Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I didn't say all of you have.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am willing to look at the trustees' reports on this. There are six trustees, including Mr. Blahous, who is the only Republican. I am not even sure if he is a Republican, but I think he is. They all signed off on these reports, and they all indicated we have to be careful about Social Security or we are going to have a rough time keeping it stable. I don't think anybody in their right mind thinks that we can continue to keep doing what we are doing without finding some way of shoring this up.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, my ideas are to not put out false information or false language.

Mr. HATCH. Who knows. All I can say is that we have held hearings on it, and we have had everything from more taxes to pay for it, which isn't very exciting to most people around here, to more government programs to pay for, to any number of other social programs to pay for, and, frankly, none of those have been picked up by either side, to be honest with you. It is apparent that we are going to have to do something to shore up Social Security in the future, and the question is this: Are we going to just make it a sinkhole where all we do is put more and more money into it or are we going to live with the reality that we are spending ourselves blind in this country? I don't see any desire on the part of my colleagues on the other side to live with that reality right now.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, will the Senator yield on that?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would like to respond.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I was just explaining that we just fixed the disability insurance fund last year. I wish to also point out that the last time I recall anybody talking about the privatization of Social Security was President Clinton. The last time I heard, he was a Democrat. All I am saying is this: I don't know anybody on our side who is advocating right now that we should privatize Social Security. I think everybody is advocating that we should shore it up and somehow or another strengthen it. I am one of those people. Yet we have a number of Senators here alleging that one of the six trustees--it is so out of line to say that--has all the evidence to sign off on a report that Social Security needs some help, and they are saying that this man, who happens to be the only Republican on the board of trustees, is trying to push a privatization schedule. That is all I am bringing up. I can say that I have heard Democrats talk about privatization as well. It is one of the subjects that I suppose has to come up in conjunction with this: Are we going to save Social Security? Will we do what is necessary here? Are we just going to keep talking about it like we do year after year? Are we going to allow one side to continue to distort what Social Security is all about? And are we going to do it to the detriment of every Republican in this body who feels completely otherwise? That is what I am talking about. I think most Democrats want to help secure Social Security, as I do, but to use that as a political ploy every time we turn around every 2 years is just plain not right. That is what I am decrying here today. We ought to all look and see what we can do to strengthen Social Security, and we ought to look at every possible way of doing so and choose the best approaches we possibly can. But to have false allegations thrown out there just for political reasons to scare the people out there who are on Social Security, unjustly scare them, I think is despicable, and I think we ought to put a stop to it and quit making Social Security the paddle ball for Democrats in our political process. I am chairman of the Finance Committee. I have every desire to work with Democrats to resolve all of these issues, and I am open to whatever will help to resolve them. Our senior citizens deserve that type of treatment. I want to make sure we don't just make this a big political issue, as has been done here. Blahous is a very important person, a strong personality, a strong, highly educated person who has given great service in this area. I just don't think it is proper to make him a symbol in what really is a false set of accusations. I am not going to put up with it, and I don't think anybody else should either. And I don't think my colleagues on the other side, if they really understand the situation, will put up with it either. We have a body that works together in many good ways. I have total respect for the distinguished Senator from Maryland. She is somebody I do work with, whom I want to work with. She is thoughtful. She has done a great job on her committee--her committees, I should say--and she has a friend in me, and so do the three who have been doing this. They are friends, but they shouldn't be doing that. That is all I am saying. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I wish to discuss a topic that has been near and dear to me my entire life: the importance of charities and charitable giving to the well-being of America. I am taking this moment to discuss this issue for several reasons. Late last year, Congress managed to make permanent a few of the temporary charitable tax provisions that I have supported for years. Since then, two of my esteemed colleagues, Senator Thune and Senator Wyden, have introduced legislation to enact several more important charitable tax provisions. And later this week, the Alliance for Charitable Reform, the Council on Foundations, and the Independent Sector will send its members to fan out across Capitol Hill to tell Members of Congress and their staffs about the good and essential work charities and nonprofits perform every day in America. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in ``Democracy in America'' of the importance of intermediate associations that stand between the individual and a centralized state. The Catholic Church speaks about subsidiarity, the principle that matters ought to be handled by the least centralized competent authority. To put these insights into constitutional terms, the Federal Government cannot--and should not--do it all. The truth of these moral and legal principles is embodied in the work of America's churches and charities, which have played a critical role in securing the welfare of Americans throughout our Nation's history when faced with difficulties like war, natural disasters, and economic recessions and depressions. And it is no secret that our economy has been growing much too slowly in recent years. That means that a healthy, well-resourced charitable community is essential to the well-being of those in need. As State and local governments grapple with budget deficits and revenue shortfalls and as Americans face unemployment, stagnant wages, and lower workforce participation, people in need are turning for help in ever greater numbers to churches, charities, shelters, and other social welfare groups. But charities need resources to meet these needs, and charitable giving by generous and civic-minded Americans is where it all starts. That is why I have defended the tax deduction for charitable giving and I have resisted attempts by some to raise revenue for reckless government spending by reducing the incentives for charitable giving. As my friend and colleague Senator Wyden, the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, has said: ``The charitable deduction is a lifeline, not a loophole.'' It is essential that charities have sufficient resources to carry forward the good works our society so desperately needs them to perform. It makes perfect sense to provide the greatest tax incentive for giving to the donors with the greatest capacity to give. These donors, the ones in the high marginal tax brackets, are the very donors that are in a position to give substantial amounts to charity. It should come as no surprise that for nearly 100 years the Tax Code has provided such an incentive. And the charitable tax deduction is truly special. It is the only deduction that encourages you not to spend or invest your income, but to give it away. Every charitable gift has one thing in common: The donor is always left worse off financially, but society is made better. So, yes, I am a champion of the charitable sector. And in addition to defending the charitable deduction, I have promoted positive improvements in the charitable tax law. Some of these proposals have been enacted. For example, last year, Congress made the IRA charitable rollover a permanent feature of the Tax Code, as well as the deduction for contributions of food inventory to charity. Congress also extended public charity status to agricultural research organizations associated with a university. But there is more to do. Two colleagues that are leading the way in this Congress are Senator Thune and Senator Wyden. They recently introduced the Charities Helping Americans Regularly Throughout the Year, or CHARITY, Act. This bill would complete some of the unfinished business from previous years. For example, it expands the group of organizations eligible to receive charitable IRA distributions, it makes a much needed reform to the private foundation excise tax, and it allows foundations to own businesses devoted to philanthropy. We got close to passing some of these proposals late last year. They didn't make it over the finish line, but we ought to revisit them and try to pass them this year. These provisions, taken together, will help advance the causes of worthwhile charities by allowing American taxpayers to more freely donate their own resources. That is a good thing in my book, and that is why I intend to help my colleagues on the Finance Committee process the CHARITY Act and enact it into law. Thank you.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I object, unfortunately.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise once again to discuss the state of our Nation's healthcare system.

Mr. HATCH. Oh, she does?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object. I will certainly look at this and see what can be done, but at this present time, I object.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have only been here 40 years, and this happens every time at the end. They have not been mistreated. The fact is that they have had more judges confirmed in 7 years than President Bush had in a full 8 years, and they are going to have more judges. But it is the majority leader's determination as to when those judges will come up and when they will be confirmed, and I think he has been doing it on a regular basis. I hate to go back in time, but I could go back in time and show how the delays on the Republican judges with the Republican Presidents were just unbelievable. All I can say is that it is nice to raise these fusses around here--and I don't blame the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts because she is doing her job--but let's allow the majority leader to do his job as well. ObamaCare and the Economy Mr. President, I rise once again to discuss the state of our Nation's health care system and what we can likely expect in 2017 under ObamaCare. This is a good subject following on to the judgeship discussion because the Democrats are acting so offended and so mistreated. Well, I hate to tell you how we were mistreated time after time after time when we had Republican Presidents. Let me just talk about what we can expect in 2017 under ObamaCare. However, before I delve into that discussion, it is important to provide a little context. Roughly 7\1/2\ years ago, President Obama was sworn into office, riding on a wave of good will, optimism, and so many promises about what he was and was not going to do that it was difficult to keep track. Seven and a half years may not be all that long in the grand scheme of things, but it is surely long enough to evaluate the economic successes and failures of a single administration. Let's take a look at what we have witnessed