Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this week, the Senate will vote on a budget resolution for fiscal year 2018. While there are many elements to this particular resolution, most of this Chamber's and the public's attention are on the reconciliation instructions related to tax reform. Before I go too far, I first want to thank Chairman Enzi and all of our colleagues on the Budget Committee for their work on this resolution. Chairman Enzi has been a critical player in the ongoing effort to reform our broken Tax Code, and his work to craft this budget resolution and move it out of committee has been critical to this effort. For the next step, he is going to need help passing the resolution here on the floor. I think we will get there. Specifically, this budget resolution contains a $1.5 trillion reconciliation instruction for tax reform. That is a good number, putting meaningful tax reform within reach. As the debate over the budget and the instruction moves forward, I think it is critical that everyone understand what tax reform will do for our country and, perhaps more importantly, what will happen if we fail. Tax reform has been the chief focus of the Senate Finance Committee for years now. In the 6\1/2\ years that I have been the lead Republican on the committee, we have had about 70 hearings focused on the Tax Code. In the vast majority of those hearings, we have heard both Democrats and Republicans acknowledge the inefficiency of our current tax system, with very few members having spent their time and energy defending the status quo, which is not at all surprising. Our current tax system imposes undue burdens on middle-class families. Our current tax system is obscenely complex, riddled with credits, exemptions, and deductions, many of which were designed to benefit special interests. Our current tax system's complicated rate structure makes it difficult for families to plan and, for some workers, creates a disincentive to work for additional earnings. Our current tax system subjects American businesses and job creators to the highest tax rates in the industrialized world. Our current tax system creates incentives for businesses to move headquarters and operations offshore, eroding our Nation's tax base. And our current system has forced companies to keep trillions of dollars offshore, preventing further investment and growth here at home. Reform of this broken system is long overdue. The last major overhaul to our Tax Code was more than three decades ago. Even if the Tax Code hadn't changed dramatically since that time, the economy of 1986 was dramatically different from the one we have today. Of course, the code has undergone a number of piecemeal changes since the 1986 reform, but that approach has left us with a system that simply does not work. Fundamental change is what our tax system needs--change that takes the entire system into account and change that will create a tax code that, at the very least, looks as though it was designed on purpose. That is what we aim to provide once the Senate and the House have passed a consensus budget resolution. On the Finance Committee, we are working to craft legislation pursuant to the guideposts in the unified framework released last month. Our bill, based on the uniform tax reform framework, will give much needed relief to millions of low- to middle-income families. It will level the playing field for Americans and for American job creators and promote more investment in the United States. In the end, all of this will mean bigger paychecks for American workers, a more vibrant U.S. economy, and more American jobs. But without this budget resolution, we are unlikely to get there. Don't get me wrong, I would like to produce a tax reform product that could get 60 votes. I have spent years asking my Democratic colleagues to meaningfully engage in this effort. To be sure, there have been Democrats who have been willing to put themselves out there on tax reform in recent years, including the former Finance Committee chairman, Max Baucus, and our current ranking member, Senator Wyden. But they have generally been the exception. When President Obama was in office, many Democrats typically talked about tax reform only in the context of raising revenues to fuel additional spending, which isn't tax reform at all. It is simply raising taxes. Under President Trump, the focus, at least among many in the Democratic leadership, seems to be about preventing passage of anything that could be viewed as a win for the President and Republicans in Congress. Perhaps I am wrong about that--and I hope I am--but when we are talking about tax reform these days, most of the talk from my friends on the other side of the aisle has been about unreasonable and unprecedented process demands. That is unfortunate. There are a number of areas of tax reform where Democrats and Republicans are largely in agreement. Those areas include middle-class tax relief, bringing down the corporate rates, and fixing our international tax system to make American companies more competitive. Given these shared concerns, I am still hopeful that some of our Democratic colleagues will join us in this effort. I remain willing to work with any Member of the Senate who wants to engage in this effort in good faith. Historically speaking, tax bills that pass through the budget reconciliation process tend to have support from both parties. In fact, when Republicans have held the White House and Congress, purely partisan tax reconciliation bills have not been enacted. That being the case, I think the unified framework envisions a tax reform approach that both parties can and should support. Long story short, I haven't given up on producing a bipartisan tax reform package. But, once again, we need to pass this budget resolution if we are going to move the ball forward. That being the case, I urge my colleagues to support the resolution before us this week and to work with us as we develop tax reform legislation that will help middle- class families and job creators throughout the country. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, the Washington Post article discusses virtually none of this. Rather, it baldly asserts that Congress cut out DEA's legs from underneath it through a sinister conspiracy of deep- pocketed drug companies and their cunning allies in Congress. Nothing could be further from the truth. To begin with, I have spent 40 years of my life in the Senate fighting the scourge of drug abuse. I stood side by side with Ronald Reagan in the War on Drugs. In 2000, I coauthored the Drug Addiction Treatment Act, or DATA 2000, one of the first efforts in Congress to address the opioid epidemic. Last year, I led conference negotiations on the Comprehensive Addiction Recovery Act, a landmark piece of legislation that is making a real difference in the fight against opioid and heroin abuse. Currently, I am working on legislation to address opioid addiction in the veteran community. I am no patsy when it comes to drug abuse--prescription or otherwise--and neither are my colleagues. Indeed, forget me for a moment. Let's take Senator Whitehouse, who helped me negotiate the bill with DEA and DOJ. Are we to believe that Senator Whitehouse, a former Rhode Island attorney general and a former U.S. attorney, a crusader against corporate interests, is somehow in the pocket of the drug companies? Of course not. The charge is laughable on its face. How about the fact that this bill passed both Houses of Congress by unanimous consent? Did the entire U.S. Congress decide to shield its eyes to the true sinister intent of this legislation? Did the Senate Judiciary Committee, which approved the bill by voice vote, decide to look the other way? This is a committee that includes former prosecutors, state attorneys general, and U.S. attorneys who, at the time, included both the current Attorney General of the United States and the current Senate minority leader. Are we seriously to believe that Jeff Sessions, the toughest foe of illegal drugs I have ever known in my entire life, sat on his hands while Congress eviscerated the DEA's enforcement authority? No, of course not. To merely state these allegations is to make clear how utterly ridiculous they really are. Not one Senator or Member of the House opposed this bill. Do you know why? Because DEA, the very agency the bill impacts, the very agency that supposedly can no longer do its job because of this legislation, agreed to let it go forward. Let me be clear. The DEA could have stopped this bill. They could have stopped it at any time. In fact, they did stop a previous version in 2014 that had different language. I spent months negotiating with DEA and with DOJ until they were at a point they were comfortable allowing the bill to proceed. If they had asked me to hold the bill or to continue negotiations, I would have done so. I brought the bill to markup only after DEA and DOJ agreed with me on a path forward. Anyone who claims that I or anyone else steamrolled DEA and DOJ on this bill is either ignorant or woefully misinformed. That brings me to another point that was largely lost in all the insinuations in the Washington Post article. The language that purportedly eviscerated DEA's enforcement power--that is, the requirement that the DEA show a substantial likelihood of immediate threat before issuing an immediate suspension order--was written by DEA and DOJ lawyers and provided to Hill staff as a proposed compromise. So let's get this straight. Congress took language that DEA and DOJ wrote, inserted it into the bill, and now Congress is the bad guy? I should note that other aspects of DEA and DOJ's proposed language changed, but that key phrase ``substantial likelihood of an immediate threat''--the phrase that critics now point to as gutting DEA's enforcement authority--came from DEA and DOJ. And lest we forget, President Obama signed the bill into law on the advice of his own DEA Administrator. I think we need to be candid about what is going on here. Opponents of the current administration are trying to derail the President's nominee to be head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, Representative Tom Marino, by mischaracterizing and trying to rewrite the history of a bill that he championed. They are being aided in their efforts by a group of former DEA employees who took an extremely hard line against drug companies when they were at the Agency and who are upset that the DEA chose to pursue a more collaborative approach after they left. I don't fault these individuals for their passion, but I do reject the notion that there was some sort of sinister conspiracy at play. And I find it unconscionable that critics of the bill and of Representative Marino would flat-out ignore the very real patient concerns that motivated this bill and motivated my personal involvement with it. You think this bill was a sop to the drug industry? Tell that to the Fibromyalgia and Chronic Pain Network. Tell that to the American Academy of Pain Management. Tell that to the Drug Free America Foundation. If we are going to make this bill a political football and try to use it to sink Representative Marino's nomination, let's tell the full story. Let's be fair. Let's at least be honest. Let's not gin up a one- sided narrative based entirely on the statements of former Agency officials who disagreed with the change of leadership. No matter how you try to spin it, this is not the latest episode of ``House of Cards.'' Rather, let's be clear that Members of this body negotiated this bill in good faith with the DEA and the Department of Justice. Let's be clear--the DEA and DOJ themselves generated the language that critics now claim is so problematic. Let's remember that this bill passed by unanimous consent and that every single Member of this body and the House of Representatives agreed to it. Let's remember, too, that the DEA and DOJ could have stopped this bill at any time if they had wanted to but instead chose to allow it to proceed. After all, they stopped an earlier version in 2014 that had different language. They could have stopped it again. And even after the bill passed Congress, they could have advised President Obama not to sign on. Don't forget that the bill bears his signature. Let's not pretend that DEA, both Houses of Congress, and the Obama White House all somehow wilted under Representative Marino's nefarious influences. Provocative headlines and clever framing may drive page hits, but this body's decisions should be based on the full story. It should be based on all the facts. A single news article that tells only one side of the story should not derail a nominee who has a long history of fighting illegal drug use and of helping individuals with chronic conditions obtain treatment. Let's not ignore the full story here in the rush toward easy politics. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, over the weekend, the Washington Post ran an article about a piece of legislation I helped negotiate last Congress. It was entitled the ``Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act'' and was intended to encourage greater collaboration between DEA and the regulated community in the fight against opioid abuse. The Post article was sharply critical of this legislation, suggesting that it effectively gutted DEA's ability to do its job. It also suggested the pharmaceutical industry put one over on Congress. I rise to set the record straight on these allegations and to provide a fuller account of how this legislation passed the Senate and became law. First, some background. The Controlled Substances Act requires drug distributors to obtain a ``registration'' from DEA in order to distribute controlled substances, including prescription drugs. The act further authorizes DEA to suspend a distributor's registration in certain circumstances, such as where a distributor has been convicted of a crime involving controlled substances or had a State license suspended. Before suspending a registration, DEA must issue a show cause order directing the distributor to explain why its registration should not be suspended. A court then decides whether DEA has met its burden to suspend the registration. The Controlled Substances Act empowers DEA to bypass this standard suspension process in cases where DEA determines there is ``an imminent danger to the public health or safety.'' In such cases, DEA can issue an immediate suspension order that immediately and without court process terminates the distributor's ability to distribute prescription drugs. Prior to last Congress, the Controlled Substances Act did not define what constitutes an imminent danger to the public health or safety. This left DEA's ability to immediately suspend a party's ability to distribute prescription drugs essentially unfettered. Such unfettered discretion concerned the patient advocacy and drug manufacturing community because an immediate suspension order cuts off all drugs from a distributor, including those intended for legitimate users. A balance is needed to ensure that individuals who need prescription drugs for treatment receive them but that such drugs are not diverted for improper purposes. So the bill I helped negotiate last Congress, for the first time, defined what constitutes an imminent danger to the public health or safety. In doing so, it created a standard for when DEA may suspend a party's registration to distribute prescription drugs without any prior court process, and that standard is that there must be 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. In both committee and floor statements, I made clear that this standard is intended to cover situations where evidence of diversion indicates there is a substantial likelihood that abuse of a controlled substance or of any controlled substances will occur. The Washington Post article glosses over much of this background. It does not explain that the immediate suspension order is intended to be an extraordinary measure. It does not explain that prior to the bill, DEA had basically carte blanche authority to impose this measure. It does not explain the DEA has other enforcement tools available, including show cause orders which are supposed to be the agency's standard operating procedure. Equally problematic, the article barely even mentions the patient advocacy concerns that motivated the bill to begin with. I want to quote from a letter that a coalition of patient and health advocacy groups sent to Congress in support of the legislation: Federal agencies, law enforcement, pharmaceutical industry participants and prescribers each play a role in working diligently to prevent drug abuse and diversion. However, it is also imperative that legitimate patients are able to obtain their prescriptions without disruption. Your legislation addresses both goals by fostering greater collaboration, communication and transparency between industry stakeholders and regulators, leading to more effective efforts to combat abuse while protecting patients. The letter was signed by, among others, the American Academy of Pain Management, the Fibromyalgia & Chronic Pain Support Network, and the Drug Free America Foundation. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Florida be granted the floor as soon as I finish.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to applaud the nomination of Randal Quarles to help oversee the Federal Reserve System. Mr. Quarles is certainly eminently qualified to serve in this capacity in this important position. Through his long experience in public service and the private sector, Mr. Quarles has gained experience in financial regulation, economics, and the firsthand operations of financial institutions. He also has a proven track record of leadership and policy management. The Fed's responsibilities are extensive, and they are varied, and the roles Mr. Quarles has been nominated for come during a unique period in the Fed's history. The years ahead will be decisive for the development of the Federal Reserve, the American economy, as well as domestic and international financial reform. It is paramount that the Fed be equipped with a well-rounded leadership team so it can meet the many challenges and opportunities of maintaining monetary and financial stability. I firmly believe that Mr. Quarles is an ideal fit to take on such responsibilities--for the success of the Federal Reserve and the good of our Nation. In closing, I applaud and strongly support the President's nominee to help oversee the Federal Reserve System. I know him personally. I know what a fine man he is. I know what an excellent leader he is. He will do a good job. Importantly, I would note that it is the intention to confirm Mr. Quarles to the position of Vice Chair for Supervision--another essential role. It is critical that Mr. Quarles begin his work at the Fed as soon as possible. There really is no time to waste. He will do a great job. (At the request of Mr. Schumer, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, last week I joined with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Director of the National Economic Council, our Senate majority leader, the Speaker of the House, and the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee in releasing a unified framework for tax reform. This is a big step in the ongoing effort to overhaul our Nation's miserable Tax Code. I have been in the Senate awhile, and I can only remember a few times when the White House and the House and Senate leadership were in agreement on an issue as complicated as tax reform so the current state of affairs is pretty remarkable. Still, as we made clear in the framework document, this is only a step; it is not a final product. The House and the Senate tax-writing committees will be tasked with putting together legislation that is aimed at meeting the goals and principles that are outlined in the framework. Therefore, as the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, my top goal at the moment is to produce a comprehensive tax reform bill that can get at least 14 votes in the committee because, without that, there likely will not be any tax reform. Yet, before we can get to that point, we have to pass the fiscal year 2018 budget resolution. Make no mistake, the budget resolution is critical to our tax reform efforts. If we are going to move a tax reform vehicle in the current environment, we need a resolution in place with a workable reconciliation instruction that will allow us to produce a bill of sufficient size and scope to give middle-class taxpayers a pay raise, grow our economy, and create more American jobs. As we all know, the Budget Committee will begin marking up its resolution later today, and it will include the type of instruction we need in order to produce a bill that will fix our broken tax system, boost economic growth, and give a pay raise to middle-class Americans. I am grateful for the leadership of Chairman Enzi and all of our colleagues on the Budget Committee for their work in crafting the resolution, and I urge everyone who supports tax reform, whether he is in Congress or elsewhere, to support the budget resolution. Once again, that is the next big step in this process, and it is an absolutely essential step. Once that is done, the Finance Committee will be able to move forward on crafting and marking up a tax reform bill. Some have said tax reform is a do-or-die moment for the GOP. I wholeheartedly believe that to be true, not just because we might lose an election or that our poll numbers might go down, it is that Republicans have promised, for some time now, that we will deliver meaningful, comprehensive tax reform that will spur economic growth, increase wages and well-paying jobs, and simplify our existing system. We need to deliver on that promise and not just because we will suffer politically if we do not. We need to deliver because the cost of doing nothing--the cost of maintaining the status quo for the foreseeable future--will be too much for the American people and our economy to bear. The last major overhaul of our Tax Code was 31 years ago, and in many respects, our current tax system was built for the economy of 1986 and is ill-suited for the needs of today. In the last 31 years, we have seen a dramatic increase in international trade and expanded globalization. We have seen the fall of the Soviet Union and the collapse of most centrally run economies, and of course we have seen the development and rapid expansion of the internet, which has, in many respects, remade the entire world several times over. America no longer has a competitive Tax Code. Instead, we have a Byzantine system with exceptionally high rates and an array of overlapping and often less-than-effective deductions, exclusions, and credits. This is not just a parade of horribles trotted out by Republicans, these problems have been acknowledged by a number of prominent Democrats, like Presidents Clinton and Obama, not to mention our current Senate minority leader and the ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senator Wyden. We all know the system is not