Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, in light of recognition of Rare Disease Day, I wish to speak about orphan drug exclusivity and trade promotion authority. Congress enacted the bipartisan Orphan Drug Act, ``ODA'', of 1983, Pub. L. 97-414, to address a longstanding unmet need to develop new treatments, diagnostics, and cures for rare diseases and disorders. I am proud to be one of the lead Senate sponsors of the ODA, which was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. This act and the Rare Diseases Act of 2002--which I also championed--created financial incentives for the research and production of orphan drugs, including 7 years of market exclusivity, tax credits, and research grants, and also established the Orphan Products Board at FDA and the Office of Rare Diseases under the National Institutes of Health. The purpose of these acts was to encourage the development of new ``orphan'' treatments, diagnostics, and cures for the millions of Americans with rare disease who lacked access to effective medicines because the existing incentives were insufficient to develop and market drugs for such small groups of patients. The ODA has been enormously successful. Before Congress enacted the ODA in 1983, the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, approved only 38 drugs in the United States specifically to treat orphan diseases. From the passage of the ODA in 1983 until May 2010, the FDA approved 353 orphan drugs and granted orphan designations to 2,116 compounds. As of 2010, 200 of the roughly 7,000 officially designated orphan diseases have become treatable. Yet, despite the benefits of these policies, the incentives and access guarantees found in the ODA are not yet part of any free trade agreement negotiations. The Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015, or TPA, contain a number of negotiating objectives for the administration to follow. For example, the TPA law's negotiating objectives require that U.S. trade agreements provide a standard of intellectual property rights protection that is similar to that found in the United States, which includes providing incentives for biopharmaceutical innovation that are similar to those in the United States. The language in the TPA law is necessarily broad, and although it does not explicitly reference critical incentives for orphan drug development, I want to make it clear that these incentives, including the 7-year market exclusivity at the heart of the ODA, are consistent with the TPA law's requirement that U.S. trade agreements provide a standard of intellectual property protection that is similar to U.S. law. This is especially important because vital incentives for orphan drug development are lacking in many markets outside the United States, hindering the development of treatments, diagnostics, and cures for rare diseases--particularly diseases endemic to those markets. A lack of incentives for orphan drug development in any one country can have a very real impact on the likelihood of investment into a research or cure for a given disease. Particularly in the case of ultra-rare diseases, those affecting fewer than 1 in 50,000 individuals, there may only be a handful of patients around the world who would benefit from a particular treatment or cure, and removing a number of them from the pool of potential patients may render investments in these therapies untenable and could drive up costs for rare disease patients in the United States. Therefore, I want to make it clear that I believe it is appropriate for the administration to negotiate ODA incentives and access guarantees, including the 7-year market exclusivity period, in future U.S. trade agreements and that the intent of Congress is that TPA's negotiating objectives are consistent with that goal.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the Constitution is the primary way the American people set rules for government. America's Founders made sure those were also written down so that as the Supreme Court said more than two centuries ago, they may be neither mistaken nor forgotten. The U.S. Constitution is one of the shortest and currently the oldest national charter in the world, but while public officials, including every Member of this body, swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution, it appears some are paying very little attention to it. One of the most popular slogans in the debate over filling the vacancy left by the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is ``Do your job.'' Never have so few words been so misleading for so many. Those who use this slogan insist that the Senate's job is to conduct the confirmation process, including hearings and confirmation votes, in a certain way whenever the President makes a nomination. In other words, the Senate should be at the President's beck and call, configuring the confirmation process around a particular timeline that he prefers. There is some irony here, Mr. President. A few years ago, President Obama wanted to stall certain members of the National Labor Relations Board. The Senate was unlikely to confirm his nominee so the President bypassed the Senate altogether and made so-called recess appointments. The Supreme Court eventually, and unanimously, ruled those appointments were unconstitutional. Now that the President intends to send a nominee to the Senate, he feels he can dictate how the Senate evaluates that nominee. The President would, no doubt, be the first to say the Senate cannot tell him whom to nominate but apparently feels he can insist on whatever Senate confirmation process that will suit his purpose. Colleagues on the other side of the aisle insist the Constitution requires timely hearings and prompt floor votes for every nominee. I don't know what Constitution they are using because the real one says nothing of the kind. The real Constitution gives to the President the power to nominate and to the Senate the separate power of advice and consent, leaving to each the judgment of how to exercise their respective power. Actually, I should say that my Democratic colleagues are currently insisting that the Constitution requires timely hearings and votes, because they were singing a very different tune only a few years ago. The minority leader, the minority whip, and the Judiciary Committee ranking member each voted dozens of times to deny any confirmation vote whatsoever for President George W. Bush's judicial nominees--dozens of times. Were they voting to defy the Constitution then, or are they referring to a made-up, fictional Constitution now? When they served in this body, Vice President Biden and former Secretary Hillary Clinton voted, respectively, 29 and 24 times to deny the very confirmation votes they now say the Constitution itself requires. The shape-shifting Constitution they use apparently means whatever then suits their political objectives. A coincidence, I am sure, but a very convenient coincidence. The President himself, when he was a Senator, tried to deny confirmation votes to multiple nominees, including Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. While President Obama recently said he now regrets voting to filibuster Justice Alito, he did not explain why it took him 3,670 days to reach that conclusion. Cynics might even suggest that his desire now to appoint another Supreme Court Justice may have contributed in some small way to this epiphany. So when Democrats in this body and their equally confused liberal allies call on the Senate to do its job, they really mean that the Senate should do what they want. I, too, want the Senate to do its job, but I don't find our job description in anyone's political agenda. The Senate's job is to determine the best way to exercise its advice and consent power in each particular situation, and the Senate has done so in different ways, at different times, under different circumstances. When he was Judiciary Committee chairman in the 107th and 110th Congress, for example, the distinguished Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, denied a hearing to nearly 60 judicial nominees. Yet those are the hearings he now says the Constitution requires. I don't think he can have it both ways. On May 19, 2005, the minority leader said that nowhere in the Constitution does it say the Senate must vote on Presidential nominees. He called that notion rewriting the Constitution and reinventing history. Today, he says the opposite: that the Constitution actually does require a vote. Was he wrong in 2005, or is he, in his own words, rewriting the Constitution and reinventing history today? No, Mr. President, the Constitution does not dictate how the Senate must exercise its power of advice and consent; the Constitution leaves that up to us in each situation. The Senate has never allowed a term-limited President to fill a Supreme Court vacancy that opened up this late in his term. In fact, this vacancy is only the third in the last century to occur after Presidential election voting has started. In 1956 and 1968, the Senate did not confirm the nominee until after the next inauguration. As a member of the Judiciary Committee for 39 years and a chairman for 8 of those years--I am now in my 40th year--I have watched the judicial confirmation process disintegrate. Conservatives and liberals have very different views about the kinds of judges America needs. Several Supreme Court nominees in the last few decades have been subject to intense, confrontational campaigns. In addition, the current Presidential election cycle is already more hostile and divisive than in the past. These are among the circumstances we face today and must consider when deciding how to exercise our power of advice and consent. It would be irresponsible to follow a process suitable for a different situation or, worse, a process designed only to produce a desirable political outcome. Combining a high-stakes confirmation fight with a no-holds-barred Presidential campaign will produce a storm that will do more harm than good. The better course would be to defer the appointment process until the next President takes office and let the people make this determination. We are not without guidance in making this decision. In June 1992, then-Judiciary Committee Chairman Joseph Biden argued that if a Supreme Court vacancy occurred in that Presidential election year, the appointment process should be deferred until the election season was over. By combining an increasingly divisive appointment process and a Presidential election that is already underway, he said, ``partisan bickering and political posturing'' would overwhelm the serious debate necessary to make such an important decision. He could have been talking about 2016 instead of 1992. This vacancy also presents the American people with a rare opportunity to address the direction of the judiciary. The percentage of Americans concerned about that direction has risen steadily for years, and while voters do not appoint judges, they do elect the President who nominates and the Senate that gives advice and consent. Elections, after all, have consequences. The 2012 election had consequences for the President's power to nominate, and the 2014 election had consequences for the Senate's power of advice and consent. With this Supreme Court vacancy on the table, the 2016 election can similarly have consequences for the American people's voice on this important issue. Deferring the appointment process also minimizes partisanship and maximizes fairness. No one knows the party of the next President, the makeup of the next Senate, or the identity of the nominee the Senate will eventually consider. Choosing the appropriate process for the current circumstances, rather than for partisan advantage, can prevent a nominee from being perceived as a political pawn. The Constitution leaves nominations to the President and leaves advice and consent to the Senate. That division of responsibility is written down for all to see and, hopefully, for none to forget. Deferring the process for filling the Scalia vacancy until the next President takes office and leaving it up to the American people is the best approach for the Senate, the judiciary, and the country. Before I close, I have to say a word about the disgraceful attacks on my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. I have served with him on the Finance Committee for nearly 25 years and on the Judiciary Committee for 35 years. I have served 40 years on the Judiciary Committee but 35 of them have been served with Senator Grassley. If anyone knows his own mind, it is Senator Chuck Grassley. He has served on the Judiciary Committee longer than all but four Senators in the committee's history. No one is more dedicated to the Judiciary Committee and to the Senate than Chuck Grassley is. Each of us is entitled to our own opinions or positions on issues that come before this body, even controversial ones. Each of us can feel as strongly as we want about those issues. But I want to categorically reject the notion that a difference of opinion means that someone such as Senator Grassley is compromising the integrity or independence of the Judiciary Committee. That comes very close to impugning his character, and that sort of attack is beneath the dignity of this body because everybody in this body knows that Chuck Grassley is a man of great character, great honesty, great service, hard work, and cares for this wonderful country. It is irritating to me to see the personal attacks that have been made. I don't think we should be personally attacking each other. We can find fault with each other. We can criticize each other on the issues. We can differ with each other. We can be politically different from each other, as we are. But to personally attack somebody with the prestige of the chairman of the Judiciary Committee is beneath the dignity of this body, and it is beneath the dignity of the attackers. It really bothers me. We have had wide differences of opinion on the Judiciary Committee. Let's face it: It is a tough committee. It is a very partisan committee. The Democrats on that side in the committee are extremely partisan, and the Republicans on our side of the committee are extremely partisan too. That is not necessarily bad as long as people are honest and people respect the opinions of others. We can have downright bitter battles and bitter exchanges, but we don't have to malign each other in doing that. It is a tough committee. These are tough issues the Judiciary Committee handles. I know, I was chairman of this committee. I have to say it is a wonderful committee, and it is probably good that it is a diverse committee where you have a lot of liberal Democrats on one side and you have a lot of conservative Republicans on the other. We can bat up against each other, and sometimes we even come up with very good legislation. Most of the time, everybody on that committee is concerned about having the best judges we can possibly get. Even though there have been some pains between various members of the committee from time to time-- this naturally occurs when you have people who feel very deeply about these subjects--there is still no excuse for maligning the current chairman of this committee, Charles Grassley. I don't think you are winning a debate when you challenge somebody as a person of the highest integrity that this body has to offer. Senator Grassley is one of those persons. There are others here too. I hope I am one. The fact is, Chuck Grassley is one of the best people we have in the Senate, he is one of the most noble people in the Senate, and he is one of the most honest people in the Senate. He is one of the people who are more at ease around the common people in this country and in the State of Iowa than many of us in the Senate, and he is a person of dignity and capacity. He is also a person who doesn't forget, and I would prefer to have people treat him with dignity so that he can forget. All I can say is that there is not a better person on the committee than Chuck Grassley, and I call on my colleagues on the other side to be gentlemen and to treat him with the respect he certainly deserves. The fact that they disagree with his position on the Supreme Court right now is irrelevant in some ways when it comes to characterizing him as somebody less than who he is. That committee is a committee of deep feelings on both sides, and thank God it is because that is what makes it a great committee. That is what makes it so people really want to be on it. We have really good debates in that committee, and we have really good people on both sides, not the least of whom is Chuck Grassley, and I want him treated with dignity and respect. I want people to know that he doesn't take positions he doesn't believe in. There are some who do in this body, but he doesn't. I expect people in this body to show the proper decorum, to show friendship even when we have deep differences. Show respect for somebody who certainly deserves it. I hope we don't have any more of this idle chatter that can destroy any kind of rapport we have in the Senate, and that goes for both sides. Senator Grassley is being maligned unfairly, and I don't like it and neither would anybody else who has any brains or any thought about what is decent and honorable. