Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, several years ago, Democrats in Congress pulled out all the stops to pass the so-called Affordable Care Act and force the system we now call ObamaCare on the American people. They passed the law on a purely partisan basis and without any regard for public opinion. Quite simply, it was one of the most blatant exercises in pure partisanship in our Nation's history. It deepened partisan divides in Washington and around the country and contributed to the cynicism many have about whether their government is actually paying attention to their needs. Worst of all, in the years since the passage of ObamaCare, the American people have been paying the price in the form of skyrocketing costs, fewer choices, burdensome mandates, and unfair taxes. For 7 years, many of us in Congress--virtually all of us on the Republican side--have been working to right what has gone wrong under the Affordable Care Act. We have pledged to our constituents that, given the opportunity, we would repeal ObamaCare and replace it with reforms more worthy of the American people. Those promises are among the biggest reasons why we Republicans are now fortunate enough to find ourselves in control of Congress and, very soon, the White House. Last night we took a big step in the effort to repeal and replace ObamaCare. With the budget resolution passed, many in Washington and in the media are talking about what happens next. We are hearing a lot of discussion about the timing of our repeal-and-replace efforts, with some arguing that we should hit the brakes and solve every problem in advance of taking another vote. My view is that the repeal of ObamaCare cannot wait. The American people need us to act now. While there is still some debate as to what our replacement plan should look like, a majority of Senators voted last night to give us the tools to take the next steps to repeal and replace ObamaCare. The American people have entrusted us with the power to do just that. We could spend the next several months coming up with more slogans and analogies, but this is not a campaign. The elections have been won, and it is time to do what our constituents have sent us here to do. I am not saying we need to put off the replacement effort. On the contrary, I think it is important that the legislation we draft pursuant to the budget reconciliation instructions include as many sensible health reforms as possible, keeping in mind the limitations that exist with our rules and the necessary vote count. We should definitely work on making the largest possible downpayment on the ObamaCare replacement with the budget reconciliation bill. That downpayment should include measures that give individuals and families more control over their health care decisions and empower States to do more of the heavy lifting when it comes to regulating health care. In addition, we need to provide for a smooth transition period so we can maintain some stability in the health insurance markets and ensure that we are not leaving Americans who have insurance under the current system out in the cold. As chairman of one of the primary committees with jurisdiction over these matters, I have been working closely with my House counterparts-- Chairman Kevin Brady of the House Ways and Means Committee and Chairman Greg Walden of the House Energy and Commerce Committee--to develop proposals on the matters that fall within our purviews. We have been talking with stakeholders throughout the country and working through the various problems that exist. That work will continue unabated as we work on the immediate repeal effort and into the future. I am quite certain that my friend who chairs the Senate HELP Committee has been similarly engaged in addressing the draconian insurance regulations that were imposed under ObamaCare, as well as the other parts of the law that are within that committee's jurisdiction. In other words, the work to replace ObamaCare is ongoing, and we hope to have some initial elements ready to include in the budget reconciliation package. That work will continue once the repeal has been passed and signed into law so that we can help ensure that affordable health care options exist for Americans. We do not need to wait until every single replacement measure is drafted and agreed upon before moving forward. Instead, we need the incoming administration to add to our current efforts and work with us to produce a full replacement plan and then to execute it. I look forward to continuing to work with President-Elect Trump and his team. The path forward on replacing ObamaCare could end up taking many forms. We could draft and pass a series of limited reforms to replace ObamaCare piece by piece or we could pull together a full and comprehensive replacement package that puts all the necessary changes into law at once. I think there are merits and potential pitfalls with either approach. That is something we need to consider as we move forward, but it is not a decision that needs to be made before we can keep the promises we all made to our constituents to repeal ObamaCare. To be sure, replacing ObamaCare is going to be a difficult process; however, with a new and more cooperative administration in place, I have every confidence we can accomplish these important objectives without imposing artificial deadlines or goalposts or putting the repeal process on hold. All of this is possible so long as we remain committed to the principles that have guided most of our efforts thus far. For example, in my view, the new reforms need to be patient- centered, not government-driven. They need to recognize the reality of the marketplace and the benefits of competition. Perhaps most importantly, any suitable reforms need to put the States back in charge of regulating and overseeing health care policy. If the ObamaCare experience has taught us anything, it is that when the Federal Government gets a hold of something that is as consequential as health care, it will overpromise results, overstep its authority, and overregulate the subject matter. As I have said a number of times, Utah is not California or Massachusetts, and California and Massachusetts are not Utah. All of our States face different challenges and have different needs. There is no reason to begin with the premise that any single approach to health care policy is what is best for the entire country. That is why I, along with several of my colleagues, have been engaging with stakeholders at the State level for quite some time as we work to craft reforms and to put them in place. For example, next week the Senate Finance Committee is hosting a roundtable discussion on Medicaid with some of the most prominent Governors in the country. I am pleased that Energy and Commerce chairman Greg Walden will join us for the discussion as well. This meeting and others like it will give States the opportunity to detail the challenges they face and how we can empower them to meet those challenges instead of dictating solutions from offices here in Washington, DC. I believe all of my colleagues want to be judicious and methodical with this undertaking. No one wants to act recklessly and do even more damage to our Nation's health care system. Discussions and debates over the substance of our ObamaCare replacement should continue. As I said, they have been going on for some time now, and they are not going to stop. But after last night, we have the tools we need to take the first major step in this effort by repealing ObamaCare. In my view, we need to take that step now. Republicans are united in our desire to repeal ObamaCare. We have the support of the American people to do just that, and I personally will do all I can to deliver on that promise. I hope our friends on the other side will work with us. If they will, I think we can come up with an approach toward health care that not only will work but will be better for our country but most importantly, better for our citizens, better for the States that will manage a lot better than we will here, and better for our citizens within those States. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, ObamaCare exacerbated financial pressures on the Medicaid Program at a time when many States were already facing difficult choices. Even before ObamaCare, Medicaid was plagued by quality issues and the law did nothing to address these problems. Instead, under ObamaCare, able-bodied adults not previously eligible, including some prisoners, are now covered by Medicaid which has strained already limited resources at the State level. Republicans are committed to working with States, stakeholders, and the American public to improve the quality of the Medicaid Program, ensuring its long-term sustainability. That is reflected in my amendment. My amendment would create a reserve fund to allow for reforms to Medicaid and ensure the program has the right priorities. I urge my colleagues to vote for my amendment and against the Menendez amendment, which is simply designed to prevent the repeal of ObamaCare and enshrine its flawed approach to Medicaid in a budget point of order.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I move to waive the applicable provisions of the Budget Act with respect to my amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as I stated, ObamaCare came along when States were already facing difficult fiscal choices, and, sadly, made things worse. ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion exacerbated the pressure on States without even addressing the numerous quality issues in the program. Republicans are still committed to working with interested parties, including our State governments, to reform Medicaid and ensure its long-term sustainability. That is the purpose of my amendment here tonight. My amendment would create a deficit-neutral reserve fund to allow for reforms to Medicaid as well as the Children's Health Insurance Program and to ensure the programs have the right priorities. I urge my colleagues to vote for my amendment and against the Brown amendment, which is simply designed to prevent the repeal of ObamaCare and enshrine its flawed approach to Medicaid in a budget point of order.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to waive the applicable provisions of the Budget Act for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, in the final hour of our legislative business early last December 10, we passed a remarkable bill. It had no ideological division, did not cost the taxpayers a dime, and will benefit Americans in every part of the country. And, like the House did, we passed it unanimously. This bill had the somewhat unwieldy title of the Foreign Cultural Exchange Jurisdictional Immunity Clarification Act. While not lending itself to a catchy acronym, it is accurately descriptive. For more than 50 years, a Federal law has provided legal protection for art loaned by foreign governments for exhibition in the United States. Confidence in that protection is an essential piece of the complex arrangements that can take years to complete in order to bring wonderful exhibits to American museums for everyone to enjoy. America has hundreds of museums of all sorts. The art museum at Brigham Young University, for example, is one of the largest and best attended in the Mountain West. When it began working on a major exhibition of art from Islamic countries, some of its loan requests were unexpectedly denied. It turns out that a 2007 Federal court decision had made such loans risky, rather than secure. After that court decision, the act of lending, even after State Department review and approval, could actually lead to a new category of lawsuits against the foreign lenders. This legislation, now signed into law, reverses that court decision and clarifies that lending art after State Department review does not raise the possibility of new litigation. Foreign governments can once again have confidence that lending art for exhibition will improve cultural understanding and enrich people's lives without the threat of new lawsuits. The bill has two narrow exceptions. I want to thank Dr. Wesley Fisher, director of research at the Conference on Jewish Material Claims against Germany, and Rabbi Andrew Baker, director of International Jewish Affairs at the American Jewish Committee, for their help in drafting the exception for Nazi-era claims. The second exception covers comparable state-sponsored coercive campaigns of cultural plunder. Art that was looted in such a campaign should not be given protection for exhibition in the United States. The senior Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, was my principal partner in this effort. She and her staff have been patient, thoughtful, and dedicated; in particular, I want to thank her chief counsel, Eric Haren, and counsel Lartease Tiffith for working so diligently with my own chief counsel, Tom Jipping. The problem to be solved was clear, but it was challenging to find the right language to solve that problem without unintended consequences. I also want to thank the Association of Art Museum Directors, their director of government affairs Anita Difanis, and their special counsel Josh Knerly. They have been committed to this goal from the start, and their effort began with educating many of us about this unique area of law and policy. They mobilized hundreds of art institutions and associations to support this bill. And they were flexible about many things while staying focused on the essentials. I gratefully acknowledge the consistent support for this legislation from the BYU Museum of Art, the Utah Fine Arts Museum, and the Utah Museums Association. We have a vibrant art community in Utah, and this legislation means that these fine institutions have additional opportunities to bring new experiences to the people in our great State. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record following my remarks a letter from James S. Snyder, director of The Israel Museum in Jerusalem. He writes that the risk of new lawsuits has been ``a disincentive to lend works to American museums,'' but that this legislation ``will ensure that museums worldwide can continue to lend to American museums in the precise spirit of international cultural cooperation that U.S. Immunity from Seizure protection was intended to provide.'' That, in a nutshell, is the problem and the solution we are enacting today. This legislation restores the confidence that foreign governments need to lend art for exhibitions that Americans across the country can enjoy. That is something we can all be proud of.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today in support of S. Con. Res. 3 and the ongoing effort to repeal the most harmful elements of the so- called Affordable Care Act. While our friends on the other side of the aisle have been trying to convince the American people that there is nothing to see here and that this poorly named law is working according to plan, the vast majority of our citizens know the truth: ObamaCare just doesn't work. According to the results of a recent Gallup poll, 80 percent of Americans want Congress to either change the Affordable Care Act significantly or repeal and replace it altogether. Let me repeat that. Eight out of every 10 people in this country agree that the status quo is unacceptable and that we need a major change in what is going on around here. We need a major course correction in our health care system. It is not hard to see why this is the case. After all, under ObamaCare, the cost of health insurance has increased dramatically and will continue to do so well into the future. Under ObamaCare, individuals and families are being left with fewer and fewer choices when it comes to buying health insurance. Under ObamaCare, patients have fewer options and reduced access to health care providers. Under ObamaCare, the American people have been hit with steep taxes, burdensome mandates, and a health care system that simply does not meet their needs. This year alone, premiums in the benchmark plan for the ObamaCare exchanges have gone up by an average of 25 percent, and in some parts of the country, the increases have been significantly larger than that. In addition, over the past 2 years, insurance plans have been dropping out of markets all over the country. As a result, it is estimated that more than half of the counties in the United States will have two or fewer available health insurance plans on the exchanges--and that is this year--and about a third of them have only one available option. I am quite certain that every single Member of this Chamber has heard from a number of their constituents about these problems, about the problems they have faced as the Affordable Care Act has been implemented. I know I have. A number of Utahns have written to me to express their concerns about the increases in their insurance premiums. For example, last month, Austin from Provo, UT, told me that due to the growing cost of his insurance plan, ``I'm going to have to drop the insurance and face the penalty next year. I'm worried because, as a young husband and father, I'm barely making ends meet, and I'm not sure I can afford to pay the penalty for not having insurance.'' Similarly, Eryn from Spanish Fork, UT, noted that because her family's previous insurer dropped out of the Utah marketplace, the remaining plan that best met her family's needs was ``a plan with a small list of in- network providers and no coverage for out-of-network providers.'' She continued, saying that under this new plan, ``We will have a higher deductible ($13,000 for the family), we will have to pay the full cost of any visit to the doctor . . . and we will not be able to save as much money in our Health Savings Account each month because of the high premiums, which add up to $11,000 a year. . . . The premium is basically another mortgage payment for us, only we have no property to show for it. This is too much.'' No family should have to choose between paying their mortgage and paying for their health insurance. Yet, with all of ObamaCare's failures and broken promises, families throughout the country are currently having to make those kinds of choices. Unfortunately, it does not get any better from here, not without a major change to the status quo. In fact, I think it is safe to say that if we fail to act, the worst is yet to come. Therefore, it is only fitting that we begin this new Congress by repealing ObamaCare and setting the stage for workable reforms that will actually bring down costs, provide more options, and let the American people--and not Washington bureaucrats--make their own health care choices. The budget resolution before us is the first step in this effort. As we all know, the resolution contains reconciliation instructions to the relevant committees, including the Senate Finance Committee, which I chair, to draft legislation to repeal ObamaCare. So after approving this resolution, the next step will be for the Finance Committee, the HELP Committee, as well as the Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce Committees over in the House, to get to work on putting together a repeal package. This process will be more difficult than it sounds. We don't want to be reckless, and we don't want to inflict more harm on the American people or our health care system; therefore, in addition to repealing ObamaCare, the legislation we draft pursuant to this budget resolution will have to include a stable transition period to give us the time and space we need to provide more sensible reforms. Under the budget resolution, the legislation to repeal ObamaCare and provide that transition period will need to be reported to the Budget Committee by January 27. Then both the House and Senate will debate the legislation, hopefully passing it by simple majority votes and sending it to the desk of the incoming President. Once we pass this repeal legislation, we will come to the most important step in the process: replacing ObamaCare with a health care system worthy of the American people. This will not be a simple endeavor. It is going to take a great deal of work, and it will almost certainly require the efforts of people from both parties. The Finance Committee is going to have a major role to play throughout this process of repealing ObamaCare, providing for a secure transition, and replacing the law with more effective reforms. Our committee has jurisdiction over all the major Federal health programs, including Medicare and Medicaid. In addition, we will have jurisdiction over the tax provisions, which include all of ObamaCare's harmful taxes as well as the premium tax credits provided to purchase plans in the ObamaCare exchanges. I have spoken at length to my Republican colleagues on the Finance Committee about these issues, and all of them are ready and willing to do whatever is necessary to put our Nation's health care system on a more responsible path. We are going to get it done. In that I have no doubts. To be sure, the first few steps in this effort are going to happen quickly. Once again, the plan is to produce repeal legislation before the end of this month. This, of course, is how it has to be. The American people don't have the time for us to wait around on these issues, and we don't have the luxury of sitting back and watching the problems get worse over time. The problems facing our health care system are growing by the day. We need to take the swiftest possible action. We intend to act quickly and methodically to begin providing relief for the millions of Americans who are currently suffering as a result of ObamaCare and the unworkable system it has created. As I noted, if that effort is going to be successful, it should be bipartisan. Both Congress and the incoming administration will need to work together. Cabinet Nominations On that point, Madam President, I do want to note that my friends on the other side of the aisle have as recently as this morning made a number of statements and issued several demands with regard to the process for considering and confirming the President-elect's Cabinet nominees. According to my colleagues' statements, they want multiple rounds of hearings on every nominee, which, by the way, is unprecedented. This morning, they even went further, issuing demands that certain preconditions be met before hearings could even be held on a particular nomination. These tactics are, to put it bluntly, preposterous. My colleagues are certainly free to oppose any nominee and to try to convince others to do the same. It is unfortunate that they have decided to go further by politicizing the process by which we consider nominations. Speaking for the Senate Finance Committee, I have to say that we have an established set of vetting procedures for all executive branch nominees. Republicans and Democrats alike have those particular procedures. That process has been in place for decades and has traditionally been bipartisan. By all accounts, the Finance Committee's longstanding vetting process is exceptionally thorough and fair, and it is deeply regrettable that some of our colleagues would try to undermine that process and not provide the incoming Trump administration's nominees the same respect and regard our committee has provided for nominees in the Obama administration and prior administrations as well. As chairman, I take this process very seriously. I have made no efforts to abbreviate or short-circuit our procedures for any nominee and have no intention of doing so in the future. I am certain all of our chairmen here in the Senate can say the same thing. My hope is that my colleagues will stop politicizing this process at every step and allow the Senate to function as it has under both Republican and Democratic administrations. My friends on the other side may not like the results of the recent election, but their disappointment of the outcome is no justification for reinventing the way we do business here in the Senate. I hope we will all take this into consideration and we will start cooperating with each other and get this government moving again and that we will support and sustain these people who are qualified and good people who are being chosen by the Trump-elect administration. I think it is important that we do these things and do them carefully and that we treat each other with the respect that is well deserved in this body. I hope that the petty, cheap politics will be discontinued. Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, before the 114th Congress adjourns, I want to take a moment to put on the record my strong support for the nomination of our distinguished colleague, Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, to be the next Attorney General of the United States. Thomas Jefferson once wrote, ``The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens.'' This idea was also reflected in the Justice Department's own mission statement, which I have here: ``To enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration for all Americans.'' No one believes in this mission more and no one understands better what this mission requires than Jeff Sessions. Unfortunately, the Justice Department has lost its way, becoming partial rather than impartial, political rather than independent, and partisan rather than objective. The Justice Department has enabled the executive branch's campaign to exceed its constitutional power while ignoring Congress's proper and legitimate role of oversight. This decline undermines the American people's trust in government. According to the Pew Research Center, public trust in government is at a record low. Fewer than one in five say they trust government most of the time. Reversing this decline and rebuilding this trust will require getting back to the essential ingredients in the Justice Department's mission and its mission statement. Senator Sessions will bring more hands-on experience to the leadership of the Justice Department than any of the 83 men and women who have occupied the post of Attorney General. He was a Federal prosecutor for 18 years, 12 of them as U.S. attorney. He has also served on the Senate Judiciary Committee since he was first elected two decades ago. In other words, he has been directly involved in both the development and implementation of criminal justice policy, a combination unmatched by any Attorney General since the office was created in 1789. His service in this body and on the committee of jurisdiction over the Department is especially important because a respectful and productive working relationship with Congress has never been more important. No one knows more what the Office of Attorney General requires than those who have actually served in that office. I have a letter signed by 10 former Attorneys General and Deputy Attorneys General who have served over the past three decades. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record following my remarks. Some of these officials knew and worked with Senator Sessions when he was U.S. attorney, others since he joined us in the Senate. They all share the same conclusion: ``All of us know him as a person of honesty and integrity, who has held himself to the highest ethical standards throughout his career, and is guided always by a deep and abiding sense of duty to this nation and its founding charter.'' I think that is really true, and these 10 former leaders have said so. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle whether there is a better description of the kind of person we want in public office, generally, and leading the Justice Department, in particular. Let me say a word about Senator Sessions' work on the Judiciary Committee. I worked with him in that capacity for 20 years, including when he served as the ranking member. We have worked together on dozens of bills to improve forensic science services for law enforcement, to promote community policing, help child abuse victims, and prevent gun crimes. He is a serious legislator who knows that prosecutors and law enforcement need commonsense workable policies from lawmakers to help keep communities safe and protect the rights of all Americans. I also received a letter from a bipartisan group of eight men and women who have served as Director of National Drug Control Policy or as Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration. I ask unanimous consent that this letter appear in the Record following leader remarks. Here is what they say: His distinguished career as a prosecutor . . . earned him a reputation as a tough, determined professional who has been dedicated to the appropriate enforcement of the rule of law. His exemplary record of service in law enforcement demonstrates that he is the protector of civil rights and defender of crime victims. Again, I ask my colleagues whether there is a better description of the kind of leader America needs at the Justice Department. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, Who would have a better informed, more comprehensive knowledge of Senator Sessions' fitness to be Attorney General? Before I conclude, I want to address what is already shaping up to be an ugly propaganda offensive against this fine nominee--this fine person--whom I know very well and have served with virtually every day for the last 20 years. I have served in this body under both Republican and Democratic Presidents, under both Republican and Democratic Senate leadership. I have actively participated in the confirmation process for 12 Attorneys General, in both parties, and have seen before the tactics that are already being used in a vain attempt to undermine this nomination. The critics do not challenge Senator Sessions' qualifications. They can't. Instead, they traffic in rumor, innuendo, and--I hate to say it--smear tactics. They take a comment here, a decision there from years or even decades in the past and use their media allies to transform these bits and pieces into what appear to be full-fledged stories--and they are not. They are counting on people not knowing the whole story. Such a cynical, dishonest campaign. It is not about the truth or fairly evaluating the President-elect's nominee to be Attorney General. And it is despicable, and it is beneath the dignity of us here in the U.S. Senate. To be honest, these tactics are really not about Senator Sessions at all but about the power of those who are using these tactics. They have to mark their territory, flex their muscle, and show that they are still a force to be reckoned with. If such things as fairness, integrity, truth, and decency have to be sacrificed in that power struggle, so be it, I guess. I hope my colleagues will not only resist these tactics but that they will join me in exposing and rejecting them. They degrade the Senate, they mislead our fellow citizens, and they corrode our democracy. Let's stay focused on our role here, which is to evaluate whether the President-elect's nominee is qualified. We know that he is. We know that he is superbly qualified and that he will be a strong and principled leader for the Justice Department. In closing, I want to quote from that letter by bipartisan drug policy officials. They say this about Senator Sessions: His prudent and responsible approach is exactly what the Department of Justice needs to enforce the law, restore confidence in the United States' justice system, and keep the American people safe. We support the nomination of Senator Sessions to be Attorney General of the United States, and we ask you to do the same. I could not have said it better. I have known Jeff for 20 years now, every year he served here, and I knew him before then. I remember the despicable way he was treated many years ago as a nominee. I don't want to see that repeated, and I personally will hold accountable anybody who tries to repeat it. Jeff Sessions is a wonderful man. He is a good person. Even though any one of us here may have some disagreements from time to time with policy--we do with each other--that doesn't denigrate and shouldn't denigrate him as a decent, honorable man who deserves to be Attorney General of the United States. I am very proud of Donald Trump doing this, giving this really fine man an opportunity to serve, and I believe he will straighten out the Department of Justice to be the Department that it should be, that we all want it to be. I think it will elevate the Department of Justice in ways that it hasn't been in many of the years I have been in the U.S. Senate. That is not to denigrate everybody who has served in the Department of Justice. But let's face it--it has been used politically by both parties at times for no good reason. I will tell you this: Jeff Sessions will make sure that will not be the case, and that will be a pleasant change from what we have had in the past in some administrations, Republican and Democratic. I have a strong knowledge of his background. I have a strong feeling about Jeff as a person. I believe he will be a great Attorney General, and I hope our colleagues on both sides of the aisle treat him with respect as he goes through this nomination process. If we do, we will be able to walk out of here at least with some sense of pride that we did what was right. I think you will find, as Jeff serves--and he is going to serve--as he serves in the Justice Department, he will do a very good job, and it will be a job done for everybody in America and not just Republicans and not just for the new administration that is coming in, but for everybody. That is what I think you will find from Jeff Sessions. He is a tough guy. He has the ability to stand up. He has the ability do what is right, and he will do it. I have great confidence in Jeff.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as we approach the end of the 114th Congress, many here in the Senate have been taking the time to reflect on what we have been able to accomplish and, more importantly, plan for what we hope to be able to accomplish in the near future. This was a tumultuous 2 years for our country, punctuated by a fierce and unpredictable political campaign and results that were, to some, beyond surprising. Before the start of the 114th Congress, the Senate had for years been languishing in partisan gridlock. Very little got done around here, and far too often, we spent our time fighting out the political sound bites of the day and voting on whatever partisan issue happened to be grabbing headlines. While some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have attempted to argue otherwise, the Senate has been remarkably productive during the 114th Congress. And that goes far beyond just a list of bills we have been available to pass. The Senate has changed in ways that numbers really can't quantify. For example, committees in the Senate have functioned more effectively than in the past. The debates on the Senate floor have been fuller and fairer than they were before. And, of course, the focus has returned to actually governing rather than simply adding more noise to the political echo chamber. Most astonishingly, given the tone of the country's overall political discourse, most of the Senate's accomplishments have been bipartisan. As I have noted on a number of occasions, the Senate Finance Committee, which I have been privileged to chair for the past 2 years, has, to a historic degree, been able to ride this new wave of bipartisan productivity. In this Congress, our committee has reported 41 separate bills, all of them bipartisan. These include priorities throughout the committee's jurisdiction. That is remarkable. These weren't itty-bitty bills; they were very important bills. That is remarkable. Honestly, I wish I could take credit for it, but the success we have enjoyed has been due to the work of every Senator on our committee. To a member, they have all been committed to working on a bipartisan basis to move ideas forward and produce results. We haven't agreed on everything, that is for sure, but we found enough common ground that the desire to work together has remained strong through this Congress. I want to thank the members of our Finance Committee for their efforts this year. They have all been exemplary colleagues to