in the years President Obama has been in office. Since January 2009, our Nation's gross domestic product has grown at an average annual rate of only 1.7 percent. Think of that--1.7 percent in 7\1/2\ years--and the overall trajectory hasn't been improving. In the last quarter, our economy grew at the slowest rate in 2 years. At the same time we have experienced that slow GDP growth, wage growth has been sluggish and median household income in the United States has actually gone down under this President, declining at an annual rate of almost one-half of 1 percent. Slow economic growth, slow wage growth, declining household incomes--and this past Friday we learned that the economy added only 38,000 jobs in May, with job gains having averaged a sluggish 112,000 per month since President Obama took office. When are the American people going to wake up and realize these people are not doing their job? Not only are they not doing their job, they are doing a lousy job. There is not a new normal here either. They are trying to pass off that they have low unemployment rates. They are not counting all the people who just don't even look for a job anymore. If you count them, it is well over 9 percent. That is what we have seen in the Obama economy. Sadly, even that doesn't tell the whole sad story. Along with a stagnant economy and declining household income, the cost of health care has gone up almost exponentially--and exponentially in some areas. Health care premiums for families with employer-based coverage--one of a handful of benchmarks for measuring the costs of health care in the United States--have gone up by an average of 5 percent a year. That trend, according to both the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation, is expected to continue over the next decade, with premiums in the individual health insurance market going up at an even faster rate. Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve projects that growth in our economy will range between 1.8 percent and 2.3 percent, well below historic averages and far below the growth rate for average health insurance premiums. Do you think we are going to do any better with a new Democratic President? I don't think so. She has already admitted she is going to follow the principles of this President and the program of this President. Long story short, under this President we have seen mostly lackluster economic growth and a decline in household income while the cost of health insurance has eaten up an increasingly larger share of American families' earnings and an ever-growing percentage of our national economy. According to most credible projections, it is only going to get worse. There are still 30 million people without health insurance, about the number there was when they came up with this colossal wasteful mess of the health care bill. This correlation of economic stagnation and exploding health care costs is particularly damning for this President because his signature domestic achievement--his top priority after being elected--was passage of the so-called Affordable Care Act, a law that was, among many other things, supposed to bring down health care costs. The word ``affordable'' is actually the operative word in the name of the law. Yet it is probably the least suitable word for describing what this statute has actually done to our health care system. It has now been 3 years since the Affordable Care Act was fully implemented and in effect. And in all 3 of those years, average health insurance premiums in the United States have gone up by double-digits in many markets. Insurers are currently making rate decisions for year 4 of ObamaCare, and from what we have seen thus far, things are only going to get worse. According to one analyst, the average of the weighted rate increases requested from 28 States and the District of Columbia is approximately 20 percent. Indeed, over the past few months, it seems as though we have seen a new headline every day that highlights the failure of ObamaCare to bring down premiums. For example, we have recently learned that in New York patients may see an average premium increase of 17 percent on the ObamaCare insurance exchanges. In fact, one major New York carrier requested a rate hike of 45 percent over what they charged last year--or should I say this year, I guess. In the State of New Mexico, one major insurer requested a premium increase of more than 83 percent, and those States are not outliers. Average premiums in Mississippi could increase by over $1,000 next year, according to recent reports. Insurers have requested average hikes of nearly 14 percent in the State of Washington. A major carrier in New Hampshire just requested an increase of more than 45 percent for 2017. Another insurer has submitted a request to raise premiums by more than 36 percent in Tennessee. People in other States, such as Virginia, Florida, Maine, Oregon, and Iowa, are all facing potential double-digit increases in premiums, with some in the 30-percent to 40-percent range. Keep in mind these are just the States we know about thus far. More numbers and almost certainly more requested premium hikes will be made public very shortly. We are still waiting to see specifically what will happen for the people of my home State of Utah. Still, we already know that many Utahns are facing difficulties. I hear from my constituents all the time on these issues. For example, a citizen from Roosevelt, UT, recently wrote to me to say this about her experience with ObamaCare: I can't afford the monthly premiums, and as long as I have to pay extraordinary deductibles, I may as well just continue paying for the visits as I go and not have to worry about the extra money I would have to spend in premiums, which are outrageous. . . . I realize I will have to pay a penalty when I do my taxes, but it will be way less than the premiums I would have had to pay had I signed up for this health care debacle. Another constituent named Richelle from Santa Clara, UT, said this in a recent letter: As I am looking into purchasing the health care coverage we need; I'm finding that it is totally ridiculous. The catastrophic health care we were planning for a few years ago no longer exists because of the health care laws. In order to get LEGAL health care for me, my spouse, and my 3 eligible children, I'm being required to pay close to $1300 per month! These policies still require huge deductibles and will quickly eat up the money we've put away for such things. Unfortunately, these stories are not isolated incidents. People throughout the country are growing more and more concerned about the cost of health care under the President's health care law. Even without the skyrocketing cost of health care, millions of American families would still be struggling to make it under the Obama economy. Yet for these people, all of whom have had to suffer through a period of stagnant economic growth and declining incomes, these rising health care costs are, at best, a slap in the face and, at worst, a nail in the financial coffin. I have spent a lot of time on the Senate floor over the last 6 years describing what has gone wrong with the Affordable Care Act. I will not detail the substantive and structural problems with the law here today. Instead, I will just repeat what should be clear to everyone here. This law is not working. This law has imposed even greater burdens on virtually all the participants in our health care system, and this law is failing middle-class and lower income families throughout the country. We can and we must do better, but in order to do so, we will have to turn our focus to the biggest problem that patients face as they navigate our health care system, and that is cost. We must bring down costs. Any future attempts at health care reform that are not cost- focused are, in my view--and I suspect the view of most Americans--a waste of time and effort. As for me, my position is pretty clear. I support the repeal of ObamaCare, and I support a replacement that makes sense. I have worked with colleagues to come up with a replacement proposal designed specifically to contain costs for patients and consumers. A number of health care experts have concluded that our proposal, which we have called the Patient CARE Act, would do just that. Of course, there are other proposals out there. For example, I know the House majority is working on a proposal, and I am anxious to see what they come up with. As chairman of the Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over many major aspects of our health care system, I have begun reaching out to stakeholders to discuss in more detail the current premium prices and what needs to be done to address it. But let's be clear. To bring down these rising health care costs, we will need significant buy-in from my friends on the other side of the aisle. Quite frankly, I don't know how any of them can read the recent news reports about premium hikes and hear the stories from their constituents about skyrocketing health care costs and think ObamaCare is working just the way it was supposed to. As I have said before, my hope is that at some point my colleagues on the Democratic side will begin to acknowledge the failures of ObamaCare. At the very least, they should acknowledge it has failed to bring down costs for patients and consumers and is, in fact, driving up costs. Until that acknowledgment comes, I plan to do all I can to make the case to the American people about the need for change and to work with anyone who is willing to put in the effort to address these monumental problems. I look forward to speaking more about these issues in the coming weeks and months. With all the economic struggles the American people--particularly those in the middle class and with lower incomes--have had to deal with under the Obama administration, the last thing families in the United States need is the continuation of the skyrocketing health premiums we have seen as a result of ObamaCare. I plan to do all I can to reverse this trend. I know there are some on the Democratic side who knew from the beginning it wasn't going to work. Then they would be able to throw their hands in the air and say: It is not working. We need to go to socialized medicine or one-size-fits-all Federal Government control of health care in this country. Anybody who thinks that is going to be a good system, boy, have I got a bridge to sell you. The fact is, as bad as our system was before, it was better than what this is. We can make it better, but it is going to take Democrats and Republicans coming together in the best interests--and get rid of the stupid politics involved--to come up with a program that will work for the American people. I can tell you this, the American people cannot live on the slow growth that is currently going on. We cannot compete with the rest of the world on the slow growth that is currently going on, and it has been a slow growth for all of President Obama's time in the Presidency. It wasn't all his fault, but--by gosh--there could have been programs that would have made it better had they just relied a little bit more on the free market system that has made this country the greatest country in the world. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about pending nominees for the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees. As most of us know, under the law these two Boards consist of the Secretaries of Treasury, Labor, HHS, Commissioner of Social Security, and two public trustees, one from each party. One purpose of the Boards is to provide yearly reports on the operation of the trust funds and their current and projected status. Since 1983, when the two public trustee positions were established in the statute, the trustee reports for both trust funds have largely been devoid of partisanship or political influence. That, to me, has been a good thing. It means that the process generating the reports is free of political influence. It also means that the public can have confidence that the statements and assessments made in the reports--including those dealing with current and future financial conditions of the trust funds--are objective and not made to serve a particular agenda. The inclusion of public trustees on the Boards is an important part of the structure that provides this type of certainty. Yet, by the time President Obama is out of office, the two Boards will have issued more reports with vacant public trustee positions than have been issued under any President since these two positions were created. In a recent hearing, the Senate Finance Committee, which I chair, heard testimony from President Obama's nominees for the currently vacant public trustee positions, Dr. Charles Blahous and Dr. Robert Reischauer, both of whom have been renominated after serving one full term on the Boards. Some members of the Finance Committee, as well as a few others in this Chamber, have questioned whether having public trustees serve more than one term is beneficial. Their argument seems to be that the process of producing the trustees' reports should have ``fresh eyes'' every 4 years. However, to me, this argument is not all that persuasive. As the trustees go through the process of producing reports, there are many inputs and many participants, including a number of ``fresh eyes.'' For example, there are numerous technical panels, composed of actuaries, economists, demographers, and others, who review the assumptions and methods used in the trustees' reports. Since 1999, 50 different people have served on these technical panels, weighing in on the reports and providing both fresh perspectives on the trustees' reports as well as a much needed check from what could otherwise be outsized roles played by various others, including the Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration in guiding the contents of the reports. In my view, there is value to having continuity in the public trustee oversight of the trust funds, particularly since the process that gives rise to trustee reports takes time to learn. For the most part, public trustees are unlikely to have fully learned the ropes until well into their 4-year terms, and their terms very likely expire very shortly after they have a complete understanding of this whole process. Ultimately, while there are probably some tradeoffs associated with term limits for public trustees, there is no real evidence to demonstrate that a single term is inherently superior or that the benefit of having public trustees with ``fresh eyes,'' outweighs the cost of inexperience. Whatever the case, Members are entitled to their individual preferences regarding term limits for public trustees, and if the issue is as important as some of my colleagues on the other side claim, a bill to impose those kinds of term limits would seem logical. However, such a bill has not recently been offered, and if the recent Finance Committee hearing on the current nominees is any indication, my friends have a different agenda altogether. If term limits were the real issue with these nominations, the committee could have had a reasoned debate and each Member could have weighed in on the matter and Members would obviously be free to base their vote on the substance and outcome of that recent debate. Sadly, a reasoned debate is not what occurred in our committee. What we got instead was a coordinated attack--pretty much from the ranking member all the way down the Democrats' side of the dais--focused squarely on the Republican nominee, Dr. Blahous. Throughout the course of the hearing, the Democrats never claimed that Dr. Blahous lacked the appropriate credentials to be a suitable trustee. They never provided any evidence that he had acted inappropriately or exercised some kind of nefarious influence in the process of compiling reports. Instead, my colleagues attacked the nominee for expressing policy views they happen to disagree with. He has never worked to change any Social Security or Medicare policies in his capacity as a public trustee because, given the very specific mission of the boards of trustees, he doesn't have any real opportunity to influence or enact any policy changes in any official capacity. The Democrats' current position seems to be that if a nominee has ever said anything they happen to disagree with--even if the statements represent reasoned policy views and are supported by objective analysis--they are unfit to serve as public trustees. During the course of our hearing, not only did the Democrats publicly subject its nominee to this preposterous standard, they did so with comments and arguments that were misleading, inconsistent, and in some cases blatantly false. In the end, their onslaught amounted to little more than partisan character attacks. The Republican nominee was referred to as ``hyperpartisan,'' even though you would be hard-pressed to find any credible and reasonable Social Security and Medicare analyst from either party who would agree with that label. He was accused of being the ``architect of privatization'' of Social Security because he happened to work in the Bush administration. He has been attacked for his involvement in President Bush's Commission to Strengthen Social Security as though that were something nefarious, even though Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a figure long revered by Democrats everywhere and me, was also a cochair of that Commission. There have been other attacks made--in the hearing and elsewhere--and all of them add up to one single and obvious conclusion, which is that anyone who expresses a view about the future of Social Security that is not a recommendation for more taxes and higher benefits will be subject to partisan attacks and deemed unfit to serve in any capacity relating to Social Security. This is, of course, the demand of leftwing interest groups that have virtually declared ownership of all things Social Security and who are unwilling to do anything about solving the problems of Social Security. All they want to do is throw more money at it when there is no more money to throw. For this crowd, even arguments in favor of slowing the benefits for upper earners seem to be off limits, even when they are made by the Democratic nominee for public trustee. In other words, even proposals that would make Social Security more progressive--something a reasonable person would assume Democrats would not fight--is seemingly unacceptable because slower benefit growth, even for the very rich, is considered a ``cut'' to the leftwing activists who try to take ownership of this debate. I am talking, of course, about organizations like Social Security Works, the Strengthen Social Security Coalition, various unions, and ``democratic socialist'' groups that have made intransigence and unreasonableness on Social Security a hallmark of their efforts over all of these years. For these people, the only allowable discussion on Social Security is one limited to talk of higher benefits and higher taxes on the American people. Anyone who disagrees will not only be refuted or opposed, they will be publicly maligned and their character will be called into question. Indeed, for many of these groups--and sadly for some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--these efforts are not about winning public policy debate, they are about silencing and trying to censor anyone who dares express a contrary opinion. In even-numbered years, Republicans have more or less gotten used to hearing that we want to see Social Security ``slashed'' and ``privatized'' or ``turned over to Wall Street.'' Leftwing activists-- and, yes, even a number of our colleagues--base a huge portion of their fundraising efforts on scaring Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries with those kinds of over-the-top attacks. For once, when it comes to Social Security, I wish we could look at all the facts. For example, everyone knows we made some changes to Social Security last year in order to prevent imminent and legally required cuts to disability benefits. We did so based on the projections of the Social Security trustees--these very people who are being treated in this improper way. Did we ``slash'' benefits? Did we privatize anything? Did we turn anything over to Wall Street? Of course not. What we did was make reasonable and needed changes to the program, but that didn't stop many on the other side from sounding the privatization alarm and raising money by scaring beneficiaries, even if they were as aware as we were that the cuts to disability benefits were, absent changes, an absolute certainty. We got precious little help from the Democrats in our efforts to avoid benefit cuts because, as is too often the case around here, complaining about a problem and blaming the other side for it makes for better politics than finding a solution. That same strategy and those same attacks have now permeated the effort to confirm two of President Obama's nominees. By the way, I am arguing for President Obama's nominees. As I said, the Republican nominee for public trustee has been accused of being many things. More than anything, some of my colleagues have tried to link him to some kind of effort to try to privatize all of Social Security and hand everything over to Wall Street--never mind the fact that he has already served in the very same position for 4 years and Social Security is no closer to being in the hands of Wall Street than it was before, never mind the fact that he was already confirmed to the very same position once before without any opposition on the Senate floor, never mind anything that has happened in the past. Here and now, according to my colleagues, he is controversial. Here and now, letting him serve as a public trustee would be like having a fox guarding the henhouse or some such nonsense. By the way, that phrase, ``fox guarding the henhouse,'' is an actual quote from one of our colleagues describing Dr. Blahous. Apparently, he became a ``fox'' sometime in the last 6 years because in 2010 no one in the Senate objected to his confirmation, but here in 2016, there are apparently some Democrats who feel they need to use this nomination and their partisan rants against it to raise money for their campaigns and perhaps in a case or two boost their prospects for higher office. Of course, none of this is entirely surprising because years ago, probably in some Democratic war room, my friends on the other side discovered that terms like ``privatization'' and ``Wall Street'' and ``cuts'' poll well with their political base, even though no such thing is taking place. As an aside, this favorable polling data explains why we heard their party's Presidential frontrunner back in February make this claim: After Bush got reelected in 2004, the first thing he said was, let's go privatize Social Security. . . . And you know what, their whole plan was to give the Social Security trust fund to Wall Street. My gosh. There are at least three or four poll-tested buzzwords in that quote. If nothing else, Secretary Clinton deserves at least some praise for focus group efficiency with that statement no matter how false the statement is or was at the time. Of course, in dissecting that claim, the Washington Post assigned it three Pinocchios, concluding that it was false, as only they could conclude. In fact, the Washington Post reminded us that the Clinton administration was the first to consider investing Social Security trust fund resources into something other than low-yielding government bonds. So, in a sense, the real ``architect of privatization'' was President Bill Clinton, not President George W. Bush, and certainly not the current Republican nominee for public trustee. Furthermore, if simply considering alternative investment strategies for trust fund dollars means ``privatization,'' then the growing list of guilty privatizers has recently included a Democrat in the House, the AARP, a Nobel prize-winning economist, and many others, and not all of them are Republicans. Let me return to the debate on the public trustee nomination because, quite frankly, the Democrats made so many misleading claims with regard to Social Security