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, each of us has taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. President George Washington called the Constitution the guide that he would never abandon. The Constitution declares itself to be the supreme law of the land, and more than 90 percent of Americans say it is very important to them. Unfortunately, basic knowledge about the Constitution is dangerously inadequate. I say this is dangerous because, as James Madison put it, only a well-instructed people can be permanently a free people. The current debate over when to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by Justice Antonin Scalia's death only magnifies my concern. Ignorance of not only how the Constitution applies to this question but even what the Constitution says apparently extends far and wide. Here is the text of the Constitution regarding the appointment of judges and other public officials: The President ``shall have Power . . . [to] nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law.'' I could hardly read that on the chart from this side here. I should have done it by memory. The President ``shall have Power . . . [to] nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law.'' This is what the Constitution actually says, right here for everyone to read. The Constitution gives power to nominate to the President and gives the power of advice and consent to the Senate. It says nothing about how the President and the Senate should exercise their separate powers. In fact, the judicial confirmation process has been conducted in different ways, at different times, and under different circumstances. Our job is to determine how, under current circumstances, best to exercise our power of advice and consent. Several factors convince me that the best way to do so is to defer the confirmation process for filling this vacancy until the next President takes office. First, this is only the third Supreme Court vacancy in nearly a century to occur after the American people had already started voting for the next President. In the previous two instances, 1956 and 1968, the Senate did not confirm a nominee until the year after the Presidential election. Second, the only time the Senate has ever confirmed a nominee to fill a Supreme Court vacancy created after Presidential election voting had begun was 1916. That vacancy arose only because Justice Charles Evans Hughes resigned to run against President Woodrow Wilson, a completely different situation than we have before us today. Third, the judicial confirmation process has become increasingly combative, especially for the Supreme Court. Attempting to conduct this process in the middle of an already divisive Presidential election campaign would be especially difficult. Fourth, President Obama's judicial appointees and Justice Scalia represent two radically different kinds of judge. This offers the American people a unique opportunity to express, through the election, their view of the direction the judiciary should take by electing the President who will make judicial appointments in the next 4 years. In June 1992, then-Judiciary Committee Chairman Joseph Biden, a friend of mine, made the very recommendation that we are following today based on some of the very same factors that I just mentioned. In particular, he noted that the appointment process would take place in divided Government during a Presidential election process that was already under way. He could have been describing 2016 instead of 1992. The Constitution does not mandate a particular process to address this Supreme Court vacancy. We have to look all the way back to the 19th century to find a year in which the Senate confirmed a Supreme Court nominee of the other party in a Presidential election year. That, of course, was long before the courts became as powerful and the confirmation process as confrontational as they are today. Democrats can read the Constitution and understand the historical and political facts as well as anyone else. Why then are they making such bizarre claims? Last week, for example, the minority whip said that the Constitution requires ``a fair hearing and a timely vote.'' He claimed that this conclusion comes from the plain text of the Constitution. Well, I have the plain text up here, and it clearly says nothing whatsoever about hearings or votes. As I said, the Constitution gives the power to nominate to the President and the power of advise and consent to the Senate and leaves to each the judgment about how to exercise their respective powers. Last week the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, said that deferring the confirmation process would be an abomination. She said that the Constitution's standard for the Senate's advice and consent role does not change with the party of the President making nominations. Yet she voted 25 times to filibuster Republican judicial nominees, including to the Supreme Court. She voted not simply to defer the confirmation process, as we are doing today, but to prevent a confirmation vote from ever taking place. If the confirmation process should not change with the President's party, then she should have no problem with the decision we have made since it is less drastic than the blockade she promoted just a few years ago. Also last week, an email solicitation signed by one of my Democratic colleagues asking for petition signatures claimed that the Senate has a ``fundamental duty to confirm nominees to the Supreme Court.'' I would like to think this is simply an egregious typographical error because it goes beyond even the false claim that the Constitution requires hearings and a vote. If the Senate has no choice but to confirm a President's nominees, what is the point of giving the Senate a role in the process at all? I will say it again in the hope of clearing up what should not have been confused in the first place: The Constitution gives to the President the power to nominate and to the Senate the power of advice and consent. These are separate and independent powers, and the Constitution does not mandate any particular way for the President and the Senate to fulfill their responsibilities. Because this fact is evident on the face of the Constitution, I cannot understand my colleagues who say that the President has a 4-year term. That observation has nothing at all to do with anything before the Senate. The Senate is not doing a single thing and cannot do a single thing to interfere with the President's power to nominate. He can exercise that power in any way he chooses, including sending nominees to the Senate up to his very last day in office. He can do that. Nobody that I know of disputes that. My dispute would be as to whether it is wise to do it right up to the very last day in office, but nobody really disputes that he can exercise that power in any way he chooses, including sending nominees to the Senate up to his very last day in office. What the President cannot do is dictate to the Senate how we exercise our separate power of advice and consent regarding those nominees. Liberal allies of Senate Democrats are similarly confused. I received a letter signed by liberal groups, for example, claiming that the Constitution requires ``timely hearings and votes.'' It almost sounds like Democratic Senators and leftwing groups are sharing talking points--almost. Let's look once more at the language of article II. I will refer to the chart. Tell me, where is the language about hearings and votes? I understand that Senate Democrats and their leftist allies want a timely hearing and confirmation vote this year to replace Justice Scalia, but wanting a particular confirmation process and saying the Constitution requires that process are two very different things. Some of the groups signing that letter--in particular, I noticed the Leadership Conference, the Alliance for Justice, and People for the American Way--actively urged Senators to filibuster the Supreme Court nomination of Samuel Alito. In 2006 they opposed the very confirmation vote that today, just 10 years later, they say the Constitution requires. Democrats and their liberal allies must be reading the same made-up, shape-shifting Constitution that their favorite activist judges use because the real Constitution says no such thing. Democrats' arguments contradict not only the plain words of the Constitution but also their own words and actions in considering nominees of a Republican President. As to hearings, then-Chairman Pat Leahy denied a hearing to nearly 60 judicial nominees in less than 4 years while George W. Bush was President. As to confirmation votes, the minority leader said in May 2005 that claiming the Constitution requires a confirmation vote would be, in his words, rewriting the Constitution and reinventing reality. That was by the current minority leader. Here is what he said then: The duties of the United States Senate are set forth in the Constitution of the United States. Nowhere in that document does it say that the Senate has a duty to give Presidential nominees a vote. It says that appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That's very different than saying that every nominee receives a vote. That was the minority leader, who was then the majority leader. Well, think about that. The duties of the United States Senate are set forth in the Constitution of the United States. Nowhere in that document does it say that the Senate has a duty to give Presidential nominees a vote. It says that appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That's very different than saying that every nominee receives a vote. - I mentioned one Democratic Senator who voted 25 times to prevent confirmation votes on judicial nominees, as did the minority leader, minority whip, Senator Leahy, and Senator Schumer as well. In fact, Vice President Biden himself, when he served in this body, voted 29 times to filibuster Republican judicial nominees. While President Obama today says that the Constitution requires us to vote on a Supreme Court nominee, as a Senator, he, too, voted to prevent any confirmation vote for Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito. In other words, these Senate Democrats voted over and over to deny the very confirmation vote that today they say the Constitution itself requires. They cannot have it both ways. Do we have multiple Constitutions, one to use for a President of your own party and another for the President of another party? Democrats today have no credibility whatsoever to dictate how the confirmation process should work for filling this Supreme Court vacancy. The Constitution leaves to the President how to exercise his power to nominate and to the Senate how to exercise its power of advice and consent. Recent claims to the contrary are inconsistent with the plain text of the Constitution and with past words and actions of the very Senators and grassroots activists making those claims today. The question is when, not whether, to fill the vacancy left by the untimely death of Justice Scalia. The best answer is to defer the confirmation process until after the next President takes office. Far from ignoring or shirking our responsibility, that conclusion tackles our responsibility head-on for the good of the judiciary, the Senate, and the country. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, before I begin, let me note that I have been very concerned about the tenor of the debate. I am very upset that yesterday my dear friend, the minority leader, yesterday attacked my other dear friend, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Grassley, by calling him inept as a committee chairman. There is no reason for that kind of language on the floor, even if it were true, which it is not, and I think the minority leader knows it is not true. Senator Grassley is one of the most effective, hard-working, decent Senators in the U.S. Senate. He is not an attorney, and yet he has run the Judiciary Committee as well as any chairman that I recall in my 40 years here. Everybody knows he treats people fairly. So I hope we can get rid of that kind of language and start treating people with decency and with regard. We differ widely with the Democrats on this issue and on other issues, but we are not slandering them. If a Republican behaved similarly, I would stand up to him. It just shouldn't happen. On Tuesday, I rose to honor the memory of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, whom I knew quite well. With his passing, the Nation lost one of its greatest Supreme Court Justices ever to have served, and I lost a dear friend. Today, I rise to make the case that the next President should chose the nominee to replace Justice Scalia. As we embark on this debate, our first task should be to situate properly the Senate's role in seating members of the judiciary as well as the reasons for the role. In doing so, let me invoke an approach that Justice Scalia himself employed to make the same point. In addressing audiences, the late Justice often asked: What part of our Constitution was most important in protecting the liberties of the people? Invariably, audiences would provide answers such as protections for the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the like. Justice Scalia, like the vast majority of Americans, agreed that these protections are obviously important. I certainly do, too. Nevertheless, he always made one crucial observation: Even the most repressive dictatorships, such as the Soviet Union and North Korea, typically have provisions akin to our Bill of Rights in their Constitutions. Simply enshrining these basic rights in constitutional text does not ensure their protection. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to complete my remarks.

