Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise to speak today on a matter of critical importance to our Nation's security, but first I wish to extend my most heartfelt condolences to our friends in Charleston, SC. Last week, we witnessed an unspeakable tragedy with the shooting at the Emanuel AME Church. This heinous act has left families reeling and the Nation in disbelief. Words can little console nor can they heal the hearts of those who have lost. Still, I wish to say just a few words to the neighbors, families, and friends who have suffered most. Know that your Nation suffers with you--no question about it. You are in our prayers, our thoughts. May you feel peace and love. May you find healing in God. And may the shooter be swiftly brought to justice.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Benjamin Canavan, a State Department fellow in my office, receive Senate floor privileges for the duration of his current fellowship in the Senate.

Mr. HATCH

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, people across the country are eagerly anticipating the Supreme Court's decision in King v. Burwell and for good reason. This case will likely determine once and for all whether the Obama administration violated its own law when it opted to issue health insurance tax subsidies to those who purchased insurance on federally run exchanges. Many have argued that this decision by the Supreme Court will determine the fate of the so-called Affordable Care Act. While that argument may be a little dramatic, it isn't far off. I have my own views on how the Court should rule in this case. Indeed, I have made it abundantly clear that in my view, the statute unambiguously limits the availability of premium tax subsidies to insurance plans purchased on State-run exchanges. I have also stated numerous times my belief that the Obama administration overstepped its authority and broke its own law when it offered subsidies to patients on exchanges established by the Federal Government. However, as we all await the outcome of the case, we need to be clear on one point. Regardless of how the Court rules in King v. Burwell, ObamaCare will continue to inflict harm on patients and taxpayers until it is repealed and replaced with sensible, patient-centered reform. Last week, President Obama reiterated that he had no alternative plan in place in the event that the Supreme Court rules against the administration in this case. On top of that, he flippantly stated that ``Congress could fix this whole thing with a one-sentence provision.'' Nothing could be further from the truth. The problems with ObamaCare are so fundamental and convoluted that the idea that the entire law could be fixed in one sentence borders on laughable. The President and his allies in Congress have gotten pretty good at cherry-picking favorable data points in order to claim that ObamaCare is working, but the overall numbers do not lie. Earlier this month, the administration announced proposed rate hikes of 10 percent or more for health insurance plans that enroll more than 6 million people in 41 States. This is just the latest premium hike patients and consumers have seen under ObamaCare, despite the fact that the authors of the law--including the President himself--promised it would bring costs down. The failure to reduce costs isn't the only broken promise we have seen with ObamaCare. Millions of Americans have lost their insurance plans and their doctors due to the overly burdensome mandates embedded in the law. Many of these same people were forced to navigate a failed Web site that jeopardized their private information. Others were forced to purchase plans that included coverage they didn't need or want. As a result of this misguided law, many hard-working taxpayers received incorrect tax documents relating to their premium subsidies, followed by a surprise tax bill. Just yesterday, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General issued a report noting that the administration did not have systems in place to ensure that ObamaCare credits that went out last year were accurate. This vulnerability may be leading to untold billions in fraud, waste, and abuse. I could go on. The problems and hardships associated with ObamaCare have been well documented, and none of them can be solved with a one- sentence bill. Millions of Americans have already suffered under ObamaCare, and if over the next few weeks the Supreme Court confirms that the administration broke the law by offering subsidies on Federal exchanges, millions more will face the negative consequences of this poorly drafted statute. In fact, a study published today by Avalere shows that these consumers could face annual premium contribution increases of $3,300 in 2015. Fortunately, Republicans in Congress have a transition plan to protect these patients. Indeed, there is a wide consensus that should the Court rule against the government in King v. Burwell, we need to act to protect Americans from further suffering at the hands of ObamaCare's broken promises. Toward that end, I support a transition plan that provides temporary financial assistance to those who would lose subsidies as a result of the Court's decision, to help them to keep their insurance if they want it. At the same time, the transition plan should peel back ObamaCare's burdensome mandates, give individuals more flexibility to purchase coverage that meets their needs, and give States the ability to develop policies to better serve their citizens. This temporary transition should build a bridge that gets us away from ObamaCare and puts us on a path toward lasting, patient-centered reform. Of course, this ultimate goal will have to wait until a new administration is in place--one that is actually willing to work with Congress to address the actual needs of patients and taxpayers. Despite the claims of uninformed critics, Republicans in Congress have been working for months to ensure that a transition plan will be ready when the Court delivers its ruling. And, make no mistake, we will do our best to be ready. At the same time, Republicans in both Chambers have worked together to put forward substantive and workable alternatives that would permanently replace the President's health care law with reforms that increase patient choice and reduce the role of the Federal Government in health care. I am a coauthor of one such plan called the Patient CARE Act. I, along with Chairman Alexander and Congressman Upton in the House, released the latest version of this plan earlier this year. The plan has gotten high marks from a number of analysts and publications. So while it is a common refrain by supporters of ObamaCare that chaos will ensue if the Court rules against the government in King v. Burwell, the facts tell a much different story. Republicans in Congress will be ready to respond quickly and decisively to any possible outcome. Now, let's be clear. None of us knows how the Court is going to rule in this case. I have heard analyses and predictions that vary across the board. But no matter how this particular case turns out, we know for certain that ObamaCare has been a dismal failure for American patients and hard-working taxpayers. This entire case is yet another reminder of how, more than 5 years after it was signed, this bill continues to cause problems. No matter how the Court rules in King v. Burwell, we need to chart a different course on health care for the American people. Let's face it. One reason we would set up a timeframe in case the Supreme Court rules against Secretary Burwell and the administration is that we need to set up a timeline where we can work on these matters and hopefully bring a national consensus to bear. Only so will we be able to resolve the problems that will be found--that are there--if we don't do what is right. So it is going to take some time. That is why we suggest that there should be time leading well into the next administration to be able to work on this to accomplish these matters and, during that time, make sure nobody is hurt because of the decision of King v. Burwell should it go against the government. This is one of the great problems of our time, and there is no simple answer, but we know we can't continue under the current law of ObamaCare as it is written. If we do, we are just going to continue to go down a sinkhole of expenditures, debts, doctors leaving their profession, and an inability to provide the health care that so glowingly was spoken of by this administration. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH. I am glad to withhold.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to speak out at a time when our world is on fire: Putin's Russia is on the march, invading a sovereign neighbor in a bid to rebuild the Soviet empire; China asserts its growing strength in aggressive and provocative ways in the Pacific; Iran presses ahead in its efforts to develop nuclear weapons capability, a development that threatens to put the deadliest weapons known to man in the hands of a maniacal rogue state; the Islamic State continues to expand its barbaric reign of terror and endanger everything our brave men and women in uniform fought and died for long ago in Iraq; terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and Al-Shabab, use the refuge of failed states to plot attacks on our homeland; and, across the globe, our allies look to the United States to provide the leadership necessary to confront these threats to peace. One of the foundational purposes of our Constitution was to establish a Federal Government to--in the words of the preamble--provide for the common defense. In facilitating this purpose, the Congress is charged with two particularly crucial duties: establishing the legal authority for our military to operate and funding our military's activities. For 53 years in a row, Congress has fulfilled these responsibilities with an annual National Defense Authorization Act and accompanying funding through the appropriations process. Despite the gridlock that has so often beset the legislative process in recent years, Congress has consistently risen to the call of its constitutional duty every year to authorize and appropriate on behalf of our brave men and women in uniform. This year, our colleagues on the Armed Services Committee have lived up to the finest traditions of this body in crafting the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016. This bill provides for our national security needs across a wide variety of fronts, including programs to aid allies such as Ukraine and Iraq that face aggression, compensation for the men and women who put their lives on the line to defend our freedom, restructuring to improve readiness, authority to procure a wide range of new weapons systems such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter that are crucial to maintaining our defense capabilities, and acquisition reform to restore accountability to defense contracting and make the money we spend go further. These aren't Republican or Democratic priorities, they are American priorities. They are concrete steps we need to take in order to ensure our safety and security for years to come, and they should earn the support of every single Senator. The bill before us authorizes $604 billion in spending for the Defense Department in the coming year. That is essentially the very same amount requested by President Obama himself. President Obama and our colleagues on the Armed Services Committee did not come up with that number out of thin air. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee this year, all four of the military service chiefs testified that American lives are being put at risk if we cap defense spending at the sequester levels. The amount proposed by President Obama and embraced by the Armed Services Committee is the amount that both Republican and Democratic, as well as nonpartisan, experts believe is crucial to the Defense Department's ability to preserve our national security. Surely, such an approach on such a critical measure should win broad support from both parties. Nevertheless, many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are threatening a filibuster of the bill over the amount of funding it authorizes. They are considering the prospect of defeating the National Defense Authorization Act for the first time in 53 years unless we agree to their demands to increase spending on domestic programs. Put another way, they are aiming to condition the ability of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines to defend our Nation on their demand for more funding for the wasteful Federal bureaucracy that already costs too much. Let me be absolutely clear. To roll back what progress we have made in restoring fiscal discipline after years of profligate spending is seriously misguided, to do so by hijacking the Defense bill at a time of serious danger--when we face so many crises around the world-- represents the height of irresponsibility, and to make such a ``my way or the highway'' demand as a condition of fulfilling one of the Senate's basic duties is unworthy of the great traditions of this body. Many of us have worked toward various solutions to replace the sequester going forward. Republicans and Democrats alike have their preferred alternatives to the current funding arrangements. Nevertheless, we simply cannot shirk our duty to provide for the common defense in the present. Political reality demands that we reject partisan grandstanding in favor of working together on this must-pass bill. Over the past 2 weeks, the majority leader and the chairman of the Armed Services Committee have led a debate on this bill that represents the Senate at its finest. We have considered the bill on time--a needed change from recent years that restores the Senate's proper voice in our national defense. We have held hours upon hours of debate on the floor, and we have held a fair and open amendment process for Members on both sides of the aisle. As part of that open amendment process, the Senate considered an amendment from the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee that would condition the funding level on the domestic spending increases sought by our Democratic colleagues. Despite my disagreements on the substance, I want to commend the ranking member for his sincere advocacy and for his determination to put his plan before this body for an up-or-down vote. But as that vote result showed, a majority of this body strongly disagrees with the minority's preferred alternative. Having fully aired this issue and voted on it, it is time for the Senate to wrap up our debate and pass this bill. To exploit the supermajority threshold to demand a concession rejected by a majority of Senators on a bill of such vital importance to our national defense would represent a gross dereliction of duty and a tragically irresponsible choice. I urge my friends in the minority: do not give in to the temptation of partisan grandstanding, do not let this become another exercise in political brinksmanship, do not place a desire to fight the majority over our shared duty to keep this country safe, and do not jeopardize our men and women in uniform to win concessions for yet more domestic spending. Work with us. Embrace the funding levels the Obama administration believes are necessary to keep us safe and keep alive our proud tradition of placing national security ahead of partisan politics. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, last month, the Senate passed the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015, which renews trade promotion authority or TPA. Years of hard work and compromise enabled us to pass this bill with strong bipartisan support in the Senate. Now with the Senate having already acted, all of our eyes are turned to the House of Representatives, where I know the Speaker and the Republican leadership, not to mention the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, who is the coauthor of the bill, are working to move this important bill forward. I want to take some time to address some of the concerns I have heard from our House colleagues and others about this bill and the concept of TPA, in general. For example, I know some have claimed that TPA cedes too much congressional authority to the executive branch. This is a particularly troublesome proposition for some of my Republican House colleagues who might be wary of granting new powers to the current occupant of the White House. Now, let me be clear. I have spent as much time as anyone in Congress criticizing President Obama's Executive overreach. I have come to the floor numerous times to catalog all the ways the current administration has overstepped its authority on issues ranging from health care to immigration, to labor policy. In fact, I was here just yesterday talking about efforts on the part of the administration to unilaterally undermine welfare reform. So when people say they are worried about legislation that would take power from Congress and give it to this President, believe me, I understand. I would worry about that, too, but that is not what our TPA legislation does. Simply put, TPA is a compact between the House, the Senate, and the administration. With TPA in place, the administration agrees to pursue negotiating objectives established by Congress and is required to consult with Congress on a regular basis during the whole negotiating process. In return, the House and Senate agree to vote on any trade agreement that meets those requirements under a specified timeline without amendments. The President does not have any new powers under this compact and Congress does not give up any powers. In fact, the primary purpose of TPA is to enhance Congress's role in the negotiating process. That is right. Despite some claims that TPA is an abrogation of congressional power, the opposite is actually true. Without TPA, the Members of Congress and their constituents have no strong voice on establishing our trade priorities. With TPA, Congress can define trade negotiating objectives and priorities. Without TPA, the administration is under no formal obligation to provide Congress with meaningful information on the status of ongoing trade negotiations. With TPA, Congress can require the administration to provide frequent updates and consultations. For example, the Senate- passed TPA bill will ensure that any Member of Congress who wants access to the negotiating text, at any time during the negotiations, will get that access. In addition, Members of Congress will, once again at any time, be able to request and receive a briefing from the USTR, the U.S. Trade Representative, on the current status of ongoing trade negotiations. In other words, TPA gives Congress a much stronger say in the substance of our country's trade negotiations and provides mechanisms to hold the administration far more accountable. Right now, the Obama administration is negotiating trade agreements with only ad hoc and informal direction from Congress. That will change once Congress renews TPA. Still, I know there are some who believe that by agreeing not to allow amendments or filibusters of trade agreements, Congress is giving up most of its power to influence trade agreements on the back end once an agreement is actually signed. Again, let me be clear. Under TPA, Congress at all times--all times-- maintains the ultimate authority over a trade agreement, the power to reject it entirely. TPA does not guarantee the passage of any trade agreement now or in the future, nor does it, as some have argued, reduce votes in Congress to a ``rubberstamp'' for the administration. This is important, as there has been some confusion on this point. With the coming vote on TPA, the House of Representatives is not voting to approve any individual trade agreement. I know pundits and talking heads in the media have tried to conflate passage of TPA with Congress's approval of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, but in reality these are separate and distinct propositions. Case in point: Over the last couple of years, I have been the most outspoken advocate in Congress in favor of renewing TPA. However, throughout that time, I have made it abundantly clear that my support for TPA does not guarantee any support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Indeed, I am fully prepared to vote against the TPP if the administration falls short on reaching high-priority negotiating objectives. Many on this side of the aisle and on the other side of the aisle have informed them of some of these high-priority negotiating objectives. But even if maintaining the power to accept or reject the trade agreement is not enough, the Senate-passed TPA bill contains procedures, including an all-new procedure that will enable Congress to strip procedural protections from any trade agreement if it determines there was inadequate consultation or that the negotiating objectives have not been met. Additionally, under the bill, both the House and the Senate maintain their constitutional prerogative to change their respective rules to override TPA. So as you can see, the Congress has not given up any of its powers under TPA. In addition to preserving and enhancing Congress's role in trade policy, the Senate-passed TPA bill contains a number of provisions that actually constrain the administration as it negotiates and implements new trade agreements. For example, the bill ensures that implementing bills to trade agreements will include--and I am quoting the text of the bill here-- ``only such provisions as are strictly necessary or appropriate to implement'' trade agreements. Additionally, the bill makes clear that any commitments made by the administration that are not disclosed to Congress before an implementing bill for an agreement is introduced will not be considered as part of the agreement and will have no force of law. Furthermore, the bill also ensures that trade agreements cannot be used to undermine