finest law schools, carrying with them the principles and lessons he taught about how to protect liberty. As I did 5 years ago when celebrating Justice Thomas's 20th anniversary, I asked some of his former clerks to send letters about the Justice. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record following my remarks. The principles of liberty established by America's Founders are the same principles to which Clarence Thomas is deeply committed. But it is when those principles are fueled by personal character, integrity, and brilliance that they become a powerful force that defines a nation and helps chart its future. On July 1, 1991, when President Bush announced that he was nominating Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court, Clarence said that his grandparents, his mother, and the nuns who taught him ``were adamant that I grow up and make something of myself.'' To my friend Clarence, I have to say that not only did you exceed all of those expectations, but your service, character, and example are helping to make something good out of the rest of us. Also, on a more personal note, the unexpected death of Justice Scalia has been a profound loss in many ways, including for his friend and colleague Clarence Thomas. On several different levels--personally, philosophically, even spiritually--they were close--fellow travelers, if you will. Justice Scalia's death is a great personal loss, but it also created a void that I am confident Justice Thomas is already filling in continuing to stand for the principles they mutually shared. A few months ago, Justice Thomas was the commencement speaker at Hillsdale College in Michigan. He cautioned that today there is more emphasis on our rights and what we are owed than on our obligations and what we can give. He asked this question: ``If we are not making deposits to replenish our liberties, then who is?'' By his character and convictions, Clarence Thomas continues to make those deposits and maintain the vigilance necessary to replenish and protect our liberty. America gave him much, and he is returning even more. As a personal friend of most of the Justices, but especially Clarence Thomas, he has far exceeded what many of us thought he would be able to do on the Court. I thought that he would be great and that he would do a great job as a Justice on the Supreme Court, but he has gone even beyond my expectations. He is a great Justice. He is a person of great quality, of great character, and great spirit. You cannot be around him very long without laughing and enjoying life. You can't be around him very long without knowing that this is one heck of a unique individual--somebody who really deserves to be on the Supreme Court, who has made a process of being a great Justice. I am proud of him. I am proud of what he has been able to do. I am proud of what he has become. I am proud of the growth that he continually makes in life. I have always been proud of Clarence Thomas, Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate an event that both represents and helps preserve what is best about this great country. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to finish these remarks.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, pursuant to section 409 of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act, or PROMESA, P.L. 114-187, the bipartisan Congressional Task Force on Economic Growth in Puerto Rico has been charged with compiling a report by December 31, 2016, that identifies impediments to growth and recommends changes to promote long-term economic growth and stability, spur new job creation, reduce child poverty, and attract investment in the territory. The statute also requires submission of an interim report on the status of the task force's efforts to the House and Senate. As chairman of the task force and after having submitted this report to leadership of both parties in the Senate and the House, I ask unanimous consent that the report be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today the U.S. International Trade Commission, or the USITC, is celebrating its 100th anniversary. That makes today an appropriate day for us to acknowledge the distinguished service that this independent and nonpartisan Federal agency has provided, and continues to provide, in the field of international trade.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, of course, the core of the USITC's success derives from the agency's people. For decades now, the impressive and skilled commissioners and staff at the USITC have driven the agency's success. We congratulate the USITC for reaching this centennial milestone and for accomplishing a well-deserved tenure of valuable and professional service.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to speak once again on the failures of the so-called Affordable Care Act and what they mean for hard- working families and taxpayers. This is far from the first time I have come to the floor to talk about ObamaCare. Indeed, over the past several years, I don't think I have spoken as often about any other topic, and I am not alone. Since the time the Democrats forced the Affordable Care Act through Congress on a series of pure party-line votes, my Republican colleagues and I have been speaking about the poor judgment and shortsightedness that has unfortunately defined the trajectory of this law from its drafting to its passage and now well into its implementation. Quite frankly, we have had plenty of ammunition. It seems like we are treated to at least one new ObamaCare horror story every week. My friends on the other side of the aisle have done their best to downplay our criticisms and minimize every negative story written about the problems with ObamaCare. In fact, just this morning the Senate minority leader came to the floor and pronounced the Affordable Care Act a success, but the American people have long recognized the truth: ObamaCare isn't working and it never will. This isn't a matter of opinion. This is not just political rhetoric in an election year. By its own standards--and the standards of those who drafted, passed, and implemented the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare has been a historic failure. Case in point, the American people were promised that ObamaCare would bring down health costs, but in reality costs are continuing to go up. Over this summer, as we moved ever closer to the next open enrollment period for the ObamaCare insurance exchanges, we have learned that insurers throughout the country have submitted requests to raise premiums by an average of 18 to 23 percent over last year's premiums. For some plans, the requested rate hikes are significantly higher than that average, coming in at more than 60 percent according to some recent reports. Consider the following expected rate increases. In California, policyholders can expect a 13-percent average increase in premiums, which more than triples the increases seen in the past 2 years. In Florida, they can expect a rate increase over 19 percent on average over this year. In Nebraska, they can expect an average increase of 35 percent, with some rates increasing by nearly 50 percent. In Wisconsin, rates are expected to increase on average by as much as 30 percent. These numbers are more staggering when you consider that when the law was passed, the Congressional Budget Office projected rate increases of only 8 percent at this point. By some estimates, premiums for silver plans--the standard metric-- are expected to increase 11 percent, more than they have at any point since ObamaCare was implemented. While some of my colleagues have claimed that the evidence of massive premium increases is mostly anecdotal and that tax credits help blunt the overall cost increase, they simply cannot ignore the facts. Premiums in the ObamaCare insurance exchanges are going up in markets throughout the country, and according to CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, 12 million individuals are estimated to have to pay the full price next year because they either are not eligible for credits or they would choose to purchase coverage outside the ObamaCare exchanges. What is more, the middle class is increasingly bearing the brunt of these increased costs. As the Wall Street Journal recently reported, middle-class families are spending 25 percent more on health care costs, which reduces their spending on other necessities. David Cutler, the health care economist from Harvard, is quoted in the article as saying, when it comes to health care, it is `` `a story of three Americas.' One group, the rich, can afford health care easily. The poor can access public assistance. But for lower middle to middle-income Americans, `the income struggles and the health-care struggles together are a really potent issue.' '' Our focus should no longer be on the question of whether premiums are going up. We should instead be trying to figure out why it is happening. In the end, there are a lot of reasons why Americans are paying more for health insurance under a new system that was supposed to help them pay less, but the overall explanation is actually pretty simple: The President's health care law was poorly designed, and they know it. Recall when my friends were drafting and passing the Affordable Care Act, they claimed that the system they were putting in place--complete with higher taxes, burdensome mandates, and draconian regulations-- would entice more people into the health insurance market. With the larger pool of insured individuals, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle argued that insurers would be able to keep pace with all the new requirements imposed under the law without passing costs on to patients. We now know that these projections were, to put it nicely, foolhardy. From the outset, enrollment in the ObamaCare exchanges has lagged behind the rosy projections we saw when the law was passed. As time has worn on, more and more people have opted to pay the fines rather than purchase health care on the exchanges. In February 2013, CBO projected that more than 24 million people would be enrolled in the exchanges. As of this past March, the actual number was less than half of that number. My colleagues, in their desperate attempts to defend the health care law, tend to focus solely on the number of uninsured people in the United States--a number that has, admittedly, gone down in recent years. However, what they tend to leave out is the fact that the vast majority of newly insured people under the law haven't purchased insurance through the exchanges. They have enrolled in Medicaid, a fiscally unsound program that provides less than optimal