Mr. HATCH. Our Nation's Founders knew, in the sage words of James Madison in Federalist 47, that ``[t]he accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.'' They bestowed upon us the blessing of the Constitution that creates a Federal Government with limited and enumerated powers, with those powers diffused and balanced between three coequal branches of government. The Federal judiciary occupies a unique station in this constitutional architecture. In deciding cases and controversies, it is, in the seminal words of Marbury v. Madison, ``emphatically the province and the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.'' Unelected and armed with life tenure and salary protection, judges thereby have the power to hold the political branches to account. This power is the source of much of the Constitution's great brilliance in its ability to restrain transient political majorities from exceeding the authority granted to government by the sovereign people; however, it is also the source of one of the great potential pitfalls of our system of government, in which five lawyers can substitute their personal policy preferences to the legitimate judgments of the executive and legislative branches, thereby usurping the powers of the self-governing people. This tension between the stark necessity of judicial independence to preserve limited government under the Constitution and the dangers of an unaccountable judiciary shirking its duty to say what the law is-- and instead saying what it thinks the law should be--makes the judicial selection process vitally important. Hewing to a careful process envisioned by the Framers that vests the Executive and legislature with critical but distinct roles is the means by which we can maintain the integrity of the judicial branch. The appointments clause delineates these distinct roles for the President and the Senate in the appointment property. Article II, section 2 provides that the President ``shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States.'' By creating two separate roles in the confirmation process, the executive branch to nominate and the legislative branch to provide its advice and consent, the Framers were creating rival interests. Alexander Hamilton cogently explained the various rationales for this particular allocation of appointment powers in Federalist 76. Following the example of the Massachusetts Constitution, the Framers vested the responsibility for nominations in one officer, the President, to ensure accountability and impartiality in selecting nominees and to guard against corruption, impropriety or imprudence that characterized the appointment process in many of the States. By concentrating the power of nomination in one person, the Framers sought to create accountability or in Hamilton's words a ``livelier sense of duty and a more exact regard to reputation.'' That said, the Framers expressly rejected the notion of vesting an unchecked appointment power in the President alone. By requiring the President to submit his nominee for the Senate's approval, the Founders sought to forestall any potential abuse of the nomination power. Hamilton argued that the requirement of advice and consent would serve as ``an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity.'' While the practice of the early Republic confirmed that the Chief Executive enjoys plenary authority over nominations, history also shows that the Senate equally possesses the plenary authority to withhold its consent the nominee for any reason. Nothing in the text of the appointment clause appears to limit the Senate's considerations. Just as the President has an unfettered right to veto legislation, the Senate enjoys complete and final discretion in whether to approve or even consider a nomination. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have taken up the mantra that we must ``do our job'' with respect to the current vacancy, and so we must. But our job, despite what the Democrats are saying, is not to follow a particular path found nowhere in the Constitution. Rather, it is to determine the most appropriate way to fulfill our advice and consent role for this particular vacancy. The Senate would not be doing its job if we followed a process that is not appropriate for the situation before us today. Indeed, withholding consent can be just as valid an exercise of our role as granting it, and deferring the confirmation process for a particular vacancy may be the most appropriate and responsible exercise of the advice and consent role entrusted to us. It all depends on the circumstances. Consider these precedents. The Senate has never confirmed a nominee to a Supreme Court vacancy that opened up this late in a term-limited President's time in office. It is only the third vacancy in nearly a century to occur after the American people had already started voting in a Presidential election, and in both the previous two instances--in 1956 and in 1968--the Senate did not confirm the nominee until the following year after the election had occurred. It has been more than three-quarters of a century since a Supreme Court Justice has been nominated and confirmed in a Presidential election year, and the only time the Senate has ever confirmed a nominee to fill a Supreme Court vacancy created after voting began in a Presidential election year was in 1916. That vacancy arose only because Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes resigned his seat on the Court to run against incumbent President Woodrow Wilson. The cautiousness with which Senators in times past have approached election-year vacancies is only amplified by present circumstances. As my colleagues in the minority are fond of saying, elections have consequences, and the election of 2014 certainly had tremendous consequences. In the last election, the American people went to the polls to register their opposition to the wide range of illegal and unconstitutional actions of the Obama administration, including: its unilateral cancellation of duly enacted law, such as with illegal immigration; its regulation contrary to the plain text of the law, such as with the Clean Power Plan; its willingness to ignore its statutory obligations without meaningful justification, such as with the President's decision to release the top five Taliban leaders in U.S. custody without notifying Congress beforehand as required by Federal law; its efforts to stretch what lawful authorities the executive branch does possess beyond all recognition, such as with its mass clemency effort for drug offenders; and its attempt to bypass the Senate's role in the confirmation process, one of nearly two dozen times the Obama administration has lost 9 to 0 before the Supreme Court. The American people elected our Republican Senate majority in large part to check the overreach of President Obama, and given how crucial the courts have proven in holding this administration accountable to the Constitution and the law, the Senate has every reason to approach lifetime appointments cautiously and deliberately, especially appointments to the highest Court in the land. Moreover, leaving Justice Scalia's seat vacant until after the election would hardly result in a constitutional crisis. An even number of Justices has never inhibited the Supreme Court from functioning. An absence of this length would be far from unprecedented, as the Court has adapted to vacancies that lasted for more than 2 years in its history and as recently as 1970 accommodated a vacancy of more than a year thanks to liberal obstruction of two candidates nominated by a Republican President. Famously, when Justice Robert Jackson took a year-long leave of absence to serve as chief prosecutor at the Nuremburg war crimes tribunal, Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote to him and advised him that having a temporary eight-member Court as a result of his prolonged absence did not ``sacrifice a single interest of importance.'' Moreover, the recusal process oftentimes requires the Court to consider various cases with a reduced number of Justices, including recent high-profile cases such as Arizona v. United States in 2012 and Fisher v. University of Texas in 2013. Consider that Justice Kagan, due to her service as Solicitor General, had to recuse herself in 38 cases. In these situations the Court has well-established rule for dealing with its cases, including 4-to-4 splits. At its discretion, the Court has the authority to hold cases over or reargue them when a new Justice is confirmed. Indeed, the vast majority of Supreme Court decisions are unanimous, nearly so, or are split along nonideological lines. Only a relatively small minority of cases--typically less than 20 percent--are decided 5- to-4, and even fewer divide along predictable ideological lines. In the unlikely event that a tie should occur, as has occurred in only 2 of 38 of Justice Kagan's recusals, the ruling of the lower court is simply upheld. Put simply, the absence of one of the nine Justices on the Court is far from calamitous, but a hastily made appointment could be. If the particular circumstances we face today counsel in favor of waiting until after the election, why would we act otherwise simply because the other party tells us to do so? The minority leader made this same point in 2005 when he flatly rejected the claim that the Senate must always give nominees an up-or- down vote. In fact, he said that the very idea would be, in his own words, ``rewriting the Constitution and reinventing reality.'' He said: ``The duties of the United States Senate are set forth in the Constitution of the United States. Nowhere in that document does it say that the Senate has a duty to give Presidential nominees a vote. It says that appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is very different than saying that every nominee receives a vote.'' Yesterday, I was stunned to hear numerous Democrats contradict the minority leader on this point. For example, the minority whip said that the ``clear language of the Constitution'' requires an up-or-down confirmation vote. That claim is obviously wrong on its face, since the Constitution says no such thing. By the minority leader's 2005 standard, these Democrats today are ``rewriting the Constitution and reinventing reality.'' Perhaps they received different sets of talking points. This claim by the minority whip and others that the Constitution requires an up-or-down vote is baffling for another reason. Between 2003 and 2007 the minority whip voted 25 times to filibuster Republican judicial nominees. In other words, he voted 25 times to deprive judicial nominees of an up-or-down confirmation vote that he now says the Constitution's clear language requires. Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have also repeatedly observed that deferring the confirmation process until the next President takes office would be unprecedented. This point escapes me as well. The filibusters used to defeat Republican judicial nominees were also unprecedented, yet many Democrats voted for them anyway. While past practice matters, the ultimate question is not whether this has happened before but whether it is an appropriate step to take now. The Senate's job is to decide how best to carry out its duty of advice and consent in the situation before us. Thankfully, we are not without guidance in making that judgment. I think back to 1992, a Presidential election year not unlike this one, in which different parties controlled the White House and the Senate. My friend, then- Judiciary Committee Chairman and now-Vice President Joe Biden, came to this very floor on June 25, 1992, and delivered what he said was the longest speech in his then 19 years in this body. He evaluated the state of the confirmation process, suggested reforms for the future, and made a specific recommendation. He said that if a Supreme Court vacancy occurred in that Presidential election year, President George H.W. Bush ``should consider following the practice of a majority of predecessors and not--and not--name a nominee until after the November election is completed.'' If the President did choose a Supreme Court nominee, Chairman Biden said: ``The Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.'' While Vice President Biden might feel differently about that today, that is what he said then as chairman of the committee. In other words, deferring the confirmation process until the next President was in office was the most appropriate way for the Senate to fulfill its advice and consent role. Then-Chairman Biden listed several factors that led him to this recommendation, and every one of these factors exists today. First, he noted that an appointment process in 1992 would take place in divided government. Different parties also control the White House and Senate today. Second, he said that Presidents had recently made controversial Supreme Court appointments, noting that those nominees received a significant number of negative votes in the Senate. Again, the same is true today. President Obama's appointments of Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, for example, are both among the top five most opposed Supreme Court appointees in history. Third, then-Chairman Biden noted that the Presidential election process had already begun. Once again, that is the case today. That is the case today, with voters in numerous States having already cast ballots. Fourth, Chairman Biden said that the confirmation process itself had become increasingly divisive. This criterion strikes me as ironic, given its source. After all, Senate Democrats are responsible for provoking the so-called confirmation wars with the political and ideological inquisition used to defeat the Supreme Court nomination of Robert Bork and the despicable smear tactics used against the nomination of Clarence Thomas. Senate Democrats have also been responsible for every major escalation in judicial confirmations since 1992. Within 2 weeks of President George W. Bush's inauguration, the Senate Democratic leader vowed to use ``whatever means necessary'' to defeat undesirable judicial nominees. A few months later, Senate Democrats organized a retreat with the goal, as the New York Times described it, of changing the ground rules for the confirmation process. In January 2002, former Democratic Congressman, appeals court judge, and White House Counsel Abner Mikva urged Senate Democrats not to consider any Supreme Court nominees during President Bush's first term. In 2003, Democrats began for the first time to use the filibuster to defeat judicial nominees who otherwise would have been confirmed. In July 2007, Senator Charles Schumer--another friend of mine--said in a speech to the American Constitution Society that the Senate should not confirm a Supreme Court nominee during President Bush's final 18 months in office except in what he called ``extraordinary circumstances.'' When then-Chairman Biden said in 1992 that the state of the confirmation process should defer consideration of any Supreme Court nominees, no judicial nominee had been defeated by a filibuster in nearly 25 years. During President George W. Bush's tenure alone, Democrats led 20 filibusters that ultimately defeated five appeals court nominees. More to the point, in 2006, then-Senators Biden, Clinton, Reid, Leahy, Schumer, Durbin, and Obama voted to filibuster the Supreme Court nomination of Samuel Alito. President Obama did say last week that he now regrets voting to filibuster the Alito nomination, although it took him 3,670 days to reach that conclusion. He told me that last night at the White House in a private conversation we had, and I accept his statement. I like the President personally, but the record does not support the other side's audacious claims. Finally, after the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals--a court that many of us consider nearly as important as the Supreme Court, given its role in regulatory oversight--rightfully invalidated several key actions of the Obama administration, Democrats openly sought to fill that court with compliant judges in order to obtain more favorable decisions. The President's allies in this body, in their own words, ``focus[ed] very intently on the D.C. Circuit'' to ``switch the majority'' and were willing to ``fill up the D.C. Circuit one way or another.'' In the rush to eliminate any possible judicial obstacle to the administration's overreaching agenda, Senate Democrats in 2013 used a parliamentary maneuver--the so-called nuclear option--to abolish the very nomination filibusters they had used so aggressively, but with one telling exception: They left alone the possibility of filibustering a Supreme Court nomination. Having done so, they must continue to believe the Senate's advice and consent role allows denying any confirmation vote to a Supreme Court nominee. I am disappointed and, frankly, a little baffled at the response so far of my Democratic colleagues. Now-Vice President Biden and President Obama himself have both said that he was speaking in 1992 about a ``hypothetical vacancy.'' Of course he was, and his purpose in doing so was to outline what the President and Senate should do if that hypothetical vacancy materialized. Well, that vacancy is no longer hypothetical; it is very real. Yet the Vice President now says the Senate should not take his advice after all. Vice President Biden has also said that his words from 1992 are being taken out of context. We have all faced the inconvenient truth of our past words--especially in these areas--and the go-to objection is often about context. I have two suggestions. First, my colleagues should read then- Chairman Biden's speech for themselves. It takes up 10 full pages in the Congressional Record, so there is as much context as