working. Still, in many respects, we have politics as usual around here when we talk about tax reform. While both parties have supported reforms in the recent past, including a number of reforms that are included in the framework, we are already hearing the same, tired arguments that come up every time Republicans want to talk about tax reform. According to the opponents of reform, our ``plan'' will cut taxes on the superrich. Our ``plan'' will raise taxes on the poor. Our ``plan'' will harm the middle class. Our ``plan'' is a giveaway to greedy corporations. These are some pretty odd claims given that as of right now, no completed ``plan'' exists. We have a framework, and we are not calling it that simply for PR reasons. We have some basic principles and targets that the leaders have agreed upon, but as the framework makes clear, the Finance and Ways and Means Committees have been tasked with filling in the details and writing legislation. Here are just some of the details that are not included in the framework: Income thresholds for individual tax brackets. The framework includes rate targets for three brackets, but the breakdown of those brackets is still to be determined. The size of the enhanced Child Tax Credit. The framework anticipates an increase, but it does not specify an amount. The existence and rate of the highest bracket. Our document leaves room for the creation of a fourth bracket at the high end, but it does not include any rate target. Safeguards to prevent abuse of the separate passthrough rates. These are just some of the key details that need to be filled in. My point is, no one can make any definitive statements or make any credible estimates about the fiscal impact of the plan until the committees do more work. Still, that has not stopped people from trying. Last week, the left-leaning Tax Policy Center released an unattributed ``analysis'' of the framework that appeared to confirm a number of blanket claims that critics have made about our ``plan.'' As we all know, left-leaning pundits, liberal media outlets, and many of our friends on the other side seem to love the TPC, apparently because the TPC is willing to provide estimates and analysis about tax plans without waiting for all of the boring details. We all remember well when the TPC wrote Mitt Romney's tax plan for him and claimed that he wanted to raise taxes on the middle class to finance a tax cut for the top 1 percent. Their analysis of the Romney plan--a plan that was not yet in existence beyond a broad set of principles--became the gospel for our friends on the other side, and their estimates were repeated time and again; never mind the fact that they did not have nearly enough evidence to support their assertions. The TPC appears to be on the same track with regard to the unified framework. I guess they think they can get away with it again. Maybe they can. I don't know. The TPC's document from last week included a relatively precise estimate of lost revenue that they claim would result from the framework. It also estimated how much of the tax benefit of the framework would go to the top 1 percent of earners, again with a fair amount of precision. How they got to these results is, certainly, to me, a mystery. There is simply no way for the TPC or anyone to deliver these kinds of specific estimates with the information that is provided in the framework. To get their estimates, they filled in blanks with numbers from other proposals, added a pile of exceptionally pessimistic and biased economic assumptions, and came up with a tax plan that, for all intents and purposes, is their own. Just because they say this analysis was performed on the unified framework and was not just a plan they made up themselves does not suddenly make their estimates credible. Still, I expect to hear a lot about the TPC's ``analysis'' in the coming weeks. Some will treat their estimates as fact, and I expect we will see them cited in a few campaign commercials before too long. Breaking from any notion of professional accountability, the TPC's ``analysis'' was, according to the TPC's report, authored by the TPC's staff. Evidently, no one in an organization that describes itself as ``nonpartisan'' wanted to put their name on a document that would be used in such a partisan manner, but let's be clear. We cannot separate this kind of speculative ``analysis'' from the way it is being used by our friends on the other side. It has become fodder for more of the same partisan attacks. In going forward, I hope the TPC and other think tanks will acknowledge the still undefined features of the framework, including the commitment to maintaining the current progressivity of the Tax Code, which will require adjustments in order to achieve. I think groups like the TPC can be helpful if they avoid the partisan criticisms and focus on shedding light and providing accurate assessments of various proposals. Everyone who has an interest in these issues should wait and let the tax-writing committees do their work. In the Finance Committee, we are going to write a committee bill. Any Member who is sincerely interested in working with us will get a chance to contribute, whether he is a Republican or Democrat. We are going to have a markup during which the bill will be debated and amended in the light of the day. Thereafter, I expect that we will have a fair and open amendment process on the floor. Despite some odd claims to the contrary, the Joint Committee on Taxation will score the bill. At the end of the day, people will be free to disagree with the final bill and to vote against it, but no one will be able to credibly claim that the legislation was written behind closed doors or that the American people did not get a chance to see what was in the bill and read accurate accounts of its fiscal and economic impacts. I want to work with anyone who is willing to come to the table in good faith. I think the framework puts forward a number of general proposals that both parties can support. There is fertile ground for bipartisanship here if my Democratic colleagues are willing to set aside some of the unreasonable preconditions that they have put on their involvement in tax reform. The last time I checked, both Republicans and Democrats supported tax relief for low- and middle- income families. The last time I checked, reducing our uncompetitive corporate tax rate was a bipartisan objective. The last time I checked, both Republican and Democratic voters were in need of higher wages, more jobs, and a more competitive economy. This is going to be a difficult process, whether it is bipartisan or partisan. There is a long list of sacred cows in our Tax Code, each of them with a constituency that will fight to keep them in place. We are going to have to eliminate a number of tax deductions and credits if we are going to be fiscally responsible, including a number of provisions that are, under the current system, pretty popular in certain segments of the country. The framework specifies two deductions that should stay in place because they benefit many in the middle class and they are designed to achieve important policy goals. Everything else is currently on the table, including items that I have personally championed in the past. We have already seen stories about how Republicans are already divided on the fate of the State and local tax deduction. Make no mistake--that is a pretty popular deduction, particularly among Democrats, but it has some Republican supporters as well. I would remind my colleagues who are adamant about preserving the State and local tax deduction that the benefits of that particular provision skew heavily toward higher income earners, especially those living in high- tax cities and States. So if our main goal is to help the middle class, I would hope that there won't be many Senators who will fall on their swords in order to keep this particular deduction in place. Still, nothing is set in stone, and most items are currently still up for negotiation. The State and local tax deduction is, like virtually every other tax provision, currently on the table, and we may very well have to pare it back one way or the other. We need to see how the numbers work out before we can speak definitively on this or any other tax policy item. Before I conclude, let me just say that this is a once-in-a- generation opportunity. There is currently more momentum in favor of tax reform than at any other time in the past three decades. All of us should be willing to take advantage of this opportunity. All of us should be able to give in order to get a final bill done that will make sense and will get us back on track. I am hopeful that we can have a bipartisan effort here, but whether we do or don't, I intend to see that we get tax reform done and that we get it done in the best interest of our country, the best interest of our people, and above all, the best interest of the middle class. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, there are a number of issues I wish to speak on today, but first I wish to extend my most sincere condolences to the victims of violence in Las Vegas. What we witnessed last night was a tragedy without precedent. Today, our thoughts are with all those folks who have lost--the families, loved ones, and friends whose lives will never be the same as a result of this shooting. Our hearts are with all of you, and so are our prayers. We love you. We stand by you today. We ask that God will stand by you always.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield back all time on both sides, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the confirmation of Makan Delrahim has been a top priority of mine. I know the man. He worked with us. He headed our Judiciary Committee staff. Amidst the rising controversy over antitrust law in the 21st century, he is precisely who we need in that position. I commend the President for having picked him. All of us, Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, are going to make sure that our markets remain free and competitive. Cheap talking points are not going to cut it; only serious debate will. I am pleased that recent efforts to rise above the partisan fray and treat this subject with the seriousness it deserves have paid off today. I expect our colleagues to vote for Makan because of the high-quality lawyer he really is. I thank my colleagues for joining me in this debate. I congratulate Makan, who is sure to make us all very pleased with the way he can run things and the way he can begin this important work that he knows is important. We know it is important; I particularly know it is important. Makan has been an honest, decent, wonderful man. He is a good father. He has been a terrific staffer here on Capitol Hill. He has worked with both Democrats and Republicans in good faith. I think almost all of them, if they are honest, will say he was a very, very good person to work with and a wonderful person to fill this position. It is a blessing that someone like Makan, who comes from a very humble family, could rise to the top in this particular position in antitrust, and I am sure he will do an honest, decent job within the antitrust laws as they are configured and written. I am proud of him. I think the world of him. I hope everybody will vote for him. But if not, I will commend him, and I know he will do a good job in this particular position. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to return to the topic of antitrust. When I last spoke on this matter, the debate was already simmering, albeit mostly on the left. In the time since, controversy in both our markets and our politics has kept it at the fore. Handled prudently, that can be a good thing. I say we have this discussion. I think it is important. Heavens, I will even try to do my part to make it a little more fun. But I do have my concerns that the topic of antitrust policy is still more enthusiastically invoked than deliberately considered. I am concerned that it is still undermined by the same old easy retreats to the right and to the left. That may be typical of issues here in Washington, but on no issue can we afford it less. You see, especially in antitrust policy, it is critical that the center hold. It is critical that we secure that delicate middle ground--hard won over the years and easily lost in a moment of fervor--whereon economic liberty thrives. I have come to the floor, once again, to speak and, to the growing discussion, to contribute. Permit me to say a few words about holding the center. When I took to this floor last month, I argued that on the fundamental question of economic management, America has courageously defied the historical norm. Rather than acquiescing to the central planning, we fully embraced free enterprise. Thus, ours is a market economy and the most prosperous one of our times. Markets are messy. They are chaotic and, from the individual perspective, impossibly complex. Perhaps, most counterintuitively, they are, in a sense, disorganized. For all their productivity, for all the wonders they work, there is no single actor or entity in control. The miracle arises all on its own, through an order spontaneously coordinated by price and balanced by the efforts of millions. Little surprise then that in America's free enterprise tradition, no less than in its larger political tradition, we deeply distrust concentrated power. We distrust the intervention of the State, to be sure. Our system is largely defined by limited government but so, too, do we cast a wary eye upon powerful private entities. We have little tolerance for the monopolist which secures its market position anticompetitively, and we offer no quarter to the naked cartel. In other words, we no sooner trust concentrated private power than concentrated public power to dictate the direction of our economy. That, right there, is why we turn to antitrust. That is the middle ground--between intrusive public management and corrosive private conduct, which antitrust is charged with seizing and protecting, for we know our markets will never fulfill their promise unless they remain free and competitive, and we know they will not long remain free or competitive without a sound competition policy holding that center ground. Now, as I mentioned earlier, events of late seem determined to keep antitrust at the forefront of the public debate. We are witnessing innovation and disruption at a dizzying pace. Markets are concentrating, powerful players are staking out valuable ground, and accusations of anticompetitive behavior--some bona fide and many not-- are mounting. Across the board, an anxiety seems to be settling in. Therefore, I want to be very clear, especially to my friends on the left: I see it. I understand it. That the challenges here are real, there can be no real doubt. That an update in the doctrine may well be necessary, there should be no dispute. Where, perhaps, I differ is that I don't quite see the need for the panic. I think American antitrust is up to this challenge. The story of capitalism has always been a story of change, and if we are doing things right, that change does not come according to anyone's plan or script. Just when society grows comfortable in habits of law and commerce--just as each part of the economy learns to play its part--the ground again shifts beneath our feet. It can be a bit disorienting but not to worry. That is where our old, trusted friend, the consumer welfare standard, comes back in. As I emphasized in my last address on the floor and as I will continue to emphasize here, it is a proven way of directing us aright. As new innovation fundamentally alters the landscape, as entrepreneurs press beyond current frontiers and into the unknown, the consumer welfare standard is like a compass with a bearing set toward that critical middle ground which antitrust is charged with protecting. True north is not what is best for market competitors, not what is most convenient for market regulators, but what most furthers market competition itself, the better to ward off the dangers of collectivism, the surer to escape the stagnation of monopoly. Now, I know--I understand--that this hardly settles things. Identifying the principle by which we orient ourselves is the start of the discussion, not the conclusion. The consumer welfare standard is, like I have said, a compass; it is not a map. It guides our journey without fixing a precise course through the changing terrain. Adjustments are to be expected. After all, much of antitrust doctrine, as it is received today, was built upon the familiar economic process of resource extraction, manufacture, distribution, and retail. That the digital age would present commercial arrangements to defy those traditional classifications is not, altogether, surprising. Fortunately, antitrust is a common law exercise and leaves plenty of room for improvement. Our conventional categories of anticompetitive conduct can be tweaked, refashioned, or even expanded in light of technological advancement and market evolution. That process will become all the easier as our tools for taking the measure of the land improve. Current analysis does well in taking account of price. It may do better still in taking account of quality. Reams of data never before thought obtainable and new econometric methods only recently deemed practical entice us with a chance to plot curves, which until recently were confined to the theoretical. Our basic and time-honored foundational models are increasingly nudged and bounded by contributions from the behavioral sciences, and game theory is continuously opening new horizons in market analysis. I am happy to have that discussion. Again, we keep our markets fresh by keeping our doctrine current, but I would--as an old Republican must--urge caution, especially to some of the more zealous advocates for reform, hipster or otherwise. I will gladly sample the avocado toast--I really will--but nobody should get the idea that we have moved on from the meat and potatoes. It is easy, with the benefit of hindsight, to critique past precedent formed in the familiar image of the mass industrial process. It is far more difficult to refashion doctrine for a new age that is still evolving in surprising ways. As we trek into the unknown, let's take note of where we have been and appreciate the hazards of the route. Let's recall that whatever the changes at the surface of the market, basic economic principles persist through the ages. Network effects in our digital infrastructure may feel very new today, but as I emphasized in my last address, the concept is actually very old. It structured the telephone market long before we could even conceive of an online search market. Let's recall also that the foresight of regulators and thus the wisdom of their regulation is inevitably limited. We talk a lot about platform economics today and worry about the bottlenecks of digital traffic as if the future has finally and permanently arrived, but with the rate of innovation these days, there is no telling whether the essential facilities of today will prove all that essential tomorrow. We can do little more than guess at what form exclusive dealing or foreclosure may take in markets yet unseen. Let's recall that markets often correct themselves. As more than a few formally invincible corporate titans can attest, free enterprise offers few opportunities for eternal life, and when regulators do step in, doctrine still tends to lag behind the market. Thus, the powers we grant government now will likely survive into a future that is not yet defined. Finally, before we rush to grant enforcement officials a broad mandate with an ill-defined objective to do something, let's recall that regulation can hurt as much as it can help. As we have seen in some attempts at rate regulation, a regime meant to restrain the biggest players may very well, with the passage of time, become the preferred tool for excluding new entrants. Merger analysis sometimes does more for rivals than for consumers, and as we have learned in nearly every form of intervention, a medicine which creates too much unpredictability and upsets too many investment-backed expectations may well prove worse than the disease itself. In the end, like I said, I think we are up to this challenge. With compassion in hand, an open mind, and appreciation for what our journey thus far has taught, antitrust will continue the work of securing that middle ground whereon markets thrive. When all is said and done--after all of the controversy and high emotion have subsided--we may just find that all we needed was a small course adjustment. Perhaps this needn't be a reckoning when just a little reform will do. We can set about correcting market failures and readjusting system incentives without going after some industry or bringing this or that firm to heel. When I first sounded the alarm on Microsoft--years ago really--it was not merely because it was deemed too powerful or because a new class of high-tech barons risked undermining democratic norms; it was because of well-founded concerns of concrete, competitive harm to developing markets. The question in antitrust was not then--and we must not allow it to become today--whether any of our companies are too big or too profitable or too dominant; the question is whether they engage in identifiable anticompetitive conduct or if a merger is likely to facilitate it. The question is whether it can be shown, as far as the imperfect tools of economics allow and an evolving doctrine can bear, that the conduct at issue or the merger proposed does more to fortify the firm than serve the consumers of America. Of course, that kind of analysis may not make headlines, and it may not satisfy our deep-seated yearning to identify heroes and villains, but it is the best way to handle antitrust. If we are going to get this right, we are going to need to keep cool heads. Antitrust already asked some of the hardest questions, like why we allow the market to put scarce resources to their highest uses when our social and political valuations do not match that of prevailing prices. Antitrust already forces some of the hardest choices, like how to trade the losses of some industries and some actors for the gains of the economy as a whole. There is no need to make things harder still by turning antitrust into a political cudgel, as the left is wont to do, or by dismissing it as yet another example of government overreach, as the right is often guilty. So let us let all of us on all sides tone down the political rhetoric. Should this debate do no more than feed our appetite for political gamesmanship, antitrust will not be the better for having it. Do you know what? I do not think I am alone here. My colleagues in the Senate seem to be rising to the occasion. My friends on the other side of the aisle introduced legislation that, however flawed in my view, reflects the seriousness with which they take these issues. I am happy to see there is finally movement again on the nomination of Makan Delrahim. He is an exceptional antitrust attorney and just the person we are going to need as we sort this thing