work with. Even when we disagreed, we have had good discussions. Today, I want to particularly thank Senator Coats, who is, as we know, retiring at the end of this Congress. We will miss the senior Senator from Indiana's stalwart presence on the Finance Committee and in the Senate as a whole. I wish him the best of luck. I want to take a moment to delve deeper into the substance of our committee's work. Let me give the highlights or else we will be here all day. Early on in the 114th Congress, the Senate and the House passed legislation produced in the Finance Committee to repeal and replace the broken Medicare sustainable growth rate, or SGR, formula, putting an end to the ritual of cobbling together the SGR patches at the last minute behind closed doors. This bill was one of the most significant bipartisan reforms enacted in the history of the Medicare Program. We made once-in-a-generation advancements in U.S. trade policy by renewing and updating trade promotion authority, reauthorizing vital trade preferences programs, and modernizing our trade enforcement and customs laws. All of these are important strides in the ongoing effort to promote U.S. leadership in the world marketplace in order to benefit our workers, our farmers, our ranchers, and inventors, just to mention a few. We acted decisively to prevent benefit cuts in Social Security disability insurance and put into place the most significant improvements to the Social Security system since the 1980s. We came up with enough offsets to extend the life of the highway trust fund for 5 years, something nobody thought we could do. That is the longest such extension in nearly two decades. This was accomplished despite the cries of naysayers who said it couldn't be done without a massive tax increase. We did not increase taxes. We also made serious strides to advance a number of the committee's long-term improvements, including improvements to Medicare benefits for patients dealing with chronic illnesses, overdue reforms to our Nation's foster care system, a series of measures to protect taxpayers from the ever- increasing threat of identity theft and tax refund fraud, and legislation to help more Americans save adequately for retirement. Not all of these measures have yet been signed into law, but in every case we have been able to move the ball significantly forward. In addition, we continued the Finance Committee's long tradition of conducting robust and exhaustive oversight. Our bipartisan report on the IRS targeting scandal, which we released last year, was a great example. In addition, the committee's work to shine a light on the inept implementation of ObamaCare was second to none. And, of course, we made real progress in the ongoing effort to reform our Nation's Tax Code. I would like to talk about tax reform in a little more detail because that has been the focus of so much of our efforts in this Congress, and that is not likely to change when we gavel in the 115th Congress. Among other things, the members of the Finance Committee produced a number of bipartisan reports outlining the key challenges we face with our Tax Code after working together in the tax reform working groups we established last year. Also, the Finance Committee, working with our leadership here in the Senate and our colleagues in the House, drafted and facilitated passage of a massive tax bill that made permanent a number of oft-expiring tax provisions, providing real certainty to businesses and job creators and setting the stage for even more significant reforms in the future. That bill also delayed a number of ObamaCare's burdensome health care taxes. In addition, I have spent much of the 114th Congress hard at work developing a tax reform proposal to better integrate the corporate and individual tax systems. Under current law, the United States not only has the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world, we also subject many of our businesses and the individuals who invest in them to multiple levels of tax on what are essentially the same earnings. This system results in a number of inequities and economic distortions, including undue burdens on U.S. workers and incentives for businesses to finance their operations with debt instead of equity. These problems have troubled policymakers for years, particularly recently as the combined effects of these misguided policies have resulted in waves of corporate inversions and foreign takeovers of U.S. companies. This is a serious set of problems. My idea to address this problem was relatively simple: Allow corporations to deduct from their taxable earnings any dividend they distribute to shareholders. Currently, our system taxes a business's earnings once at the company level--at an astronomically high rate, no less--and again when the earnings are distributed to shareholders. My proposal has been to eliminate one level of taxation on these distributed earnings and require only a shareholder-level tax on dividends, which is similar to the way debt is treated. Forms of this proposal have been put forward by Treasury Departments and congressional tax writers from both parties in the past. In addition to a dividends-paid deduction, in order to bring more balance to the system and eliminate even more distortions, I have looked for ways to equalize the tax treatment of debt and equity under our system. Those monitoring the tax world undoubtedly know that I have spent quite a long time working on this proposal, including a number of months going over the numbers with the Joint Committee on Taxation. At this point, I can say that the feedback I have received from JCT on this matter has been very positive. For example, in its preliminary assessments, JCT indicated that the proposal would increase economic growth and activity relevant to current law. They found that it would increase wages for U.S. workers through increased productivity. Their analysis also showed that the proposal would increase capital investment and reduce effective tax rates for American businesses. Interestingly, JCT also found that the proposal would alleviate some of the pressures that drive corporate inversions and help prevent erosion of the U.S. tax base overall. It sounds pretty good, and it is true. These concerns--economic growth, wages, and U.S. companies moving offshore or being acquired by foreign companies--have a real-world impact on American workers and employers, and they were at the heart of this year's campaign debates. Thus far, the feedback we have received shows that a dividends-paid deduction, combined with equalized tax treatment for debt and equity, would help address these concerns. And according to JCT, all of this could be done without adding to the deficit or shifting more of the overall tax burden from those with higher incomes to middle and lower income taxpayers. I know the DC tax community has been speculating on this matter for a while now, and I can attest today that the idea of better integrating the corporate and individual tax systems through a dividends-paid deduction wouldn't just work but could actually work very well. Once again, the numbers we have seen thus far have been quite favorable. I will note that we have heard some concerns from those in the charitable and nonprofit community as well as retirement security and stakeholders regarding the potential impact of equalizing the treatment of debt and equity. I think my history in the Senate has demonstrated pretty clearly my commitment to both charitable giving and retirement security. I want to make clear that my staff and I are prepared to address these kinds of concerns when this takes legislative form. I suppose that for most of the people who have been monitoring our efforts on corporate integration, their biggest question is about timing: When will we try to move this for? After any big election campaign, particularly after the one that was as unpredictable as the one we saw in 2016--although I thought it was predictable, but most people didn't--it is important to acknowledge the realities on the ground. I remain very interested in the concept of corporate integration and continue to believe it would have a positive impact on our tax system and our economy overall. Let's be honest, after this election, the ground has shifted, and while we don't know how everything will play out in the coming months, it is safe to assume that the tax reform discussion is shifting as well. Right now, we are seeing more momentum for comprehensive tax reform--that is reform that deals with both the individual and business tax systems--than we have seen in a generation or more. If we are going to do right by our economy and the American people, we need to think in those comprehensive terms. At the very least, I think it is fair to say that with the changing circumstances, the assumptions and parameters that have, for some time now, governed the tax reform debate will have to be modified, if not thrown out entirely. I believe corporate integration can and should be part of the comprehensive tax reform discussion that appears to be on the horizon, but given the current reality, any substantive tax reform proposal will need to be considered and evaluated in the context of what has quickly become a much broader discussion. Let me be clear: I am not walking away from the idea of corporate integration. On the contrary. I am excited to see how the debate over comprehensive tax reform plays out in the near future and where this concept might fit in that broader discussion. Going forward, we have a real opportunity to make significant, perhaps even fundamental, changes to our entire tax system in order to encourage growth, create more jobs, and improve the lives of individuals and families around our country. As the chairman of the Senate's tax-writing committee, I am very excited for this opportunity, and I am committed to doing all I can to make sure we succeed in this endeavor and that we do it in a bipartisan way. We are working right now, today, in a bipartisan way to try and resolve some of these problems. I have been meeting with every member of our committee, Democrats and Republicans, to see how we can work better together. This discussion about comprehensive tax reform promises to be one of the big-ticket items in the coming Congress, and I am excited to be a part of it. In addition to tax reform, the Senate and Senate Finance Committee will have a number of other tasks to perform in the early days of the 115th Congress. For example, early on, I expect that we will finally be able to repeal ObamaCare and begin a serious process of replacing it with reforms that are more worthy of the American people. We also need to take a serious look at our broken retirement programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. I am sure that simply because I am the Republican who just happened to mention the name of those programs out loud, I will be scorned and labeled a ``privatizer'' in certain policy and advocacy corners after this speech. However, reductive labels aside, no one seriously disputes the fact that these programs are in fiscal trouble. We need to work toward finding solutions, and they need to be bipartisan solutions. I have put forward a number of potential solutions to help address the coming entitlement crisis. I hope policymakers in Congress, the incoming administration, and elsewhere will take a look at my ideas. I think they will find they are ideas that will help this country out of the problems and the mess it is in. On top of tax and health care, we need to consider the future of U.S. trade policy. While this was a matter of some fierce discussion during the campaign, I remain committed to doing all I can to ensure that the United States continues to lead the world in trade, including the establishment of high-standard free-trade agreements. All of these matters, and many others as well, fall within the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee. Fortunately, I am joined on the committee with a host of capable U.S. Senators from both parties. It is a great committee with great members, and I feel very privileged to be able to lead that committee. Over the past 2 years, we have demonstrated that by working together, we can overcome some pretty long odds and accomplish a number of difficult tasks. I hope that continues this next year. I am going to do all I can to make sure it does. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I wish to share some of my thoughts on an issue relating to the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. Few dispute the noble goal of ensuring that justice is done for the families of the victims of September 11. Time after time, this body has acted to honor the memories of the fallen from that terrible day, just as it should. But in acting to honor the victims of September 11 and the grieving families they left behind, we cannot lose sight of other crucial policy goals that enjoy broad bipartisan support, such as preserving important legal principles that protect the members of our Armed Forces and perpetuate strong relations with important allies. As an article in the December 6 edition of the New York Times explains, there are ample concerns that individual citizens of a close U.S. ally have funded terrorist activities and may have assisted those who carried out the September 11 attacks. Despite the claim that this ally has taken any official action to support the September 11 attackers remains far from proven and, in fact, has been of great and instrumental assistance that this ally has provided in prosecuting the war on terrorism, questions do remain. In response, the families of numerous September 11 victims looked to resolve these questions through the courts. Specifically, they sought a change to the law that greatly expands the ability of a private individual to bring a suit in federal court against a sovereign nation. Heeding the calls for justice from victims' families, we recently enacted the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act law, and as a result, the scope of the legal principle known as sovereign immunity-- here, the immunity of a foreign government from a civil suit in our Federal courts--has been distinctly reduced. Again, there is nothing wrong with September 11 families seeking justice; in fact, I laud them for their commitment and perseverance, which is why I supported the passage of this legislation at the time and still strongly support its goals. Nevertheless, one of the consequences of the exact language of the new statute is that our important ally now faces the prospect of going through the extensive and intrusive discovery process in federal court. As a result, one of our closest partners in the war on terrorism could be ordered by a Federal judge to turn over some of their most sensitive documents in order to show that their official governments actions did not directly support the September 11 attackers. Indeed, nothing in the recently declassified portions of the September 11 Commission Report suggests that our ally's government leadership had any role in the attack. We must consider how the technical features of this change in the law will affect our national security. If we allow such lawsuits to proceed under the particulars of the newly enacted statutory language here in the United States, we undermine the central premise of our objection to other countries that might seek to modify their sovereign immunity laws by permitting lawsuits against the United States. We could easily find ourselves at the mercy of a foreign justice system--one far different than our own--if someone filed suit in a foreign nation against the United States and demanded that our government turn over highly classified documents. If our government refused, that foreign court could potentially exact serious consequences, such as freezing American assets overseas. Worse yet, if other nations change their sovereign immunity laws, foreign courts could potentially begin to hold U.S. service members personally liable, both civilly and criminally, for actions they have based upon the lawful orders of their superiors. In sum, once we begin to unravel sovereign immunity at home, we risk creating a cascade of unintended consequences abroad. These concerns are widely shared. In a recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Ambassador John Bolton made those very same arguments. They also point out that the new law ``shifts authority for a huge component of national security from the politically accountable branches--the President and the Congress--to the Judiciary, the branch least competent to deal with international matters of life and death. In fact, I was particularly struck by the fact that the editorial boards of the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and Bloomberg have all raised serious and substantial concerns regarding the particulars of the new legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that some of these editorials be printed in the Record following my remarks. Not only do these editorial boards believe this is not in the best interest of the United States, but so do our closest allies as well. Specifically, officials from the European Union, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands have all written public messages or passed resolutions echoing these arguments. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the government of the Netherlands be printed in the Record following my remarks. Nevertheless, I do believe a solution can be found that provides justice for the September 11 families while enhancing our national security. My optimism stems in no small part from the leaders involved. I understand Senators McCain and Graham are working on just such a compromise, and I fully support their efforts to achieve a just resolution of this issue. Furthermore, we all owe Senator Cornyn a debt of gratitude for his leadership in ensuring that justice is done. I am also greatly encouraged that Senator Schumer is leading the Democratic efforts on this matter. The role of the Senate is to resolve the great issues facing our Nation by forging lasting consensus. We have numerous such challenges in the past, and I fervently believe that building such a solution is possible. I urge all my colleagues to help us move toward this goal.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to Barbara Mikulski, who is retiring from the Senate this year, having spent 40 years serving the people of Maryland in Congress. Senator Mikulski has been a trailblazer all her life. She grew up in east Baltimore and attended Mount Saint Agnes College and the University of Maryland School of Social Work. She began her career as a social worker and community organizer before being elected to the Baltimore City Council in 1971. In 1976, Senator Mikulski won election to the U.S. House of Representatives, where she served for 10 years before winning election to the Senate in 1986. At the time Senator Mikulski began her Senate service, she was one of only two female Senators. Today there are 20 female Senators. Next Congress there will be 21. Senator Mikulski has served as a role model and mentor for many of these leaders. She is the longest serving woman in the history of the U.S. Congress and retires as an icon for many young women who dream of serving their country in elected office. Senator Mikulski has been a leader for many years on health care, education, and veterans' issues. She is the first woman and first Marylander to chair the Senate Appropriations Committee, one of the most influential committees in Congress. Senator Mikulski has been a strong supporter of our Nation's space program throughout her time in Congress and was instrumental in the creation and launch of the Hubble and Webb space telescopes. She even has a supernova named after her-- Supernova Mikulski. Senator Mikulski has fought long and hard for the people of Maryland and for the issues she believes in. She is tenacious and dedicated and knows how to get things done. I wish her the very best as she moves on to her next endeavor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to the senior Senator from Louisiana, my friend David Vitter. Over more than a decade, I have had the privilege to get to know David as a colleague and a friend. When he retires in January, he will be greatly missed. David is a New Orleans man, born and raised. In his younger years, he achieved impressive academic feats, graduating from Harvard and earning a Rhodes scholarship to study at Oxford. As he is fond of telling, after his time in England, he applied to three law schools--Harvard, Yale, and Tulane--and chose to attend the best of the three: Tulane. Just a few years later, he won a seat in the Louisiana House of Representatives. There, he earned a reputation as an ethics crusader--a reputation that has stuck with him throughout his career. Many observers credit him in no small part with the transformation of his home state's politics--once famously dominated by colorful but ethically questionable characters--and he should be rightfully pleased at the fruits his efforts bore for the State he loves. In Washington, his work to strengthen ethics laws at the Federal level may not have always made him the most popular among his colleagues, but they reflect the same spirit of reform and willingness to stand up for what he believes in that have been the hallmarks of David's career. On the legislative front, David has been a champion for his conservative values and his beloved Louisiana. Taking office in 2005, he almost immediately was faced with one of the greatest crises any senator in my tenure has had to confront: Hurricane Katrina. As his State has faced Katrina's devastation and other natural disasters, Louisianans could always count on David to deliver for them, no matter what. Throughout, David mastered the skill of fighting as hard as anyone when the situation called for it--as he did as the top Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, pushing back against the overreach of the EPA--and then turning right around and making partners of those who were his most entrenched opponents--as he did by working with liberal Democrats to update the Nation's water infrastructure and pass a once-in-a-generation reform of the Nation's toxic chemical laws. David's work in the Senate has produced an impressive legacy for him and for Louisiana. As he embarks on his next chapter, I send my best wishes to him, his accomplished and lovely wife, Wendy, and his four children.