anyone could possibly want to consider. A second option is to consider how the media had described that speech. One CBS news story, for example, has the headline: ``Joe Biden Once Took GOP's Position on Supreme Court Vacancy.'' Perhaps they, too, are contextually challenged. This is what the Washington Post said about the speech: ``But Biden's remarks were especially pointed, voluminous and relevant to the current situation. Embedded in the roughly 20,000 words he delivered on the Senate floor that day were rebuttals to virtually every point Democrats have brought forth in the past week to argue for the consideration of Obama's nominee.'' The constant refrain of Senate Democrats and their media allies over the past few days is that the Senate should just ``do its job.'' Of course, what they really mean is that the Senate should do what they want the Senate to do. Then-Chairman Biden believed in 1992 that the Senate would be doing its job by deferring the confirmation process for a Supreme Court nominee. Senate Democrats presumably believed the Senate was doing its job by denying confirmation votes to judicial nominees under President George W. Bush. The minority leader presumably believed the Senate would be doing its job by not voting on nominations since, as he said in 2005, the Constitution does not require it to do so. And I can only assume that the senior Senator from New York believed the Senate would be doing its job if it followed his 2007 recommendation and refused to consider Supreme Court nominees in a President's final 18 months. Perhaps the most audacious claim trafficked by the other side of the aisle over the past few days is, as the senior Senator from New York has said, ``It doesn't matter what anybody said in the past,'' or, as President Obama put it, ``Senators say stuff all the time.'' In response, consider this point: Benjamin Franklin wrote in 1789 that ``in this world, nothing can be said to be certain except death and taxes.'' I would like to add one more thing to that list: It is equally certain that if a Supreme Court Justice beloved by the left passed away in the final year of a Republican President's tenure, a Democratic-controlled Senate would not only refuse to consider any nominee of the lame-duck President but would also extensively cite then-Chairman Biden's 1992 speech and other such clear statements for support. No one should have any doubt about that. Indeed, my friends on the other side seem to have fallen into the trap identified by Justice Scalia in his opinion in the Noel Canning case in which he warned that ``individual Senators may have little interest in opposing Presidential encroachment on legislative prerogatives, especially when the encroacher is a President who is the leader of their own party.'' Before I conclude, I cannot let pass the disturbing comments yesterday by my friend the minority leader about Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley. I have served with Senator Grassley for nearly 25 years on the Finance Committee and for 35 years on the Judiciary Committee. If there is anybody in this body who knows his own mind and makes his own decisions, it is Chuck Grassley. I was flabbergasted by the minority leader's statement that Chairman Grassley has allowed the majority leader to ``run roughshod'' over him. If the minority leader's case for committee action depends on grasping at such unwarranted and unjustified personal attacks, then he has simply exposed the weakness of his own position. Under Chairman Grassley's leadership, the Judiciary Committee has reported 21 bipartisan bills. Five of them have become law--the same number as during the entire 113th Congress under Democratic leadership. This record contrasts quite favorably to the senior Senator from Nevada's abysmal record in the last Congress as majority leader, in which the Senate set a record for bills that bypassed committee consideration and voted on only 15 amendments in all of 2014. I know there are different opinions about whether or how to address filling the vacancy left by Justice Scalia's death, and I appreciate that. And I appreciate that Senators and others feel strongly about these issues. Nevertheless, it is absolutely disingenuous for the minority leader, who today demands the same up-or-down confirmation vote he 25 times tried to prevent for Republican nominees, to suggest that Chairman Grassley is doing anything other than what he believes is right. Senator Grassley is one of the great Senators here. He is totally honest, and we all know it. He speaks his mind, and we all know that, too. I have served longer on the Judiciary Committee than any other current Member of this body. During these past four decades, including during my more than 8 years as chairman of the committee, I have strived to develop a record of true fairness toward the nominations made by Presidents of each party. I have absolutely no doubt that my treatment of this vacancy fits squarely within this record of fairness. The bottom line is simple: The Constitution obliges the Senate to take its role seriously as a check on the President in the consideration of lifetime appointments to the Federal courts, especially the Supreme Court. With voting already underway to replace our lame-duck President, delaying consideration of a nomination until after the election comports not only with historical practice but also with the prescriptions of key Democrats in the Senate and the White House over many years. By protecting the integrity of the Supreme Court from this environment, Senate Republicans are unquestionably doing the job the Constitution charges us to do. We can have differences, no question about it, but the Senate Republicans are acting responsibly. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to honor the memory of one of our Nation's greatest champions of limited government under the Constitution, Justice Antonin Scalia. Justice Scalia set the standard for the kind of judge upon which liberty depends. He was a dear friend, and I will miss him greatly. The purpose of government, according to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, is to secure inalienable rights and the blessings of liberty. Liberty exists by design and, as Andrew Jackson put it, by eternal vigilance. America's Founders were clear that liberty requires separated and limited government powers, including a particular role for unelected judges. Judges who seek to determine what the law is promote liberty; judges who say what they think the law should be undermine it. Put simply, judges must interpret and apply the law impartially; that is, by setting aside their own opinions, preferences, or prejudices. Interpreting and applying the law impartially particularly leaves the American people and their elected representatives in charge of the law. When they interpret written law impartially, they discern what the original public meaning of the law is. When judges apply the law impartially, they pay no regard to the identity of the parties or the political effects of their decision. Judges can neither make nor change the law they use to decide cases. That is the kind of judge liberty requires. That is the kind of judge Antonin Scalia was. When President Ronald Reagan first appointed Antonin Scalia to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in 1982, the future Justice said to those of us on the Judiciary Committee that if confirmed the time for him to opine on the wisdom of laws would be ``bygone days.'' When he again came before the committee a few years later as a Supreme Court nominee, he repeated that setting aside personal views is ``one of the primary qualifications for a judge.'' He described a ``good judge'' as one who starts from the law itself and not ``where I would like to come out in [a] particular case.'' Justice Scalia's brilliance and wit were certainly impressive, but they were powerfully connected to this deeply considered and deliberately framed judicial philosophy rooted in the principles of the Constitution. He stuck doggedly to this ideal of the good judge whose role in our system of government is limited to properly interpreting the law and impartially applying it to decide cases. His approach requires self-restraint by judges. Judges, he often said, must take the law as they find it and apply it even when they do not like the results. In his own words, ``If you're going to be a good and faithful judge, you have to resign yourself to the fact that you're not always going to like the conclusions you reach.'' Liberty requires such judicial self-restraint, whether it is en vogue or not. As President Reagan put it when he witnessed the oath of office administered to Justice Scalia in September 1986, America's Founders intended that the judiciary be independent and strong but also confined within the boundaries of a written Constitution and laws. No one believed that principle more deeply and insisted on implementing it more consistently than our Justice Scalia. His approach to the law was often called textualism or, in the constitutional context, originalism--an approach which is nothing more than determining the original public meaning of the legal text. It leaves the lawmaking to the lawmakers and the people they represent, rather than to the judge. The Senate unanimously confirmed Justice Scalia's nomination on September 17, 1986, the 199th anniversary of the Constitution's ratification. That was very appropriate because his approach gives the Constitution its real due, treating it as more than empty words on a page but as words that already have meaning and substance. Justice Scalia knew that the Constitution cannot limit government's power if government actors--including judges--define the Constitution. Justice Scalia rejected judicial activism--what he called power- judging--that treats the law as shape-shifting. For activists, the laws and the Constitution have no fixed meaning but can rather be contorted and manipulated to fit the judge's own policy preference. Such an approach puts the unelected judge, not the American people in their elected representatives, in the position of supreme lawmaker. Thomas Jefferson warned that if judges controlled the Constitution's meaning, it would be ``a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.'' That is exactly what activist judges do, treating the law like clay that they can mold in their own image. Rather than reinterpreting the law in his own image, the good judge conforms his decisions to the fixed meaning of the law. By insisting that even judges must be the servants rather than the masters of the law, Justice Scalia was simply following the lead of America's Founders and empowering the American people. Justice Scalia's approach to judging not only requires self-restraint by judges, but it also demands rigor and accountability by legislators. The good judge takes seriously the language the legislators enact, so the people can hold accountable the legislators they elect. The famed Senator and Supreme Court advocate Daniel Webster once said that ``there are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.'' Those who object to Justice Scalia's approach embrace the notion that judges, rather than the people, should be the masters of the law. Justice Scalia's impact has been enormous. A liberal legal commentator may have put it best in his review of Justice Scalia's book, ``A Matter of Interpretation,'' with these words: We are all originalists now. That is to say, most judges and legal scholars who want to remain within the boundaries of respectable constitutional discourse agree that the original meaning of the Constitution and its amendment has some degree of pertinence to the question of what the Constitution means today. Justice Scalia brought the boundaries of respectable constitutional discourse more in line with the principles of liberty than they had been in a generation. For that, our liberty is more secure, and we should be deeply grateful. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, are we still in recess?

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I wish to discuss S. 483, the Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act, which the Judiciary Committee reported out by voice vote right before we went into recess. At the outset, I would like to thank Senator Whitehouse for his important work on this bill. He and his staff have been crucial partners in helping to move this legislation forward. S. 483 will bring much-needed clarity to several key provisions of the Controlled Substances Act. In particular, it will better delineate the standards a company must satisfy in order to obtain a Controlled Substances Act registration and the circumstances under which a registration may be suspended without an adjudicative proceeding. To elaborate briefly on this second point, under the terms of the Controlled Substances Act, the Attorney General may suspend a registration to manufacture or distribute controlled substances without court process if she determines there is an imminent danger to the public health and safety, but the Controlled Substances Act does not define what constitutes an imminent danger. S. 483 clarifies the Attorney General's authority under this provision by specifying that imminent danger means that, ``due to failure of the registrant to maintain effective controls against diversion or otherwise comply with the obligations of a registrant under this title or title III, there is a substantial likelihood of an immediate threat that death, serious bodily harm, or abuse of a controlled substance will occur in the absence of an immediate suspension of the registration.'' It is the intent of the bill authors that the phrase ``substantial likelihood of an immediate threat that death, serious bodily harm, or abuse of a controlled substance will occur'' include situations where evidence of diversion indicates there is a substantial likelihood that abuse of a controlled substance will occur--that is it is the intent of the authors that this language authorize the Attorney General to issue an immediate suspension order in cases where evidence of diversion points to a substantial likelihood of abuse, provided the other conditions for issuing such an order are met. In addition to these important clarifications, S. 483 will also facilitate greater collaboration between registrants and relevant Federal actors in combatting prescription drug abuse. In particular, the bill provides a mechanism for companies who inadvertently violate the Controlled Substances Act to submit a corrective action plan to remediate the violation before their registration is suspended and the supply of drugs to patients is interrupted. This provision will encourage greater self-reporting of violations and promote joint efforts between government and private actors to stem the tide of prescription drug abuse. It will also help ensure that supply chains remain intact for legitimate uses such as the alleviation of pain and illness. S. 483 takes a balanced approach to the problem of prescription drug abuse. It clarifies and further defines the Attorney General's enforcement powers while seeking to avoid situations that may lead to an interruption in the supply of medicine to suffering patients. It reflects a measured, carefully negotiated compromise between stakeholders and law enforcement that will enable both to work together more effectively. I thank Senator Whitehouse again for his work on this bill and urge my colleagues to give it their strong support.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today the Senate is poised to take a major step forward in advancing a robust agenda for international trade that better reflects the realities of the 21st century global economy. It provides real benefits for our country. Later today, the Senate will vote on and hopefully pass the conference report for H.R. 644, the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015, legislation that we originally passed last May. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Wyden follow my remarks in this matter.