all out. I will not shy from discussing his qualifications here, and I would not fault my colleagues for using his nomination as an opportunity for a wider discussion on antitrust, but now it is time to put him to work. I am pleased to see we are almost there. At the same time, this debate is not going to be confined to the floor of the Senate. At the agencies, in the courtroom, from the lecture hall to the opinion pages, there are going to be a lot of voices weighing in. Most, we can hope, will be helpful. All, we can resolve, will be heard, I hope. I want to applaud those on the left for jumping into this debate, and I wish the best of luck to the new Open Markets Institute. I had a little fun with the hipsters the last time around, and they took it in good stride. I am now told some prefer the title New Brandeis School. I think that is fitting. Justice Brandeis was a bit of a hipster in his time. I should know, as I was basically a contemporary of his. Further, I acknowledge the efforts of private litigants and policy advocates pressing their cases in courts here and in Europe. They have been working tirelessly to make a data-driven case that speaks directly to consumer harm. They play an important role, and the doctrine is better for their efforts, however their cases turn out. Finally, I want to implore my fellow conservatives, continue joining in on this debate, keep investing in antitrust, embrace it as an area of the law in which we speak to the power of the markets by speaking to the importance of sound regulation. Make the case that, like property or contract or commercial law, antitrust is that rare species of government regulation which opens doors rather than slamming them shut. As I have been arguing for decades now, should our doctrine grow stagnant, markets may well concentrate beyond what is politically acceptable, calls for excessive government intervention will only increase, and the yoke of the regulator could soon be our portion. With that, Mr. President, I will close right where I began. As this debate proceeds, it falls to all of us to do our part in getting this right. The challenges presented by our evolving markets are real, but we are not the first to break new ground, and will we be the last to worry that the new ground broken sits far removed from the competition's precious center? One way or another, we have made it before. I trust we can make it again. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have 1 request for committee to meet during today's session of the Senate. It has the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committee is authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, it is with great reverence that I rise today to pay tribute to one of Utah's great soldiers, SSG Aaron Butler, who was tragically killed on August 16, 2017, by an improvised explosive device in Nangarhar Province, Afghanistan. On that fateful day, Butler was searching for Islamic State loyalists in a booby- trapped building and was caught in an explosion that took his life and injured 11 of his comrades. Staff Sergeant Butler was a member of the Bravo Company, 1st Battalion, 19th Special Forces Group of the Utah National Guard. Butler's desire to serve in our Nation's military started at a young age when, as a first-grader, he told his family he would grow up to be a soldier. His actual military service began in high school when he enlisted in the Utah National Guard. Staff Sergeant Butler continued to look for opportunities to make a difference, and a few years later, he began the very difficult Special Forces training. He graduated from this program with honors on January 14, 2016. He deemed it a tremendous honor to don the Green Beret. Butler has been described as a natural leader, an accomplished athlete, and an adventurous soul. As a young man, he excelled in football and wrestling. In fact, through talent and sheer determination, Butler became a four-time State wrestling champion, only the 17th wrestler in Utah history to accomplish such a feat. He loved the outdoors and embraced the scouting program, earning the rank of Eagle Scout. Butler loved to serve his fellow men and women and did it in variety of ways including, as a full-time missionary for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the Ghana Cape Coast Mission in Africa. During this time, he spent months improving the infrastructure and daily lives of those living there. He also brought a message of peace and testified of the love our Savior, Jesus Christ, has for all his children. I have been deeply touched by the many tributes and words of honor offered on behalf of this courageous soldier since this tragedy occurred. He was a truly remarkable young man and a seasoned soldier who possessed an unwavering commitment to what is right and good. Butler also had a great love for our Nation's military. His Special Forces teammates described him as a ``warrior,'' an ``incredible man, teammate, and friend,'' and someone who ``fought with everything he had to the very end,'' but perhaps the greatest tribute paid to this brave soldier was simply stated by his brother, Shane Butler, who said, ``[Aaron] showed us how to live.'' Butler leaves behind his loving parents, Randy and Laura Butler of Monticello, UT; six brothers and one sister; his fiancee, Alexandra Seagrove, and many neighbors, fellow soldiers, and friends. The men and women of our Nation's military are my heroes. I honor them for their courage, their service, and their sacrifice. I am deeply humbled by this young man's life and his willingness to pay the ultimate sacrifice. May God bless the friends and family of Staff Sergeant Butler with peace and comfort at this difficult time. I am certain Aaron's life will have a lasting impact on his family, his community, and the country he loved.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes amidst the Senate's business to memorialize my good friend, fellow colleague, and long-serving Senator of New Mexico, Pete Domenici. It is altogether fitting that we may offer tribute right in the middle of a busy day. Pete was a true legislator, the kind we just don't see all that often any longer. He was at his best when we were here getting things done-- and often we were getting things done because of his efforts. He will be sorely missed by those of us who had the distinct privilege of serving alongside him. Pete's life was a testament to the American Dream; born to immigrant parents, Pete grew up working in his father's store before going on to earn his degree in education. Later, he would teach math at a local junior high school, before making his way into city politics and, from there, join the Senate in 1972. Some will no doubt recall that he was the first Republican elected as Senator of New Mexico in nearly 40 years, but most will remember that he always put the people of his State and his Nation ahead of partisan interests. While serving in the Senate, Pete fulfilled his charge with diligence, passion, and decorum. His time here still serves as an example to many of us. Pete was regularly willing to reach across the aisle, always willing to take the first step, and never one to shrink from an opportunity presented, whether difficult or not. Pete's efforts to bring the Federal budget under control were especially admirable, and his leadership was crucial in achieving the balanced budget of 1997. That has proven a rare accomplishment. His work as an advocate for the mentally ill showed his deep levels of compassion, and his efforts helped create a more just and equitable society for all. Even after he retired, Pete, as was his way, refused to rest. He continued to promote bipartisan solutions in Washington and continued to remind each of us of our duties to the American people. My prayers and condolences go out to his wife, Nancy, and all of his family. Amidst their grief, I take heart they may know that his legacy outlives his days and that this body will be forever better for his service.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today, I am introducing a proposal that could substantially improve America's healthcare. Despite what some of my colleagues believe, it does not take a sweeping overhaul of ObamaCare to do this. Sometimes, even small changes can have a huge impact on people's lives. That is why, throughout my four decades of public service, I have worked to shine a light on the need for innovative treatments to help those who suffer from debilitating illness and rare diseases. In that same spirit, I am joining Senator Schatz today to introduce the Marijuana Effective Drug Studies Act, or MEDS Act, which has the potential to benefit millions of Americans who are suffering from a wide range of conditions, including cancer, severe epilepsy, post- traumatic stress disorder, residual effects after a stroke, or chronic pain. It is high time to address research into medical marijuana. Our country has experimented with a variety of State solutions without properly delving into the weeds on the effectiveness, safety, dosing, administration, and quality of medical marijuana. Now, all puns aside, it will surprise no one that I am strongly against the use of recreational marijuana. I worry, however, that in our zeal to enforce the law, we too often blind ourselves to the medicinal benefits of natural substances, like cannabis. While I certainly do not support the use of marijuana for recreational purposes, the evidence shows that cannabis possesses medicinal properties that can truly change people's lives for the better, and I believe we would be remiss if we threw out the baby with the bath water. In many cases, the compounds found in cannabis are the only hope for Americans who suffer from chronic medical conditions, such as severe epilepsy. Take the difficult case of a young man from Eagle Mountain, UT, who suffers from a number of different epileptic disorders and developmental ailments. My friend regularly takes 17 pills on a daily basis. Yet he continues to have seizures regularly. The current treatment for his condition, with no guarantee of success, would be invasive brain surgery. This poor family is seeking help, yearning for a way for their child to live a safe and healthy life. Compounds found in marijuana could significantly mitigate the severity of my friend's seizures and even help him lead a normal life, but current regulations prevent the development of any such treatment from going forward. So this young man is left to suffer. Luckily, the MEDS Act changes that. It updates the law for the 21st century, allowing for groundbreaking research on the potentially lifesaving benefits of medical marijuana. Compounds found in marijuana have shown promise for treating a wide range of diseases and disorders, but because of bureaucratic redtape and fear, there is a lack of sufficient evidence about the safety and efficacy of these compounds. As a result, millions of Americans are using marijuana for medicinal purposes without there being the rigorous scientific evidence that we require all medications to have before we allow them to be prescribed in this country. There are currently no Federal quality control measures for marijuana grown for medicinal purposes, nor is there any quality control for the marijuana-based medications that patients eventually use. Prescribers do not have guidance on appropriate doses, routes of administration, or even the safety of this medication for populations such as children or the elderly. This lack of oversight creates a dangerous environment that puts American lives at risk. As