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I wish to pray tribute to a selfless public servant, a committed leader, and a dear friend: Senator Harry Reid. Growing up in the small town of Searchlight, NV, Senator Reid was no stranger to hardship. His father suffered from severe depression and his mother worked long hours as a laundress to help support their struggling family. The Reids lived in a tiny tin shack with no toilet or telephone. They had limited access to schools, healthcare, and the basic comforts of modern life. From his hardscrabble youth, Harry developed a fighting spirit that would later define his career in public service. That spirit was cultivated by his high school boxing coach, Mike O'Callaghan, who would later become Nevada's 23rd Governor. More than a coach, O'Callaghan was a mentor. He taught Senator Reid his first lessons in civics and raised Harry's vision of what he could accomplish, encouraging him to pursue higher education and a life in politics. Senator Reid graduated with a bachelor's degree in political science from Utah State University and would later earn a law degree from George Washington University. While still a law student, Senator Reid worked nights as a U.S. Capitol Police officer to pay his way through school. Shortly after finishing his law degree, he returned to Nevada where he began climbing the ladder of State politics. Senator Reid served as a city attorney, a State assemblyman, a Lieutenant Governor, a gaming commissioner, and a Congressman before being elected to the Senate in 1986. Here in the Senate, Harry distinguished himself as a no-nonsense legislator whose unmatched work ethic and fiery commitment to principle stood out among his peers. As a young boxer, Harry was renowned for being tough and tenacious in the ring; as a rising Senator, he was equally steadfast and determined. Having spearheaded the passage of several high-profile pieces of legislation, Harry quickly won the respect of his colleagues and earned a spot on the Democratic leadership team. He served for many years as the Senate Democratic leader. But regardless of the ranks he has achieved, Harry's first and foremost commitment has always been to the people of Nevada. Despite his years in Washington, Harry never actually left Searchlight; he simply carries it with him wherever he goes. He holds close to his heart the painful memory of growing up in a dusty mining town with little hope and limited opportunity. He embraces the harsh experiences of a childhood spent living in poverty and draws upon them to fuel his work in the Senate today. In his decades-long effort to empower society's most vulnerable, he has never forgotten where he came from or whom he fights for. He has never forgotten Searchlight. Perhaps this is why he eschews the trappings of public office and frequently skips the galas, gaudy dinners, and other extravagant affairs that are part and parcel of the Washington social scene. Perhaps this is why he avoids television interviews and rarely ever spends more than 10 minutes at a political fundraiser--because, at the end of the day, no matter the titles he receives or the awards he is given, he will always be that little boy from Searchlight. Senator Reid is among the most grounded of legislators. I have always had the deepest admiration for his humility, kindness, and compassion. Although he and I have often disagreed on the issues, we have always agreed on the values that make life worth living: namely, God, family, and service to country. Over many decades in the Senate, he has served our Nation exceptionally well. Although he will be missed in this Chamber, he has earned well-deserved golden years in his beloved home State of Nevada. I wish Harry, his wonderful wife, Landra, and all the Reid family the very best.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to my friend Dan Coats. Dan has twice served the people of Indiana as Senator, first in the late 1980s and 1990s, and again for the past 6 years. Dan is a man of integrity and a leader in the fight against government waste. He will be missed. Senator Coats was born in Jackson, MI, in 1943 and attended Wheaton College in Illinois and Indiana University School of Law. He served in the U.S. Army from 1966 to 1968, during which time he deepened his lifelong love of our country. Dan began his career in politics in 1976 when he went to work for future Vice President Dan Quayle, who at the time was serving in the House as a Representative from Indiana. When Representative Quayle decided to run for the Senate in 1980, Dan ran for and won Quayle's House seat. Dan served four terms in the House before being appointed to the Senate in 1989 to fill the remainder of Senator Quayle's term after Quayle was elected Vice President. Dan served in the Senate until 1999. He was a leader in tax and entitlement reform and provided unwavering support to our Armed Forces. After Senator Coats retired from the Senate, President George W. Bush appointed him Ambassador to Germany, where he developed a close working relationship with future Chancellor Angela Merkel and oversaw construction of a new embassy near the Brandenburg Gate. But Dan soon felt the pull of the Senate again and decided to return to this body in 2010, winning election to his old seat. Over the past 6 years, Senator Coats has again been a leader in tax and entitlement reform and has become well known for his ``Waste of the Week'' speeches, in which he comes to the floor to highlight particularly egregious examples of government waste and abuse. Senator Coats has served the people of Indiana well. He has served our country well. He has led the fight against wasteful spending and helped keep our government accountable. I wish him, his wife, Marsha, and their family the very best.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, in the U.S. Senate, seniority is the typical route to influence. As Senators serve longer, they typically acquire more powerful positions, more knowledge of how to work the levers of power, and more sway over their colleagues. Over the course of my time in the Senate, I have had the privilege to serve with 352 other Senators. While in my experience the longest serving ones on average do indeed tend to make the greatest impact, I have always been most impressed by the rare colleague that leaves an indelible mark after only a relatively short time in this body. Kelly Ayotte is such a standout. Kelly came to this body well prepared to make a difference. As New Hampshire's first--and, so far, only--female attorney general, she left her mark across a wide swath of law and policy, from prosecuting the infamous Dartmouth College murderers to successfully defending New Hampshire's parental consent law before the U.S. Supreme Court. As soon as she arrived here in 2011, the Senator from New Hampshire began to make her mark. Within a short period of time, publications like the New York Times and Politico began consistently referring to her as a rising star, and in 2012, her name perennially surfaced as a contender for the Republican Vice Presidential nomination. How did Kelly gain such recognition so quickly? The answer is simple: through good old-fashioned hard work. From her first day in the Senate, she hit the ground running. The wife of an Air Force combat veteran, she joined the Armed Services Committee and poured her heart and soul into its work. It took little time for her to become one of the most powerful voices on the committee. On issues as wide ranging as protecting our servicemembers from sexual assault to keeping dangerous terrorists detained at Guantanamo, she made a real difference, enhancing our national security and advocating for our men and women in uniform. While defense and security policy has proven her signature issue, Kelly's influence extends across the board. From creating jobs to protecting our environment, she has proven an enormously effective advocate for families in New Hampshire and across America, willing to work across the aisle and buck her own party to do what she thinks is right for her State and the Nation. Her work to combat the opioid crisis merits particular praise. Both New Hampshire and Utah have been particularly hard hit by the rise in this dangerous trend of substance abuse, which has wreaked havoc in the lives of so many. Kelly made it her mission to do everything in her power to confront this challenge, resulting in the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act. This landmark legislation will make a real difference in the lives of so many in New Hampshire and across the Nation, and it will go down as one of the crown jewels of her legacy here in the Senate. While I am deeply saddened that Kelly will no longer be with us here in the Senate come January, I am comforted by the fact that her best years of service to her State and Nation lie ahead. After some well- deserved rest with her family, it is my sincerest hope that she will continue her public service. In whatever capacity she chooses to serve, she will always have a devoted supporter in me.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to the junior Senator from Illinois, my good friend Mark Kirk. I know I speak for all of my colleagues in expressing gratitude of his service on behalf of our Nation. When he leaves us in January, we will miss him dearly. Senator Kirk was born in Champaign, IL, in 1959 and attended Cornell University, where he graduated cum laude with a bachelor's degree in history. He would later earn a master's degree from the London School of Economics and a law degree from the Georgetown University Law Center. His academic background in law and history prepared him for a life in public service. Senator Kirk first came to Capitol Hill as a staffer, working for Congressman John Porter of Illinois. He quickly rose through the staff ranks to become Congressman Porter's chief of staff before leaving to take a post at the World Bank and, later, at the State Department. While still working on Capitol Hill, Mark also pursued military service, joining the U.S. Navy Reserve in 1989 as an intelligence officer. He was an active member of the Navy Reserve for the next 24 years, retiring from the military with the rank of commander. As a Navy officer, Mark's duties took him to conflict zones across the world-- from the forests of former Yugoslavia to the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan. For more than a decade, Mark continued military service while simultaneously working as a Congressman in the House of Representatives. While in the House of Representatives, Mark distinguished himself as a prudent member of the Appropriations Committee and an expert on foreign policy issues. In 2010, he was elected to the Senate and quickly set to work the following year championing infrastructure reform that was critical to his home State of Illinois. In 2012, Mark faced perhaps his most significant challenge yet when he unexpectedly suffered a stroke that nearly took his life and left the left side of his body severely impaired. Rather than be defeated, Mark channeled all of his energies in working towards recovery, spending countless hours working with physical therapists to regain his ability to walk. What motivated Mark most during this difficult period was the desire to continue serving the people of Illinois. Thanks to Mark's unrelenting efforts and the heartfelt prayers of family and friends-- including all of his colleagues in the Senate--Mark miraculously recovered and was able to return to his work in the Senate, where he has served out the remainder of his term with the utmost honor and distinction. Senator Kirk offers all of us an unparalleled example of courage amid hardship and grace amid suffering. Through his decades of dedicated service to our Nation, both here in Congress and in the military, Senator Kirk represents the very best this Nation has to offer. His integrity, determination, and fortitude in the face of adversity embody the very pinnacle of American virtue. Today I would like to thank him for his courage, his commitment, and his sacrifice. I wish Mark and his family all the best, and I hope that he will continue his service to our Nation in the years to come.