coverage options for patients. In fact, there are over 30 million people without insurance, which was the reason we enacted the law--or at least that was the argument. Today there are at least 30 million people without insurance. The Washington Post recently ran an article on the enrollment shortfalls in the exchanges, plainly spelling out the issues. They said: Debate over how perilous the predicament is for the Affordable Care Act, commonly called ObamaCare, is nearly as partisan as the divide over the law itself. But at the root of the problem is this: The success of the law depends fundamentally on the exchanges being profitable for insurers, and that requires more people to sign up. Long story short, people are not signing up on the exchanges in the numbers that were promised. As a result, health insurance plans have been forced to adhere to the law's burdensome mandates and regulations without the benefit of an expanded and healthier risk pool. So as we have seen in recent months, plans in many of the exchanges have reported massive losses, leading a number of major insurers in important markets throughout the country to terminate their plans altogether. The result: patients and consumers are being left with fewer and fewer options. According to a recent study by the Kaiser Family Foundation, nearly one out of every three counties in the United States is likely to have only one health insurance option available on the exchanges in 2017. Another third of U.S. counties will only have two options available. Thus, what had been approximately 35 percent of the counties with two or less options on the exchanges is likely to double to around 67 percent. Furthermore, more than 2 million individuals are expected to have to change plans for 2017 as a result of insurers leaving States, which is nearly double compared to those who had switched carriers at the end of last year. You don't need a Ph.D. in economics to know that, generally speaking, fewer options means higher costs for consumers and lower quality products being offered. That is exactly what the American people are dealing with when it comes to health insurance. This includes people from my home State of Utah. For example, one of my constituents, Mr. Chris Secrist, wrote to me. He said: Since the new health care law was forced on us my premiums along with my deductibles have skyrocketed. With my premium, deductible, and ``out of pocket'' expense . . . my total out of pocket expense for insurance now tops $20,000 per year . . . can anyone . . . explain how this can be considered ``affordable health care''? Over the August recess, I met with the Utah board of directors of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, and there I heard from many Utahns about the skyrocketing cost of care over the past 3 years. These constituents repeatedly emphasized that they had initially hoped ObamaCare would help them, but in their experience, it had only made things worse and much more expensive. The downward spiral of ObamaCare is a circle that cannot be broken without some kind of intervention. While there are a number of ideas out there to address these problems, there are really only two major paths we can take. We can enact reforms that are patient-centered and market-driven or we can expand the role of government in regulating, mandating and, in the end, paying for more and more of our health care system. Republicans in Congress, myself included, have proposed plans that would take us down the first path toward more patient-centered reforms. My friends on the other side, when they are not doubling down on the status quo under ObamaCare, are advocating for even more government involvement. Case in point, the Democrat's nominee for President has outlined a number of ``reforms'' she would like to add to the ``progress we've made'' under ObamaCare. Each of her proposals amounts to an expanded role for the Federal Government, including the renewed idea of the so-called ``public option'' or a government-run plan. In other words, in this election season, the Democrats' answer to the failure of ObamaCare is more government control of our health care system. It is funny, beginning in 2009, when the health care law was being finalized, I argued that Democrats intended to keep expanding the role of the Federal Government in health care to the point where they could argue that the only workable option after a series of failures would be to create a single-payer health care system; in other words, socialized medicine. Some pundits and even my colleagues declared that I was paranoid, that I was trying to scare people into opposing ObamaCare. Yet 7 years later, those claims look relatively prescient, if I do say so myself. Faced with the failure of ObamaCare to live up to its many promises, my colleagues are not arguing for a change in direction. Instead, they are clamoring for more authority to dictate the terms of what had been a private health care marketplace before. In a world where the government dictates both the products on the market and the prices at which they are sold, the eventual result is a marketplace in which the government is the only available provider. In other words, while many of my friends on the other side will deny they want to create a single- payer or socialized medicine health care system in the United States, that is the direction they have us headed. Fortunately, the march toward a single-payer system is not a fait accompli. We can take action to right this ship now. We can control costs. We can take government out of the equation and give patients and consumers more choices. Of course, to get there, more of my colleagues on the other side will have to acknowledge the failures of the current approach and agree on the need to plot a new course. Perhaps once the upcoming election is over, we can begin to make progress on these issues. It is my hope that with the current administration in the rearview mirror, people will be more willing to acknowledge the failures of the ObamaCare status quo. I recognize that the coming election may embolden those who support even more rigorous government involvement in the health care sector to try to take us further down the path of a single-payer system. If that is the case, we are looking at an even more contentious environment than the one we are in now. Don't get me wrong. I want to see more bipartisanship around here. I want us to find more opportunities to work together and get past the blind partisanship that currently fuels so much of what we do here and that caused 100 percent of the Democrats and not one Republican in either House to support ObamaCare. But make no mistake, if the next administration or the next Congress tries to take us further down that path, they are going to have a heck of a fight on their hands. It is a fight that I personally am prepared to win so that we can eventually have a health care system that works for everyone. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the total outstanding Federal debt has risen by more than $8.7 trillion during President Obama's tenure, to almost $19.4 trillion today. That is the highest level of Federal debt in U.S. history and, relative to the size of the economy, is at a level not seen since the years surrounding World War II. Such debt levels pose significant risks to financial stability and the economy, as the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has repeatedly made clear for many years now. Unfortunately, President Obama's failure to address the debt leaves those risks in place and leaves a legacy of burden on future generations, who will be saddled with almost twice as much Federal debt today than when the President took office. According to CBO projections, Federal deficits and debt are on an upward trajectory. As we all know, the main drivers of our debt are entitlement programs that are, at this point, essentially on autopilot. As the Nation confronts its astronomical debt, it is imperative that those charged with managing the debt do so with transparency and accountability. I am sure that all of my colleagues agree that, if we are going to saddle future workers with outsized debt, then, at the very least, Congress and the American people are entitled to know how debt management decisions are made. That, of course, requires the cooperation of the U.S. Treasury Department, as well as its fiscal agents at the Federal Reserve. As our debt has exploded, the Federal Reserve has simultaneously ballooned its balance sheet, in part by increasing its holdings of U.S. debt securities by nearly $2 trillion since President Obama took office. Like it or not, what the Fed does with its debt purchases and holdings carries many implications for the Treasury debt market. At the same time, both Treasury and the Fed have been unacceptably opaque regarding federal debt management practices, cash management, and contingency planning. This has been a pattern that has repeated itself over and over under the Obama administration. When we have approached the Federal debt limit, the Obama Treasury has repeatedly withheld vital information. When the U.S. sovereign credit rating was downgraded for the very first time in 2011, Treasury, the Fed, and other financial regulators withheld vital information. When members of Congress have asked Treasury, the Fed, and other agencies for contingency plans for dealing with any kind of default resulting from any number of causes, they have withheld vital information. When members of Congress have simply needed to know the amount of the Federal Government's operating cash balance--which is managed by Treasury--the Obama administration has withheld that vital information. For years now, since at least 2011, I have, as either the Chairman or Ranking Member of the Senate committee with oversight jurisdiction over the management of our debt, repeatedly requested basic information about our Nation's finances and, at almost every turn, have been stonewalled. Often, the stonewalling has come with the excuse that the information I have been seeking is ``market sensitive,'' an ironic designation given that much of the information I and others have been seeking has been shared with large financial institutions--actual participants in the markets. Let me get a little more specific. Beginning almost exactly five years ago--in July of 2011--I began asking the administration for information regarding contingency plans formulated by Treasury, the Fed, and other agencies that would outline what they would do in the event of delayed payments, a default, or a credit-rating downgrade. I made my initial request in the weeks surrounding the debate over the debt limit in 