U.S. sovereignty, another concern I have heard about TPA and one I wanted to make sure we were protecting against. The bill accomplishes this goal in four important ways; first, it makes clear that any provision of the trade agreement that is inconsistent with Federal or State law will have no effect; second, the bill states specifically that Federal and State laws will prevail in the event of a conflict with the trade agreement; third, it affirms that no trade agreement can prevent Congress or the States from changing their laws in the future; fourth, it confirms that the administration cannot unilaterally change U.S. law. All of these provisions have been drafted with an eye toward maintaining the separation of powers and ensuring that no administration can use trade agreements to unilaterally write U.S. laws or policy. Now, we have all heard claims that the President intends to use trade agreements to change our immigration laws or enact strict climate change standards. TPA ensures that throughout the process of negotiating, finalizing, and approving a trade agreement, Congress stays in the driver's seat. Finally, I want to address the concerns I have heard about the supposed secrecy surrounding the TPP agreement. Some of our House colleagues, as well as a number of people in the media, have decried the fact that details of the TPP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, have not yet been made public. They have also argued that by renewing the TPA before the details of the deal are disclosed, Congress would be enabling further secrecy. Again, this reflects a simple misunderstanding of simple negotiation tactics. The TPP is still being negotiated. As with any high-stakes negotiation, some level of confidentiality is a must if we are going to get the best deal possible with 11 other countries at the table. In all sensitive negotiations, there is a time for disclosure and a time to hold your cards close to your chest. So I recognize that with trade negotiations, our government is negotiating on behalf of the American people. We need to ensure that the maximum amount of transparency is possible. Fortunately, the Senate-passed TPA bill strikes an appropriate balance to deal with these issues, providing unprecedented levels of transparency and oversight into the trade-negotiating process. Under our bill, the full text of a completed trade agreement must be made public at least 60 days before the President can even sign it--be made public at least 60 days before the President can even sign it. Talk about transparency--this is an all-new requirement, giving the American people new and unprecedented access and knowledge of all trade agreements well before they are even submitted to the Congress for approval. After that 60-day period has expired and the President signs an agreement, he must submit to Congress the legal text of the trade agreement and a Statement of Administrative Action at least 30 days before formally submitting an implementing the bill. As I noted earlier, the bill includes all-new requirements giving Members of Congress access to text and information throughout the negotiating process. Any Member of the House of Representatives that supports free trade who is concerned about the secrecy of current negotiations should be the first in line to support the Senate-passed TPA bill. Once again, any supporters of expanded U.S. exports who are also wary of executive overreach should be trumpeting their support for our bill. The Senate TPA bill enhances Congress's role in trade negotiations. The Senate TPA bill maintains Congress's power to accept or reject any future trade agreement. The Senate TPA bill prevents the President from pursuing unilateral changes to U.S. law or policy. And the Senate TPA bill provides unprecedented levels of transparency and oversight into these trade agreements or into any trade agreements that may come forward, including TPP. I am sure that some of the cynics out there have one more question: If TPA imposes all of these requirements and restrictions on the administration, why does the President want it so badly? The answer to that question is simple. TPA is necessary in order for our negotiators to get a good deal. We know this is the case. Without TPA in place, our negotiating partners have no guarantees that the deal they sign will be one Congress will consider. Without those guarantees, they are less likely to put their best offers on the table because they will have no assurance that our country can deliver on the deal or any deal they enter into with us. Make no mistake, we need to get good deals at the negotiating table. More than 95 percent of the world's consumers live outside of our country, the United States. If our farmers, manufacturers, and entrepreneurs are going to compete on the world stage, they need access to these customers. History has shown that high-standard free-trade agreements expand market access for U.S. exporters and reduce our trade deficits. Most importantly, they grow our economy, create good, high-paying jobs for workers here at home, and improve living standards for our citizens and for our trading partners. If the United States is going to advance its values and interests in the international marketplace, we need to be writing the rules and setting the standards. We cannot do that if we are sitting on the sidelines. This is an important bill. I was very pleased to see it pass the Senate with bipartisan support. I hope that in the coming days, we will see a similar result in the House of Representatives. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. On March 27, 2015, the Senate functioned properly by adopting S. Con. Res. 11 on the congressional budget for the U.S. Government for fiscal year 2016. Section 3112 of that budget resolution contains a specification of procedures governing cost estimates for what is defined to be ``major legislation'' as defined in section 3112(c)(1). I wish to provide a few comments to clarify that section of the budget resolution, and I understand that my distinguished colleague from Oregon, Finance Committee Ranking Member Wyden, also wishes to provide separate and related comments. In setting out what is to be taken as ``major legislation,'' the budget resolution specifies that legislation may be designated to be ``major'' if the Senator or House Member who is chairman or vice chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, or JCT, designates the legislation as such ``for revenue legislation.'' Of course, such language is entirely consistent with existing laws and practice, under which the responsibility and control over revenue estimates in the congressional budget process lies squarely with the chair and vice chair of the JCT. The budget resolution also specifies that legislation may be designated to be ``major'' if the chair of the Committee on the Budget in the Senate or the House designates the legislation as such ``for all direct spending and revenue legislation.'' Of course, existing laws and practice assigns responsibility and control over spending estimates with the Budget Committees. However, the budget resolution includes ``revenue legislation'' as part of what the Budget Committee chairs may use for designating legislation as being ``major.'' As I understand the intent of the language, when major legislation is to be considered, there can be cases in which the legislation may require estimates both from the JCT and from the Congressional Budget Office, or CBO. In such cases, there is nothing to prohibit use of longstanding practice in which the Budget Committees consult with the chair and vice chair of the JCT to ensure that any necessary revenue estimates are arrived at by the JCT, for use in scoring major legislation. To be clear, however, nothing in the budget resolution should be taken to mean that the chairs of the Budget Committees have authority to interfere with the responsibility and control over revenue estimates in any part of the congressional budget process which, as I identified earlier, lies squarely with the chair and vice chair of the JCT. It is my understanding that the budget resolution does not direct or allow for any possibility of such interference, and my purpose in the remarks I am making today is to make that understanding clear. As I have mentioned, longstanding practice has been that if a need arises for the CBO to obtain information on major legislation from the JCT in terms of revenue estimates or effects of legislative proposals on marginal effective tax rates, Budget Committee members can ensure that those estimates and effects are obtained by consulting with the chair and vice chair of the JCT. This longstanding practice ensures smooth processing of the JCT's workload, and prevents any direct control or intervention in JCT's workload from other committees with other jurisdictions.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as the House of Representatives moves closer to a vote on the Senate-passed legislation to renew trade promotion authority, I wish to take a few minutes to talk about the links between our Nation's trade policy, foreign policy, and national security. Whether it is Russia's aggression toward the Ukraine, civil wars in the Middle East or ongoing efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation, the world faces a number of challenges that are impacting the future geopolitical landscape. In all of this, the question we have to consider is: Going forward, what role will the United States play? Are we going to lead or are we going to follow? Make no mistake, the path we take on international trade will say a lot about how we plan to answer those questions. Consider a few facts. In the next few years, China will likely pass the United States as the world's largest economy. It is already the world's largest exporting country. China is continually seeking to expand its influence in order to dictate the terms of international trade, particularly in places like Sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia, and Latin America. In other words, when we are talking about trade and the possibility of the United States retreating from the international marketplace, China is the proverbial 800-pound gorilla in the room. Indeed, any ground we cede in leading the world on trade is, more likely than not, ground ceded to China. I have heard many people--including Members of Congress--express their concerns about China, both strategically and economically, and rightfully so. After all, when it comes to trade, China has constantly shown a disregard for international norms and standards. However, oddly enough, many of those same people who talk the most about the threat posed by China have expressed opposition to TPA, the trade promotion authority bill, and to the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP. This is puzzling and reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the Senate TPA bill and free trade in general. If we are serious about keeping