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, it is an honor for me to rise and talk about our friendship and what you have done for this country. I rise today to pay tribute to a dedicated public servant, distinguished leader, and dear friend, Vice President Joe Biden. For more than three decades, I had the distinct privilege of serving alongside Joe in the U.S. Senate. As anyone who worked closely with Joe can tell you, he was no ordinary Senator. He had boundless energy and undeniable charm. He paired an unmatched work ethic with a disarming smile that dared you not to smile back. Joe's innate ability to befriend anyone--and I mean anyone, including his fiercest political opponents--was critical to his success as a legislator. His genuine sincerity endeared him to all, and his gregariousness transcended partisan boundaries. Even in the most polarizing debates, Joe never let politics stand in the way of friendship. One minute Joe could be scolding you from the Senate floor, and the next minute he could be hugging you in the hallway, cracking jokes and asking about your grandkids. I am, of course, speaking from plenty of personal experience. It is no secret that Joe and I often found ourselves on opposite sides of almost every major issue--that is not quite true. We agreed on a lot of things. In countless legislative battles, Joe proved himself to be a worthy political opponent and an able sparring partner. Whether on the Senate floor or in the Judiciary Committee hearing room, Joe and I locked horns on a number of occasions, sometimes on a daily basis. Indeed, we were at odds about as often as we were on C-SPAN. At the end of the day, I couldn't help but admire the man. You see, Joe Biden was beloved by everyone in this Chamber, even those he drove crazy from time to time, and I count myself among that group. Through his ability to forge friendship even amid conflict, he embodies the ethos of a noble generation of legislators--a generation that embraced the virtues of comity and compromise above all else. I believe this body--indeed, this Nation--could learn from Joe's example of kindness, courtesy, and compassion. For 17 years, then-Senator Biden served as chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, overseeing some of the most significant court appointments of our time. Chairing the Senate Judiciary Committee is no easy task. I know because I have been there. The committee boasts some of the biggest egos on this side of the Potomac--or this side of the Milky Way, for that matter. It takes a certain kind of political genius to navigate the assertive personalties and lofty ambitions of its members, but Joe was more than up to the task. As both chairman and ranking member, he was tough and tenacious but also decent and fair. Through his trademark work ethic, he won the respect of every member of that committee. Joe also served admirably as the chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee. In this capacity, he played an indispensable role in shaping American foreign policy. When President Obama tapped Joe to be his Vice President, the Senate lost a seasoned statesman, but our Nation gained a wise and capable leader with unparalleled experience in public affairs. Joe was the administration's bridge to Congress, often serving as an intermediary between the President and legislators. On more than one occasion, his close relationship with lawmakers and his deft negotiating skills helped our Nation to overcome some of its greatest obstacles. He was the President's trusted emissary and an invaluable asset in helping Congress resolve the fiscal cliff dilemma in late 2012--something I wasn't sure we could resolve. He was also a brilliant ambassador for our country, leveraging his foreign policy expertise in meetings with leaders across the world. I am deeply grateful for my friend Joe Biden. I have long admired his devotion to his family, as well as his grace amid suffering, and he did suffer, and I know it. I was here. Having experienced tremendous loss in his family life, he draws from a rich reservoir of empathy to connect with everyday Americans. Ask anyone Vice President Biden has served: When you speak, Joe listens. He loves, and he cares. He is perhaps the most personable public figure in American politics today. In the nearly 8 years he has served as Vice President, Joe Biden has become a fixture of American public life. Today, I wish to join my colleagues in thanking Vice President Joe Biden for his dedication to the American people. Although his tenure as Vice President is drawing to a close, I am confident that his service to our Nation will only continue. This is said by a Republican who loves Joe Biden and believes he is one of the truly great people who served here in this body. I just want Joe Biden to know that we all respect him, and I think most all of us love him. Those of us who have worked with him really appreciated how he would from time to time put his arm around us, put politics aside, and speak the truth. Joe Biden is a wonderful man. I wish him the absolute best as we go into the future, and I will be there to help if he needs it. God bless Joe Biden. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I wish to support the 21st Century Cures Act, the bill currently before us that, if all goes well, will be approved by the Senate very shortly. This important legislation represents the hard work of Members from both parties and from both sides of the Capitol. It has support across the economic and ideological spectrum and promises to do quite a bit of good for a number of people. Put simply--or as simply as one can for a measure of this size--the 21st Century Cures Act represents a significant investment in improving our ability to discover and develop new treatments and medicines and ensure that patients have access to them. To accomplish this goal, this legislation, among many other things, provides a much-needed expansion of funding for the National Institutes of Health, improvements to the approval process at the Food and Drug Administration, resources to respond to the growing opioid abuse crisis, and an updated government framework for addressing mental health needs. Thanks to this bill, universities across Utah will be able to access the funding streams from the Precision Medicine Initiative, the BRAIN Initiative, and the Cancer Moonshot. Utah is known for its ability to leverage significant public-private partnerships to work towards cutting-edge health and innovation. I am proud to represent a State where complex technologies are being utilized to help patients find the best treatments and avoid interventions that would be costly, invasive, and ineffective. Over the past several months, I have had several meaningful experiences working to improve health care for the people of Utah and for all Americans. For example, I had the pleasure of welcoming Vice President Biden to the Huntsman Cancer Institute in Utah as part of his Cancer Research Center tour. The Vice President and I had an insightful discussion about a number of promising therapies being developed in Utah. This legislation will provide an infusion of funding for these types of projects that will improve lives for individuals and families across our country and around the world. Among the many noteworthy provisions in this bill are several items advocated by members of the Senate Finance Committee, which I chair. Throughout the 114th Congress, the Finance Committee has worked tirelessly to advance a number of bipartisan legislative efforts and address the concerns of our Members' constituents. We have reported more bills out of the committee in this Congress than really in any other Congress in modern history, all of them--every single one--with bipartisan support. The long list includes bills in virtually every area of the Finance Committee's jurisdiction, including health care policy. Some of these priorities--and many others--have been included in the Cures Act. All told, the current version of the bill includes at least 22 separate provisions that reflect the hard work of Finance Committee members. These include modifications and updates to Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP, along with other important changes to the law. I want to collectively thank the members of the Finance Committee for the work they have done on these measures and on everything else we have been able to accomplish over the last two years. A number of measures that I personally worked on as a member of the Senate HELP Committee have also been included in the bill. All told, about 37 provisions in this bill are ones that I either drafted or helped draft at some point during my years in the Senate. For now, I want to focus on my work to help those in the rare disease community. Millions of Americans suffer from unexplainable illnesses that leave them feeling abandoned and alone. And, if we do not address the dry pipeline for drugs that end up treating just a few hundred patients, we are making a national decision that these people do not matter. None of us should accept that. To address these concerns, I worked to include specific measures in the Cures Act that improve pediatric care and expedite the drug approval process for rare diseases, ensuring that thousands of patients get the treatments they need when they need them. With this bill, Congress will make significant steps in helping Americans with rare diseases, but our work will be far from over. Families affected by rare diseases have united around the country to speak with a growing voice, and we need to do all we can to make sure their pleas do not fall on deaf ears. As you can see, there are a number of good things to say about the 21st Century Cures Act. However, I don't want to leave the impression that the bill is perfect from my point of view. While I support the bill and plan to vote in favor of passage, I do want to make note of what are, in my view, some of the bill's shortcomings. As this legislation was being developed, I noted that I had concerns with some of the pay-fors that were being thrown around. I have always supported the goals of this legislation and believed it was important that we try to move it forward. However, I do not believe we should be setting undesirable precedents when it comes to funding these types of endeavors. Early on in this process, some publicly expressed their belief that the spending in this bill could be paid for by making alterations to federal health entitlement programs, namely Medicare and Medicaid. I will spare my colleagues a lecture on the budget process today. Instead, I will just note that, while there are a number of areas where we can responsibly find savings in these programs, we have almost always tried to avoid diverting funds from these programs--which constitute mandatory spending--to pay for discretionary spending programs. And, put simply, I believe we need to continue following what has generally been a brightline rule in that regard. If we start casually commingling mandatory and discretionary funds, we run the risk of greatly expanding discretionary spending programs while simultaneously weakening our entitlement programs that are already on the brink of fiscal crisis. Fortunately, the main proponents of the Cures Act have been willing to work with me, and they have scaled back their initial efforts to use the mandatory spending sources to pay for the bill. While those pay- fors haven't been entirely purged from the bill, I do not intend to vote against the legislation on that basis. That said, I do want to make clear that this shouldn't become a legislative template or be considered a precedent for how Congress will pay for new spending in the future. And, as the chairman of the committee that has jurisdiction over most of the relevant mandatory spending programs, I intend to do all I can to make sure we avoid this practice going forward. In addition, I want to say that I was disappointed that the bill before us does not include provisions from the Family First Prevention Services Act, which Senator Wyden and I, along with our counterparts in the House, introduced earlier this year. This is commonsense legislation that, in my view, would be a good fit for this vehicle. It has broad support from Members of both parties and in both Chambers, and we all worked to get it included in this package. Unfortunately, we weren't able to complete this task. So all of us will have to keep looking for any reasonable vehicle or opportunity to move this important bill in the near future. Still, even with these concerns I have about this final version of the 21st Century Cures Act, I am strongly supportive of the bill, and I want to commend those who worked so hard to get it this far, including Chairmen Brady and Upton and Speaker Ryan over in the House, and Chairman Alexander, Leader McConnell, and his leadership team here in the Senate. They have all done good work, and I congratulate them on this success. Now, we just have to pass the bill. Once again, I intend to vote in favor of the 21st Century Cures Act, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the Tax Technical Corrections Act of 2016 makes tax technical corrections and other corrections including clerical and deadwood-related corrections. The bill revises and updates S. 2775, the Technical Corrections Act of 2016, which was introduced on April 11, 2016. Ranking Member Wyden and I have asked the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation to make available to the public a technical explanation of the bill, JCX-91-16. The technical explanation expresses the Committee's understanding and legislative intent behind this important legislation. It is available on the Joint Committee's website at www.jct.gov.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the Tax Technical Corrections Act of 2016 makes tax technical corrections and other corrections including clerical and deadwood-related corrections. The bill revises and updates S. 2775, the Technical Corrections Act of 2016, which was introduced on April 11, 2016. Ranking Member Wyden and I have asked the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation to make available to the public a technical explanation of the bill, JCX-91-16. The technical explanation expresses the Committee's understanding and legislative intent behind this important legislation. It is available on the Joint Committee's website at www.jct.gov.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate passage of H.R. 5602, S. 3336, and Calendar Nos. 675 through 683.