2011 when there was clear evidence that various agencies had formulated these kind of contingency plans. In addition, I asked questions about how much cash was in the till at Treasury, and how much they were projecting would be available in future days and weeks. Rather than giving a full and fair accounting to Congress and the American people, the administration withheld this vital information and, instead, opted to engage in a political battle over the statutory debt limit, apparently believing that their position in that debate would be strengthened if lawmakers and their constituents were unaware of the fiscal state of the country or what plans were in place. Before anyone jumps to the conclusion that my inquiries were politically motivated and that I was trying to strengthen the hand of congressional Republicans in debt-limit debates, let me be clear: my requests for contingency plans were not and have not been limited to debt limit impasses. Instead, I have sought to find out what Treasury and others would do if timely payments could not be made for any reason. Delayed payments could occur under a variety of circumstances, not only in the event of a debt-limit impasse. A cyberattack, a terrorist attack, a prolonged power outage in financial centers, or a natural disaster could all result in delayed payments. While any such event would surely be catastrophic, they are all within the realm of possibility. Quite frankly, it would be imprudent risk management and, really, fiscal malpractice to not plan for those types of contingencies. Indeed, we know that agencies in the Federal Government have made such plans, in consultation with representatives of large financial institutions--or, as my friends on the other side would say: Wall Street. We know they have developed these plans because investigations and subpoenas issued by the House Financial Services Committee have made clear that Treasury, the Fed, and Wall Street are routinely engaged in contingency planning and have been doing so for the entire time I have been submitting my inquiries. Frankly, if no contingency plans existed, the American people would have ample cause to be concerned--if not completely outraged--at the recklessness of our debt managers. Given that we know these plans exist, however, they should be similarly outraged and concerned with the fact that the administration refuses to share any relevant information about the plans. Rather than reveal pertinent information to Congress and the American people, Treasury and the Fed have continually insisted on keeping the plans secret, usually refusing to acknowledge they even exist. I have received the same basic response to all of my inquiries. To paraphrase, I have been told that we should never default on our debt because of the debt limit and that Congress has an obligation to make sure the debt-limit is always raised, without discussion, in order to prevent such a default. However, once again, delayed payments could result in a variety of scenarios, and a debt-limit impasse is just one of them. The reason for this lack of transparency is simple: Leaders in the Obama administration clearly believe that their political position in a debate over a debt-limit increase will be stronger if the American public believes that they don't have any plans for dealing with delayed payments or a default. This secrecy with regard to such a serious matter of public interest is simply absurd, bordering on embarrassing, and the American people deserve better. Enough is enough. Yesterday, I sent letters to the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve, once again asking for more information about how the country's debt and cash-balance information is being handled. In addition, I introduced a bill titled The Debt Management and Fiscal Responsibility Act. This is a nonpartisan bill, and I welcome members from both sides of the aisle to sign on as cosponsors. The aim of the bill is simple: to provide greater accountability on the nation's debt, contingency planning for debt disruptions, and a more certain debt limit process. Specifically, the bill takes the existing, opaque, and chaotic process followed by Treasury and others as they manage the Federal debt, and replaces it with a transparent, consistent, and constructive process. It requires greater information sharing between federal regulators and Congress with regard to the debt, along with more administrative accountability for debt management practices. In addition, the legislation provides a more orderly and informed process for dealing with periods during which our debt approaches the statutory limit. The bill also establishes a requirement that the Treasury Secretary report to and appear before Congress whenever a statutory debt limit is impending, to work and communicate with Congress in order to responsibly address the debt, and to make Treasury's information on the debt readily available to the public in a single online repository. If enacted, this legislation will bring Treasury, Congress, and the American people together on equal informational footing to ensure that Federal debt and fiscal management occurs in the open, where everyone shares the same information. After all, if, as we have repeatedly been told by Secretary Lew, Treasury has ``the best information'' when it comes to the state of our debt, then policymakers outside the Executive Branch, as well as the American people, should have access to that same information. Once again, our current debt of nearly $19.4 trillion is outsized in absolute terms and relative to the size of our economy. It is a threat to our government, our financial system, and our economy. I don't know anyone without a political ax to grind who believes differently. We cannot continue to roll the dice with the future of our children and grandchildren. One of the first steps we can take toward fiscal sustainability is greater transparency and accountability from those in the Federal Government that we have assigned to be agents of the American people for management of our fiscal affairs. The Debt Management and Fiscal Responsibility Act enables that accountability and transparency, and will help put an end to the politicization of debt management and to the ongoing practice of selective disclosure of vital debt information. Put simply, it will give Congress and the American people a clear- eyed account of the debt so that we can focus on returning public finances to a more solid long-term path. I hope all of my colleagues will support this important legislation.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to a remarkable public servant, humanitarian, neighbor, and friend: Gerald R. Sherratt. Jerry was the former mayor of Cedar City and the 13th president of Southern Utah University. He passed away last week, leaving behind an unparalleled legacy that will forever bless his hometown and the great State of Utah. A man of abundant energy and unwavering enthusiasm, Jerry transformed the town of Cedar City. The fruits of his service can be found throughout the city, including the tremendous growth of Southern Utah University, the building of a new airport terminal, the success of the Utah Shakespeare Festival, the founding of the Utah Summer Games, the inception of the Livestock and Heritage Festival, the organization of the Storybook Cavalcade Parade, and the establishment of the American Children's Festival. These and so many other achievements owe their success to the leadership of Mayor Sherratt. He was truly Cedar City's most enthusiastic cheerleader and one of Southern Utah University's most cherished presidents. Jerry served as the mayor of Cedar City for two terms, implementing groundbreaking initiatives and infusing a new energy into the city. In recognition of the world-famous Utah Shakespeare Festival, he coined the term Festival City USA to attract visitors to the city. The tourists came in droves. Over the course of his public service, Jerry oversaw the fast growth of Cedar City's neighborhoods and helped lead efforts to improve the city's transportation infrastructure at a time of increased demand. With his trademark smile and charismatic personality, he quickly became a beloved public servant who would give his all to the good of the city and its citizens. Jerry's academic career stands on its own. He was a graduate of Branch Agricultural College, which later became Southern Utah University. He received a bachelor's degree in elementary education and a master's degree in educational administration before serving in his first leadership position at Utah State University. He would later return to his first alma mater to serve as Southern Utah University's president from 1982 to 1997. While at the helm, SUU saw the largest increase in student population and facilities in its history, setting the pace for many years to come. Perhaps one of Jerry's proudest moments came when he successfully lobbied to turn Southern Utah State College into Southern Utah University. The crowning jewel of Jerry's tenure was the building of the Centrum--a basketball arena and special events center on campus. Jerry's contributions to the university were memorialized with the naming of Southern Utah University's Gerald R. Sherratt Library. Today the library stands as a constant reminder of Jerry's selfless service to the university. In the library's main entryway, there is a bust of President Sherratt. As students walk in, they pay tribute to the former president by rubbing the bald head of the statue for good luck. Jerry was delighted by this gesture. He was a good-natured man who saw the humor in having his bald head rubbed by hundreds of students as they entered the library to study each day. In addition to being a fun- loving and jovial president, Jerry was also a strong leader who was willing to roll up his sleeves and get in the trenches year after year to help his community. Jerry loved Cedar City. He once expressed his deep emotional attachment to his community in a simple yet profound way: ``These roots, they grab hold.'' Our State was well served by the deep roots and leadership of this remarkable man. I will deeply miss my good friend Jerry Sherratt and the kindness and support he always extended to me throughout my service. He made an indelible impression on me and on all those who were blessed to know him. Jerry personified everything that is good about our State and its people.