China and its growing economic and political influence in check, getting a strong TPP agreement that advances U.S. interests should be a top priority. In addition, if we want to eventually convince China to change their harmful practices, a high-standard TPP agreement would naturally be a big step in the right direction. Free-trade agreements like TPP, if done correctly, should provide new rules for trade in the 21st century. They should set modern standards for economic liberalization and integration, including the protection of foreign investments and intellectual property rights and the marginalization of state-owned enterprises. We need to be setting the standards and writing the rules on trade so our workers, innovators, researchers, and job creators can fairly compete in the global market. If we don't lead, if we sit on the sidelines, Americans will be competing on an imbalanced playing field, with rules designed specifically to disadvantage us. Given that TPP countries comprise 40 percent of the world economy, it is vital we improve our ability to compete in that region. Moreover, if TPP fails, we will lose influence in one of the most economically dynamic and strategic regions of the world, and any leadership vacuum left by the United States will almost certainly be filled by someone else and, in this case, most likely China. But don't just take my word for it. Congress recently received a letter from 17 former Secretaries of Defense and retired military leaders, including Colin Powell, Leon Panetta, William Perry, and Donald Rumsfeld. In that letter, these leaders said: We write to express our strongest possible support for enactment of Trade Promotion Authority legislation, which is critical to the successful conclusion of two vital agreements: the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Indeed, TPP in particular will shape an economic dynamic over the next several decades that will link the United States with one of the world's most vibrant and dynamic regions. If, however, we fail to move forward with TPP, Asian economies will almost certainly develop along a China-centric model. In fact, China is already pursuing an alternative regional free trade initiative. TPP, combined with TTIP, would allow the United States and our closest allies to help shape the rules and standards for global trade. The concerns outlined in this letter went beyond China. The letter continues: The stakes are clear. There are tremendous strategic benefits to TPP and TTIP, and there would be harmful strategic consequences if we fail to secure these agreements. In both the Asia-Pacific and the Atlantic, our allies and partners would question our commitments, doubt our resolve, and inevitably look to other partners. America's prestige, influence, and leadership are on the line. With TPP originating in the Bush administration, these agreements are fundamentally bipartisan in nature and squarely in our national security interest. It is vitally important that we seize the new strategic opportunities these agreements offer our nation. When 17 former Secretaries of Defense, admirals, and generals who served under both Republican and Democratic administrations have joined together with such a strong message, they probably have a point, and Congress had better listen closely. Many people, including a number of our colleagues in Congress, continually argue that one of the best uses of American power would be to better promote human rights and democracy in developing countries and increase our efforts at alleviating poverty. I don't necessarily disagree with that sentiment. Indeed, while there are different opinions about how we can best accomplish these goals, I think most of us in Congress, in both the Senate and the House, agree with the basic premise that we should continually be working to expand our influence and advance our values, particularly in the developing world. History has demonstrated that the best way to accomplish these objectives is to increase U.S. trade with these countries. Indeed, if we want to export the benefits of American exceptionalism, capitalism, work ethic, and democracy, a freer, expanded exchange of goods is absolutely the best way to do it. Trade is an effective exercise of America's economic power and influence, trade is how you spread capitalism and encourage other countries to open their economies, trade is how you export American values in the developing world, and, most importantly, trade is how you counter the growing influence of countries like China in the world economy. The stakes are high. The importance of TPP and other trade agreements to our strategic and security interests is obvious, and given that reality, the importance of TPA should be just as obvious. Put simply, without TPA, there is no TPP. That is just a fact. Sure, technically speaking, TPA is not required for the administration to complete negotiations and send the agreement to Congress, but technicalities aside, that route is unlikely to yield a desirable result, both in terms of the substance and process. Japan and Canada, two of our largest trading partners in the TPP negotiations, have each stated they are reluctant to bring their final offers to the table until Congress provides the administration with TPA. Trade promotion authority assures our trading partners that if they reach an agreement, it will not be unraveled when it is sent to Congress for approval. This allows our negotiators to get the best deal possible. TPA also ensures that Congress has a meaningful role in crafting the specifics of the agreement by setting objectives, mandating transparency, and requiring periodic updates. Under the Senate-passed bill, Congress will have more authority than ever to review and respond to the administration on individual trade agreements. Long story short, TPA is absolutely necessary for advancing U.S. interests abroad and protecting the opportunities for millions of Americans to earn and compete for a livelihood in an increasingly global trade environment. With the House TPA vote set to take place in a matter of days, I hope our colleagues in the other Chamber will recognize the strategic and economic realities we face as a country and be willing to advance our Nation's interests and security. I am confident that most of them will make the right choice, and it will be good for America as well as them. Child Support Enforcement Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes to speak about another matter of great importance not just to me but to everybody. Last year, after the midterm elections, the Obama administration quietly and without much fanfare proposed a massive, far-reaching rule that would overturn a number of bedrock principles of child support enforcement and welfare reform, chief among them being the principle that parents should be financially responsible for their children. This was just the latest attempt on the part of the Obama administration to bypass Congress and work to enact policies through executive fiat. Sadly, it wasn't even the first time this administration tried to gut welfare reform. Indeed, we all remember a few years back when the administration granted itself the unprecedented authority to waive critical welfare work requirements. Put simply, this latest rule would make it easier for noncustodial parents to evade paying child support. It would undermine a key feature of welfare reform, which is that single mothers can avoid welfare if fathers comply with child support orders. I am fundamentally opposed to policies that allow parents to abdicate their responsibilities, which, in return, results in more families having to go on welfare. I think most Americans would agree with me. That is why I, joined by Senator Cornyn and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, have introduced legislation that would prevent the Obama administration from bypassing Congress in yet another attempt to subvert key features of welfare reform. I regret that we must take this action. In the past, Members of Congress have generally been able to find common ground and work on a bipartisan basis to address issues relating to child support. In fact, Congress recently passed, and the President recently signed legislation, that made improvements to child support enforcement policies. In 2013, the Senate Finance Committee reported a series of ambitious proposals related to child support enforcement. At that time, we requested input on these proposals from the Obama administration. At no time did administration officials indicate that the Department of Health and Human Services was quietly working to advance a massive overhaul of child support enforcement, much less that it was planning on doing so without the help or input of Congress. It is important to note that this secretive preparation only came to light after the recent elections. That suggests to me that the administration does not have faith that its proposal can withstand public scrutiny and that they have no interest in making a full and transparent justification for the policies they are trying to ram through. Truth be told, Chairman Ryan and I have introduced our legislation more out of sorrow than anger. For many months, our offices attempted to work out an equitable arrangement with the Obama administration. We tried to convince HHS to withdraw the problematic features of the rule, and in exchange we would agree to engage in a substantive, productive discussion on how to move forward with improvements to child support enforcement. I firmly believe there is room for common ground. In fact, there are a number of features of the administration's proposed rule that could generate bipartisan support. But any workable solution would have to include the full participation and ultimate consent of the legislative branch. Any changes to the law would have to go through Congress and not simply be dictated by the administration. So Chairman Ryan and I will do all we can to get our bill through Congress and present it to the President. If we are successful, I hope he will sign it and commit to working with us in the future to advance reforms to child support enforcement. I stand ready to work with the administration and any of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the Capitol to achieve this goal. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to honor the memory of Elder L. Tom Perry, an exemplary leader whose kindness, compassion, and love were as boundless as his optimism. Elder Perry quietly passed away on May 30 after a brief battle with thyroid cancer. Serving as an apostle in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for more than 40 years, Elder Perry traveled the world, strengthening congregations, visiting the poor, and ministering to the sick and afflicted. Throughout his ecclesiastical service, his words and actions inspired countless Latter-day Saints and many more outside the church. As millions across the world mourn his passing, we find peace in his teachings and take solace in the memory of a man who consecrated his life to the service of others. From humble beginnings, Elder Perry developed a strong sense of discipline that would later define his church service. Born to Leslie Thomas and Nora Sonne Perry in 1922, his father was a lawyer and his mother was a teacher by profession. Together, they taught Tom the principles of honest work and self-reliance. Elder Perry was no stranger to hard labor, and some of his earliest memories included long days working the fields, milking the family cow, and cutting hay by hand with an old scythe. From these early experiences, Elder Perry learned that nothing would be handed to him and that he had to work for everything he received. And work he did. After finishing his first year of college, Elder Perry accepted a call to serve his church in the Northern States Mission. During the 2 years Elder Perry worked as a volunteer missionary, he developed a powerful testimony of Jesus Christ--a testimony that inspired a life of love and selfless service. After serving his church, Elder Perry desired to serve his country. He enlisted in the United States Marine Corps only a month after returning from his church mission. Elder Perry's marine battalion was deployed to Nagasaki shortly after the Japanese surrender. Observing the devastation and suffering of the Japanese people only softened Elder Perry's already tender heart. In his off-duty hours, he rallied a group of fellow marines to help him rebuild a Protestant chapel. On the same tour, he also helped repair a Catholic orphanage and build another chapel on the island of Saipan. While in Japan, Elder Perry grew especially close to a Protestant congregation. When he was transferred to another city, a group of nearly 200 members of this congregation gathered to bid him farewell. As his train crawled out of the station, each member of the congregation lined up along the track as Elder Perry reached out to touch their hands one by one. He loved these people, and they loved him back, making the goodbye all the more difficult. Last Saturday, thousands of us tasted that same bittersweet emotion when Elder Perry departed this mortal life for the next. Like this small Japanese congregation, we were all moved by his kindness, energized by his enthusiasm, and humbled by his service. After his honorable release from the Marine Corps, Elder Perry returned to Utah State University, where he earned a degree in finance and married his wife, Virginia Lee. Together, they were the parents of three children: Barbara, Linda Gay, and Lee. Family was always the highest priority for Elder Perry. Although his successful business career demanded much of his attention, he always made special sacrifices to spend time with his wife and children. Elder Perry was also committed to balancing his busy work schedule with his church service. As his family moved across the country--from Idaho and California, to New York and Boston--Elder Perry served in various leadership positions for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- day Saints, including two bishoprics, a high council, and two stake presidencies. In April 1974, he accepted a calling to serve in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Sadly, after serving as an apostle for only 8 months, Elder Perry's beloved wife, Virginia Lee, died of cancer. Nine years later, cancer would also take his daughter, Barbara. Although Elder Perry's life was marked by tragedy, it was not defined by it. His faith in God was unshakeable, as was his optimism. In response to heartbreak, Elder Perry said, ``[The Lord] is very kind. Even though some experiences are hard, he floods your mind with memories and gives you other opportunities. Life doesn't end just because you have a tragedy--there's a new mountain to climb.'' Elder Perry never stopped climbing those mountains, and he served valiantly as an Apostle of Jesus Christ. In 1976, he married Barbara Dayton--his loving helpmeet and able partner who helped him bear the heavy responsibility of his apostolic calling. I will always remember Elder Perry for the zeal and energy he brought to every facet of his life. Nothing could temper his enthusiasm, and nothing could deter him from doing what was right. Elder Perry never tired of his calling. He so loved meeting with church members and leaders throughout the world that he once said, ``My association with great men has been not only an education, but an inspiration.'' I can easily say the same of my own association with Elder Perry; it has been both an education and an inspiration, and I will always be grateful for his example. I will never forget Elder Perry, his life of dedicated service, and his unwavering optimism. I consider myself lucky to have known him and even luckier to call him a friend. I will miss Elder Perry dearly, as will all those who knew him. I send my deepest condolences to his wife, Barbara, and their beautiful family. May God comfort them in this time of grief, and may his love be with them always.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, our terrorist enemies continue to present a clear and present danger to our Nation's safety. We must use a broad array of information gathering tools to be successful in thwarting their plots and preventing future attacks. As the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee after 9/11, I worked across party lines to give our law enforcement and intelligence communities the authorities they need to keep us safe. Having served longer than any other Republican on the Intelligence Committee, I can personally attest to the critical importance of these authorities in combating real terrorist threats. Given the extensive and effective privacy and civil liberties safeguards already in place, I strongly supported a clean reauthorization of the existing law. Unfortunately, such legislation could not gather sufficient support in today's climate of misinformation about our efforts to stay one step ahead of the terrorists. Contrary to the claims of its proponents, the so-called USA FREEDOM Act will hamper our ability to address serious terrorist threats. My concerns about this legislation were further enhanced when the Senate voted down several reasonable amendments that represented modest changes needed to preserve our security. Accordingly, I voted against the bill because it will not provide the protections we need and will put our Nation at risk. One of the fundamental flaws of the USA FREEDOM Act is its creation of unnecessary delays and impediments to our efforts to protect the American people. Under this legislation, telephone metadata-consisting of information like the number calling and the length of the call-would no longer be collected by the government but instead be retained by private communications corporations. Proponents of the bill argue that this move is necessary to protect privacy. This argument is unpersuasive, given that the data collected does not include the identities of the callers or the content of their communications. I oppose this approach because the bill lacks any requirement for these companies to retain this data for any length of time. Without such a requirement, the effectiveness of a search of telephone metadata would obviously be compromised. One of the other major flaws of the USA FREEDOM Act is its amicus curiae provision, which would insert a legal advisor into the FISA COURT process to make arguments to advance privacy and civil liberties. Such an approach threatens to insert leftwing activists into an incredibly sensitive and already well-functioning process, a radical move that would stack the deck against our law enforcement and intelligence communities. Given that previous law already provided intense scrutiny and oversight from the Justice Department, Congress, and the courts, this new provision is both unnecessary and potentially quite dangerous. The Senate's action today undermines not only the operational effectiveness of one of our most critical tools to safeguard our national security. Going forward, I will do everything within my power to ensure that our law enforcement and intelligence professionals have all the tools they need to keep us safe.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senate Wyden.

Mr. HATCH. First of all, I want to thank Senator Wyden for his efforts in trying to accommodate the priorities of Members of the Senate during debate on this bill. We have been hard at work trying to address various concerns. Now, as we approach a final vote, we need to talk about some outstanding issues that we have not been able to resolve during this debate. Specifically, there are four issues that we are committed to addressing. First, during this debate we developed language to address Member concerns about immigration policy, particularly the concerns that trade negotiations could be used to alter U.S. immigration law or policy. An amendment filed by Senator Cruz during the floor debate clarified this issue. Second, one of the provisions of the TPA bill relates to forced labor and human trafficking. Senator Menendez championed an effort to include these provisions in the bill reported by the Finance Committee. Since that time, Senator Menendez worked with us to refine these provisions and to improve their operation. We supported an amendment filed by Senator Menendez to make these refinements. There is also strong bipartisan interest in providing more robust direction for trade in the fishing industry. Senator Sullivan has been a leader in this area. Finally, there were proposed amendments to strengthen U.S. trade remedy laws. Senators Brown and Portman were key leaders in this area and filed an amendment to address this issue on the floor. We supported this amendment as well. I believe there was strong bipartisan consensus in favor of all four of these efforts. Unfortunately, we were unable to address them during consideration of the TPA bill on the floor. Going forward, I want to be clear that we are committed to address all four of these concerns in the context of the future conference of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act, which has already passed the Senate. I have a letter here from Chairman Ryan of the House Ways and Means Committee committing to work with us on these issues when that bill goes to conference. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. I would ask Senator Wyden if he is willing to work with me to address these issues in this fashion.

Mr. HATCH. Thank you, Senator Feinstein. Yes, I agree. The United States came to Haiti's aid after it suffered a devastating earthquake in 2010. We should do the same for Nepal today.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I raise a point of order against the Shaheen amendment No. 1227, as it is not germane to the substitute amendment. I also ask unanimous consent that the votes in this series be 10 minutes in length and that there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to each vote.