that I could not begin to address them all in a single floor speech. A recent article in POLITICO outlined the plan devised by top Senate Democrats to engage in ``an election-year battle'' over Social Security and the general public trustees in particular. In relation to Dr. Blahous, the article says: ``Democrats point to several instances in the trustees' reports released after Blahous joined the board that they say suggest the Social Security trust fund is less solvent than it really is.'' That almost sounds like a legitimate policy argument, provided you don't think about it for longer than 30 seconds. There are, quite simply, countless reasons why that argument is entirely baseless. First of all, no one in the Obama administration has corroborated a single one of these claims in any way, shape, or form. On top of that, this claim seems to suggest that one public trustee, a Republican, has had such a persuasive and misleading influence that he has been able--for more than 4 years--to hoodwink five Democratic trustees, including Dr. Reischaure, the other current nominee, along with Treasury Secretary Lew, Labor Secretary Perez, HHS Secretary Burwell, and Acting Social Security Commissioner Colvin, all of whom also signed on to those trustees reports. Does anyone believe that for a second? I am going to give my friends some advice: If a political attack relies on an assumption that the sitting Secretaries of Treasury, Labor, HHS, and the Acting Commissioner of Social Security, along with their staffs, are so impotent in the face of the cunning sophistry of a single public trustee from the opposing party, it is best to leave that particular conspiracy theory on the shelf because it doesn't even pass the laugh test. That is, of course, unless you assume at the outset that members of President Obama's Cabinet, along with their staffs, are incompetent or just plain dumb. Aside from being based on foolish assumptions, the claim that recent trustee reports have been biased is verifiably false, given that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has reached similar conclusions about the solvency of Social Security. In fact, CBO's projections are even bleaker. Perhaps my Democratic colleagues believe that Dr. Blahous's dastardly influence has extended to CBO as well, although, to be fair, I haven't heard any of them claim that such is the case. Mr. President, all of this political bluster over the public trustee nominations--every single word of it--is a political sideshow. The public trustees do not have the power or ability to slash or privatize Social Security or to turn a single penny of any public funds over to Wall Street. They serve a limited but important role in monitoring and reporting on the system. That is all. Any reasonable observer will tell you that both of President Obama's nominees for public trustee have solid reputations as being fair, objective, balanced, and most importantly, highly competent. I don't personally agree with all the policy positions that the Democratic nominee, Dr. Reischauer, has put forward over the years, but he has always conveyed his ideas in a temperate and respectful manner without partisanship or ad hominem attacks. Quite frankly, I also may not even agree with all the positions that the Republican nominee, Dr. Blahous, has put forward, but he has similarly conducted himself in a respectful and nonpartisan manner. The fact is, whether certain Democratic Senators like it or not, the law requires that one of the public trustees be from the Republican Party. If someone wants to put forward legislation to change that or to impose term limits on trustees or even start a public debate on these issues, they are free to do so. Similarly, if a Senator disagrees with a prospective trustee's positions on policy or with something they have written outside of their public trustee functions, that Senator is also free to vote against that nominee on that basis. However, in my opinion, it is shameful for Members of Congress to engage in unreasonable and false character attacks in order to reinforce the Presidential candidate's talking points or to raise money for leftwing activists or to help themselves on their political races. Under any circumstances, it is wrong to impugn someone's character and professionalism by false association. While this may be par for the course during an election year, there is more than politics at stake here. If Democrats truly have an interest in the integrity of Social Security and Medicare, and their trust funds, then politicizing public trustee nominations is an extraordinarily odd strategy. If we turn these nominations into just another political battleground, the trustee reports will eventually be viewed as political documents, having no unique seriousness or credibility. In the end, that will mean less transparency, objectivity, and integrity for Social Security and Medicare. This would be terrifically unfortunate. To conclude, I would just say that, despite some insinuations to the contrary, my plan all along has been to hold votes on the Finance Committee on the President's nominees for the public trustee positions as soon as possible. I look forward to filling the existing vacancies. The trustee reports for Social Security and Medicare have historically been void of politics, to the credit of the current and past administrations as well as the public trustees from both sides of the aisle. This has been the case until now, when politics has entered in. My sincere hope is that we can keep it that way. I am getting a little tired of the Social Security arguments that Democrats wage every election, such as Republicans are going to destroy Social Security. My gosh, we believe in it as much as they do--in fact, I think, a little bit more. We believe we should strengthen that fund. We should keep it alive. We should make sure it is going to be there for your children, my children, grandchildren and, in my case, even great-grandchildren and beyond. But it is not going to be there if we have these kinds of idiotic policy disagreements based surely on politics and how one party might benefit in a political campaign or how any individual might benefit. It is time for us to get rid of all the partisanship and work together to resolve some of these problems. The next time I hear another Democrat say that Republicans are against Social Security, I am going to take that creature on. I call them a creature because they certainly do not deserve to be in the U.S. Senate. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, our national parks play host to abundant animal life, untouched wilderness, and some of the most breathtaking vistas I have ever seen. Anyone who has beheld the pristine perfection of a mountain lake or the verdant green of our valleys in springtime can bear witness to the magnificent grandeur of America's natural landscapes. Today I wish to recognize the National Park Service for its indispensable role in preserving both the richness and beauty of these lands. This year marks the 100th anniversary of the National Park Service. On the agency's centennial, I would like to thank the thousands of men and women who, over many decades, have served selflessly to safeguard the majesty of our national parks. In commemoration of the Service's 100th anniversary, I will be visiting the Mighty Five National Parks in my home State of Utah next week. The Mighty Five play a critical role in Utah's economy, driving the tourism industry by attracting millions of visitors to our State each year. Today, I would like to pay tribute to the Mighty Five National Parks by recognizing the beauty and unique history of each. Canyonlands National Park--imagine wave after wave of deep canyons, towering mesas, pinnacles, cliffs, and spires stretching across 527 square miles. This is Canyonlands National Park, formed by the currents and tributaries of Utah's Green and Colorado rivers. Canyonlands is home to many different types of travel experiences, from sublime solitude in the more remote stretches of the park to moderate hikes through the Needles district. Located just west of Moab and a short distance from Arches National Park, Canyonlands is wild, wonderful, and diverse in its landscapes. Due to the park's massive size, Canyonlands has four separate districts, including three land districts and the rivers themselves, each with their own characteristic landscapes and experiences. The area's earliest known inhabitants were Puebloans. After the Puebloans, other groups from the Ute, Navajo, and Paiutes appeared in the area. Ranchers and miners started settling the area in the 1880s, and places throughout the park still bear the names of some of these early settlers. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, Bates Wilson, the superintendent of Arches National Park, lobbied for a national park to be created in the Canyonlands area. In 1962, Utah Senator Frank Moss introduced the Canyonlands Park bill, and 2 years later, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed legislation designating Canyonlands a National Park. Arches National Park--located northwest of Moab, Arches is a 73,234- acre wonderland of eroded sandstone fins, towers, ribs, gargoyles, hoodoos, balanced rocks, and, of course, arches. The park protects an amazing landscape that includes the largest proliferation of arches in the world. Over 2,000 arches have been catalogued in Arches National Park. Landscape Arch, measuring 306 fragile feet, is the second-longest span in the world. The sandstone formations in Arches National Park define not only the landscape but also its plants and animals. The scarce precipitation-- 8.5 inches annually--extreme temperature ranges, and relatively high elevation all conspire to limit life among the rocks to only species that can adapt to such a harsh environment. Elevations at Arches range from 3,960 feet along the Colorado River to the 5,653-foot Elephant Butte, the park's high point. A pygmy forest of pinon pine and juniper covers about half the park; scrubby steppe and bare slickrock blanket the rest. The Arches area was first brought to the National Park Service's attention by an employee of a railroad company named Frank Wadleigh. Wadleigh visited Arches at the request of a prospector, who claimed the area had high tourist potential because of its scenic views. With the support of the National Park Service, the area was designated a national monument in April 1929. The park grew in popularity, and on November 12, 1971, President Richard Nixon signed legislation designating it a national park. Bryce Canyon National Park--the alpine environment of Bryce National Park is home to dozens of species of mammals and birds. Water and wind over millions of years of freezes and thaws have carved into the plateau endless fields of the park's distinctive red rock pillars, called hoodoos. By its very nature, Bryce Canyon National Park invites discovery. Every year, Bryce Canyon awes visitors with spectacular geological formations and brilliant colors. The towering hoodoos, narrow fins, and natural bridges seem to deny all reason or explanation, leaving hikers gazing around with jaws agape in wondrous incredulity. This surreal landscape is what brings people from around the world to visit the park. The Park's hoodoos and fins are formed when rainwater seeps into cracks in the rock. The water freezes during Bryce's cold nights, expanding just enough to break apart the rock. The deep, narrow walls called ``fins'' result from rain and snowmelt running down the slopes from Bryce's rim. Eventually the fins form holes, called windows. When the windows grow larger, they collapse and create the bizarre hoodoos we see today. The scenic areas of Bryce Canyon were first described to the Nation in 1916 in magazine articles published by Union Pacific and Santa Fe railroad companies. As visitations to the area increased, those concerned about the damage being done to the delicate features lobbied for its protection. On June 8, 1923, Bryce Canyon was declared a national monument, and on February 25, 1928, it