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to talk about a resolution that I am submitting today regarding the importance of the trade and investment relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom. I also would like to discuss our Nation's international trade policy more broadly, including our interest in negotiating and entering into trade agreements that satisfy the high standards that the Congress outlined in the Trade Promotion Authority, or TPA, statute we enacted last year. Last month, the U.K. voted to withdraw from the European Union. The formal withdrawal process is at its beginning stages, and the U.K. and the EU have many issues to resolve as they work out their future political and economic relationship. I am optimistic that these issues will be resolved constructively, and that the U.K. and the EU will achieve a trade and investment climate that is mutually beneficial and productive and that supports the continuation of the United States' close diplomatic, economic, and commercial ties with both the U.K. and the EU. Throughout this process, the U.S. must continue to show strong support for the important and longstanding relationship that our country enjoys with the U.K. That relationship is rooted in democratic principles, a similar culture and a common language, a strong commitment to peace and security, and close and open economic and commercial ties. The U.S. and the U.K. have a long tradition of working together to support one another's mutual interests, and the U.K.'s decision to withdraw from the EU should not jeopardize that tradition. In fact, the special relationship between our two countries must be fortified as the U.K. navigates the process of withdrawing from the EU. It is in that spirit that I propose this resolution, which highlights the importance of the political, economic, and commercial relationship between the U.S. and the U.K., and calls upon the administration to consult with the Congress to examine ways to promote further economic and commercial activity and cooperation between our two countries, including through the negotiation of a high-standard trade agreement at the appropriate time. The U.K. is the world's fifth largest economy and one of the United States' most important economic partners. Expanding U.S. trade with the U.K. would result in major benefits to both American and British businesses, workers, producers, and consumers. Furthermore, a strengthened economic partnership between the U.S. and the U.K. would produce important geopolitical benefits that are in our national interest. As such, the resolution calls upon the President to consult with the Congress regarding opportunities to further economic and commercial activity and cooperation between the U.S. and the U.K., including considering a trade agreement between our two countries. However--and let me emphasize this point--as with any trade agreement negotiated by this administration or the next, any future trade agreement between the U.S. and the U.K. must adhere to the high standards outlined in the recently enacted TPA law, which established very specific objectives regarding the negotiation of trade agreements. Any future trade agreement with the U.K. needs to satisfy those objectives in order to qualify for TPA procedures. Now that I have spoken about the importance of the trade and investment relationship between the U.S. and the U.K., I would like to speak about the importance of the trade and investment relationship between the United States and the European Union. While this resolution proposes stronger economic and commercial ties with the U.K., it does the same for the EU. To be clear, the U.K.'s decision to withdraw from the EU should not jeopardize or weaken our country's relationship with the U.K., nor should it jeopardize or weaken our country's relationship with the EU. Both the U.K. and the EU are important diplomatic and economic partners of the United States. As such, the resolution proposes stronger economic and commercial ties between the U.S. and the EU, including through the conclusion of a high-standard Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, T-TIP, agreement. Coincidentally, our trade negotiators are in Europe this week for the 14th round of T-TIP negotiations. I would like to take a few moments to discuss Congress's expectations for T-TIP and to highlight areas of particular concern. T-TIP presents an excellent opportunity for both the U.S. and the EU--the world's two largest economies--to strengthen our already robust economic relationship. That relationship is one of the most extensive and complex in the world. Together, our economies account for approximately half of world GDP and nearly one third of worldwide trade. Annual U.S.-EU trade amounts to hundreds of billions of dollars, and our two markets already are deeply integrated and relatively open. Nonetheless, opportunities exist for the U.S. and the EU to expand trade and investment by further reducing barriers and modernizing the rules that govern such trade and investment. But in order for T-TIP or any similar trade agreement to reach its full potential, it must reflect an unprecedented level of commitment--by both the EU and the Obama administration. T-TIP also presents an excellent opportunity for the U.S. and the EU to work together to help set high standards for the world. If the agreement does not meet a high standard, then the rest of the world will take notice. In order to qualify as a high-standard agreement, T- TIP--just like any potential trade agreement between the U.S. and the U.K.--must satisfy the standards outlined in the TPA statute. If the agreement does not satisfy those standards, then it will face enormous difficulty in the Congress. To do this, T-TIP must address several difficult areas. I will highlight only a few such areas and issues today, while noting that many others exist. First, the agreement must have provisions that provide strong market access for agricultural products, including through the elimination of discriminatory geographical indication practices and unjustified sanitary and phytosanitary standards. Second, the agreement must be comprehensive and not exclude any products or economic sectors from the negotiations. Of particular concern are services. The agreement should not broadly exempt future services or specifically exempt other types of services, including audiovisual services or financial services. In particular, both the market access and the regulatory scope of the agreement should address financial services. Third, a valid and passable T-TIP agreement must reflect the highest standards of protection for intellectual property rights. Moreover, any outcome on intellectual property must not jeopardize our country's ability to achieve high levels of intellectual property protection in other markets or in other negotiations. Finally, T-TIP must address barriers to digital trade, including discriminatory treatment of digital products and barriers that inhibit the free flow of digital data, such as forced data localization policies. In short, the agreement must ensure that all products, services, and technologies are given the chance to compete in the marketplace. T-TIP is intended to be a model for the world, so we must get it right. The resolution that I'm introducing today notes the importance of economic cooperation among the U.S., the U.K., and the EU, and highlights the mutual benefits to be achieved through such cooperation. In particular, the resolution calls upon the EU and the U.K. to work constructively to achieve a climate for trade and investment that is mutually beneficial and productive; and it notes that the continued movement of goods, services, and capital between the U.K. and the EU is important not only to the U.K. and the EU, but also to American businesses invested in Europe and the U.S. economy generally. The U.S., the U.K., and the EU will all benefit as our countries work together to become economically stronger and more geopolitically secure. Finally, I would like to say a few words regarding the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, agreement. I fought hard to secure TPA, in large part, so that this administration would have the ability to secure a strong TPP agreement. However, in a few important areas, TPP falls short. I am committed to working with the administration to help to improve on those shortcomings. In the meantime, it is essential that the administration begin to work with our TPP partners to develop meaningful country-specific implementation commitments. During a hearing held by the Senate Finance Committee earlier this year, members of the Committee heard assessments from American exporters and stakeholders about the implementation of past free trade agreements. It is an unfortunate fact that the Obama administration has allowed free trade agreements to enter into force before ensuring that our partners have taken all steps necessary to comply with their obligations under the agreements. It is clear that more confidence regarding effective implementation of trade agreements will be necessary before the Congress approves TPP. Moreover, as our TPP partners begin their domestic implementation processes, concerns are growing that the measures that our trading partners intend to take to implement TPP fall short of what is required by the agreement. Failure by our trading partners to fully and faithfully implement their TPP obligations threatens to reduce the value of the agreement for U.S. businesses, workers, farmers, ranchers, and consumers. That is why it is essential that the Obama administration now work to reach country-specific plans identifying the changes that our trading partners must and will make to their laws, regulations, and practices in order to meet their key TPP obligations. These country-specific implementation commitments would provide a valuable tool for resolving shortcomings and ambiguities in the agreement, while helping to build confidence in the Congress that TPP will be implemented fully and faithfully by our trading partners. Put simply, these country-specific implementation commitments can be an essential component to developing the political support necessary for the Congress to pass TPP implementing legislation. During the 114th Congress, we have successfully enacted a number of strong trade policies that reflect and advance our national interest. T-TIP and TPP negotiations represent important opportunities for the administration to use the tools provided by Congress to help American businesses, workers, and consumers to benefit from trade. We must remain vigilant to ensure that our trade objectives are met and hold the administration accountable for achieving the goals that the Congress has established. At the same time, we need to look toward the future. The resolution that we are submitting today is designed to reinforce our support for strong, market-opening agreements and to remind this and future administrations that the Congress is, and will remain, an active participant in formulating U.S. trade policy. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this important resolution.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the Senate will soon vote on the conference report for the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act. The importance of this bill cannot be overstated. People are dying, families are suffering, communities are being torn apart. We can help, but we must do so now. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation, which passed in the House last week with only five votes in opposition. The bill is intended to address the growing national crisis with regard to opioid abuse and addiction. The staggering statistics surrounding this issue are well known and are worth repeating. Every day, approximately 7,000 people show up in an emergency room for problems associated with opioid abuse. Every 30 minutes, on average, someone in our country dies from conditions that are opioid related. My home State of Utah has been particularly hard hit. In 2014, 289 Utahans died due to opioid abuse. That is more than half of all drug overdose related deaths in the State. The CARA conference report represents a thoughtful set of policies that tackle the problems experienced by the real people--with families, children, and friends-- who are represented by these statistics. A letter signed by over 200 advocacy organizations supporting the conference report states that the report addresses the ``six pillars'' of a comprehensive response to drug addiction crises. These pillars are prevention, treatment, recovery support, criminal justice reform, overdose reversal, and law enforcement. I am proud of the role I played in not only supporting the CARA effort but in helping to shape the conference report. As the chairman of the Finance Committee, it was important to me that the report include key improvements for Medicare in the fight against opioid abuse. I am glad to say we were successful in that regard. The legislation allows Medicare Part D prescription drug plans to identify only one physician to prescribe and one pharmacy to fill all of an at- risk patient's opioid prescriptions. Senator Toomey, who has worked closely with Senator Brown, has been an important leader on this policy. Both of them have been excellent. He should be commended for his work that, in the end, will improve patient care, reduce abuse, and give at-risk beneficiaries more opportunities to get the help they need. Additionally, the conference report contains significant provisions related to medication-assisted treatment, or MAT, which has long been a priority for me. I have a long history of working to improve access to drugs like buprenorphine as a prescription treatment for opioid-use disorders, including heroin and prescription drug addiction. I was the author, together with Senators Levin and Biden of the DATA 2000 law that first made it possible for patients to be prescribed buprenorphine. I would also like to note that colleagues like Senators Markey and Paul have also been very able champions in our recent efforts to expand access to this effective drug treatment, including the introduction of legislation and our push to get the administration to use its regulatory authority to address this need. Our efforts helped to encourage the drafting of an HHS rule that was finalized on July 6, the same day as the CARA conference meeting. This rule raises an individual doctor's patient cap for buprenorphine from 100 patients to 275 patients. Thanks to these combined administrative and legislative efforts, patients will have greater access to the medication-assisted treatment they need in their recovery from substance abuse disorders. I am pleased, as well, to see provisions included in this legislation that encourage the National Institutes of Health to intensify fundamental, translational, and clinical research on the understanding of pain. The hope is that this kind of research will lead to alternatives to opioids for effective pain treatment. These few lines within the legislation will have a significant influence on our understanding of how opioid abuse and chronic pain impact our families and communities. Another set of highlights in the conference report are the provisions designed to protect infants born to mothers suffering from opioid addiction. Reuters reported that, roughly every 19 minutes, a child is born with an opioid dependency in the United States. That statistic is astounding. My home State is not spared from this heartbreaking problem. A recent Utah Health Status Update indicated that, between 2009 and 2012, more than 100 babies each year tested positive for illicit drugs at birth. Once enacted, CARA will strengthen the existing plan of safe care for infants born and identified as affected by substance abuse or withdrawal symptoms, as well as fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Hopefully, this will be an effective step to address what is a tragic problem for too many American children. As you can see, these are issues that have been in need of sensible solutions for some time. As such, I wish to emphasize that the process that has brought us here to the precipice of passing CARA is nearly as impressive as the conference report itself. Senator Portman, from Ohio, longtime advocate on these issues, has worked tirelessly alongside Senator Whitehouse, from Rhode Island, for roughly 3 years to shepherd this effort through the Senate. Those two gentlemen deserve a lot of credit and support, and I am glad that politics around this situation have been reduced so they can get this bill through. Senator Ayotte, who also deserves a tremendous amount of support and respect here, has also been a champion for those afflicted by these problems. Also, Senator Ayotte deserves a lot of praise for all of her hard work. She understands this problem probably more than a lot of others, as her work in law enforcement helped her to do so. Senators Portman, Whitehouse, and Ayotte heard from the individuals and families who are afflicted in dealing with these issues, and they did an outstanding job to craft policies to address these needs. All three of them deserve a great deal of respect and support. Under Chairman Grassley's leadership, CARA was reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He did a great job in committee. I was on the committee. The original bill then came to the Senate floor, where Senators were able to offer amendments. The Senate passed the amended version by a vote of 94 to 1. A similar process played out in the House, with the House passing its opioid package by a vote of 400 to 5. I was pleased to serve on the conference committee that produced what should be the final draft of this report legislation. There were many similarities between the House and Senate bills, and we were able to resolve our few differences in a way that produced an improved CARA bill. I want to commend Representative Fred Upton, the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee--he is a great friend of mine--who was instrumental to the House effort and who also very ably chaired the conference committee. Fred Upton is one of the great people in this body, as are the others that I mentioned. As I alluded to earlier, the House passed the conference report this past Friday by a vote of 407 to 5. In other words, over the past several months, there have been three major votes in the two congressional Chambers, and the support has been overwhelming. Counting every vote collectively, the bill has received around 900 yea votes in Congress and less than a dozen nays. Do you know how many of those votes in opposition have been cast by a Democrat? One. A single House Democrat voted against passage of the original House opioid package. Every voting Democrat in the Senate voted in favor of our version of the bill. I commend them for that. Last week, every House Democrat who was present voted in favor of the conference report. I commend them for that. I note these facts not to unduly inject partisanship into this discussion but because we have heard rumblings that a number of Senate Democrats may want to hold up the process in order to extract more concessions. Some have actually suggested that, despite regular order and the overwhelmingly bipartisan support this legislation has enjoyed thus far, Senate passage of the CARA conference report is in doubt. I find this hard to believe, and I hope it is not true. A few weeks ago, the White House urged Democrats in Congress to ``slowdown'' the effort to finalize an opioid package. Thankfully, this was met appropriately with outrage. All of us, Republicans and Democrats, now have a tremendous opportunity to give vital assistance to many Americans in need and to do so with, hopefully, an almost unanimous voice. These days, we don't often get to do that around here. We should not let partisan politics get in the way of this pressing issue. Like I said, more than 200 advocacy and stakeholder groups that have been involved throughout this process have urged passage of this conference report. Individuals suffering from these afflictions, as well as their families and friends, are crying out for help. The House of Representatives heeded their call. The Senate must do the same. I want to commend the majority leader for moving swiftly to bring this important legislation up for a vote. I think it is absolutely essential that we act before Congress breaks for the recess. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the CARA conference report. Let's send it to the President's desk this week and deliver results for those Americans who are depending on us. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the life of a cherished friend and a champion of freedom in Auschwitz, Elie Wiesel. In Auschwitz and Buchenwald, Elie traveled far beyond the limits of human suffering, descending deep into an abyss of agony and pain that surpassed the torment of hell itself. Yet Elie survived this hell, and he lived to tell his story. Through his solemn witness, he worked tirelessly to ensure that the world would never forget the horrors of the Holocaust. With Elie's passing, we have lost a true hero and a luminary of Holocaust literature. Now that Elie is gone, we must remember--now more than ever--his solemn charge to all mankind: Never forget. Never forget the Holocaust that it may never happen again. Elie was the living conscience of a generation. He knew perhaps better than anyone the depths of human depravity. Having suffered as few ever have, he spoke on matters of human nature with a moral authority unmatched by his contemporaries. I was blessed to know Elie and even more fortunate to call him a friend. I first met Elie when I was asked to serve with him on the board of trustees for the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. Elie's warmth was immediate, his spirit contagious. That he remained compassionate and kind even after the atrocities of Auschwitz is a testimony to his character and the resiliency of his spirit. I remember speaking with Elie when he came to watch Prime Minister Netanyahu address a joint session of Congress. I surprised Elie that day when I showed him my mezuzah, which I have worn around my neck every day for 40 years. I carry this mezuzah as a symbol of my respect and love for the Jewish people and the nation of Israel. The mezuzah represents the Lord's watchful presence in our lives. Elie was delighted that I, a gentile, would wear this religious symbol. I wanted to show Elie my mezuzah as if to say: I am still listening; I am still remembering; I am still fighting the incessant tides of anti-Semitism that threaten Jews across the globe. Through his writing, Elie gave a voice to the millions of Jews whose voices had been stifled and silenced during the genocide. Of course, Elie's account is but one story; there are 6 million more. Although we can never begin to fathom the suffering of each individual Holocaust victim, Elie used the power of his pen to make their suffering more tangible to all of us. ``Night'' was the foundation for Elie's other works. I strongly encourage all of my colleagues to read Elie's somber account of life in a Nazi death camp. One of Elie's most poignant verses stays with me to this day: Never shall I forget that night, the first night in camp, that turned my life into one long night seven times sealed. Never shall I forget that smoke. Never shall I forget the small faces of the children whose bodies I saw transformed into smoke under a silent sky. Never shall I forget those flames that consumed my faith forever. Never shall I forget the nocturnal silence that deprived me for all eternity of the desire to live. Never shall I forget those moments that murdered my God and my soul and turned my dreams to ashes. Never shall I forget those things, even were I condemned to live as long as God Himself. Never. How did Elie ever find hope after witnessing such unspeakable atrocities? He found hope in the promise of a Jewish nation. He found hope in the belief that Israel matters, that Israel is both a state and a state of being. Although many disagreed with his view, Elie remained steadfast in his support for Israel. After being recognized for the Nobel Peace Prize, Elie pleaded before world leaders who had grown apathetic in their own support. He said: If you could remember what I remembered, you would understand Israel is the only nation in the world whose existence is threatened. Should Israel lose but one war, it would mean her end, and ours as well. But I have faith. . . . Without it no action would be possible. And action is the only remedy to indifference, the most insidious danger of all. Elie warned us that neutrality only helps the oppressor, never the victim. He also taught us that we must take sides. Perhaps most importantly, Elie told us to never forget. There is a quiet elegance and fierce determination in this plea. Oftentimes, people try to put a positive spin on this by saying ``always remember,'' but Elie eschewed this more uplifting phrase because he wasn't concerned with helping people feel better about the Holocaust, he was concerned with helping them understand the true horror of the genocide to ensure that it would never happen again. He wanted all who listened, all who read, and all who prayed to understand that hate is a virus and it is a virus that spreads quickly. For Elie, it was not enough to merely remember those who died; he wanted us to never forget how they suffered. Today we can honor Elie Wiesel and his legacy by remembering always his humble plea: Never forget. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections of that act and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of the motion to concur in the House amendment to S. 2328, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as we all now know, the government of Puerto Rico has run up an astounding debt of around $70 billion and has more than $40 billion in virtually unfunded pension promises. To address this financial challenge, the Senate has taken up legislation to provide greater oversight of the territory's finances and some broad debt-resolution authority. That bill, which the authors entitled the ``Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act,'' or PROMESA, is certainly not something I would have written and in many areas leaves a lot to be desired. Nonetheless, I voted to invoke cloture on the bill because, thanks to the stubbornness of the Treasury Department and lack of transparency from the government of Puerto Rico, it is the only option on the table, and delaying action would only hurt the Americans who reside on the island. Astoundingly, the government of Puerto Rico has not provided audited financial statements since 2013, despite its responsibilities to do so under continuing disclosure requirements and multiple requests from Congress and investors. The territory's debt challenges have been center stage here in Congress for about a year now, and throughout that time we have received only stale, largely useless, and untrustworthy information regarding Puerto Rico's finances. In fact, some of the disclosures have been downright insulting. For example, earlier this year I submitted a number of detailed questions to the Governor of Puerto Rico about the state of the island's finances. One of my questions was very straightforward: ``What component units of Puerto Rico's government has issued debt, and how much does each owe?'' Amazingly, the Governor, in a delayed response, answered that simple question with a quote from an outdated report issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. In other words, the very government that issued the debt would not even provide information on what it owes and instead quoted a third party. This is not an isolated incident. Throughout this public discussion, we have yet to get anything resembling a firsthand account of the true fiscal situation in Puerto Rico. In fact, this lack of transparency--and that is putting it kindly--has gone on for years. Lately, however, Puerto Rico's withholding of information seems to have been strategic and part of a legislative strategy in concert with the Treasury Department. The U.S. Treasury Department was given authority to provide technical assistance to Puerto Rico but evidently has not advised Puerto Rico's government to open its books. In addition, despite numerous requests I have made to Treasury to provide briefings on the nature of their technical assistance, they have, so far, refused to provide any such insight. We have heard calls from various sources, including Members of the Senate, for the Securities and Exchange Commission to investigate actions taken on the part of private investors in relation to Puerto Rico's debt crisis. Given the apparent coordination between Treasury and the government of Puerto Rico and the overall lack of information we have about the current state of the territory's debt and finances, I sent a letter this week to the SEC asking that actions and inaction by government officials be included in any investigation into Puerto Rico's debt. Today I also sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Lew inquiring about reported confidentiality agreements Treasury officials have signed with component units of Puerto Rico's government. The existence of such agreements raises many questions, and disturbing reports that Treasury officials may have impeded negotiations between Puerto Rico and its creditors in order to get a better legislative outcome in Congress raises even more questions. With respect to Puerto Rico, the Obama administration is and has been interested in one thing and one thing only: obtaining the broadest and most comprehensive debt resolution authority for Puerto Rico possible, in an obvious attempt to favor public pensions in Puerto Rico. While I tried last year to work with administration officials toward a resolution for Puerto Rico, Treasury officials remained extraordinarily rigid in their objectives. Moreover, while that administration and many of my friends on the other side have been very forthcoming in offering ideas of how to send roughly $50 billion of extra health funds to Puerto Rico and nearly $10 billion in difficult-to-administer tax incentives, none of them have been forthcoming about the actual cost of their proposal. They have also persisted in identifying what they call ``health funding inequities'' but never seem to want to own up to the fact they purposefully included a cliff in health funding for Puerto Rico as a part of ObamaCare. This health funding cliff alone should be a clear indication to the people of Puerto Rico that while the administration and my friends on the other side of the aisle talk one way about how they care for the people of Puerto Rico, they often act quite differently and give far more attention and effort to protecting the interests of public sector unions. I have made clear all along my main objective has been to serve the interests of the people of Puerto Rico, not the politicians on the island or here in Washington, DC. That is why I voted to invoke cloture on the legislation before us today, despite the rigidities of the Obama administration and the government of Puerto Rico. Unfortunately, we have been put in a position where, if this legislation were to fail, there will only be more suffering for the people of Puerto Rico. We cannot wait for another administration here or on the island to finally get accurate and verified information on Puerto Rico's finances. We cannot wait for the Obama administration to start engaging reasonably with Congress about health care funding or tax incentives for the island. Therefore, in order to finally determine the true state of Puerto Rico's finances and to provide relief from the massive indebtedness accumulated by a profligate Puerto Rican government, I will, once again, be voting yes on this bill. The bill does not have any significant effect on the Federal deficit or our massive Federal debt, which is a good thing. Unfortunately, it also will not have any significant effect on Puerto Rico's economic growth, but it does promise to finally uncover what is beneath the opaque, weblike structure of the Puerto Rican government's