Mr. HATCH. I thank the Chair.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I appreciate the distinguished Senator's amendment, but I have to raise a point of order against McCain amendment No. 1226, as it is not germane to the substitute amendment.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, it is with regret that I raise a point of order against Inhofe amendment No. 1312, as it is not germane to the substitute amendment.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call with respect to the cloture vote be waived.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, soon the Senate will vote on final passage of the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities Act of 2015. This is a historic piece of legislation that will renew trade promotion authority. As I have already said here on the floor many times, this bill has been a long time coming. I personally have been focused on this for the last 4 years, but I know that for those whose lives and livelihoods revolve around American trade, the wait has been much longer. This is an important bill, no doubt about it, and likely the most important bill we will pass this year. It is important to President Obama, and I know it is important to many of us here in this Chamber. It shows that when the President is right, we will support him. From the beginning, TPA has been a bipartisan effort. Despite the difficulties we have faced here on the floor, I am glad it has remained that way throughout the process. I am very appreciative of all those who have put in so much time and effort to get the bill to this point. Going back to last year, I want to thank the former chairmen, Max Baucus and Dave Camp, who helped get the ball rolling on this TPA bill. I would especially like to thank the staff, who put in a great deal of time on the initial draft of this legislation, including Amber Cottel, former staff director of the Senate Committee on Finance; Bruce Hirsh, former chief trade counsel; and international trade counsel Lisa Pearlman. I want thank my colleagues on the Committee on Finance, whose input and support has been instrumental both in drafting and developing this legislation as well as helping it move forward. Most notably, I thank the ranking member on the Committee on Finance, the coauthor of this current legislation, Senator Ron Wyden. His commitment to his principles and constituents has been admirable. Although it has taken a lot of time for the two of us to get to this point, his efforts have undoubtedly improved the substance of the bill and helped broaden its support. I very much appreciate the efforts of Senator Wyden in the drafting the bill and getting it through the committee and here on the floor. There are other Senators who played key roles in getting us to where we are. I want to thank our distinguished majority leader and the majority whip. I also thank Senators Carper and Murray. Obviously, every Senator who has voted and worked to get us to this point deserves thanks. I will thank you all individually as the clerk calls the roll for this last vote. Of course, I want to thank my staff on the Committee on Finance, who worked long hours for many months to get us here, and Senator Wyden's staff as well. On the Republican side, I particularly want to thank Everett Eissenstat for leading the way, and his family, Janet, Alex, and Jacob Eissenstat, for lending him to us for so many hours. I want to thank the rest of the Republican trade staff: Shane Warren, Rebecca Eubank, Karen Rosenbaum, Sahra Su, Andrew Rollo, and Kenneth Schmidt. I also want to thank my senior team: Chris Campbell, Mark Prater, Jay Khosla, Jeff Wrase, and Bryan Hickman. And of course I need to thank our communications team: Julia Lawless, Aaron Forbes, Amelia Breinig, and Joshua Blume. On the Democratic side of the committee staff, I want to thank Josh Sheinkman, Jocelyn Moore, Mike Evans, Jayme White, and Elissa Alben for all their hard work, and others as well who worked on that side. I also thank the Senate Republican leadership staff, who put a lot of blood, sweat, and tears into this endeavor. From their staffs, I need to particularly thank Sharon Soderstrom, Hazen Marshall, Brendan Dunn, Terry Van Doren, Erica Suares, Antonio Ferrier, Russ Thomasson, and Johnny Slemrod. From the Republican cloakroom staff, I want to single out the efforts of Laura Dove, Robert Duncan and Megan Mercer. Of course, we need to mention the efforts of our attorneys at the legislative counsel's office, particularly Margaret Roth Warren and Thomas Haywood, who did a lot of heavy lifting in putting together the bill and the amendments. The Parliamentarian's office has been immensely helpful as well. From their staff, I would like to thank Elizabeth McDonough, Leigh Hildebrand, Thomas Cuffie, and Michael Beaver. Throughout this process, we received assistance from the United States Trade Representative. I thank Ambassador Froman and his staff for all their assistance in this effort. Really, the list of people I need to thank is too long to cover in a single floor speech. I just hope it is clear to everyone on both sides of the floor who worked on this bill just how appreciative I am. As far as the Senate is concerned, we have one more vote to go on this bill, but that is not the end for the bill. I am committed to working with my colleagues in the House and with the administration to get this bill across the finish line. As I said earlier this week, for me, the work on TPA doesn't finish until we have a bill on the President's desk. I look forward to continuing this particular effort and to working with my colleagues on whatever challenge comes next. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--and I am not going to object--I think the Senator deserves a minute, but I would ask that I be given a minute after he finishes.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have always been proud of Utah's rich heritage. Utah is blessed with incredible natural resources, beautiful landscapes, and breathtaking vistas. Utahns have always understood the importance of maintaining a responsible balance between the development of our abundant resources and the need to protect the unique natural features of our State. Today, though, the executive branch threatens to disrupt that delicate balance. Countless rural communities in Utah are currently facing difficult challenges to their way of life as the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, increases restrictions on traditional economic activities, such as ranching and grazing operations on Federal land. Under President Theodore Roosevelt's leadership, Congress passed the Antiquities Act of 1906--a short, four-paragraph law that gave the President unilateral authority to designate areas as national monuments. Such designations were intended to protect special areas in our country that have particularly significant natural, historical, or cultural features. Congress crafted these designations to be limited in scope and ``confined to the smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected.'' At that time, the Antiquities Act was an essential tool to protect our Nation's historical treasures against growing dangers, such as looters and vandals. Congress drafted this law after archaeologists noticed that America's natural treasures were turning up in overseas museums and private collections. After President Roosevelt signed the Antiquities Act into law, he subsequently set aside nearly 20 such natural and cultural landmarks. These monument designations were limited in scope and designed to protect specific locations rather than massive acreages. For example, the total area of our Nation's first national monument, Devil's Tower in Wyoming, spans only about 2 square miles. Unfortunately, over time, the use of the Antiquities Act has evolved from protecting historic landmarks to restricting development across vast swaths of land without any meaningful local input. For example, on September 18, 1996, President Bill Clinton issued a proclamation designating nearly 1.9 million acres in southern Utah as the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. Utah's entire congressional delegation, the Utah State Legislature, and then-Governor Mike Leavitt all strongly opposed this proclamation. President Clinton's declaration was made without so much as a ``by your leave'' to the people of Utah. There were no consultations, no hearings, no townhall meetings, no TV or radio discussions, no input from Federal land managers, no maps, no boundaries--nothing. In fact, Utah's elected representatives in Washington had to learn about the proclamation from the Washington Post. There are significant impacts on the ground when a monument is designated not only on Federal land but also on State and private land. Had President Clinton consulted with the State and the delegation, he would have learned that the designation would land-lock and render useless 200,000 acres of Utah School Trust Lands--lands held in trust for the education of Utah's children. This designation deprived Utah schools of a significant revenue source. Fortunately, Utah's congressional delegation was eventually able to pass legislation allowing these school trust lands to be swapped out of the monument boundary. While this legislation helped the schools, much of the local population still lost their jobs because of the President's declaration. The only silver lining in this debacle was language written into the President's proclamation that protected livestock grazing on the monument. While the President blocked significant mineral development and other economic activity in the 1.9 million-acre area, he at least understood that blocking traditional grazing in the area was untenable. Sadly, since the 1996 monument designation, nearly 28 percent of the Federal livestock grazing animal unit-months, AUMs, have been suspended, according to the Utah Cattlemen's Association. According to the 2015 Economic Report to the Governor prepared by the Utah Economic Council, ``[o]f Utah's 45 million acres of rangeland, 33 million acres are owned and managed by the federal government, while only 8 million acres are privately owned.'' With that in mind, most ranching operations in Utah must combine private grazing, feed importation, and access to the renewable grasses and forage through Federal grazing leases in order to be economically viable. Unfortunately, since the late 1940s, the Utah Farm Bureau found that the BLM and the Forest Service have drastically cut or suspended Utah's total livestock grazing AUMs from 5.4 million AUMs in 1949 to just over 2 million in 2012. With grazing on Federal land already in peril, grazing on the monument is at even greater risk. Currently, the BLM is considering an amendment to the Management Plan that would eliminate grazing on the monument altogether. If the BLM eliminates grazing on the monument, there would be significant negative economic impacts to the area. Consider the economic benefits grazing already brings to these rural counties in Utah. The Utah Farm Bureau reports that ``around 11,500 feeder cattle sold out of Kane and Garfield County ranches brought in more than $16 million dollars and generated in excess of $25-$30 million based on a conservative economic multiplier. With about one- half of the calf crop coming from grazing allotments within the monument, of that total, about $8 million in direct feeder cattle sales and between $12--$15 million in economic activity is tied directly back to cattle grazing on the monument.'' Those ranching dollars create jobs in Utah's rural counties. The money also contributes to local tax revenue and supports vital public services. Eliminating grazing on the monument would have disastrous implications for the local economy. The poor stewardship of the land presents another risk even beyond its effects on grazing and the local economy. The rangeland on the monument is being mismanaged. Even if the BLM decides to change course overnight and restore grazing to the historic levels that existed before the designation of the monument, the land in its current state would not be able to sustain it. Over the last 20 years, we have witnessed a worrisome decline in rangeland health. With this decline, livestock carrying capacity has also decreased. To protect rangeland health, I joined Senator Mike Lee and Congressman Chris Stewart to introduce the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Grazing Protection Act. This bill would direct the BLM to create and implement a management program within the areas of the monument to improve rangeland conditions for wildlife and livestock carrying capacity. It would also restore livestock grazing to the historic levels that existed before the designation. There are many things BLM can and should be doing to restore rangeland health. Improving the range would not only benefit ranchers and affected communities but also bring significant ecological and environmental benefits to the entire area. This legislation will direct the BLM in that effort. This is a commonsense bill that will restore Utah's rangeland to health. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I wish to speak on a critical national security issue: the importance of renewing the authority for essential anti-terrorism tools which is set to expire by the time Congress returns to Washington after Memorial Day. Every single Member of this body remembers where he or she was on September 11, 2001. I was here in the Senate. I remember evacuating the Capitol and the office building. I remember standing on the lawn outside, wondering if a plane was headed toward this very building. That terrible day gave us a taste of what terrorists want to visit upon our country. We realized that these fanatics would stop at nothing to kill innocent men, women, and children and to bring our country to its knees. Knowing the threat this country faced, we resolved not to let bureaucratic red tape hinder the ability of our law enforcement and intelligence communities to keep us safe. As the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, I joined with colleagues of both parties as well as the Bush administration to craft the USA PATRIOT Act, which passed the Senate 98 to 1. The PATRIOT Act and its subsequent reauthorizations have proven critical to our ability to investigate terrorist threats and prevent another mass-casualty attack on the homeland. Let me make one matter perfectly clear: we continue to face a very serious terrorist threat. The evil that struck us on September 11 has metastasized and continues to present a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States. As the American people's elected representatives, it is our primary duty to keep this country safe. Accordingly, we must continue to provide the necessary tools to the law enforcement and intelligence communities that have helped keep this Nation safe for the past 14 years. Unfortunately, some of these tools have become quite controversial, despite the repeated showing of strong bipartisan support for them. The collection of telephone metadata under section 215 has drawn particular criticisms and worrisome calls for ``reform.'' I find this development enormously concerning. Consider what President Obama himself had to say about our need for such a capability: The program grew out of a desire to address a gap identified after 9/11. One of the 9/11 hijackers, Khalid al- Mihdhar, made a phone call from San Diego to a known al-Qaeda safe house in Yemen. NSA saw that call, but it could not see that the call was coming from an individual already in the United States. The telephone metadata program under Section 215 was designed to map the communications of terrorists so we could see who they may be in contact with as quickly as possible. The President was absolutely right. The collection of telephone metadata in bulk facilitates our mapping of terrorist networks and our ability to disrupt terrorist plots. Contrary to the wild fantasies that critics frequently spout, this collection does not meaningfully intrude on our privacy. It does not involve the NSA listening in on anyone's calls. It is simply a very important means of finding a proverbial needle in a haystack. We should reauthorize this authority without delay. A number of my colleagues have taken a different approach, taking up the cause of the so-called USA FREEDOM Act to ``reform'' our counterterrorism efforts. I find the name of this bill ironic, in the sense that their legislation aims to restore a freedom that was never under threat while sacrificing critical tools that secure our freedom. For instance, under this legislation, metadata would no longer be collected by the government but instead retained by private communications corporations. While this idea may seem initially appealing, I have strong reservations about such an approach. Their proposal contains no requirement for these companies to maintain this data for any length of time. Without such a requirement, the effectiveness of a search would obviously be compromised. This is hardly my only concern. Consider also the provision of the so-called FREEDOM Act that would create a body of outside experts to advise the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court on the government's warrant applications. Such an unprecedented move would cause serious constitutional concerns and could undermine the adversarial system which at the core of the judicial branch. For these and many other reasons, I cannot support the so-called FREEDOM Act. While I would prefer to pass a long-term extension of our current authorities, I will support a short-term extension to facilitate the search for a long-term solution. I urge my colleagues in both Houses to support this effort.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, as we resume the debate of our Nation's trade policy, I want to take a few minutes to provide an update about where things really are, where we are going, and the possibility of a path forward. We took a big step yesterday, and I thank all of my colleagues who voted for cloture, once again, for helping us to get closer to the finish. I am, of course, aware that a number of Senators have concerns about the process and amendments. I understand those concerns. As I said yesterday, I would have preferred a different path for moving this bill. It was always my preference to consider more amendments and have a fuller debate on these important issues. I know that is what the majority leader wanted, as well. Sadly, there were some who just did not want to cooperate, and instead of moving directly to the bill, we had to negotiate around a filibuster. Then, instead of bringing up and debating amendments, we spent a lot of time addressing concerns and overcoming objections. I am not going to point fingers or complain about anyone who chooses to exercise their rights under the Senate rules to slow down the debate. We are all well aware that a number of Senators would love to prolong this debate forever to keep the TPA bill from passing. But with a bill this important, we had to find a way forward, which led to a cloture motion and yesterday's vote. But even now that cloture has been invoked, I am still working to try to reach a reasonable accommodation to address Senators' concerns. Both sides worked late into the night to try to come up with an agreement on time and amendments in order to give Senators an opportunity to make their case. Up to now, no deal has been reached, which from my point of view is unfortunate. And keep in mind that under the rules, we don't have an obligation to do that. We bent over backwards to try to solve this problem, but so far, no deal has been reached. I am still willing to work with my colleagues to address their concerns, although it is becoming increasingly clear that some concerns are beyond accommodation. But I am always an optimist. As I said yesterday, if any of my colleagues have a reasonable proposal to solve this impasse and allow us to consider more amendments, I am all ears. But as of right now, cloture is invoked and only pending, germane amendments can be considered without an agreement. Until that time, however, one thing is clear: Absent an agreement on time and votes, the Senate will deal with pending amendments and vote on whether to invoke cloture on TPA this evening. I am, of course, more than willing to wait that long, but I am sure there are many in this Chamber who would prefer to see a solution come together before then. Let's work together. Let's find a way to hear more amendments and address more issues. I hope people will be willing to work with us on a reasonable path forward, but if not, it appears that the clock, more than anything else, will determine how this debate will unfold. Amendment No. 1299 Mr. President, later today the Senate will vote on the Portman- Stabenow currency manipulation amendment. Up to now, we have all heard more than our fair share of arguments about this amendment. I want to take a few more minutes today to express my opposition to the Portman-Stabenow amendment and to explain to my colleagues why they should vote against it. I want to reiterate that the Obama administration has made it abundantly clear that if this amendment gets adopted, President Obama will veto the TPA bill. As I have already said a number of times, a vote for the Portman-Stabenow amendment is a vote to kill TPA. That would be, indeed, tragic. I know that all of my colleagues are aware of the statements made by Secretary Lew and the White House on this matter. I also know that a number of my colleagues who support Portman-Stabenow have said that they don't believe the President would veto the TPA bill over this amendment. Well, let's say, for the sake of argument, that they are right--but only for the sake of argument. Let's assume that the administration is bluffing. Should we call that bluff? Should we pass the amendment and dare the President to make good on his veto threat? The answer to that question is an emphatic no. Even if we take veto threats and administration statements of opposition completely out of the equation, one fact still remains: The Portman-Stabenow amendment is bad policy for America, and it is far too risky. Earlier this week, I laid out four separate negative consequences that would result from the Portman-Stabenow amendment, and I would like to reiterate those concerns here today. First, the Portman-Stabenow amendment would derail the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Once again, we know that this is the case. I have chatted with Japanese leaders, and they tell me this is the case. That is a very important aspect of what we are trying to do here. We are trying to get Japan, for the first time, to agree to a trade policy that works. I think we have a new leadership there that wants to agree, and we ought to help them. None of our negotiating partners would sign a trade