was established as a national park. Zion National Park--carved by water and time, Zion National Park is a canyon that invites you to participate in the very forces that created it. The park's canyons and mesas boast an especially exquisite beauty, even in a State known for dramatic landscapes. Breathtaking Zion Canyon is the centerpiece of this 147,000-acre parkland that protects a spectacular landscape of high plateaus, sheer canyons, and monolithic cliffs. Opportunities to see and explore Zion National Park abound for people of all ages and abilities, from the scenic byways that slice through the park to the trails that wind through the backcountry. Wildlife watchers can stop at numerous lookouts and search the sky for Zion's more than 200 bird species. The paintings of Zion Canyon done by Frederick Dellenbaugh in the early 1900s, along with previous photographs of the area, led President William Howard Taft to proclaim Zion Canyon a national monument on July 31, 1909. In November 1919, Congress established Zion Canyon as a national park, making it the oldest national park in Utah. Capitol Reef National Park--even considering Utah's many impressive national parks and monuments, it is difficult to rival Capitol Reef National Park's sense of expansiveness; of broad, sweeping vistas; of a tortured, twisted, seemingly endless landscape; of limitless sky and desert rock. While Bryce and Zion are like encapsulated little fantasy lands of colored stone and soaring cliffs, the less-visited Capitol Reef is almost like a planet unto itself. In Capitol Reef, you get a real feel for what the earth might have been like millions of years before life appeared, when nothing existed but earth and sky. Capitol Reef National Park is an evocative world of spectacular colored cliffs, hidden arches, massive domes, and deep canyons. It is a place that includes the finest elements of Bryce and Zion Canyons in a less-crowded park. Ephraim Portman Pectol, a member of the Utah State Legislature, and his brother-in-law, Joseph Hickman, started a promotional campaign for the Capitol Reef area in the early 1930s. In 1937, President Franklin D. Roosevelt named the area a national monument. Roads built to the area promoted access. In December 1971, President Richard Nixon signed an act establishing Capitol Reef as a national park.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to offer thanks and appreciation to a dedicated public servant, Mr. Patrick P. O'Carroll, Jr., who has worked to protect taxpayers and beneficiaries at the Social Security Administration and will soon pursue other activities. Pat O'Carroll has served the American people as the third inspector general for the Social Security Administration since November 24, 2004. Managing over 600 auditors, attorneys, evaluators, and investigators nationwide, Mr. O'Carroll has overseen efforts to identify and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse of SSA funds and programs. In the past year alone, SSA's OIG has reported over $700 million in investigative accomplishments through SSA recoveries, restitution, fines, settlements, judgments, and projected savings. Pat's efforts have led to around $50 of taxpayer savings for every $1 spent on his office. Prior to his tenure as inspector general, Mr. O'Carroll held several senior positions in the inspector general's office, including assistant inspector general for investigations and assistant inspector general for external affairs. Twenty-six years of prior employment by the U.S. Secret Service helped prepare Mr. O'Carroll for the rigors of investigative work at SSA. To show Pat's dedication to the field, I would point out that he attended the National Cryptologic School at the Kennedy School of Government after completing a master of forensic sciences at the George Washington University. Most assuredly, you don't want to try to slip anything by Pat. Pat in many ways personifies the SSA inspector general role. He has served in this position--with distinction--longer than anybody else. Pat has been very responsive with Congress; he has excelled at providing the information we need to protect SSA programs from fraud, waste, and abuse. It would be hard to find anyone who has worked harder to protect the integrity of Social Security's programs than Pat. I appreciate Pat's important work with this legislative body. We wish him all the very best as he moves on to pursue what lies ahead for him and genuinely appreciate the work he has done with Congress, for the Social Security Administration, and, of most importance, for the American taxpayer. I wish Pat all the very best.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today in favor of the Congressional Review Act resolution regarding the Department of Labor's new fiduciary rule. This resolution, which provides Congress with an opportunity to express its disapproval with the administration's regulations, is important for a number of reasons. On the substance, DOL's new rule is extremely problematic. As a number of my colleagues have already attested, the rule, on its face, would unnecessarily impose a new set of regulations under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA, on a greatly expanded number of people. Under current law, brokers and dealers who provide services to retirement plans are already heavily regulated. They are not automatically considered labor law fiduciaries, and, therefore, they are not subject to the increased liability provided under ERISA. Instead, these service providers are subject to regulations issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission to protect investors from fraud and to ensure transparency. Under the new DOL rule, virtually any broker who provides investment advice of any kind to individuals regarding their individual retirement accounts, or IRAs, will be considered a pension plan fiduciary, subject to higher standards and greater liability. As my colleagues have aptly noted, this rule will reduce the availability of investment advice for retirees and make the advice that is available more expensive, which will have a disproportionately negative effect on low- and middle-income retirees. Higher costs and a more burdensome system also mean more expenses for small businesses trying to sponsor retirement plans for their employees. A 2014 study found that, as a result of these rules, many affected retirees--who, once again, are predominantly middle class or lower- income retirees--will see their lifetime retirement savings drop by between 20 and 40 percent, which will translate into a reduction of between $20 billion and $32 billion in systemwide retirement savings every year. DOL's own analysis indicates that the rule will have a compliance cost. That is deadweight loss to the system of between $2.4 billion and $5.7 billion over the first 10 years, virtually all of which will be passed onto American retirees. I think it should go without saying that if anyone has an interest in understanding the cost of the DOL's regulations, it is the DOL itself. All of these problems--and they are real problems--with the DOL's fiduciary rule are within the substance of the rule itself. I wish to take just a few minutes, however, to talk about the process by which the rule came into existence because it is no less problematic. This regulation is an attempt to rewrite ERISA-prohibited transaction regulations for IRAs that have been in place since 1975. However, the prohibited transaction rules for IRAs are codified in the Internal Revenue Code which, generally speaking, would give Treasury regulatory jurisdiction over the matter. That was the understanding in 1975 when the current regulations were first established. However, a 1978 Executive order transferred some of the Treasury's jurisdiction over prohibited transaction rules--rules generally directed at preventing self-dealing and conflicts of interest--to the Department of Labor. In other words, the rule that DOL has rewritten with this new fiduciary regulation predated the Department's grant of jurisdiction. While this might be a little arcane and in the weeds, this distinction is important, given the reported disputes between agencies on this rule. Indeed, according to a report released by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, career officials at the SEC and Treasury have expressed concern over DOL's course of action with regard to this rule. They also offered suggestions for improvements, most of which were disregarded by DOL in favor of a quicker resolution to the rulemaking process. Not surprisingly, this report found that political appointees at the White House played an outsized role in the rulemaking process. Given these procedural concerns, not to mention the substantive concerns with the rule itself, I think that at the very least we should revisit whether DOL should have jurisdiction in this area in the first place. Put simply: IRAs, which are at the heart of these regulations, are creatures of the Tax Code. They should, therefore, be governed by the agencies responsible for overseeing the implementation of the Tax Code and not by officials outside of those agencies who, far more often than not, have agendas that are geared more toward business pension plans and not tax-deferred savings accounts set up at the individual level. Toward that end, I have drafted legislation that would restore Treasury's rulemaking authority in this area in order to ensure that the proper expertise is brought to bear on these issues and that future rules governing financial advice and marketing are, at the very least, crafted with the broader financial regulatory framework in mind. As it is, we have a rule that appears to have been drafted by those who lack expertise about the retail investment industry in order to achieve a goal that is, to put it kindly, at odds with the purpose of that industry and the interests of the individual savers who rely on it in order to obtain a secure retirement. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution before us as it is the best near-term vehicle we have to putting the administration in check with regard to this rule. For the long term, I am hoping we can have a reasonable discussion about DOL's role in regulating IRAs to begin with. Ultimately, if that discussion takes place, I think more and more people will realize that the Labor Department should not be responsible for crafting what is essentially tax policy. I plan to vote yes on this resolution, and I hope that all of my colleagues will do the same. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to speak once again about the rising cost of health care in the United States. It has been a few months since I came to the floor to comment on the state of our health care system. Sadly, over that time period, we have seen little, if anything, in the way of good news. Indeed, while the United States has some of the best health care law in the world, recent headlines point to serious problems with how that system is working. A little over 6 years ago, the Democrats on both sides of the Capitol and on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue forced the so-called Affordable Care Act on the American people without any Republican votes or any serious attempt to get bipartisan consensus. The result was an attempt at overhaul of roughly one-sixth of the American economy crafted with the input and support of only one political party. As I have said before, given its size and scope, the passage and signing of ObamaCare was probably the largest exercise of pure partnership in our Nation's history. Quite frankly, our country hasn't been the same since. At the time the law was passed, Republicans made a number of predictions about the negative impact this law would have for people buying health insurance and for our economy overall. Six years later, many of those predictions have already come to pass, with many more on the way. Still, looking back on it, I think we may have undersold our case at the time. I don't think any of us could have predicted just how detrimental the law would be, not only for the United States but on our Nation's public discourse and our government institutions. As a result of ObamaCare, the divide between Republicans and Democrats has gotten deeper, voters have become more cynical and distrusting of our government and our leaders, and the government itself has expanded its powers well beyond the authority granted in the statute. At the time the law was passed, many of us issued warnings of what was to come, though much of that seemed to have been drowned out by the sounds of celebration emanating from the Capitol and the White House. To quote some of my friends on the other side, passage of this law was a ``big bleeping deal'' because once the law was passed, the American people would finally get a chance to see what was in it. In the midst of all that self-adulation, many promises were made about what the law would do for individuals and families throughout the United States of America. Chief among those many promises was a claim that as a result of in law, the cost of health care for the average American family would go down. That is what the American people were told in 2010. In 2016, the law has been implemented and in effect for 3 years. Despite those many promises, average health insurance premiums have gone up every single year. As insurers begin to make decisions about rates and availability for the 2017 plan year, we are looking at significantly higher premiums, double-digit increases in some places, for the fourth straight year. Reports about these premium increases seem to be coming in on a daily basis. For example, in Virginia we know that among the five largest carriers in the State, premiums could go up anywhere from 9 percent to 37 percent, with a likely average of around 18 percent. In Iowa, tens of thousands of people who buy their insurance from one major carrier will likely see increases in the neighborhood of 40 percent. In Oregon, the State's largest insurer in the individual market has requested a premium increase of nearly 30 percent. That number, 30 percent, is similar to the rate hikes requested by some of the largest insurers in Maryland as well. I could go on and on. I am not just cherry-picking States, this is a trend. Unfortunately, it is having a real-world impact. People are concerned, and they have every right to be. According to a Gallup poll a few weeks back, health care costs are the No. 1 financial concern for families in the United States. People are more concerned about health care costs than they are about low wages, housing, education, or even debt. As premiums go up, I can imagine that the number of families concerned about health care costs will continue to go up as well. In addition to higher premiums for 2017, we are also hearing many insurers will be opting to drop out of the exchange markets. For example, one of the country's largest insurers has, so far, decided to pull out of more than two dozen State exchanges due to mounting losses. This is the same company that currently offers plans in 34 different States but has said it will continue to do so only in a small number of States going forward. In Utah, we recently saw the closing of an ObamaCare co-op that covered roughly 45,000 people, all of whom had to find health insurance at the beginning of this year. Indeed, 12 of the 23 co-ops around the country have already closed, further reducing the number of health insurance options available to people throughout the country. The Obama administration is trying to downplay these reports and convince people that a smaller number of insurers in various markets will not be a problem. But the impact should be obvious: When an insurer--let alone many insurers--drops out of a market, the patients and consumers in that market are left with fewer choices. And in any market, for any product, when consumers have reduced options, it generally leads to both lower quality and higher prices. That is definitely true in the health insurance market. The question many are asking is, Why is this happening? Why are so many insurers raising premiums or choosing not to participate in the ObamaCare exchanges? The answer is relatively simple: ObamaCare is not working and can't work the way it was designed. I think it would be helpful at this point to briefly review its timeline. From the time the law was first drafted, the Affordable Care Act included a number of insurance coverage mandates designed to dictate what insurance companies had to offer and what coverage patients would have to buy. Of course, imposing those kinds of requirements was bound to increase the cost of insurance across the board. However, if you will recall, during the congressional debate over the law, the President and his supporters repeatedly claimed that because the law was going to require everyone to have health insurance, more young and healthy patients would be coerced into the insurance risk pools. According to their arguments, this shift in the market would more than compensate for the costs associated with the new insurance coverage mandates. In short, they claimed they could expand coverage requirements and keep premiums from going up. Now, fast forward to 2013, which is when the exchanges went online. At that time, insurers entered the exchanges and set premium rates, presumably assuming the law would work as promised. As it turns out, that assumption was ill informed in many cases, and insurance companies across the board found they had priced their premiums too low. The expansion of younger, healthier, less risky market participants never came and, as a result, the industry suffered huge losses. According to a report released last month by the Mercatus Center, in 2014 alone, insurers nationwide suffered more than $2 billion in losses for plans sold on the exchanges. This happened despite subsidies they received from the government to mitigate the risk of covering a mostly unknown population. As we fast forward once again to the present day, we see that this situation has not corrected itself over the first 3 plan years under ObamaCare. In fact, it has only gotten worse. Premiums are going up, enrollment is lagging far behind the initial rosy estimates, and millions of the younger, healthier population of insured people the system needs to properly function are either opting to pay the fines for going without insurance, going undetected because they do not file tax returns, or staying on their parents insurance for as long as legally possible. A recent Blue Cross Blue Shield report compared three separate groups among the carrier's membership. These groups were, No. 1, individual members newly enrolled in the ObamaCare exchanges; No. 2, members who had individual plans prior to the passage of ObamaCare; and No. 3, members currently enrolled in Blue Cross employer plans. According to the study, the people newly enrolled in insurance under ObamaCare are significantly less healthy and require significantly more services than the other two groups. The cost of care among that group is, not surprisingly, significantly more expensive. That is remarkable. If we assume what is happening in this study is in any way reflective of what is happening nationwide, not only did the Affordable Care Act fail to create more favorable risk pools for insurers and patients sharing the costs, but the risk pools are, overall, more risky now than they were before. While a number of complicated factors have likely contributed to this outcome, the major reason we are seeing this result is relatively simple: ObamaCare did little, if anything, to address health care costs. As a result, young and healthy people who are less in need of health insurance are making the calculation that it would be less costly for them to go uninsured and pay a fine than purchase insurance through an exchange. Indeed, in countless polls and surveys of still uninsured Americans, we have seen the biggest reason people refuse to buy health insurance is that it costs too much. Under this status quo, insurers can stay afloat only in one of two ways: They can raise premiums, which makes their coverage even more costly, driving more young and healthy people out of the market, further depleting the risk pools, or they can exit unprofitable markets. Currently, we are seeing insurers do both, ensuring that the exchanges--and with them the entire system created by the Affordable Care Act--are becoming more unstable all the time. Let's be clear: There is no solution to this problem that keeps the current system in place. There is no way to reset or rearrange the incentives under the current system. There is no minor tinkering that can fix these problems. It is not simply going to correct itself over time. Quite frankly, the system is damaged beyond repair. The only thing we can do to give options to patients and bring down costs is create a different system. Some of us have put forward plans to do just that. I have a plan that I put forward with Senator Burr and Chairman Upton over in the House. It is called the Patient CARE Act, which I have mentioned a number of times here on the floor. However, ours isn't the only solution out there. There are a number of ideas. We just need to get serious about addressing these issues. But that will not happen--that will not happen--so long as people refuse to acknowledge there is even a problem. The supporters and authors of the Affordable Care Act have gotten pretty good over the years at mining the available data for favorable citations and moving the goalposts for what qualifies as ``success'' for this law in order to fool the American people. Fortunately, the people are not buying it. Since the day the law passed, 90 percent of national polls show that more people oppose ObamaCare than support it. I don't see that changing as long as premiums keep going up and people are left with fewer and fewer options. However, as always, I am an optimist. I believe we can make some progress here. I currently chair the Senate committee with jurisdiction over many of the most consequential elements of ObamaCare. Over the next few months, I plan to do something that the authors of ObamaCare never did--listen. I am going to take the time to engage with stakeholders from across the spectrum to get a clear sense of what needs to be done to bring down health care costs for American families and get skyrocketing premiums, deductibles, and out-of-pocket limits under control. I plan to hear from experts, industry leaders, and advocacy groups to get their ideas in order to arrive at a workable solution. Then I am going to solicit the help of anyone in Congress--from either side of the aisle--who is willing to put in the necessary work to right this ship and craft meaningful legislation to address these problems. As I said, the cost of health care is the No. 1 financial concern for American families. It is an issue that deserves the attention of everyone in this Chamber. Finding a solution will require not only that we acknowledge the failings of the system created by the Affordable Care Act but that we also work together to address these failings in a productive, less political way--in a bipartisan way, if you will. Now, that is my focus when it comes to health care, Mr. President. I hope all of my colleagues will be willing to work with me on this effort. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today in honor of the memory of a humble statesman and an adored colleague and a dear friend, Senator Bob Bennett. Bob passed away peacefully in his house last week with his wife and children gathered around him by his bedside. In the wake of his passing, the Bennett family has witnessed an outpouring of love as thousands of individuals from across the country have reached out to pay their respects to a man who served selflessly to the very end of his service here. To the many expressions of love and admiration that have already been offered in Bob's honor, I wish to add a few words of my own. I had the distinct privilege of serving alongside Bob Bennett for nearly two decades as we jointly represented our beloved State of Utah here in the United States Senate. During the many years of our service together, Bob became more than a respected partner; he was a trusted confidante and a cherished friend. In this Chamber, Senator Bennett was widely revered as a wise and thoughtful leader committed to finding innovative solutions to the most difficult challenges of the day. But above all else, he was a passionate fighter for the people of Utah, who were always foremost in his mind. I have never met someone so committed to his constituency as Senator Bennett was to the people of Utah. It is no exaggeration to say that every Utahn has benefited from Bob's public service. You cannot ride the train, take public transportation, or drive on the freeway in our State without seeing the fruits of Bob's labor in the Senate. As Utah faced unprecedented expansion and economic growth, Senator Bennett worked tirelessly to ensure that our State's infrastructure kept pace with the demands of a booming population. Were it not for Bob and the indispensable role he played in securing much needed funding for these transportation projects in Utah, our State would not be the prime destination for business, entrepreneurship, and innovation that it is today. I need not rehearse all of Senator Bennett's accomplishments in the Senate because his public legacy speaks for itself. The TRAX and FrontRunner public transportation systems in Utah are perhaps the most tangible symbols of that legacy, but there are plenty more. I join all Utahns in thanking Senator Bennett for his many years of loyal service to the Beehive State. We love him, and we will miss him dearly. In addition to fighting tirelessly for the people of Utah, Senator Bennett exercised remarkable prudence as an appropriator and provided principal leadership on the Banking Committee and as chairman of the Joint Economic Committee. He was a talented lawmaker, skilled at forging consensus and reaching compromise without sacrificing his core conservative values. Over the 18 years that Senator Bennett served in this Chamber, he consistently demonstrated sound judgment and strong leadership. In a short time, he gained the trust of his Republican colleagues, who considered him a trusted resource on matters of strategy and policy. After seeing Bob's rapport with other legislators, then-Senate majority leader Bill Frist asked him to serve on the leadership team. Senator Bennett also served in leadership positions alongside Majority Leader McConnell, with whom he shared a deep and meaningful friendship. While Senator Bennett was well known for his quiet, contemplative demeanor, he was also regarded as an orator--a good one. He came frequently to the floor to engage his colleagues on the most complex issues of the day. He was exceptionally articulate, speaking with an eloquence and ease that reflected the brilliance of a well-cultivated mind. Whether he was giving a public address or holding a private conversation, Bob could explain even the most complicated policies in simple, understandable terms. He was a preeminent communicator whose talents will be sorely missed. Mr. President, up to this point, I have spoken at length about how Senator Bennett will be remembered as a public figure, but I also wish to speak about how I will remember him as a personal friend. Bob Bennett was one of the most humble men I have ever met. In a Chamber teaming with outsized egos and rampant self-importance, Bob stood apart. He always eschewed the spotlight and never esteemed himself above anyone else. On some days, you could even find him riding the Metro in to work. When a staffer asked him why we opted for public transportation instead of a personal driver, Bob simply said: ``Because the Metro is more convenient.'' This anecdote is indicative of Bob's character. He resisted the trappings of public office and truly saw himself as a servant of the people. Perhaps more importantly, he never let the office of Senator define him. Maybe that is because he came to Congress with such a rich and varied background. Prior to his work here, Bob had already served as a Mormon military chaplain, a congressional liaison with the Nixon administration, a public relations director for billionaire Howard Hughes, and as the chief executive officer of FranklinCovey. For Bob, being a Senator was never something that was central to his personal identity; it was merely a job title that allowed him to serve others in a greater capacity. Allow me to share a simple story that illustrates Bob's humility and willingness to serve. Many years ago, Bob befriended a blind couple in his local Mormon congregation. Every single Sunday, Bob would pay the couple a personal visit, drive them to church, and stay by their side for the duration of meetings--always ready and always eager to help. For Bob, faithfully serving this elderly couple was just as important as fulfilling his duties in the Senate. That, Mr. President, is heartfelt humility and love unfeigned. I often wondered what it was that enabled Bob to serve so selflessly. I believe the answer is simple: It was his faith in and love for Jesus Christ, whom he looked to as a model of servant leadership. Bob believed in the Christian teaching that when you are in the service of your fellow men and women, you are only in the service of your God. This belief animated his service until the very end. For as long as Bob was physically able, he was an active volunteer in his church congregation. In fact, just 3 weeks ago he hosted a doctrinal discussion with dozens of Latter-day Saints seeking to build their faith. In this meeting, Bob bore testimony of Jesus Christ and his perfect example of love and sacrifice. The next day, Bob suffered a stroke and was admitted to the hospital for the last time. Both in public office and in private life, Bob Bennett was a model of selfless service. We were blessed by his work in the Senate and will continue to benefit from his example of humble leadership. I pray that we might always remember Bob's humility and kindness and seek to emulate these qualities ourselves as we work together to overcome the challenges facing our country. Mr. President, having said all of that, Bob was very fortunate to have Joyce as his companion. She is a terrific human being, very talented--a flute instructor, a tremendous flutist. He has wonderful children, each one of whom has made contributions in our society that are exemplary. His friends will always remember Bob as somebody who really accomplished a lot in his life as well as the lives of many thousands of people around him. I personally am deeply grateful for the kindness he showed to me, the friendship we had together, and the privilege I had of serving with him. I will miss Bob very much, and I think all of us who knew him well will miss him. He was truly a great example. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to a well- respected American company: the Sinclair Oil Corporation. This May marks 100 years since Harry Ford Sinclair founded the corporation after purchasing petroleum assets from 11 smaller companies. In its centennial year, Sinclair Oil continues to thrive as one of the oldest continuously operated brands in the petroleum business and the seventh largest fuel company in the United States. Today I wish to congratulate the company on its 100th anniversary. Most people know Sinclair Oil for its iconic green Apatosaurus, but behind the character is a company fueled by two real American legends: Harry Ford Sinclair and Earl Holding. Harry Ford Sinclair experienced his fair share of setbacks before becoming a successful businessman. In fact, Sinclair was just 25 years old when a speculative investment went south, and he lost his father's drugstore, but the bad investment turned out to be a blessing in disguise for the brash and brilliant young man, who was never cut out for the quiet, meticulous life of a druggist in the first place. After losing his family's drugstore, Sinclair found work selling lumber for oil derricks. Soon, he was buying and selling small oil leases on the side, and his ``side'' business did well enough to attract investors. Sinclair's successes snowballed as he rolled small profits into bigger ventures, eventually leading to a payout in Oklahoma's Glenn Pool oil field that made him a millionaire by age 30. In 1916, he founded the Sinclair Oil and Refining Corporation. Three years later, the company had grown to four times its original size. In the 1920s, Sinclair introduced America to the first modern service stations. These early retail gasoline outlets offered oil changes, minor mechanical repairs, and, for the first time, public restrooms that motorists could use while an attendant pumped gas into their vehicles. The convenient amenities of these service stations enabled the creation of a uniquely American experience: the long road trip. Sinclair's success continued through tough times. During the Great Depression, the company bought up dying competitors, saving hundreds of American jobs. And during World War II, Sinclair supported the Allies with high-octane fuel, tankers, and more. In 1948, Harry Ford Sinclair officially retired, but 28 years later, Earl Holding, another American business icon, acquired the company, leading Sinclair Oil into a new era of prosperity and growth. Earl had grown up with nothing during the Great Depression, but like Harry Sinclair, he turned a willingness to work into success. Before purchasing Sinclair Oil, Earl and his wife, Carol, built the Little America chain of hotels and gas stations. In fact, the Little America chain became Sinclair's biggest customer before the Holdings bought the oil company. Earl was well known for his brilliance, but he was equally regarded for his steadiness and warmth. These personal qualities enabled him to make Harry Sinclair's empire somehow feel like a mom-and-pop business. No task at the company was beneath Earl, whether it was serving coffee or digging ditches. He even hosted annual conferences and parties so he could personally meet partners and employees from around the country. Today Sinclair Oil continues to succeed under the leadership of CEO Ross Matthews. Family values hold the company together, while innovation drives it forward. As the company celebrates its centennial, the spirit created by Harry Sinclair and Earl Holding lives on, as does Dino, the familiar green dinosaur that is the beloved mascot of Sinclair Oil. In closing, I would like to offer just a few words in memory of the company's late CEO, Earl Holding. I knew Earl personally and considered him a dear friend. He inspired his employees through genuine kindness and humble leadership. Earl was a master of commerce, but more importantly, he was a good and honorable man of uncompromising character and integrity. Although Earl left us only 3 years ago, his legacy is alive and well. Today I wish his beautiful wife and children the very best.