Mr. HATCH. I am coauthor of this legislation, and many of the provisions in this conference report have been in the works for several years. I also chaired the conference committee that was charged with reconciling the differences between the Senate-passed and House-passed versions of this bill. In my view, the committee was a huge success. I believe our report represents a strong bipartisan, bicameral agreement to address a number of trade policy priorities. I want to talk about some of the specifics of this legislation, which most of us generally refer to as the ``Customs bill.'' Once this bill is signed into law--and I hope it will be in short order--it will enact policies designed to achieve three main goals. The first goal is to facilitate and streamline the flow of legitimate trade into and out of the United States. The bill makes a number of changes to reduce bureaucracy and improve consultation among executive agencies, Congress, and the private sector. These changes will facilitate trade and improve our competitiveness by reducing unnecessary burdens and delays created by our overly bureaucratic system, which, in turn, will help create jobs and grow our economy. The second major goal of the Customs bill is to improve enforcement of our trade laws. It does so in a number of ways. For example, the bill establishes a new, improved process at CBP for dealing with evasion of our anti-dumping and countervailing duties laws and provides clear direction and robust rules for identifying and addressing currency manipulation on the part of our trading partners. It also includes dramatic improvements to better protect U.S. intellectual property rights. This has been a high priority for me, as most of my colleagues know, and it is a high priority for my people in the State of Utah, whose economy is highly dependent on strong intellectual property rights. Combined, these enforcement provisions will provide greater protection for American workers and consumers and help ensure that foreign competitors will not have unfair advantages in the global marketplace. The third major goal of the Customs conference report is to strengthen the trade promotion authority statute that we enacted last year, reflecting various priorities and concerns from Members of both parties. For example, the bill clearly and strongly reaffirms that trade agreements should not include--and TPA procedures should not be used dealing with respect to--immigration policy or greenhouse gas emissions. It also creates a new negotiating objective to remove barriers facing American fishermen who export into foreign markets, and it provides important procedures related to the reporting of human trafficking. While this Customs bill was specifically designed to address these three policy goals, it goes further to address other priorities as well. For example, the bill will combat politically motivated boycotts, divestments, and sanctions against Israel, bolstering our already strong economic ties with one of our most important strategic allies. And it provides trade preferences for Nepal in order to provide economic recovery in the aftermath of the devastating earthquake last year. Before I conclude, I do want to note that a number of my colleagues, as well as businesses and job creators around the country, were hoping that the conference report on the Customs bill would include a reauthorization of the miscellaneous tariff bills, or MTBs. I want to make clear that I support MTBs and want to get them passed. That is why they were included in the original Senate-passed version of the Customs bill. There are, of course, some procedural concerns that complicate the MTBs, particularly over in the House, which have made it difficult to reach a workable compromise. However, the conference report does include a strong sense-of-Congress statement reaffirming our shared commitment to advancing MTB legislation in a process that provides robust consultation and is consistent with both House and Senate rules. I also want to reaffirm my personal commitment as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee to work with my colleagues to find a path forward on MTBs that will work for those on both sides of the Capitol. Needless to say, I am very pleased with how this conference report turned out. I have many people I want to thank, and I will thank them once the bill gets done. For now, I specifically want to thank the vice chair of the conference committee, Chairman Kevin Brady, for his work on both the committee itself and on the substance of the report. I also want to thank the ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senator Wyden, for his efforts to ensure passage of this conference report. It is a pleasure to work with Senator Wyden, and we have very much been able to work in a bipartisan way as we worked on this committee together. Last spring, Republicans and Democrats on the Finance Committee came together to draft and report four major pieces of legislation, three of which have already been signed into law. That, of course, included our TPA bill, a bill to renew important trade preferences programs, and another bill to reauthorize the Trade Adjustment Assistance program. The fourth was our Customs bill, the one we will hopefully pass today. These four bills represented the priorities of Members throughout the Senate and on both sides of the aisle. Collectively, they will shape the policy landscape on trade--not just here in the United States but around the world as well--for years to come. Perhaps more importantly, they also represent what is possible when Members of both parties work together to achieve common goals. Of those four bills, the Customs bill is the only one that hasn't been enacted into law. I am cautiously optimistic that we will rectify that later today. I am hoping that, just like the three other trade bills, the Customs bill will pass with broad, bipartisan support. I urge all of my colleagues to vote later today to advance the Customs bill to the President's desk and to put in place these much-needed reforms. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of supporters of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield the floor to the distinguished Senator from Oregon.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, the bill we will be voting on shortly contains a provision amending 19 U.S.C., section 1501, which relates to the liquidation of entries into the U.S. The provision in the conference report amending section 1501 is intended to ensure in cases where liquidation occurs by operation of law, the 90-day timeframe for the voluntary reliquidation of an entry by Customs and Border Protection begins on the date of the original liquidation. I would ask my colleague, Senator Wyden, the ranking member of the Finance Committee, if that is his understanding of this provision as well.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, as we move toward final passage of the conference committee report on H.R. 644, the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act, I would like to take just a few minutes to reflect on how we got here and to thank the many individuals who made this moment possible. This conference report concludes what has been an historic 13 months for trade legislation in the U.S. Senate. When I began my tenure as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee early last year, one of my foremost goals was to strengthen and modernize U.S. international trade institutions and policies. It was an audacious goal. After all, it is not like we had not tried before. Years of stagnation had enabled countless trade problems to accumulate, many of them crying for legislative resolution. Everyone agreed that something needed to be done, but again and again, our efforts were stopped. Well this Congress was different. Working together in a bipartisan way, we were able to advance legislation to strengthen congressional oversight of trade negotiations through reauthorization of trade promotion authority, or TPA. I intend to vigorously employ TPA's new oversight tools in reviewing the Trans- Pacific Partnership that the Obama administration concluded in October and signed last week. While the verdict is still out on TPP, the efforts of the individuals who made that possible should not go unrecognized. So I would like to acknowledge the hard work of individuals such as Ambassador Mike Froman, former Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Wendy Cutler, and the Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Southeast Asia and the Pacific, Barbara Weisel. Their tireless commitment to advancing the interests of the United States abroad deserves to be recognized and applauded. I also would like to thank my staff, who worked behind the scenes to help negotiate and craft legislation that will serve our Nation for many years to come. I believe that the Senate Finance Committee leadership team of Chris Campbell, Mark Prater, and Jay Khosla is among the finest that I have had the pleasure to work with in my many years of Senate service. Our trade team, consisting of chief trade counsel Everett Eissenstat, Shane Warren, Douglas Petersen, Rebecca Eubank, Andrew Rollo, Kevin Rosenbaum, Paul Delaney, Greg Kalbaugh, and Kenneth Schmidt consistently demonstrated that teamwork, motivation, and drive can produce great results; and this bill we are considering here is no exception. I also would like to thank our outstanding speech and communications team, consisting of Bryan Hickman, Julia Lawless, Aaron Fobes, Amelia Breinig, and Joshua Blume; and of course, our fine tax team, including Nick Wyatt, Eric Oman, Jim Lyons, and our chief economist, Jeff Wrase. Bipartisanship was critical to all of our work over the past year, especially on trade. For their steadfast commitment and determination to our shared goal of producing strong, bipartisan legislation, I would like to recognize Senator Wyden and his team: Josh Sheinkman, Mike Evans, Jayme White, Elissa Alben, Greta Peisch, Anderson Heiman, Tiffany Smith, and Todd Metcalf. I also would like to thank Senator McConnell and his staff: Sharon Soderstrom, Brendan Dunn, Terry Van Doren, and Hazen Marshall, who provided us with support and leadership throughout this process. Finally, let me thank my House colleagues, Speaker Ryan, Chairman Brady, and their staffs Austin Smythe, Joyce Meyer, Angela Ellard, Geoff Antell, Steve Claeys, Nasim Fussell, and Casey Higgins. On the Democratic staff, I would like to acknowledge the hard work and contributions of Ranking Member Sandy Levin and his staff, Jason Kearns, Beth Baltzan, Katherine Tai, and Keigan Mull. Finally, this conference report would not have been possible without the excellent work done by Tom Barthold from the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Senate Legislative Counsel's office, especially Margaret Roth-Warren and Thomas Heywood, and the Congressional Budget Office, especially Teri Gullo, Ann Futrell, Susan Willie and Mark Grabowicz. The support of the legislative affairs staff at U.S. Customs and Border Protection also was essential for getting this conference report right, and I especially want to acknowledge John Pickel, Ned Leigh, and Kristin Isabelli. I am proud of this conference report and pleased that we were able to pass it with a strong, bipartisan vote. It took many hands to bring us to this moment, and I am truly thankful for all of their hard work. This bill shows that, through persistence and hard work, we can accomplish great things.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I compliment the distinguished Senator from Ohio on his remarks here today. He is one of the pillars of this Senate. He is one of the finest men I have served with in the whole time I have been in the U.S. Senate. He is on top of everything. His experiences outside of the Senate have been magnificent. Everybody, I think, has a very high opinion of him. Those who might express otherwise, deep down do. They know what a fine man he is. He is absolutely right on this issue. We need to do many things about it.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, having said that, during the 2008 Presidential campaign, one of the candidates criticized the outgoing President for adding $4 trillion to the national debt. He called that increase not only irresponsible but even ``unpatriotic.'' Barack Obama was that candidate. He won the election and took office with the Government Accountability Office warning the long-term fiscal outlook is ``unsustainable.'' The national debt on inauguration day 2009 was $10.6 trillion, and it stands at $19 trillion today. The national debt for American households has risen from $93,000 to nearly $160,000 since President Obama took office. If a $4 trillion increase is irresponsible and unpatriotic, what words describe an increase that is more than twice as large? The national debt crisis has been around for a long time, but we have never been in a more serious, perilous situation than we are today. One way to grasp the magnitude of the national debt is to compare it to the size of the economy, or the gross domestic product. In other words, we can compare what we owe to our ability to pay. When President Obama took office, the national debt was 82 percent of GDP. It is now 105 percent of GDP today, by far the largest increase in American history during a President's first 7 years. Economists tell us that the national debt above 90 percent of GDP for a sustained period of time will lead to substantially slower economic growth and higher interest rates. The United States is now in the longest period in history with a national debt above that toxic 90-percent level. Not surprisingly, since the recession ended in June 2009, the national debt has grown more than twice as fast, and GDP has grown less than half as fast as during the same period after previous recessions. Some economists prefer to evaluate the national debt as a percentage of tax revenue; that is, comparing what we owe to what we earn. The national debt has risen from approximately 350 percent of Federal revenue when President Obama took office to 600 percent of Federal revenue today. But even that does not tell the whole story. During the last several years of skyrocketing national debt, the interest rate on that debt has been nearly zero. If interest rates had been at the historical average, annual interest costs would be more than twice what they are today and on their way to consuming more than half of all Federal revenue. And now interest rates are starting to creep up. The Concord Coalition and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget both anticipate that over the next decade interest payments on the national debt alone will approach $1 trillion per year. That is interest against the national debt. By any of these measures, the national debt crisis is not only serious, it is worse than ever and much worse than when this President took office. The Congressional Budget Office has a new budget, an economic outlook that projects the national debt rising by nearly $10 trillion over the next decade. Looking beyond the next decade, CBO says that under current law, the national debt will explode to more than 150 percent of GDP, the highest level in American history. CBO also says that interest on the national debt is one of the engines driving the debt even higher. A national debt of this magnitude undercuts the economic growth necessary to minimize borrowing to fund the government. Rising interest costs for such a monstrous debt add to the debt on which more interest must then be paid. In this new report, CBO again outlined some of the serious negative consequences of this national debt for the budget and the Nation. In addition to substantially higher interest payments, these include lower productivity and wages, less flexibility by lawmakers to respond to fiscal challenges, and an increased likelihood of a fiscal crisis. In addition to those problems, former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Michael Mullen and experts from the Heritage Foundation to the Brookings Institution warned that the national debt crisis is a serious threat to national security. It is no wonder that more than two-thirds of Americans say that their concern over the national debt is growing, and more than three-quarters of Americans say that the national debt should be among Congress's top three priorities. The national debt was once a top priority. In