we continue to encourage the development of new therapies for those with severe medical problems, we must be unrelenting in our insistence on scientific rigor. Using only anecdotal information poses a significant public health risk. We lack the science to support the use of medical marijuana products like CBD oils, not because researchers are unwilling to do the work but because of bureaucratic redtape and overregulation. Under current law, those who want to complete research on the benefits of medical marijuana must engage in a complex application process and interact with several Federal agencies. These regulatory acrobatics can take researchers over a year, if not more, to complete, and the longer researchers have to wait, the longer patients have to suffer. Currently, the FDA estimates that a drug takes a minimum of 7 years to move from initial studies to FDA approval. The regulatory hoops that researchers have to jump through significantly delay the production of potentially life-changing medications that Americans need. To develop more information about marijuana's therapeutic potential, we need robust basic and clinical research. The MEDS Act would encourage this research through reduced regulatory interference, and it would expand sources of research-grade marijuana with the assurance of a quality-controlled product. My proposal would also allow for the commercial production of drugs developed from marijuana once they have been approved by the FDA. I am pleased with the legislation that Senator Schatz and I have been able to craft surrounding CBO oil and medical research. We are committed to seeing that this bill becomes law. Before I yield the floor, I would like to take a moment to share my perspective on the broader discussion of medical marijuana and its implications in my home State of Utah. In Utah and across the Nation, opioid abuse continues to ravage good, hard-working families who have fallen captive to the tyranny of addiction. While some people are using these prescription drugs appropriately, others are abusing them at alarming rates. Because Utahns have watched their family members, friends, and neighbors grapple with this epidemic, many are seeking nonnarcotic alternatives that can help with pain. Medical marijuana is just one such alternative, and after careful, deliberative thought, I have concluded that it is an alternative worth pursuing. Now let me be clear. My support for medical marijuana research does not mean that I believe that marijuana is a harmless substance. Much to the contrary, I continue to believe that marijuana can lead to broader drug abuse, and I am deeply concerned by the cottage industries that are springing up in States in which marijuana has been legalized both for medical and recreational use. So let me be clear. I am still very much opposed to the legalization of recreational marijuana, but I strongly support research into the medicinal benefits of marijuana, and I remain committed to helping patients find the help they need, whether they suffer from cancer, severe seizures, or any other chronic disorder. In crafting a new regulatory framework to harvest the medicinal benefits of marijuana while also mitigating its harmful effects, we must ensure that any marijuana-derived medications are prescribed by qualified physicians or other healthcare providers. Also, if we make medical marijuana accessible to those who really need it, we should not increase access to recreational marijuana, nor should we do anything to promote the industry that has developed around marijuana dispensaries. The recreational marijuana industry has its fair share of budding entrepreneurs, but these men and women are in no way qualified to issue prescriptions or give any medical advice whatsoever to people who are suffering from chronic conditions. Only experienced medical professionals who have undergone years of education and formal training are qualified to consult patients who are seeking a marijuana-derived treatment. Only licensed professionals know how to accurately diagnose illnesses and use approved medical treatments to safely treat disease. Our purpose in advancing medical marijuana research should be to help doctors help patients, not to help dispensaries turn a profit. To that end, I also believe that treatment options should focus on noncombustive forms of marijuana. Our ability to isolate helpful compounds is advanced enough to make this plan a reality. I understand that medical marijuana is a difficult issue. I understand that it is not an issue without controversy, but we cannot shrink from our duties simply because they require us to make hard choices. At present, we have a duty to help the thousands of Americans who are suffering from debilitating seizures and chronic pain, who desperately want help but do not know where to find it. Passing the MEDS Act is the first step in giving these men and women the reprieve they need. I hope my colleagues will not shy away from making the hard choices that will improve people's lives. The bill Senator Schatz and I introduce today represents what our two parties can accomplish when we work together in good faith. I hope my colleagues will join us in supporting this commonsense proposal.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today, I am introducing a proposal that could substantially improve America's healthcare. Despite what some of my colleagues believe, it does not take a sweeping overhaul of ObamaCare to do this. Sometimes, even small changes can have a huge impact on people's lives. That is why, throughout my four decades of public service, I have worked to shine a light on the need for innovative treatments to help those who suffer from debilitating illness and rare diseases. In that same spirit, I am joining Senator Schatz today to introduce the Marijuana Effective Drug Studies Act, or MEDS Act, which has the potential to benefit millions of Americans who are suffering from a wide range of conditions, including cancer, severe epilepsy, post- traumatic stress disorder, residual effects after a stroke, or chronic pain. It is high time to address research into medical marijuana. Our country has experimented with a variety of State solutions without properly delving into the weeds on the effectiveness, safety, dosing, administration, and quality of medical marijuana. Now, all puns aside, it will surprise no one that I am strongly against the use of recreational marijuana. I worry, however, that in our zeal to enforce the law, we too often blind ourselves to the medicinal benefits of natural substances, like cannabis. While I certainly do not support the use of marijuana for recreational purposes, the evidence shows that cannabis possesses medicinal properties that can truly change people's lives for the better, and I believe we would be remiss if we threw out the baby with the bath water. In many cases, the compounds found in cannabis are the only hope for Americans who suffer from chronic medical conditions, such as severe epilepsy. Take the difficult case of a young man from Eagle Mountain, UT, who suffers from a number of different epileptic disorders and developmental ailments. My friend regularly takes 17 pills on a daily basis. Yet he continues to have seizures regularly. The current treatment for his condition, with no guarantee of success, would be invasive brain surgery. This poor family is seeking help, yearning for a way for their child to live a safe and healthy life. Compounds found in marijuana could significantly mitigate the severity of my friend's seizures and even help him lead a normal life, but current regulations prevent the development of any such treatment from going forward. So this young man is left to suffer. Luckily, the MEDS Act changes that. It updates the law for the 21st century, allowing for groundbreaking research on the potentially lifesaving benefits of medical marijuana. Compounds found in marijuana have shown promise for treating a wide range of diseases and disorders, but because of bureaucratic redtape and fear, there is a lack of sufficient evidence about the safety and efficacy of these compounds. As a result, millions of Americans are using marijuana for medicinal purposes without there being the rigorous scientific evidence that we require all medications to have before we allow them to be prescribed in this country. There are currently no Federal quality control measures for marijuana grown for medicinal purposes, nor is there any quality control for the marijuana-based medications that patients eventually use. Prescribers do not have guidance on appropriate doses, routes of administration, or even the safety of this medication for populations such as children or the elderly. This lack of oversight creates a dangerous environment that puts American lives at risk. As we continue to encourage the development of new therapies for those with severe medical problems, we must be unrelenting in our insistence on scientific rigor. Using only anecdotal information poses a significant public health risk. We lack the science to support the use of medical marijuana products like CBD oils, not because researchers are unwilling to do the work but because of bureaucratic redtape and overregulation. Under current law, those who want to complete research on the benefits of medical marijuana must engage in a complex application process and interact with several Federal agencies. These regulatory acrobatics can take researchers over a year, if not more, to complete, and the longer researchers have to wait, the longer patients have to suffer. Currently, the FDA estimates that a drug takes a minimum of 7 years to move from initial studies to FDA approval. The regulatory hoops that researchers have to jump through significantly delay the production of potentially life-changing medications that Americans need. To develop more information about marijuana's therapeutic potential, we need robust basic and clinical research. The MEDS Act would encourage this research through reduced regulatory interference, and it would expand sources of research-grade marijuana with the assurance of a quality-controlled product. My proposal would also allow for the commercial production of drugs developed from marijuana once they have been approved by the FDA. I am pleased with the legislation that Senator Schatz and I have been able to craft surrounding CBO oil and medical research. We are committed to seeing that this bill becomes law. Before I yield the floor, I would like to take a moment to share my perspective on the broader discussion of medical marijuana and its implications in my home State of Utah. In Utah and across the Nation, opioid abuse continues to ravage good, hard-working families who have fallen captive to the tyranny of addiction. While some people are using these prescription drugs appropriately, others are abusing them at alarming rates. Because Utahns have watched their family members, friends, and neighbors grapple with this epidemic, many are seeking nonnarcotic alternatives that can help with pain. Medical marijuana is just one such alternative, and after careful, deliberative thought, I have concluded that it is an alternative worth pursuing. Now let me be clear. My support for medical marijuana research does not mean that I believe that marijuana is a harmless substance. Much to the contrary, I continue to believe that marijuana can lead to broader drug abuse, and I am deeply concerned by the cottage industries that are springing up in States in which marijuana has been legalized both for medical and recreational