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Jim Lyons, a longtime staffer on Capitol Hill--my staffer--and a fixture in tax policy here in DC, who passed away on September 29 of this year. James Tancill Lyons was born on March 7, 1973, to Stephen and Ann Lyons, both natives of the DC-Virginia area with longstanding ties to the local community. Growing up in Springfield, VA, Jim was an accomplished athlete, excelling in both baseball and basketball. Oddly, for a sports fan in the DC area, his favorite football team was the Dallas Cowboys--a decision he made consciously because his older brother, Stephen, was a big Redskins fan. Jim was also a great student, eventually graduating summa cum laude from James Madison University. He went to law school at the University of Texas, where he made the Editing Committee of the Texas Journal of Business Law and won a scholarship for being the best tax law student in his class after pulling the top grade in his business associations, income tax, international tax, corporate tax, and estate and gift tax classes. After law school, he earned a clerkship at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and then got a job working for Cleary Gottlieb, one of the finest law firms in the country. Of course, you would never guess any of this if you knew Jim. While he was always an incredibly valuable and often brilliant attorney and congressional staffer, he talked about his college and law school days as though he spent most of his time having fun and just barely skating by. That, of course, was vintage Jim Lyons--incredibly outgoing but unbelievably humble. Jim could have a long conversation with anyone about pretty much anything, but he was never one to spend all that much time touting his own accomplishments. Make no mistake, Jim Lyons was very accomplished. After his time at the law firm in New York, Jim made his way to the House Ways and Means Committee, and, following a brief subsequent and successful stint at the Department of Justice, he was hired by Chairman Chuck Grassley to serve as tax counsel on the Senate Finance Committee. In his 8 years on the Finance Committee, he made a mark on every major tax bill, not to mention a number of debt and budget deals that went through the Senate, including many tax-extenders bills, some of which he seemed to be able to cobble together singlehandedly. Jim was smart as a whip. He was a tremendously valuable congressional staffer because he had both a remarkable understanding of tax policy and an uncanny ability to see all the traps and pitfalls that stood ahead for any particular proposal or piece of legislation. He had an encyclopedic knowledge of the technical aspects of the Tax Code, as well as a clear understanding of the real-world implications, immediately seeing where a particular tax policy or bill would fit in the larger policy and, when necessary, the political landscape. Jim was one of those people who could go into the weeds to discuss, debate, and negotiate tax policy literally with anyone on the planet but also break that same policy down to its essential elements and explain it to lesser mortals, including, I have to say, more than a few of us U.S. Senators. Of course, like all of us, Jim had his own ideological views and opinions, and he made no secret about the way he saw the world and his beliefs about the best path forward for our country. When necessary, he was a fierce advocate for his own views, but more importantly, for someone in his position, he was able, when necessary, to dispassionately apply his accrued knowledge and expertise to any tax proposal, whether it came from a conservative or liberal or a Republican or Democrat, and then break it down to its essence and give a clear and concise assessment of the policy and its chances for being enacted. All of this made him an essential and indispensable part of our efforts on the Senate Finance Committee for close to a decade. As I think all of my colleagues will attest, staffers with that kind of knowledge and ability to evaluate policy and lay out its chances for success really can be hard to come by. However, in the weeks since Jim's passing, it hasn't been his accomplishments or his knowledge of the Tax Code that people have most remembered; instead, most of the focus has been on his friendly demeanor, his mischievous sense of humor, and most of all, his kind heart. Dozens of Jimmy's friends and colleagues visited Jim and his family in the hospital during his final days, and during the October recess, hundreds attended a memorial service held here in the Capitol. Each one of these people had at least one personal story to share about Jim. Sure, some of the stories did touch on his successes as a staffer and his professional disposition, but far more often the stories were about Jim's kindness, even to strangers, or his ability to make people feel at ease--and sometimes laugh uncontrollably--even in tense situations. Jim was always quick to offer assistance and comfort to those in need and to provide a much needed laugh when things got really tough. He is one of very few people I have come across on Capitol Hill--and keep in mind I have been here a while--who will be remembered more or less equally for the bills he successfully drafted and negotiated and for the way he cracked everyone up at the negotiating table. I think my favorite story I have heard about Jim came from his mother Ann. In 2003, Jim was living in New York City when much of that part of the country suffered a massive blackout. It is difficult to be in a place like New York without power, and Jim noticed many people on his way home who were stranded and in need of assistance. Rather than look down at the ground and head quickly for home, as many would probably want to do in that situation, Jim offered help to a dozen or so people, bringing them all home to his apartment, giving them both food and a comfortable space to ride out the power outage. Most of these people were strangers. Yet Jim, ever the kind soul, offered his time and his home to help them through a difficult evening. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of pages 14 and 15 from the August 2003 edition of Cleargolaw News, a newsletter for the law firm where Jim worked at that time, be printed in the Record following my remarks. The article tells the story of Jim's efforts during the power blackout. These are the types of stories that have constantly been shared since Jim's passing, and I know these memories and stories from people who knew and worked with Jim have been helpful to his family during this difficult time. When I hear these accounts of people's interactions with Jim, I am reminded of a popular hymn in my church, which reads: Each life that touches ours for good Reflects thine own great mercy, Lord; Thou sendest blessings from above Thru words and deeds of those who love. What greater gift dost thou bestow, What greater goodness can we know Than Christ-like friends, whose gentle ways Strengthen our faith, enrich our days. When such a friend from us departs, We hold forever in our hearts A sweet and hallowed memory, Bringing us nearer, Lord, to thee. Jim Lyons led a life which touched many others for the better. His positive influence has been felt by countless people, pretty much anyone who had the opportunity to interact with him. I personally already miss Jim's stalwart presence on the Finance Committee. I miss his wise and plain-spoken advice and unequalled knowledge of tax policy. More than that, I miss the kind and humorous manner that endeared Jim to so many of us working in and around the Senate. There is a simple quote--an anonymous proverb of sorts--that has often been attributed to Dr. Seuss, though its origin is ultimately in dispute: ``Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.'' Over the past couple of months, I think that has been the prevailing sentiment among those of us who were lucky enough to know Jim Lyons. While tears have been shed and great sadness has been felt, the remembrances we have had of Jim's life and our interactions with him have given all of us reason to smile and even laugh. I want to once again express my condolences to Jim's family, his parents Stephen and Ann, his brother Steve, his two nephews, Tyler and Blake, and of course his beloved dog Buddy. Recently, I have had the opportunity to spend time with and get to know Jim's wonderful family. They are truly extraordinary people, and my prayers continue to go out to them. I know I am not alone in that regard. I care for them. Everybody who knew Jim and has now known them cares for them. Our sympathy and our heartfelt thanks go out to them for allowing their son to become the great person he became, and, of course, allowing him to come and work with us on Capitol Hill.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today, December 5, 2016, in commemoration of the 89th birthday of the late King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand and in recognition of the National Day of Thailand. In remembrance of the extraordinary life, steady leadership, and remarkable 70-year reign of the beloved King Bhumibol, I have introduced S. Con. Res. 57, along with Representative Matt Salmon in the House. This resolution honors the late King's lasting legacy, extends our collective condolences to the royal family and the people of Thailand, and celebrates the alliance and friendship between our two nations. I would like to thank the cosponsors of this resolution, Senators Whitehouse, Roberts, Markey, Flake, Cotton, and Gardner. Additionally, I express my appreciation to Chairman Bob Corker for his assistance in receiving timely consideration of this bipartisan effort in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. His Majesty, King Bhumibol Adulyadej, enjoyed a special relationship with the United States, having been born in Cambridge, MA, in 1927, while his father was completing his medical studies at Harvard University. He was always a trusted friend of the United States in advancing a strong and enduring alliance and partnership between our two countries. At the time of his death on October 13, 2016, King Bhumibol Adulyadej was the longest serving head of state in the world and the longest serving in the history of Thailand. He dedicated his life to the well- being of the Thai people and the sustainable development of his country. His Majesty was an anchor of peace and stability for Thailand and for the region, earning him the deep reverence of the Thai people and the respect of leaders around the world. I hope my colleagues will join me tomorrow in passing S. Con. Res. 57 as a gesture of respect and appreciation for the life of this great leader and as a symbol of our continued commitment to and friendship with Thailand. Additionally, I am sure my colleagues in the Senate will join me in offering our warmest congratulations and best wishes to the new King of Thailand, His Majesty King Maha Vajiralongkorn. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.