fact, America's Founders were so determined to avoid debt that their commitment to fiscal balance was often called our unwritten fiscal constitution. President George Washington, for example, told Congress that the regular redemption of the public debt was the most urgent fiscal priority. That commitment is long gone. The Federal budget has been balanced in only a dozen of the last 80 years, and as I said earlier, we are in the longest period of American history with a debt above 90 percent of the GDP. As its willpower failed, Congress has also tried to address the debt crisis by legislation. The first bill requiring a balanced budget was introduced in 1934, when the national debt was 40 percent of GDP, compared to today. Fifty years later, Congress enacted the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act. Since then, we have enacted multiple budget control acts and budget enforcement acts as the national debt climbed from 42 percent of GDP in 1985 to more than 100 percent of GDP today. Good intentions will not balance the Nation's checkbook. Statutes that Congress can change or ignore will not keep our fiscal house in order. Neither willpower nor legislation will tackle this national debt crisis. Pretending otherwise is the fiscal equivalent of fiddling while Rome burns. In no other way, except by an amendment to the Constitution, can Congress be compelled to balance its budget in peacetime. Let me say that again. In no other way, except by an amendment to the Constitution, can Congress be compelled to balance its budget in peacetime. While I claim that as my firm conviction, I cannot claim authorship of those words. The Appropriations Committee expressed that principle in 1947 about a balanced budget amendment introduced by Senator Millard Tydings, a Democrat from Maryland. Everything that has happened since then has proved the truth of those words. Year after year, decade after decade, we slide deeper in debt until today our economy is being suffocated. One definition of insanity is doing the same thing but expecting different results. If we keep doing what we have done, we will get more of what we have been getting. This would be a very different country, a freer and more productive country, if Congress had already proposed the only solution that exists--a constitutional amendment that requires fiscal responsibility. The first balanced budget amendment was introduced in the House in 1936. I introduced my first balanced budget amendment in June of 1979 during my first term in the U.S. Senate. Adjusted for inflation, the national debt then was $2.6 trillion, or 32 percent of GDP. That share of GDP doubled by 1997, when the Senate came within one vote--one solitary vote--of passing a balanced budget amendment that I introduced. It rose to 95 percent when the Senate last voted on a balanced budget amendment in 2011 and is 105 percent of GDP today. Since this crisis is already so grave and getting worse, and since the only way to tackle it is through the Constitution, we should propose a balanced budget amendment and let the American people decide to take this step. Congress, after all, cannot amend the Constitution. A requirement that Congress keep its fiscal house in order does not become part of the Constitution until it is approved by three-quarters of the States, or 38 States. Article V of the Constitution also allows the States to apply for a convention to propose constitutional amendments. Concerned citizens have been working since the mid-1970s to reach the two-thirds threshold for calling such a convention to propose a balanced budget amendment. Since Congress has never called an article V convention, many questions remain unresolved, and theories remain untested regarding that method of proposing an amendment. I can assure my colleagues, however, that Congress's continued failure to propose a balanced budget amendment guarantees that our fellow citizens will continue working to force that course upon us. I looked at dozens of polls conducted by major polling firms and national news organizations since I was first elected to the Senate. Three-quarters of Americans supported a balanced budget amendment in 1976, and three-quarters support it now. They believe even more strongly today what the Appropriations Committee said in 1947--that in no other way, except by a constitutional amendment, can Congress be compelled to balance its budget in peacetime. It will do no good to pretend that the national debt is not a fiscal Tsunami. It is. It will do no good to pretend that this ocean of debt is not already taking a serious toll on our country. It is. It will do no good to repeat the mantra that Congress can tackle the national debt crisis by itself. No one believes that anymore--not anyone. That emperor has no clothes. Perhaps some of my colleagues believe that all the polls over the last 40 years are wrong, that the American people are content watching the national debt swallow the economy. Perhaps our fellow citizens are actually OK with slower economic growth, a rising threat to national security, the greater likelihood of a fiscal crisis, and an unsustainable path to fiscal disaster. If that is what the American people actually believe, then they will decline to ratify a balanced budget amendment. So why not give it a chance? Perhaps some of my colleagues believe that the Congressional Budget Office is wrong in its disturbing projections and dire warnings or that the Government Accountability Office is mistaken and the fiscal path we are on is sustainable after all or that the Concord Coalition and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget are wrong about how national debt interest payments will continue to grow and add to the debt or that economists are wrong to warn about the impact of a sustained national debt of this magnitude. If my colleagues are convinced that everyone else is wrong and that our fiscal future is just fine and hunky-dory after all, then I still urge them to let the American decide. The Constitution belongs to the American people--not to the people here, although we are part of the American people. President Obama once said that a $4 trillion increase in the national debt is irresponsible and unpatriotic. This week he submitted a budget for fiscal year 2017 that reflects the same recycled misguided policies that have both added to the debt and have failed in Congress. On all of the budgets he submitted, there was only one vote for his budget. There was a bipartisan rejection in each case. President Obama wants to expand a broken Medicaid system rather than reform it. He wants to impose higher taxes to prop up more government spending. He continues to turn a blind eye to the Nation's unsustainable entitlement programs that are propelling the national debt to unprecedented levels. We all know the facts and the dangers about the national debt crisis. We all know that the American people are, if anything, more alarmed about this crisis than we are--certainly with the exception of myself. The only reason that Members of Congress have refused to give our fellow citizens a choice about adding a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution is that they know what that choice will be. I say with respect, but as strongly as I can, that this is not a legitimate basis for refusing to propose a balanced budget amendment. In our system of government, as Founder James Wilson once put it, the people are the masters of government. Only they have authority to set the rules for government. This choice must be theirs, not ours. Here is the heart of the matter. First, the national debt crisis poses a significant and growing threat to the economic and national security of this country. In fact, we have never been in such an extended, perilous period than we are right now. Second, Congress has tried and failed to address this crisis by either willpower or legislation and will do so only if the Constitution requires it. Third, the decision of whether to use the Constitution to require fiscal responsibility belongs to the American people, not to Congress. A balanced budget amendment would allow the American people to make that choice. What are we afraid of? Are we afraid that we can't keep going on spending like this or that the American people might pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution? Yes, I think we are afraid of that, but we shouldn't be. We should be glad to have it in the Constitution itself. We could either take the responsibility we were elected for and propose a balanced budget amendment or the American people may do it for us. The key to me is to pass a balanced budget constitutional amendment. I filed it, and it has a great number. It was filed right after we got into the Congress. It is an amendment that literally every one of us should support. Let's get real about this national debt. Let's get real about helping our American people survive. Let's get real about having the greatest Nation on Earth continue to fight for liberty and freedom and independence and religious rights all over the world and all over this country. Let's get real about the future of our young people. Let's get real about being in the U.S. Senate and having an opportunity to form a real, solid approach to this, which would make all the difference in the world. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to a World War II veteran and an American hero--PO3 John B. Baldwin. Petty Officer Baldwin was a member of the United States Navy Reserve and sailed on the USS St. Louis. Tragically, on February 14, 1944, he died as a result of enemy fire during the Battle of the Green Islands. Petty Officer Baldwin's sister--Ms. Irene Baldwin Cox of Beaver, UT-- recently informed me that her brother had earned prestigious military medals, which neither he nor his family ever received. As a result of John's dedicated service during the battle that besieged the USS St. Louis, he earned the Purple Heart, the World War II Victory Medal, the American Campaign Medal, the Asiatic Pacific Campaign Medal with two Bronze Star appurtenances, and a Combat Action Ribbon. Thankfully, the military has since verified John's medals and will soon present them to the Baldwin family. As we approach the anniversary of this historic battle, we should remember the challenges Petty Officer Baldwin and his fellow soldiers faced on that fateful day. At dawn, American fighters sighted six Aichi D3A dive bombers, which approached the St. Louis and dropped six bombs, killing 23 sailors and wounding 20 more. Petty Officer Baldwin was among the fallen. The Baldwin family has always been proud of John's service. We owe this family a debt of gratitude that can never be repaid. It is only fitting that we present John's siblings with the medals he earned for his heroism. I am grateful for the assistance of the USS St. Louis CL- 49 Association and the National Personnel Records Center for helping me secure these medals for the Baldwin family. I hold our Nation's veterans in the highest regard. Because of men and women like Petty Officer Baldwin, our Nation enjoys the full blessings of liberty. I am pleased that these medals have finally found their rightful home. May they ever serve as a testament to John's valor and his love of freedom. This Valentine's Day, I intend to spend a moment reflecting on the bravery of our sailors who served aboard the USS St. Louis. Today I honor them for their courage, their selflessness, and their sacrifice.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, 2015 was an extremely productive year for our Nation's trade agenda as, on multiple occasions, both parties were able to come together to take several steps to advance effective trade policies that will put our Nation on a more prosperous course. Hopefully, we will take another step here in the Senate before we leave for the recess. Before the Senate breaks for recess, we are likely to vote on the conference report for H.R. 644, the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015, legislation that originally passed in this Chamber back in May of last year. As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I was one of the original authors of this legislation, and I was honored to serve as the chair of the conference committee. I believe our report represents a strong bipartisan, bicameral agreement that will effectively address a number of trade policy priorities. In fact, it has already passed the House with a strong, super-majority vote. I am hoping to see a similar vote here in the Senate. I would like to take a few minutes to talk about some of the specifics of this legislation, which is generally referred to simply as ``the Customs bill.'' If enacted, this compromise version of the Customs bill would address three main policy goals. The first goal is to facilitate and streamline the flow of legitimate trade into and out of the United States. To accomplish this goal, the bill, among other things, reduces paperwork and bureaucratic burdens on U.S. traders and improves consultation between trade policymakers at the Customs and Border Protection, or CBP, agency and Congress, as well as private actors within the trade community. It also modernizes the way CBP operates by authorizing the continued development and implementation of the Automated Commercial Environment, or ACE. And it sets procedures and establishes deadlines to ensure that all import requirements are fulfilled through a single window process. These changes will facilitate trade by reducing unnecessary burdens and delays created by an overly bureaucratic system. This will improve our Nation's competitiveness, create jobs here at home, and provide numerous benefits for our trusted trading partners. The second major goal of the Customs bill is to improve enforcement of our trade laws. Toward that end, the bill establishes a new process at CBP--with strict deadlines and judicial review--for dealing with evasion of our antidumping and countervailing duties laws. The bill also ensures that all distributions required under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Act are made correctly. I am particularly pleased that the bill improves protections for intellectual property rights by creating additional monitoring tools to detect violations at the border and expanding requirements for USTR's existing Special 301 Report on our trading partners' IP enforcement efforts to include trade secrets. It also establishes a chief innovation and intellectual property negotiator at USTR to better ensure that our trade agreements reflect our Nation's interests in protecting intellectual property rights. Providing proper enforcement and protection for intellectual property rights--both domestically and internationally--has long been a priority for me in large part because it is so important to Utahns. In Utah around 19 percent of the total workforce is directly employed in IP- intensive jobs, according to a recent report by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Global Intellectual Property Center. That same study also noted that Utah's IP industry employs, either directly or indirectly, over 590,000 Utahns--or more than half of Utah's workforce. More importantly, the IP industry makes up nearly 80 percent of current exports from my home State. So, for obvious reasons, protecting IP was one of my main focuses in drafting the Customs bill, passing it here in the Senate, and putting together the conference report. I am very pleased that my colleagues on the conference committee shared my desire to improve upon our current efforts, and I think our inventors and innovators here at home--the people who drive so much of our economic growth and prosperity--will benefit greatly from this legislation. The report addresses other enforcement priorities as well, including provisions to give clear direction and robust tools for identifying and addressing currency manipulation from our trading partners, an issue that I know is of particular interest to a number of our Members here in the Senate, as well as to many of our domestic businesses and industries. The result of all these enforcement provisions will be greater protections for American traders and consumers and a greater assurance that foreign competitors will not have unfair advantages in