use. So let me be clear. I am still very much opposed to the legalization of recreational marijuana, but I strongly support research into the medicinal benefits of marijuana, and I remain committed to helping patients find the help they need, whether they suffer from cancer, severe seizures, or any other chronic disorder. In crafting a new regulatory framework to harvest the medicinal benefits of marijuana while also mitigating its harmful effects, we must ensure that any marijuana-derived medications are prescribed by qualified physicians or other healthcare providers. Also, if we make medical marijuana accessible to those who really need it, we should not increase access to recreational marijuana, nor should we do anything to promote the industry that has developed around marijuana dispensaries. The recreational marijuana industry has its fair share of budding entrepreneurs, but these men and women are in no way qualified to issue prescriptions or give any medical advice whatsoever to people who are suffering from chronic conditions. Only experienced medical professionals who have undergone years of education and formal training are qualified to consult patients who are seeking a marijuana-derived treatment. Only licensed professionals know how to accurately diagnose illnesses and use approved medical treatments to safely treat disease. Our purpose in advancing medical marijuana research should be to help doctors help patients, not to help dispensaries turn a profit. To that end, I also believe that treatment options should focus on noncombustive forms of marijuana. Our ability to isolate helpful compounds is advanced enough to make this plan a reality. I understand that medical marijuana is a difficult issue. I understand that it is not an issue without controversy, but we cannot shrink from our duties simply because they require us to make hard choices. At present, we have a duty to help the thousands of Americans who are suffering from debilitating seizures and chronic pain, who desperately want help but do not know where to find it. Passing the MEDS Act is the first step in giving these men and women the reprieve they need. I hope my colleagues will not shy away from making the hard choices that will improve people's lives. The bill Senator Schatz and I introduce today represents what our two parties can accomplish when we work together in good faith. I hope my colleagues will join us in supporting this commonsense proposal.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to one of Utah's great public servants, a loving husband, father, and grandfather and a remarkable leader, David ``Ted'' Eyre. Sadly, Ted recently lost his battle with cancer. He leaves behind a grieving community that he served for many years as mayor of Murray City. Ted had a strong, yet kind demeanor that inspired others to work hard and do what was best for their community. As mayor, he made a tremendous impact on the infrastructure and neighborhoods of Murray City, a thriving community tucked into the Salt Lake Valley. Ted was able to accomplish many important things for the local community, including: improving Murray Park, the heart of the city; acquiring the historic Murray Theater, Murray Chapel, and Murray Mansion that will serve as gathering places for years to come; expanding Fashion Place Mall and the University of Utah Midvalley Health Center; acquiring properties in the downtown redevelopment area for a new city hall and fire station; and adopting a new general city plan. Ted had two great passions--aviation and people. Both interests guided him in his decisions throughout his life. He received a degree in aviation science at San Bernardino Valley College. As a young man, he enlisted in the U.S. Army and served in the Vietnam war flying a U- 21 Ute transport aircraft in the aviation division of the signal corps. After his military service, he continued his love of flying and excelled as an airline pilot for 30 years for Western and later Delta Airlines, serving as captain for much of that time. On January 7, 2014, Eyre was sworn in as the mayor of Murray City, quickly endearing himself as a capable leader who valued the input of all and who fought hard to prepare the community for the future. Mayor Eyre left an indelible imprint on the city he led and the citizens he served. Throughout his life, Eyre not only distinguished himself as a talented pilot, courageous soldier, and devoted public servant, he also became a friend to all he came into contact with and was a beloved husband, father, and grandfather. I am grateful for the opportunity to pay tribute to a great man, his life, and the example he leaves behind. His influence will be felt for generations to come. (At the request of Mr. Schumer, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, before we adjourned for the recess, I came to this lectern to issue a call for comity, cooperation, and compromise. My message that day was simple: If we are serious about legislating--if we are truly committed to doing the work the American people sent us here to do--then we must look beyond the horizon of our differences and find common ground. Since January, this Congress has been its own worst enemy. It has been mired in the muck of its own making, bogged down by partisan squabbles and gripped by gridlock--the likes of which I have never seen in all my years of public service. I wish I could say the situation across the country is better, but sadly it isn't. The polarization we see in the Senate is only indicative of the division we see all around the Nation. The events of August threw that division into sharp relief, but it also showed us our ability to heal--our remarkable capacity to lay aside superficial differences in moments of crisis to come together as one. In Charlottesville and Houston, August brought us a tale of two cities--one that showed us at once both the weaknesses and strengths of our great country. In Charlottesville, we saw the worst of America on full display. In the violence, vitriol, and vulgar racism of Nazi demonstrators, we stared evil in the face, and in the terrorist attack that ensued, we saw the ideology of hatred brought to its logical endpoint. None of us will soon forget this attack on innocent civilians. I am sure, in the stagnant human air of that hot summer's day, we caught a glimpse of the darkness buried deep in the soul of America. Charlottesville was more than a tragic event. It was a gut-check moment for all Americans. It was a national low point that demanded all of us to take stock of where we are as a society and where our rhetoric is taking us. The men who perpetrated this horrific act of violence--whether by their words or by their actions--represent the dregs of a dying culture, but if the violence in Charlottesville showed America at its worst, then the rescue and recovery efforts in hurricane-ravaged Houston showed our country at its best. Just 2 weeks after the brutality in Charlottesville, our Nation again watched in horror as Hurricane Harvey made landfall in Texas, unleashing a flood of biblical proportions. Relentless rainfall battered the coast for days, leaving in its wake a trail of destruction and shattered life. Harvey left behind unprecedented devastation, but it also gave us countless stories of hope and heroism. On national TV, we saw a weatherman rushing to the aid of a stranded driver, pulling the man to safety before the current could take him away. We saw everyday Texans wade in the neck-deep waters to form a human chain, saving the life of a stranger trapped in his car. We watched as three teenage boys navigated the streets of Houston in a fishing boat, driving from house to house to rescue their neighbors as the floodwaters poured in. These are just a few stories among thousands more. These stories remind us of the hope and humanity borne of tragedy. They bear testament to the innate goodness of the American people, and they show us that, in moments of crisis, our capacity to come together for the good of our communities is really unparalleled. Tragedies like those in Houston strip us of all that is superfluous, leaving behind only our common humanity. In the moments of peril that moved tens of thousands of Texans to band together to save their city, considerations of race, religion, class, or creed fell into complete irrelevance. The first responders, volunteers, and Good Samaritans who put their own lives at risk to rescue others served indiscriminately. They took no thought for whom they were helping--what their background or beliefs were. Houston's heroes saw only lives that needed saving, and they went to work. If there is any good that comes of tragedy, it is that for a brief but beautiful moment, we are able to see each other as we truly are-- not as Republicans or Democrats, rich or poor, Black or White, but as members of the same community, partakers of the same human condition and children of the same God. For a brief moment, we are able to see each other as Americans. I pray that the hope of Houston may inspire all of us here in the Senate. I pray that we may look to the city's example in the work we have before us, setting aside our petty partisan differences to come together for the good of the Nation. I pray that, as Senators, we might see each other as friends and equals, partners and patriots, anxiously engaged in the important work of legislating. I pray that we can esteem each other by our mutual love for this great country, not by the R or D that follows our names. Now, more than ever, we need strength and unity here in the Senate. The challenges we have before us are enormous. In the next few weeks alone, we need to secure emergency relief funding for the victims of Hurricane Harvey, raise the debt ceiling, fix our broken Tax Code, and find a way forward on immigration reform. Our to-do list just keeps growing. Each of these items taken on its own is challenging, but taken as a whole, our agenda is daunting. But I truly believe we are up to the task. I truly believe we can step up to the plate, just as the people of Texas did, to tackle the challenges before us. As I said before we broke for recess, the Senate is capable of so much more. I know because I have seen the Senate at its best. I have seen the Senate when it truly lived up to its reputation as the world's greatest deliberative body. I believe we can again see this body at its best. My central message today is simple. We can do hard things. I know because we have done them before. So let's make laws, not excuses. Let's move forward on an agenda that puts the needs of America's families front and center. This is an important pivotal time in our Nation's history. It is up to us to make that pivotal time an important time, a successful time, and one where we are brought together to work as colleagues, rather than as opponents, which it has been far too much, as far as I am concerned, over the last number of years. I hope that we can all get together and do a better job for America. I yield the floor