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the Probation Officer Protection Act, which I introduced today with Senator Feinstein. I would like to begin by thanking Senator Feinstein for cosponsoring this bill and also thank Representatives Reichert and Pascrell for introducing companion legislation in the House. Under current law, a Federal probation officer may arrest a probationer or individual on supervised release if the officer has probable cause to believe that the offender has violated a condition of his or her probation or release. The officer may make the arrest with or without a warrant. In practice, formal arrests by probation officers are rare. Rather, probation officers use this authority to lawfully engage in less restrictive uses of force, such as ordering an offender to stand aside during a search; instructing an offender not to interfere with the officer's movements; or, in rare cases, temporarily restraining an offender who poses a physical danger. Current law does not, however, address a probation officer's arrest authority in situations where a third party attempts to physically obstruct the officer or cause the officer physical harm. Although obstructing a probation officer in the performance of his or her official duties is illegal, when a probation officer encounters an uncooperative or violent third party, the officer may be forced to retreat because he or she lacks authority to restrain the third party. This lack of authority and resulting need to retreat exposes probation officers to greater risk of harm and allows the third party--along with any evidence or individual the third party is attempting to shield--to elude capture. As a result, evidence that an offender has violated a condition of his or her probation or supervised release, or evidence of other criminal activity, may be lost. In some circumstances, a probation officer may be able to enlist the assistance of local police in responding to a hostile third party. But this is not, in and of itself, an adequate solution. First, unless the probation officer knows in advance that he or she is likely to encounter a hostile third party and can find an available police officer to accompany him or her, the probation officer must wait for police backup to arrive. This is often not a viable option. Second, even if a local police officer is available to accompany the probation officer, because the probation officer lacks arrest authority, he or she cannot lawfully assist the police officer if the police officer is accosted. Third, requiring federal probation officers to rely on local law enforcement in responding to uncooperative or violent third parties burdens local police departments and diverts police resources from other uses. My bill addresses these problems by authorizing Federal probation officers to arrest a third party if there is probable cause to believe the third party has forcibly assaulted, resisted, opposed, impeded, intimidated, or interfered with the officer, or a fellow probation officer, while the officer was engaged in the performance of official duties. This language parallels 18 U.S.C. Sec. 111, which makes it a crime to forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with an officer or employee of the United States while the officer or employee is engaged in the performance of official duties. The bill additionally provides that this arrest authority shall be exercised in accordance with rules and regulations prescribed by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. It is important to note, that this legislation does not give probation officers general arrest authority. Rather, it merely authorizes arrest in the narrow circumstance where a third party forcibly interferes with a probation officer in the course of the officer's performance of his or her official duties. This limited arrest authority will protect officers, offenders, and third parties alike by preventing obstruction from escalating to actual violence, consistent with the rehabilitative mission of the Federal probation system. State probation officers in many jurisdictions have similar third-party arrest authority. This legislation has the strong support of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, and numerous other law enforcement groups. It will make a meaningful difference in the lives of our Federal probation officers and local police officers and in the homes and communities they serve.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the Probation Officer Protection Act, which I introduced today with Senator Feinstein. I would like to begin by thanking Senator Feinstein for cosponsoring this bill and also thank Representatives Reichert and Pascrell for introducing companion legislation in the House. Under current law, a Federal probation officer may arrest a probationer or individual on supervised release if the officer has probable cause to believe that the offender has violated a condition of his or her probation or release. The officer may make the arrest with or without a warrant. In practice, formal arrests by probation officers are rare. Rather, probation officers use this authority to lawfully engage in less restrictive uses of force, such as ordering an offender to stand aside during a search; instructing an offender not to interfere with the officer's movements; or, in rare cases, temporarily restraining an offender who poses a physical danger. Current law does not, however, address a probation officer's arrest authority in situations where a third party attempts to physically obstruct the officer or cause the officer physical harm. Although obstructing a probation officer in the performance of his or her official duties is illegal, when a probation officer encounters an uncooperative or violent third party, the officer may be forced to retreat because he or she lacks authority to restrain the third party. This lack of authority and resulting need to retreat exposes probation officers to greater risk of harm and allows the third party--along with any evidence or individual the third party is attempting to shield--to elude capture. As a result, evidence that an offender has violated a condition of his or her probation or supervised release, or evidence of other criminal activity, may be lost. In some circumstances, a probation officer may be able to enlist the assistance of local police in responding to a hostile third party. But this is not, in and of itself, an adequate solution. First, unless the probation officer knows in advance that he or she is likely to encounter a hostile third party and can find an available police officer to accompany him or her, the probation officer must wait for police backup to arrive. This is often not a viable option. Second, even if a local police officer is available to accompany the probation officer, because the probation officer lacks arrest authority, he or she cannot lawfully assist the police officer if the police officer is accosted. Third, requiring federal probation officers to rely on local law enforcement in responding to uncooperative or violent third parties burdens local police departments and diverts police resources from other uses. My bill addresses these problems by authorizing Federal probation officers to arrest a third party if there is probable cause to believe the third party has forcibly assaulted, resisted, opposed, impeded, intimidated, or interfered with the officer, or a fellow probation officer, while the officer was engaged in the performance of official duties. This language parallels 18 U.S.C. Sec. 111, which makes it a crime to forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with an officer or employee of the United States while the officer or employee is engaged in the performance of official duties. The bill additionally provides that this arrest authority shall be exercised in accordance with rules and regulations prescribed by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. It is important to note, that this legislation does not give probation officers general arrest authority. Rather, it merely authorizes arrest in the narrow circumstance where a third party forcibly interferes with a probation officer in the course of the officer's performance of his or her official duties. This limited arrest authority will protect officers, offenders, and third parties alike by preventing obstruction from escalating to actual violence, consistent with the rehabilitative mission of the Federal probation system. State probation officers in many jurisdictions have similar third-party arrest authority. This legislation has the strong support of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, and numerous other law enforcement groups. It will make a meaningful difference in the lives of our Federal probation officers and local police officers and in the homes and communities they serve.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this afternoon the House of Representatives is poised to pass the Defend Trade Secrets Act, bringing this critical proposal one step closer to becoming law. Over the past few months, Senator Coons and I have witnessed a groundswell of support for our bill, which will strengthen the ability of American companies to defend their most valuable information from theft. Businesses, both large and small, and lawmakers, both Republican and Democrat, have rallied around our legislation, providing the impetus we need to pass this key intellectual property bill. Passage of the Defend Trade Secrets Act marks not only a watershed moment for the intellectual property community, it also represents a victory for the American people. To appreciate the significance of this legislation, we must first understand the importance of trade secrets in American industry. Trade secrets are the lifeblood of our economy. In simple terms, trade secrets are the groundbreaking ideas that give businesses a competitive advantage. They range from unique production and manufacturing processes to food recipes and software codes. This critical form of intellectual property is not only invaluable to individual business owners, it is also directly responsible for creating millions of jobs in our country. But a lack of Federal legal protection leaves trade secrets vulnerable to theft and oversight that cost the economy billions of dollars each year. Two years ago, Senator Coons and I set out to fix this problem together. From the very beginning, we sought the input of business owners and job creators so that we could better understand the obstacles facing American industry and chart a path forward for reform. The Defend Trade Secrets Act is the culmination of our work. Under current law, companies have few legal options to recover their losses when trade secrets are stolen. For example, if a disgruntled employee steals a Utah company's confidential information and leaks it to a competitor in another State, attorneys must navigate a complex labyrinth of State laws just to bring suit. This cumbersome process can take weeks, which is an eternity in a trade secrets case. During this time, the likelihood that valuable intellectual property falls into the wrong hands increases every day, as does the potential for permanent damage to the company. Our bill solves this problem by creating a uniform Federal law that businesses can turn to when their trade secrets are stolen. This Federal standard keeps companies from getting bogged down in State laws by allowing business owners to take their case directly to a Federal court. Essentially, our legislation removes an unnecessary and time- consuming layer of bureaucracy, buying businesses precious time to recover stolen information. By providing America's businesses with the ability to protect their most valuable information in Federal courts, they will be better equipped to safeguard trade secrets and increase their competitiveness. The President has expressed strong support for our legislation, which he intends to sign into law shortly after it passes the House. The Defend Trade Secrets Act is not only a win for the intellectual property and business communities, it is also an example of what Congress can accomplish when we put party politics aside and find common ground. Indeed, it is always easy to make things look hard, but it is impossible to make things look easy. Today's House passage of the Defend Trade Secrets Act truly embodies countless hours of negotiations and hard work. I wish to recognize those who made passage of this bill a reality, including Chairman Bob Goodlatte, Representative Doug Collins, and Representative Jerrold Nadler. They were indispensable in shepherding this legislation through the House. I also wish to thank Senators Grassley, Leahy, Graham, Feinstein, Flake, Whitehouse, and many others for their contributions to this bill. Likewise, I thank my dear friend Senator Coons for joining me in coauthoring this bill. He has been an invaluable partner throughout this process. Enacting meaningful public policy in the midst of a toxic Presidential campaign is no small accomplishment. With the imminent passage of the Defend Trade Secrets Act, our Nation has cause for celebration. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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