the global marketplace. The third major goal of the Customs conference report is to strengthen the trade promotion authority statute that we enacted last year, reflecting various priorities and concerns from members of both parties. The conference report strengthens TPA by enhancing Congress's oversight role in crafting trade policy, specifically with regard to administration nominees and at negotiating rounds for future trade agreements. It also strongly reaffirms that trade agreements should not include and TPA procedures should not be used with respect to, provisions dealing with immigration policy or greenhouse gas emissions. The bill also establishes a new negotiating objective to address barriers American fishermen face in exporting U.S. fish, seafood, and shellfish. In addition, the conference report improves provisions relating to trafficking in persons in order to strengthen Congressional oversight and ensure that appropriate steps are being taken to put an end to human trafficking. I think most of us would agree that we passed a good TPA bill last year. I certainly think that we did. The conference report on the Customs bill would simply ensure that the statute better reflects the bipartisan will and role of Congress in our trade negotiations. Those have been the three main goals of the Customs bill. With this conference report, I think we have reached good outcomes on all three. But that is not all. Other important issues are also addressed by the conference report. For example, the bill will combat politically motivated boycotts, divestments, and sanctions against Israel, bolstering our already strong economic ties with one of our most important strategic allies. The conference report also provides additional trade preferences for Nepal in order to promote economic recovery in the aftermath of the devastating earthquake last year. With this legislation, we will also take significant steps to promote small business exports and improve tariff classifications relating to footwear and outerwear. Finally, I want to acknowledge that a number of my colleagues--as well as businesses and job creators around the country--had hoped that the conference report on the Customs bill would include a reauthorization of the Miscellaneous Tariff Bills or MTBs. I shared my colleagues' desire to pass MTBs with this vehicle. As you will recall, a revised MTB process was, after all, passed by the Senate in the original version of the Customs bill. There are a handful of procedural concerns that complicate this issue--particularly over in the House--that made it difficult to adequately address MTBs in this conference report. However, the conference report does include a strong sense-of-Congress statement reaffirming our shared commitment to advancing MTB legislation in a process that provides robust consultation and is consistent with both House and Senate rules. And, on top of that, I just want to reaffirm my own commitment, as the chairman of the Senate committee with jurisdiction over this issue, to find a process that both the House and the Senate can agree on and get MTBs over the finish line. Our businesses and manufacturers that benefit from MTBs have waited too long for Congress to act on this matter, and I am going to do whatever I can to forge a path forward. Let me just say that I am very pleased with the substance of this conference report. It has been a long road to get us here, but in my view, it has been worth it. I will have many people to thank in the coming days as we debate--and hopefully pass--the conference report here in the Senate. For now, I specifically want to thank the vice chair of the conference committee, Chairman Kevin Brady, for his work on both the committee itself and on the substance of the report. I also want to thank the ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senator Wyden, for his efforts to ensure that our final product was truly bipartisan. This is a good bill. It is not perfect, by any means. But once again, it provides what I think are strong outcomes on many key policy priorities. Both the House and the Senate came into the conference with their own set of demands, which required some compromise. However, throughout our negotiations, I worked extremely hard to preserve the Finance Committee's contributions to the Customs bill and to advance the Senate's priorities on this legislation. And in that regard, I think we can all be pleased with the overall outcome, even if some compromises had to be made. I know that some of our members have specific objections to some of the individual compromises we had to make in order to get the deal done. I certainly don't want to minimize anyone's concerns. Instead, I will just say that this comes with the territory of passing legislation that tries to reconcile differences. As a whole, I believe this legislation provides a path on the Customs bill that members of both parties can get behind. I am hoping we can get past tomorrow's cloture vote and final passage and send the bill to the President's desk in short order. I urge all of my colleagues to work with us to make sure that happens.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, today I wish to steadfastly support the North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act of 2016. Before I discuss the merits of this critical legislation, however, I wish to congratulate the author of the Senate version of this act, the junior Senator from Colorado. The bill he crafted will reinvigorate our Nation's efforts to thwart North Korea's continued development of nuclear weapons and ballistic missile technology. In addition, it seeks to further protect our Nation from cyber attack and begin to hold responsible those who have committed human rights abuses against the people of North Korea. I also wish to commend the chairman and the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for working together to shepherd this bill through their committee with strong bipartisan support. Once again the Senate turns its attention to confront one of the most atrocious regimes of the modern era: the so-called Democratic People's Republic of Korea--or North Korea. Instead of working to create the workers' paradise, which is purported to be one of the autocratic regime's primary objectives, millions have starved as part of North Korea's policy of placing the military first. But make no mistake, the threat posed by North Korea is not an inconsequential concern about the domestic affairs of a distant land. On January 6, the regime conducted a subterranean nuclear weapons test, claiming to have detonated a hydrogen bomb for the first time. Even Russia decried the test as ``a flagrant violation of international law and existing UN Security Council resolutions.'' Then, this past weekend, the North Korean satellite launched on Sunday passed almost directly over the stadium where the Super Bowl was played an hour after the game, according to press reports. This hostile act is even more disconcerting when we remember that the technology to launch such a satellite into orbit is virtually identical to what is required to launch an intercontinental ballistic missile with a warhead. Unfortunately, these provocative acts are only part of a recurring pattern orchestrated by North Korea over the past several years. The pattern of closely pairing a nuclear test with rocket launches began in 2006, when the regime fired seven ballistic missiles, including the long-range Taepo Dong-2. Three months later, North Korea conducted its first underground nuclear test. These hostile acts prompted the U.N. Security Council to adopt, under Chapter VII, Resolution 1695--condemning the missile launch--and Resolution 1718--demanding that North Korea refrain from further nuclear tests and imposing sanctions on the regime. Once again, in 2009, North Korea carried out a virtually identical pairing of rocket and nuclear tests. In April of that year, the rogue state launched a three-stage Unha-2 rocket. One month later, Pyongyang conducted another underground nuclear test. This second round of nuclear and rocket tests elicited U.N. Security Council Resolution 1874, which expanded sanctions, intensified inspections to prevent proliferation, and barred further missile tests. Unfortunately, Pyongyang was not deterred and repeated its weapon and rocket pairing in late 2012 and early 2013. Specifically, in December 2012, the newly installed Kim Jung-un ordered the launch of another Unha-3 rocket. Two months later, North Korea conducted another underground nuclear test. The U.N. Security Council responded in kind with Resolution 2087--strengthening sanctions related to the missile launch--and Resolution 2094--tweaking sanctions related to North Korea's nuclear program. In addition to the now-cyclical pairing of rocket launches and nuclear tests, North Korea has assumed the role of a petulant child in a variety of other areas. For example, North Korea has directly violated both the Korean Armistice Agreement and article 2 of the U.N. Charter by taking kinetic military action against South Korea. In 2010 alone, North Korean forces sunk a South Korean patrol ship-- according to a multinational commission that investigated the incident--and separately fired artillery rounds at a South Korean island, killing two Korean Marines and injuring 17 others. North Korea has also been guilty of repeated acts of proliferation to rogue states around the world. The Washington Post and the New York Times reported that, in 2004, Libya received uranium hexafluoride of suspected North Korean origin. Similarly, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence revealed that North Korea assisted the Assad regime in constructing a nuclear reactor in northern Syria that Israeli forces destroyed in 2007. I recite this partial history so that there is no misunderstanding. North Korea earned international condemnation not merely for its recent transgressions, but for countless bad dealings over the last decade. Unfortunately, previous U.N. resolutions and the sanctions imposed by our own government have not achieved the desired result of terminating North Korea's recalcitrant activity. That is why the junior Senator of Colorado's legislation is so important. It provides our sanctions with greater teeth. It mandates sanctions on individuals who have materially contributed to North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile program. I also think it is important to pause here to notice that, unlike North Korean autocrats who have imposed their will on the North Korean people by sending vast numbers to forced labor camps and early graves, the United States' sanctions are directed only at those who facilitate violations of international law. In sum, North Korea's repression is indiscriminate. Our sanctions are focused on punishing the guilty. Accordingly, the junior Senator's legislation requires the administration to identify human rights abusers in North Korea and direct sanctions against them. The bill also addresses one of the growing threats to our nation: cyber attack. Therefore, the administration is tasked to devise a strategy to confront and counter North Korea's cyber attacks against the United States. It also directs the executive branch to designate sanctions against those responsible for these belligerent acts. This is an important piece of legislation which tightens the ring of deterrence against a regime that continues to defy international law. This bill's objective is not to needlessly interfere in the affairs of a foreign nation; rather, it is to provide a tool to force an aggressor into compliance with international law and to deter North Korea from committing hostile acts not only against the United States and its allies, but also against the North Korean people. I urge the prompt passage of this legislation.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, over nearly four decades of public service, I have long endeavored to protect the rights of the unborn. As I have fought to uphold pro-life values in Congress, I have been inspired by countless individuals who are equally committed to the cause. Last month, I was particularly moved when I listened to a recording of ``I Want to Live''--a song composed by singer-songwriter Russ Marsh. Marsh writes this song from the perspective of an unborn child eager to live and be loved. The lyrics underscore a truth too often overlooked in the debate over abortion--that each unborn child is a living soul. I ask unanimous consent that this song be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, later today, at around 5:30 p.m., DC time, U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman and representatives from 11 other countries will meet at a ceremony to sign the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, Agreement. It is no secret that the TPP Agreement has the potential to do a lot of good for our country. Taken as a whole, the 12 countries involved in this agreement had a combined GDP of $28.1 trillion in 2012, nearly 40 percent of the world's total economy. In that same year, our goods and services exports to TPP countries supported an estimated 4 million jobs here in the United States. According to the International Monetary Fund, the world economy will grow by more than $20 trillion over the next 5 years and nearly half of that growth will be in Asia. This agreement, if done right, will give the United States a distinct advantage in setting the standards for trade in this dynamic and strategically vital part of the world. It is also no secret that many stakeholders and Members of Congress, including myself, have some doubts as to whether the agreement meets the high standards necessary to gain congressional approval. I have expressed those concerns many times here on the floor and elsewhere. I won't go into any more detail about them today. Instead, I want to talk about what will happen after the agreement is signed. Even though there is a signing ceremony in New Zealand today, that is not the end of the process for TPP in the United States. In fact, in many ways, we are really just beginning. In the coming months, we will have ample opportunity to debate the merits of each and every provision of this agreement and to consider how it will impact workers and job creators in our country and how it will affect the health of our economy. Today I will focus on the process by which Congress will consider and debate this agreement. I want to do so in part because I believe it is important that our people--including Members of Congress, the administration's stakeholders, and the media--have a full understanding of how this is going to work. All too often when a trade agreement is concluded or signed, the pundits, commentators, and lobbyists in this town immediately jump to one question: When will Congress vote on it? I get asked that question almost every day. While I have offered my own opinions and occasional speculation about when would be the best time to have the vote, the fact of the matter is I don't know exactly when the vote will take place and no one else does either. As we all know, last year Congress passed and the President signed legislation renewing trade promotion authority, or TPA, and setting out a series of timelines for Congress to consider and eventually vote on signed trade agreements. While I am quite sure that interested parties and observers have already pored over the text of the TPA statute to add up all the statutory timelines and have tried to calculate the exact date when Congress will vote on the agreement, that exercise is unlikely to yield an accurate result. Let me take a few minutes to explain why that is the case. Under the TPA process, there are a number of milestones, checkpoints, and associated timelines that begin at the outset of negotiations, long before any agreement is reached. With regard to TPP, we have gone through several of those already. President Obama has determined-- despite some concerns expressed by a number of sources--to take the next step in the process and sign the agreement. Under the TPA statute, once an agreement is signed, the President has 60 days to provide Congress with a description of changes to U.S. law that he believes would be required under the deal. That is one of the more