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, last week, I joined the Senate majority leader, the Speaker of the House, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, the Treasury Secretary, and the Director of the National Economic Council in issuing a joint statement on tax reform. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint statement be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. Since the statement's release, critics and naysayers have said quite a bit, some even going so far as to declare their opposition to the statement. That is a little odd, given that the statement is not a bill or a tax plan; it is simply a statement of agreed upon principles for tax reform. That is not to say it was insignificant. Quite the opposite, in fact. The joint statement is an important development in the overall tax reform effort for several reasons. For example, over the past several months, the favored tax reform narrative among some in the pundit class has been that Republicans are deeply divided. According to this narrative, Republicans in the Senate, the House, and the administration all have such fundamentally different views on tax reform that it will be impossible for us all to get on the same page. Some of that was, to use an outdated description, pure poppycock. When the administration puts out a framework that calls for a 15 percent corporate tax rate while the House blueprint has a 20 percent rate target, that is not really a disagreement. Both sides want to lower the corporate rate significantly, and the general idea in both cases is to reduce the rate as much as is reasonably possible. Admittedly, there were some key differences of opinion. At the outset of this Congress, with a newly elected Republican President, it was fair to say that the House, Senate, and White House were on different pages when it came to some aspects of tax reform. However, with last week's release of the joint statement, the leaders in this effort--in both congressional chambers and in the executive branch--have declared that, as of now, we are singing off the same song sheet. There are, of course, details that will need to be worked out, but all parties are in agreement on the key principles and have enough confidence that the process can move forward in Congress without the fear that the House, Senate, or administration will take drastically different approaches in crafting a tax reform package. That is very significant. I have been working on tax reform for more than 6 years now, and this is the first time that we have had anything approaching this level of unity across the various Chambers and branches of government. Another significant marker in the joint statement is the agreement that the tax-writing committees will do the lion's share of the work in producing the actual tax reform legislation and that the leaders are committed to moving through regular order, by which I mean committee markup processes prior to floor consideration. This is key because one of the criticisms I have heard about Republicans' tax reform efforts is that the bill is being drafted behind closed doors I have even been scolded, sometimes pointedly, over why I have not held a Finance Committee hearing on ``the bill,'' even though there is no complete bill in place at this time. Outside groups, some overtly aligned with the Democrats, have already put forward budget scores for the House blueprint and the President's tax framework, even though there are not enough specifics in place to score anything yet. Those scores, generated by whatever is in the imagination of the outside groups, and not based on any facts, tell tall tales. They say there will be tax cuts for the rich, big businesses and a parade of horrors. Democrats here in the Senate, as well, have spoken of the horrors of the Republican ``tax plan,'' even though there is not a detailed plan in place. Again, the horrors represent pure fiction. It is simply not the case that a bill is being drafted behind closed doors. It was never going to be the case. I have stated several times in recent months that I intended to have a robust and transparent process for tax reform in the Senate. The joint statement confirms that both chambers of Congress will take that kind of approach. The Finance Committee is already hard at work. We have been talking about specific reform proposals for months now, and every member on the majority side of the committee is ready to do the work. More broadly, the committee has been at work in a bipartisan way on tax reform for many years now. We have a number of great members on the Finance Committee, all of whom--at least on the Republican side--are committed to working toward this effort. I will continue to gather their input with an eye toward crafting a tax reform bill and moving it through the committee this fall. Once again, the committee process is going to be robust; I intend to hold multiple hearings and full markup. The joint statement also noted that Republican leaders hoped that our Democratic colleagues would be willing to participate in this effort. That should be no surprise. I have been calling on my Democrat friends to work with us on tax reform for months, even years. For months now, I have been come to the floor on multiple occasions to ask my Democratic friends to come to the table. I held a bipartisan hearing on tax reform in the Finance Committee just a few weeks ago, where we heard from experts on both sides of the aisle. Earlier this week, the committee had another bipartisan hearing, this one on affordable housing. Of course, most of the Federal affordable housing incentives are found in the Tax Code, meaning that issue will undoubtedly be part of the larger discussion. These hearings are just the latest in very long line of bipartisan, tax-related hearings in the Finance Committee. So there really shouldn't be any doubt that, when I sign onto a statement that includes a call for bipartisanship, the call is both serious and sincere. In addition, there is quite a bit of bipartisan agreement over the policy principles noted in joint statement. As I said here on the floor just a few weeks ago, a number of Democrats--including a number of our Senate colleagues and the two most recent Democratic Presidents--have expressed support for lowering the U.S. corporate tax rate, which is the highest in the industrialized world. Prominent Democrats, including the distinguished minority leader, have publicly supported reforms to our international tax system in order to make American businesses more competitive and prevent erosion of our tax base. Both of these concepts are prominently mentioned in our joint statement. The statement also talks about tax relief for middle-class families and reduced burdens on small businesses. Democrats, last time I checked, were largely in favor of this as well. So long story short, there is nothing in the statement, either in terms of process or policy, that should discourage a number of Democrats from getting on board with this effort. Yet, earlier this week, every member of the Senate Democratic Caucus--except three--signed onto a letter they purported to be a call for compromise and bipartisanship. However, if you read the details of the letter, it was really a set of up-front demands peppered in between political attacks. First and foremost, my colleagues demanded in their letter that Republicans not use budget reconciliation to move a tax reform bill. That has been a precondition for Democratic involvement in this effort for months now, among other demands unrelated to tax reform, and, as I have said many times, it is preposterous. The demand that Republicans agree upfront to a particular process is really unprecedented and, not to put too fine a point on it, a little nonsensical. If Democrats are willing to engage in good faith on tax reform, why would they first demand that we ensure their ability to block it from ever even coming to the floor before they would be willing to engage on the substance? The logic is a little dizzying, to say the least. On top of that, if reconciliation remains on the table, why would that stop Democrats from agreeing on the substance? Obviously, budget reconciliation gives the majority the tools it needs to move legislation--under specified rules and conditions-- without the threat of a filibuster, but nothing in the rules requires reconciliation to be partisan. In fact, historically speaking, tax bills moved through reconciliation tend to get bipartisan support. For example, the so-called Bush Tax Cuts of 2001 and 2003 were passed through reconciliation; yet there were both Republicans and Democrats voting in favor of the package. Recent history shows that working together on the substance of policy is not precluded by the existence of a reconciliation instruction. In 2009, with a reconciliation instruction in place, Senate Republicans in the Finance Committee participated in the healthcare reform process, with hearings, roundtables, and bipartisan discussion groups, before we were shut out of the final ObamaCare bill. Republicans did not operate as though there was a prerequisite of no reconciliation before discussion could occur. In 2013, with a $1 trillion tax-hike reconciliation instruction in place, Senate Republicans in the Finance Committee participated in discussions that produced 10 bipartisan tax option papers; we participated in what was called a blank slate approach to tax reform; and we participated in discussion draft conversations. Republicans did not operate as though there was a prerequisite of no reconciliation before discussion could occur. Now, our friends on the other side are critical of us when we follow the path they, themselves, took. They are insisting that we do what they would not do when similarly situated. They are not participating on the same constructive basis we did when we were in their place. From their leader on down, they act as if the past does not exist or that we are ignorant of it. Before applying too clever a rhetorical lash to those on this side, my friends on the other side should heed the advice of Lord Byron: ``Keep thy smooth words and juggling homilies for those who know thee not.'' If Democrats will work with us to reach agreement on the substance of tax reform, the process by which it moves through the Senate shouldn't really be a concern. Any implication that the process will necessarily dictate the substance is misleading. Ideally, the tax reform process would be bipartisan, particularly here in the Senate. That would be the best-case scenario for the effort. In a perfect world, reconciliation would not be necessary. For that to happen, the Democrats would have to be willing to engage in a reasonable manner. In my view, opening the discussion with a demand that Republicans unilaterally disarm and commit to not using the tools we have under the rules of the Senate--the very tools that have been used by both sides in the past--smacks of disingenuousness. If they are truly willing to engage constructively on these efforts--and I hope they are--we should begin by talking about the substance, not dealing with process demands. I hope that what we are seeing is posturing. I hope that my Democratic colleagues will recognize the significance of the unity expressed in last week's joint statement and get on board for what will hopefully be a historic effort. If they do not, Republicans should be willing to use the tools at our disposal to move tax reform without Democratic support. That would include reconciliation. The majority leader has indicated that he is willing to go that way. I am willing to go that way as well. However, to get us to the point, a number of things have to happen, not the least of which is the passage of budget resolution. For now, I am focusing on the substantive policies and proposals, and I will keep working with my colleagues on the Finance Committee to deliver on the tasks we were charged in the joint statement.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I agree with the distinguished Senator from Texas. I thought his remarks were very much on point and very good.