agreement that included the kinds of rules mandated by the Portman-Stabenow amendment. We have already heard from countries such as Japan that they would walk away from the agreement if the United States were making these types of demands. Furthermore, the United States would never agree to these types of demands, either. What country would willingly sign a trade agreement that would subject their monetary policies to potential trade sanctions? No country that I am aware of. I heard some of my colleagues respond to these claims the same way they responded to the President's veto threat. They don't believe Japan when they say they will walk away from the TPP or they say that any country refusing to accede to these types of standards must be planning to manipulate their currency. Now, I am all for healthy skepticism around here, but maybe--just maybe--if our government, as well as all of our negotiating partners, all say that Portman-Stabenow is bad policy that they cannot sign onto, there has to be something to those claims. Guess what. There is something to them, which brings me to the second negative consequence that we would see under the Portman-Stabenow amendment. It would put the Federal Reserve's independence at risk and subject our own monetary policies to trade disputes and possible sanctions. Once again, we have colleagues in the Senate who have simply decreed here on the floor that U.S. monetary policy is aimed at purely domestic objectives and that it is only other countries that manipulate their currencies to gain trade advantage. But anyone who paid attention to these issues knows that not all of our trading partners share that assessment. Other countries have already accused the United States of currency manipulation, and the Portman-Stabenow amendment would set forth a clear and accessible process for turning those accusations into trade disputes subject to possible sanctions. We may not agree with those allegations against U.S. monetary policy. I certainly don't. But the problem is that the Portman-Stabenow amendment would take those determinations out of our hands and give them over to international trade tribunals. So whether we agree or not, we are going to find ourselves in a mess no matter what happens, should that amendment be accepted. At this point, the proponents of this amendment will likely point out that they have included language to exempt ``the exercise of domestic monetary policy'' from the enforceable rules mandated by the amendment. With all due respect to the authors of the amendment, that is a red herring. Keep in mind that the U.S. dollar is a global currency, the primary reserve currency in the world today. That being the case, our Nation's monetary policies necessarily have a global impact, making it very difficult to determine what constitutes purely domestic monetary policy and what is meant to be international. Once again, after this amendment, that extremely difficult determination will not be made here in the United States but by international trade tribunals. I don't know about my colleagues, but I have to say that causes me great alarm. We also need to keep in mind that under currently available economic models and methodologies, it is virtually impossible to definitively measure currency manipulation. There is no clear and obvious threshold at which anyone can, with certainty, declare that a country's currency has been manipulated. Most like to point to the standards set by the International Monetary Fund. However, even their formulations have been unable to determine currency manipulation with any level of specificity. For example, IMF models recently showed that in 2013, Japan's currency was anywhere between around 15 percent undervalued and 15 percent overvalued. In other words, existing standards for determining what is and what is not currency manipulation are flimsy and ill- defined. It would be very dangerous to subject U.S. monetary policies to enforceable rules based on these standards. Yet that is precisely what the Portman-Stabenow amendment would do. Third, under the Portman-Stabenow amendment, the traditional role of the U.S. Treasury in setting U.S. exchange rate policies would be watered down and potentially overruled in international trade tribunals. Thus, adoption of the Portman-Stabenow negotiating objective cedes independence and full authority over not only monetary policy for the Federal Reserve but also the exchange rate policy for the Treasury. Fourth, the Portman-Stabenow amendment would deal a serious setback to ongoing efforts to fight currency manipulation by encouraging our trading partners to evade regular reporting and transparency of exchange rate policies. If currency standards become enforceable and immediately subject to sanctions under a trade agreement, parties to that agreement would almost certainly start withholding full participation in reporting and monitoring mechanisms that are designed to uncover and combat currency manipulation. Put simply, we cannot enforce rules against unfair exchange rate practices if we do not have information about them. The Portman- Stabenow amendment would make it far more difficult to obtain that type of information. Their approach would push currency manipulation practices into the shadows as countries would fear being hit with trade sanctions if a trade tribunal--once again using ill-defined standards-- deems their policies to be manipulative. As we can see, concerns about the Portman-Stabenow amendment extend well beyond the veto threats. Indeed, even if no veto threats had been issued--and make no mistake, they have definitely been issued--there are enough problems inherent in the approach taken by this amendment to warrant opposition on its own. Can we take those chances? I don't think so. Colleagues don't have to take my word for it. Every living former U.S. Treasury Secretary, both Republicans and Democrats--every one--has expressed opposition to the approach taken by the Portman-Stabenow amendment. During the Finance Committee's consideration of the TPA bill, Congress received a letter signed by Tim Geithner, Hank Paulson, John Snow, Paul O'Neill, Larry Summers, Robert Rubin, Nicholas Brady, James Baker, Michael Blumenthal, and George Shultz stating, among other things, that ``it is impossible to get agreement on provisions that subject currency manipulation to trade sanctions in a manner that both the United States and other countries would find acceptable.'' It is ``impossible.'' That is their word, not mine. We also received a letter from 14 former chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers, again both Republicans and Democrats, expressing similar views. The letter was signed by Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, Charles Schultze, Martin Feldstein, Laura D'Andrea Tyson, Martin Baily, Glenn Hubbard, Austan Goolsbee, Alan Krueger, Christina Romer, Edward Lazear, Harvey Rosen, and Greg Mankiw. All of these leaders--these experts in economic policy--have cautioned against requiring enforceable currency standards in our trade agreements that are subject to sanctions. They all noted such an approach, which would be required under the Portman-Stabenow amendment, would hinder our own economic policies. Our current Secretary of Agriculture said much the same thing in a letter this week. In his letter, Secretary Vilsack stated: Enacting a TPA currency discipline that requires an enforceable negotiating objective would likely derail our efforts to complete the Trans Pacific Partnership and cause us to lose ground on holding countries accountable on currency. He continued, arguing: An enforceable currency provision in our trade agreements . . . could give our training partners the power to challenge legitimate U.S. monetary policies needed to ensure strong employment and a healthy, robust economy. We have also heard from leaders in the business community. In fact, we received letters signed by almost every major business association in this country, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Business Roundtable, and countless others weighing in either against the Portman-Stabenow amendment, in favor of the Hatch-Wyden alternative or both. We have heard the same from agricultural organizations, including the American Farm Bureau, the National Pork Producers Council, and many others. In short, both the business and agricultural communities over- whelmingly--overwhelmingly--oppose Portman-Stabenow. This isn't about politics, this is about sensible policy. Now, I am not arguing that we shouldn't do anything about currency manipulation. Senator Wyden and I have submitted an alternative amendment that would take a much more sensible and effective approach to deal with these issues. The Hatch-Wyden amendment would put a number of tools at our disposal to fight currency manipulation, including enhanced transparency, disclosure, reporting, monitoring, cooperative mechanisms, as well as enforceable rules--the only tool in the Portman-Stabenow amendment. The Portman-Stabenow amendment provides this single tool: enforceable rules, subject--and this is what a lot of people miss--subject to trade sanctions. This single tool is grossly unreliable and poses a serious threat to U.S. interests if we fail to monitor what is going on in international tribunals against the United States. The Hatch-Wyden amendment would give us maximum transparency and effectiveness with the ability to specifically tailor our efforts at addressing currency manipulation. The Portman-Stabenow amendment would tie our hands and give us no other option than to subject our trading partners and ourselves to potential sanctions based on unreliable, indefinite standards. The Hatch-Wyden amendment would preserve the integrity of our current trade negotiations. It would pose no threats to the independence of the Federal Reserve and would not subject our own monetary or exchange rate policies to the whims of an international trade tribunal, and it would increase transparency and accountability of our trading partners' currency practices. In pretty much every way, the Hatch-Wyden amendment provides a better approach to dealing with currency manipulation than the one offered by the Portman-Stabenow amendment. So, once again, even if we think the President is blowing smoke when he said he would veto any TPA bill that includes Portman-Stabenow, that is no reason to vote in favor of the amendment--and I don't believe he is blowing smoke. Our alternative approach represents a better solution to a myriad of serious problems. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Portman-Stabenow currency amendment and support the Hatch-Wyden alternative. I think my colleagues will be happy if they do that because I think I have made a very strong case this morning. There is more to be said, but this ought to cause everybody to think and to pause and to say, Should I really take the chance of voting for this? Is it really possible the President might veto it? Is it really possible it will interfere with our Federal Reserve policy? Is it really possible we could be subject to all kinds of international tribunals--over what? Something we could have avoided with the Hatch-Wyden amendment. I could go on and on. All I can say is I hope our colleagues will vote for Hatch-Wyden. It is not a matter of wanting to win on something. It is a matter of needing to win on something for the betterment of our country and its foreign policy. With that, I yield the floor.