specific deadlines in the law. That 60 days is a maximum time period imposed on the administration, not on Congress. Assuming the agreement does in fact get signed today, that information must arrive no later than April 3. On top of that, the statute requires the International Trade Commission--or ITC--to compile and submit a report on the likely economic effects of a signed trade agreement. That report must be completed within 105 days--another specific deadline of the signing date. For a deal signed today, that deadline is May 18. So far I have just talked about deadlines or maximum time periods for compiling and submitting specific documents and materials, but once again those maximum timelines are imposed on the administration, not on Congress. After Congress receives the President's description of legislative changes and the ITC's economic analysis, the administration is required to provide to Congress the final text of the agreement and a detailed plan on how they intend to administer it. The exact date and timing by which the administration has to submit the final text of the agreement is not set out in the statute. Under established practices, the timing of that submission, like other relevant decisions in this process, is generally determined after close collaboration and consultation with leaders in Congress. However, the TPA statute is clear that the final text of the agreement and the detailed administrative plan must be provided to Congress at least--and those two words are very important--at least 30 days before formally submitting legislation to implement the agreement. This is one of the more important timelines in the statute, and it notably provides a floor, not a ceiling. It sets a minimum timeframe to ensure Congress has at least--there are those two words again--30 days to review all necessary information and documents before the implementing legislation is formally submitted to Congress. I would like to point out that this minimum 30-day window is a new requirement. We included this requirement for the first time in the most recent TPA statute to provide increased transparency and ensure adequate consideration and debate in Congress. There are many additional steps that take place once Congress has all of the required information and before the implementing bill is formally submitted, and those steps each take time. First, Congress, in consultation with the administration, has to develop a draft implementing bill for the agreement. Then the committees of jurisdiction will hold hearings to examine both the agreement and the draft legislation. Following these hearings, another very important step occurs: the informal markups in the Senate Finance and House Ways and Means Committees. Most people call this process ``the mock markup.'' The mock markup--which once again occurs before the President formally submits the trade agreement to Congress--is similar to any other committee markup. The committee reviews the draft legislation and has votes on amendments, if any are offered. If the Finance and Ways and Means Committees end up with different versions of the draft implementing bill, they can proceed to a mock conference to work out the details and reconcile any differences. The mock markup process is well established in practice and is an essential part of Congress's consideration of any trade agreement. It is the best way for Congress to provide direct input--complete with vote tallies and on-the-record debates--to the President to demonstrate whether the implementing bill meets the criteria set out in the TPA statute and whether there is enough support in Congress for the agreement to pass. After those steps are taken, a final implementing bill may be introduced in the House and Senate. Only after the final implementing bill is introduced is Congress under any kind of deadline to vote on the agreement. The votes must take place within 90 session days. You will notice the word ``session.'' Of course, in this case I am using the word ``deadline'' pretty loosely. The vote doesn't have to occur within 90 calendar days. It must take place within 90 session days, and only Congress can decide when it is and is not going to be in session. Long story short, no one should be under any illusions that because the TPP is being signed today, an up-or-down vote on the agreement is imminent or that our oversight responsibilities are at an end. If history has taught us anything, it is that this process can, and often does, take a very long time to complete. In fact, it is not an exaggeration or even all that remarkable to say that it can take years to get an agreement through Congress after it is signed. Historically speaking, the shortest period of time we have seen between the signing of an agreement and the introduction of the implementing legislation, which once again triggers a statutory deadline for a vote in Congress, is 30 days. That was with our bilateral trade agreement with Morocco. Needless to say, that agreement is an outlier and quite frankly it isn't a useful model for passing an agreement as massive as the TPP. Other trade agreements, like our agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama, took more than 4 years to see an implementing bill introduced in Congress, and that was 4 years from the time the agreement was signed, which is what is happening today with the TPP, and the time the clock started ticking for a vote in the Senate. Our trade agreement with Peru took 533 days or about a year and a half. Our agreement with Bahrain took just over a year. All of these, while significant in their own right, were bilateral agreements and paled in comparison to the size and scope of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The closest parallels to the Trans-Pacific Partnership we have in our history--and they are not really that close at all--are the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, and the Dominican Republic- Central America Free Trade Agreement, or DR-CAFTA, both of which took more than 10 months. Once again, that wasn't 10 months between the signing day and the vote. That was 10 months between the day the agreement was signed and the introduction of the implementing bill, which triggers a required-yet-fluid timeline for a vote in Congress. Of course, none of these timelines for previous trade agreements are all that illustrative because the TPP is nothing like our other agreements. By any objective measure, the TPP is a historic trade agreement without a comparable precedent. Its approval would be a significant achievement. That is all the more reason to ensure it gets a full and fair consideration in Congress, however long that process takes. All of us--on both sides of the aisle, on both sides of the Capitol, and on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue--should be careful when we talk about timelines and deadlines for votes. I am quite certain the President wants to get a strong TPP agreement passed as soon as possible. I personally share that goal, but Congress has a history of taking the time necessary to consider and pass trade agreements, and the process set out under TPA demands that we do so. Despite a number of claims to the contrary, Congress does not rubberstamp trade agreements, and we will not do so in this case. We cannot short circuit the process. With an agreement of this significance, we must be more vigilant, more deliberative, and more accountable than ever before. We need to take the necessary time to carefully review the agreement and engage in a meaningful dialogue with the administration. If that occurs and if the administration is prepared to engage with our TPP partners to address new concerns, I am confident the TPP agreement can be successfully approved by Congress. That may take more time than some would like, but the process of achieving favorable outcomes in international trade is a marathon, not a sprint. There are no shortcuts. To get this done, we have to do the work and lay a strong foundation in Congress. As I have said many times, the TPP is an extremely important agreement, and we need to get it done, but given that importance, we need to focus more on getting it right than getting it done fast. Mr. President, millions of Americans depend on coal energy to heat their homes, power their electronics, and keep their businesses running. Coal is an indispensable asset in our Nation's energy portfolio. It accounts for nearly one-third of U.S. energy production and generates half of all our electricity today. Quite literally, coal keeps the lights on, but the Obama administration's war on coal could pull the plug on an industry essential to our energy needs. America's coal miners have no greater antagonist than their own President. Ever since President Obama took office, he has deliberately targeted coal producers, subjecting them to onerous, job-destroying regulations that threaten our economic future. The administration's recently announced decision to halt coal leasing on Federal lands is just the latest assault in a calculated campaign to cripple the coal industry. The President's moratorium on new coal leases undermines our ability to produce one of the least expensive and most reliable fuel sources at our disposal. The long-term consequences of this rule will be disastrous not only for coal companies and all of their employees but for any industry that depends on coal for its energy needs. Beyond the economic costs of this extraordinary action, consider the human toll. The U.S. coal industry directly employs more than 130,000 people. These individuals are more than a mere statistic. They are real people with mortgages, car payments, and children to feed. They are honest men and women whose very livelihood depends on the future of coal. Sadly, the President's moratorium puts their jobs in danger. As the junior Senator from Wyoming observed, the administration's action effectively hands a pink slip to thousands of hard-working individuals across the Mountain West who work in coal production. As Members of the legislative branch, we have a constitutional duty to check Executive overreach. With the amendment I have introduced, we have the opportunity to rein in the President's actions and protect hard-working American families from overly burdensome Federal regulations. My amendment reasserts the authority of Congress in this matter by prohibiting the Secretary of the Interior from halting coal leases on Federal land without congressional approval. It also requires the Secretary to begin leasing Federal assets immediately pursuant to the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920. If the Secretary wishes to enforce a moratorium on coal leasing, she must first provide a reasonable justification for doing so. To that end, my amendment requires the Secretary to submit to Congress a study demonstrating that a moratorium would not result in a loss of revenue to the Treasury. The study must also examine the potential economic impacts of a moratorium on jobs and industry. Once the House and Senate have had the opportunity to review this study in full, the Department of the Interior may suspend coal leasing on Federal lands if and only if Congress approves the action. Mr. President, my amendment not only protects middle-class Americans from harmful government regulations, it also rightly restrains the President and his abuse of Executive power by restoring authority to the duly-elected Members of Congress, not unelected bureaucracies. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment as we continue consideration of the legislation at hand. 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.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today to emphasize the importance of the Judicial Redress Act. This is a bill that the Senate Judiciary Committee favorably reported last week by an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 19 to 1. As I speak, the Senate majority and minority leaders are in the process of clearing this legislation by unanimous consent. I am optimistic the Senate will pass the Judicial Redress Act in the coming days and that ultimately we will send this legislation to the President's desk. I thank Senator Chris Murphy for introducing this important bill with me and for the broad support we have built among both Republicans and Democrats. I also wish to acknowledge the good work of Representatives Jim Sensenbrenner and John Conyers for their efforts in the House. They have been stalwarts in advancing this important legislation in the House of Representatives. It has been a true bipartisan, bicameral event. Simply stated, the Judicial Redress Act would extend certain data protections and remedies available to U.S. citizens under the Privacy Act to European citizens by allowing them to correct flawed information in their records and, in rare instances, the option to pursue legal remedies if Federal agencies improperly disclose their data. Our legislation fights an inequity--a reciprocal benefit that has been withheld from our European allies with little justification. Cross-border data flows between the United States and Europe are the highest in the world. Today most countries in the European Union affirmatively provide data protection rights to Americans on European soil. Our European allies and their citizens should likewise have access to the core benefits of the Privacy Act when in the United States. It is the right and fair thing to do. Passing the Judicial Redress Act is critical to ratification of the Data Privacy and Protection Agreement, commonly called the ``umbrella agreement.'' This agreement allows for data transfers between European and American law enforcement officials for the purpose of fighting and investigating crime, including terrorism. European officials have said they will not ratify the umbrella agreement until Congress provides EU citizens with limited judicial redress. Our bill is key to providing reciprocity to our European allies and will serve as the catalyst to finalizing the long-awaited data protection deal. The U.S. Department of Justice, which supports this legislation, states that failure to finalize the umbrella agreement ``would dramatically reduce cooperation and significantly hinder counterterrorism efforts.'' Given the global state of affairs, we simply cannot risk losing the critical benefits of the umbrella agreement. As chairman of the Senate Republican High-Tech Task Force, I am always seeking ways to keep our American technology industry at the forefront of the global economy. I am convinced that passing the Judicial Redress Act will build much needed good will with our European allies. We are currently negotiating a new safe harbor agreement--an international agreement that allows U.S. technology companies to move digital information between the European Union and the United States. For years, safe harbor rules have benefited U.S. technology companies that provide cloud services to their European customers. Without a safe harbor agreement, however, U.S. cloud-based companies seeking to do business in Europe would be forced to negotiate with 28 individual countries in the European Union over how their citizens' data is collected and stored. Such a requirement would disrupt and chill transatlantic business operations, jeopardize countless American jobs, and stifle American domestic innovation. Indeed, businesses of all sizes and in all sectors would face profound consequences if we do not conclude a new safe harbor agreement. The economic damage would be significant and relatively immediate, and the consequences could be catastrophic, especially for small enterprises. Failure to reach an agreement would impact the economies of both the United States and our friends in the European Union. If we are unable to reach a final safe harbor agreement soon, Congress must be prepared to take appropriate action to ensure that these negative consequences do not come to fruition. In the meantime, it is critically important that Congress pass the Judicial Redress Act. I am pleased that the Senate is swiftly moving toward this end, and I am optimistic that we will have a successful resolution in the coming days. I thank my colleagues on both sides of the floor for their support in this effort. I yield the floor.