finances, and if we are actually going to be able to meaningfully address the island's financial challenges, that will be a very important step. The bill also has the potential to provide some debt relief which can help the people of Puerto Rico, if effectively implemented and not used simply as a way to funnel resources into public pension programs. Despite reforms to pension programs touted by the Puerto Rican government in recent years, the territory has not actually funded those reforms. As a result, large public pension programs on the island remain, in effect, entirely unreformed, still allowing for things like government-subsidized loans to participants for cultural trips intended for ``relaxation.'' Unfortunately, there has been a lot of other misinformation about Puerto Rico's financial information put forward by some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, by some administration officials who know better, and by many in the House who could stand to learn more. None of that, if we let it persist, will help the people of Puerto Rico. Let me close by agreeing with some remarks made yesterday by my colleague and good friend Senator Cantwell, who correctly identified that whatever happens today with PROMESA, issues surrounding Puerto Rico are not going away. I will note this legislation sets up a congressional task force to consider impediments to growth in Puerto Rico, including those that may stem from the Federal Government policies. Perhaps Senator Cantwell and I could serve together on the task force. In principle, the task force can allow Congress to continue to address issues surrounding how Federal tax and health care policies affect Puerto Rico and how changes could possibly influence growth. To be clear, I believe this task force could be useful only if both sides of the aisle are willing to seriously discuss ideas beyond sending tens of billions of dollars to Puerto Rico. If the task force will only consider a wish list of Federal spending, I don't see it accomplishing all that much for the people living in Puerto Rico. In any event, it is long past time for holding out hope the government of Puerto Rico will provide accurate financial information. Similarly, it is likely a fruitless endeavor to keep waiting on the Obama administration to move away from its rigid focus on obtaining broad debt restructuring authority for Puerto Rico. We should not hold the people of Puerto Rico hostage to the rigidities of self-interested politicians, neither here nor in the territory. Consequently, I plan to support PROMESA, despite its shortcomings. I urge my colleagues to do the same. I appreciate the honest and decent people of Puerto Rico and wish them the very best and hope this bill will help them get on the path that will cause that great and beautiful place to be even better. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the attached documentation from the Office of Compliance be printed in the Record. U.S. Congress, Office of Compliance, Washington, DC, June 22, 2016. Hon. Orrin Hatch, President Pro Tempore of the U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: Section 304(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (``CAA''), 2 U.S.C. Sec. 1384(b)(3), requires that, with regard to substantive regulations under the CAA, after the Board of Directors of the Office of Compliance (``Board'') has published a general notice of proposed rulemaking as required by subsection (b)(1), and received comments as required by subsection (b)(2), ``the Board shall adopt regulations and shall transmit notice of such action together with a copy of such regulations to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate for publication in the Congressional Record on the first day on which both Houses are in session following such transmittal.'' The Board has adopted the regulations in the Notice of Adoption of Substantive Regulations and Transmittal for Congressional Approval which accompany this transmittal letter. The Board requests that the accompanying Notice be published in the Senate version of the Congressional Record on the first day on which both Houses are in session following receipt of this transmittal. The Board has adopted the same regulations for the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the other covered entities and facilities, and therefore recommends that the adopted regulations be approved by concurrent resolution of the Congress. All inquiries regarding this notice should be addressed to Barbara J. Sapin, Executive Director of the Office of Compliance, Room LA-200, 110 2nd Street, SE, Washington, DC 20540; (202) 724-9250. Sincerely, Barbara L. Camens, Chair of the Board of Directors, Office of Compliance. From the Board of Directors of the Office of Compliance NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF REGULATIONS and TRANSMITTAL FOR CONGRESSIONAL

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I have to say that our ideas are to find every way possible to stabilize the Social Security system.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to complete my remarks.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, a few weeks ago I came to the floor to discuss the situation surrounding President Obama's nominees to serve as public trustees on the board of trustees for the various Social Security and Medicare trust funds. At that time, I noted that these nominations had become the center of a political firestorm. Sadly, that firestorm has continued in the weeks since I last spoke about this issue. While I have little desire to delve into what is a manufactured controversy, I do want to take some time to note how some events taking place this week should impact this particular debate. Tomorrow, the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees will release their annual reports, providing their assessment of the past, present, and projected future financial conditions of the trust funds. For decades, these reports have largely been devoid of politics, which is important because it allows policymakers and the general public to trust the numbers that are reported. Currently, there are four senior Obama administration officials who serve as trustees on these various Boards. There are also two positions for public trustee--one from each party according to the law--that are currently vacant. While it is not unheard of for the Boards to issue their reports without confirmed public trustees in place, this administration has issued more trustees' reports with vacancies in the public trustee positions than any other administration. In a recent article in the Huffington Post, Senators Warren, Schumer, and Whitehouse put forth some serious allegations of political tampering with recent Social Security trustees' reports, stemming, according to their arguments, from the supposed undue influence of one particular public trustee. That trustee, Dr. Charles Blahous, has been renominated by President Obama. Specifically, these Senators alleged in their article that, due solely to the presence of this single public trustee on the Board, nefarious assumptions were somehow inserted into the trustees' report analysis, leading the report to overstate the financial challenges facing Social Security. My good friend, Senator Schumer of New York, echoed the very same allegations in a recent Finance Committee markup where we favorably reported President Obama's nominees for public trustee. And, I emphasize, these are President Obama's nominees. In the words of these prominent and outspoken Senators, the 2014 Social Security trustees' report, ``curiously incorporated a number of assumptions playing up the potential of future insolvency of the program--a key talking point in the right-wing war on Social Security.'' Moreover, according to those Senators, the assumptions ``were so troublesome that the independent Chief Actuary for Social Security took the unprecedented step of writing a public statement of actuarial opinion disagreeing with the report.'' They go on to say that ``after similarly questionable elements appeared in the 2015 report, the Chief Actuary reported this extraordinary public rebuke.'' These assumptions--and Dr. Blahous's very presence on the Board--are, according to my colleagues, part of an effort funded and directed by the infamous Koch brothers to dismantle Social Security and further an anti-government agenda. In fact, their article was ridiculously titled ``The Koch Brothers Are Trying To Handpick Government Officials. We Have To Stop Them.'' These are serious allegations that call into question the integrity of the annual trustees' reports. Yet my colleagues have stated these allegations repeatedly in various forms, from committee hearings, to Twitter feeds, to campaign fundraising materials, all without any apparent regard for these implications. Worst of all, the charges are also patently false, and they cannot be supported by fact, reason, or even common sense. Setting aside the almost paranoid and conspiratorial tone my colleagues have used when making these claims and even assuming, for the sake of argument, that supposedly questionable assumptions were baked into those trustees' reports, there is simply no remotely possible way that they were used solely because of Dr. Blahous's influence. Given the structure of these Boards, if a single public trustee were able to have such a pernicious influence on assumptions incorporated into reports that warranted some sort of alert from the Chief Actuary, then all of the other trustees--Treasury Secretary Lew, Labor Secretary Perez, Health and Human Services Secretary Burwell, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Colvin, the Democratic Public Trustee Robert Reischauer--and their staffs were either complicit in the perverse distortions or were too incompetent and powerless to detect them. Give me a break. In other words, although they conveniently overlook these facts, when my colleagues publicly indict the integrity of the Social Security trustees' reports, they are implicitly and necessarily calling into question the competence and efficiency of senior members of President Obama's Cabinet and, really, that of President Obama himself, who renominated Dr. Blahous to serve a second term. Of course, being honest about the makeup of the Board and the process by which these reports are compiled would make fundraising emails and campaign commercials, not to mention inflammatory entries on a Senator's Twitter feed, far less compelling. Recognizing this, my colleagues have opted to simply imply that Dr. Blahous--only one of the whole number of those on the Board--was solely responsible for allegedly questionable contents of the reports, apparently hoping no one will fact-check their assertions. I have to, as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, fact-check these not so very honest assertions. Sadly, no one from the Obama administration has stepped forward to defend the President's nominee and refute these wild claims. More curious, however, is the fact that no one from the administration has publicly come forth to defend themselves from these Senators' charges of apparent incompetence and powerlessness in the face of Dr. Blahous's dastardly influence. I think we need a clearer picture of what went on in the compiling of those reports. In order to clear the air on this, I sent letters earlier today to the administration officials who sit on the Board to see if they agree with the claim that the reports they all willingly signed included some unwarranted assumptions designed to undermine Social Security and requesting that they provide me with a full briefing on the issue. Of course, the absurdity of my various colleagues' claims goes beyond their implicit condemnation of members of President Obama's Cabinet because these senior officials were not the only line of defense standing between the report and the alleged conspiracy to take down Social Security. If these reports included some pernicious assumptions, they not only slipped by the Secretaries of Treasury, Labor, and HHS, and the Acting Social Security Commissioner, they must also have had to slip the notice of 10 members of the 2015 Technical Panel on Assumptions and Methods, which was commissioned by the Social Security Advisory Board and contained many recognized and highly respected experts, including a Nobel Prize-winning economist. In other words, the pernicious and allegedly billionaire-inspired assumptions that a single public trustee was somehow able to covertly insert into multiple trustees' reports in order to overstate Social Security's financial challenges were so cleverly advanced that they eluded prominent Obama administration officials, their staffs, 10 highly skilled, expert researchers, and the Social Security Advisory Board staff. That is ridiculous. And only the Chief Actuary was able to detect the skullduggery. That is still not the end of it, however. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, CBO, has also produced forecasts of Social Security's finances, using some assumptions that differ from those used by the trustees for their reports but which identify even greater financial challenges to the Social Security trust funds than those concluded in the recent trustees' reports. According to Senators Warren, Schumer, and Whitehouse, Dr. Blahous, serving as an agent for the Kochs, was able to skew with nefarious assumptions as part of ``the right-wing war on Social Security'' to play up the potential future insolvency of the program. Even so, he apparently wasn't diabolical enough because he ended up duping the other trustees into assigning lesser financial challenges to Social Security than those seen by the CBO. Of course, perhaps my colleagues believe that this anti-government conspiracy has somehow infiltrated CBO, as well. If that is the case, perhaps they should come forward and reveal to the public just how deep the rabbit hole goes. Needless to say, none of this is sensible. It doesn't even pass the laugh test. And Dr. Blahous's influence on the trustees' reports isn't the only thing my colleagues have overstated in their writings, tweets, and campaign materials. They also dramatically overstate the ``rebukes'' issued by the Chief Actuary for the 2014 and 2015 reports. It is actually shameful for my colleagues to do this. In truth, there actually were no rebukes or disagreements included in the actuary reports. In fact, for both years in question, the Chief Actuary wrote that ``the assumptions used and the resulting actuarial estimates are, individually and in the aggregate, reasonable for the purpose of evaluating the financial and actuarial status of the trust funds, taking into consideration the past experience and future expectations for the population, the economy, and the program.'' There were caveats which largely reflected the Chief Actuary's own opinions but nothing that would call into question the integrity of the reports as my colleagues claim. As I have said in the past, these tactics are, in my view, shameful, and they have little to do with protecting the promise of Social Security. Instead, they are 100 percent political, designed to serve as a proxy for what political operatives hope will be an epic campaign battle over Social Security, something the other side constantly wages falsely. And, as is too often the case, the truth has taken a backseat to campaign talking points and fundraising efforts. Rather than engage on the substance of their preferred Social Security policies--and those of their presumptive Presidential nominee--my friends have opted to put forward false assertions and allegations that cannot be supported by the facts in order to attack a nominee's integrity and further a twisted story about supposed Republican efforts to ``privatize'' Social Security and ``turn it over to Wall Street.'' It is not hard to see why some of my friends on the other side and their political allies in the activist community want to construct this type of conspiracy with regard to Social Security. After all, in recent years, the only meaningful advancement to prolong the life of any Social Security trust fund took place last year under a Republican- controlled Congress. Last year, Republicans put together a bipartisan package to avert benefit cuts for disability beneficiaries. At best Democrats only reluctantly came on board. That package, which President Obama signed into law, contained no ``privatization.'' The only thing close to a ``benefit cut'' was a provision on retirement benefits claiming strategies based on provisions put forward in President Obama's budget. Yet, rather than help avert benefit cuts for disabled American workers and improve the disability insurance program, many of my friends on the other side spent most of their energy last year raising campaign money by scaring Social Security beneficiaries and giving speeches claiming that Republicans wanted to do nothing more than privatize Social Security and turn it over to Wall Street. We have been seeing those kind of tactics in every election for decades. It is shameful. Even with these constant attacks and distortions coming from my friends on the other side throughout 2015, Republicans constructed a package that enacted the most meaningful reforms to Social Security in three decades and averted massive benefit cuts. We did so by dragging most Democrats along kicking and screaming. It is not surprising that my colleagues are feeling the pressure to reassert their claims of ownership of all things Social Security in this election cycle, which they seem to do every election cycle--falsely, by the way. It is shameful. By the way, in the midst of that 2015 debate, a prominent Democratic Senator gave a speech at the headquarters of a leftwing advocacy group--one that happens to receive funding from a noted leftist billionaire--warning of ``attacks from the far right'' on Social Security and ``backdoor attempts to dismantle and privatize Social Security by discrediting disability insurance.'' Curiously, that same event was attended by the Chief Actuary of Social Security, who was also a speaker at the event, and it was live tweeted by the Social Security Administration. Yet no one from the Republican Party published any inflammatory articles accusing the Chief Actuary of using his title or position in association with a politically partisan event. No one accused him of ``burnishing his credentials'' by speaking at a highly partisan event. Certainly, no one made claims of a vast leftist conspiracy to plant progressive sympathizers in influential positions in order to advance a leftist view on Social Security or to capture the agency. By contrast, let's consider what that Huffington Post article and three of my Democratic colleagues said about Dr. Charles Blahous. The article claims that he ``burnishes his credentials'' as a public trustee by daring to write articles outside of his role as public trustee that identify and analyze financial challenges facing Social Security and Medicare. Gee, I would think that would be part of his responsibility. The article decries his affiliation with his own workplace, calling it ``a Koch front-group,'' which zealously approves an ``anti-government agenda.'' Essentially, these Senators are saying that if you dare have ideas and thoughts with which they disagree, even if you offer them in reasoned writings and speeches, then you should be censored and deemed unfit to serve in any public capacity. My friends on the other side of the aisle have unfortunately injected needless politics into Social Security trustee reports and have threatened the integrity of those very reports with their allegations, as well as attacking an individual based on false claims. Unfortunately, it seems that in an election year, Democrats are intent on constructing a ``privatization'' straw man and using it to scare seniors into sending checks and votes to Democrats--something we have become pretty used to, really. That is despicable, to say the least. On the altar of election-year politics, they are apparently more than willing to sacrifice the historic transparency and integrity provided by the trustees' reports. Indeed, they have gone out of their way to claim that the reports are already politically compromised despite having no credible evidence that such is the case--none, zero. Thanks to a bipartisan desire to have the facts on Social Security's trust funds reported objectively and honestly, we have gone for decades with trustee reports that were largely free of political controversy. Unfortunately, some of my friends in the Senate, spurred on by their activist political operatives, seem no longer to have that political desire. It would truly be sad and not in the interest of current or future Social Security beneficiaries if trustees' reports now become mere political documents. While that is the road my colleagues apparently want to send us down--at least during this election year--I plan to do all I can to ensure that will not become the case. I am really concerned when I see people of this dimension in the greatest legislative body in the world using the Social Security ploy again in such a despicable way. It is hard for me to understand. I think it is hard for anybody who looks at it carefully to understand.

Mr. HATCH. I am sorry; I did not hear the question.