Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I wish to support two crucial programs important to Utah and the West in the Energy and Water Appropriations bill pending before us. The bill includes $10 million for the Central Utah Project in the Department of the Interior. This funding makes great strides in supporting rural water infrastructure. Over the decades-long life of this project, I have always advocated for appropriate funding levels to ensure timely completion of this project. This vital program was authorized in the 1956 Colorado River Storage Project Act and allows the State of Utah to develop its share of the Colorado River for irrigation and water supply. This program also reaches into five other States and provides for construction of water delivery infrastructure. Over the past few years, the Obama administration has constantly tried to underfund the Central Utah Project, but Senator Alexander and Senator Feinstein have been able to restore funding to levels that enable construction to move forward. Continuing funding for this project is important to taxpayers. Once the project is built and begins to deliver water, the people of Utah will start to repay their share of the costs to the Treasury. This funding also allows mitigation work to continue, which restores and protects lands that are important to fish and wildlife that have been impacted by Federal water development for this project. While we all wish additional funding were available for the important projects in our State, I believe that Senator Alexander and Senator Feinstein have done a good job in balancing priorities, and I appreciate them including funding to continue this vital program. Another important program funded in this bill is the section 595 environmental infrastructure program in the Corps of Engineers. Section 595 is a program that provides funding to rural areas in Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming for water construction projects. The bill includes $10 million for this program, which the Corps of Engineers will allocate competitively among the eligible States. Section 595 funding is particularly important for projects in rural areas surrounded by Federal lands. Often, local sponsors can't meet the general 50/50 cost share required for construction projects, but section 595 reduces the non-Federal cost-share. An example of where this program made a big difference in my State is in the small town of Escalante, where section 595 funds were used to rehabilitate and enlarge the Wide Hollow Reservoir. Before the project began, irrigation water that was held in the reservoir only lasted until mid-July, leaving most farmers with wilted crops during the heat of the summer. The Corps of Engineers provided $5.5 million under the section 595 program, which was matched with nearly $8 million in State grants and loans. Today, because of Section 595, Escalante farmers can expect to receive water throughout the growing season, which allows them to harvest hay and other critical crops that, in the past, they would have had to purchase. There are projects just like Wide Hollow Reservoir throughout the State of Utah--in fact, all throughout the West--and taxpayers can be assured that the $10 million provided in the Energy and Water bill will be put to good use. I appreciate Senator Alexander and Senator Feinstein working with me to include these critical funds, especially given the tight budgets that we face this year and the competing priorities they had to consider. To conclude, Mr. President, I believe that the Energy and Water bill that Senator Alexander and Senator Feinstein have before the Senate is a balanced, prioritized bill that includes important priorities not only for my State of Utah, but also for the Nation and I urge its passage.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today in support of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. I have previously addressed this body on the progress of the F-35 program and its importance to our national defense. On one of those occasions, I stated that this weapons system provides the capabilities we need to protect our freedoms and those of our allies. That statement resonates even more today as the international security landscape grows even more precarious. When the F-35 program started over 20 years ago, the strategic backdrop for the program of record was significantly different than it is today. The Cold War had recently drawn to a close, and the menace of Islamic extremists, rogue states, and nonstate actors was just beginning to surface. Today, these groups pose the most salient threat to our national security--and we all know it. To find examples of their deviant behavior, look no further than the headlines of today's papers. In Eastern Europe, Putin's invasion of a sovereign nation threatens not only the security of the Ukrainian people but also tests the resolve of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization--perhaps our country's most important defense alliance. In the Middle East, Iran grows more emboldened with its ballistic missile tests, rattling a region already on the verge of violent conflict. And none of this is to mention the metastasis of ISIS in Iraq and a seemingly endless civil war in Syria. In Asia, the North Korean regime constantly threatens South Korea with war. Meanwhile, tensions over territorial waters in the South China Sea grow more strained, escalating the possibility of conflict between China and our Asian allies. All the while, China continues to leverage its economic largesse to build highly advanced weapons systems. I believe many Members of this body would agree that the dangers facing our country today are more immediate and far-reaching than they were just 20 years ago. As threats to our national security proliferate across the globe, we need a next-generation weapon system of unparalleled capability. We need a strike fighter powerful enough to deter the aggression of our foes. We need an aircraft that can penetrate advanced enemy air defenses and neutralize targets on the ground. In short, we need the F- 35. In fact, we need the F-35 today more than ever. Even so, there are those who seek to reduce or delay the number of F-35s being produced. I strongly advise against this action. Reducing procurement numbers for the F-35 will only make the aircraft more expensive in the long run. To ensure that our country continues to dominate airpower for decades to come, we must stay the course and resist the urge to cut aircraft. That is why I believe we must increase, not decrease, the number of F- 35s scheduled for production. Recently, several of my colleagues, led by Senators Cornyn and Shaheen, sent a letter to the Armed Services Committee and the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee in both the House and the Senate. Their letter was clear: The need for the F-35 in today's environment is crucial. Therefore, the committees of jurisdiction should not follow the President's budget reduction plan but should maintain the program of record. I realize the frustrations that many of my colleagues have with the acquisition process of the Department of Defense. During the first two decades of the F-35's journey, the Joint Strike Fighter Program Office experienced its fair share of setbacks, broken promises, missteps, and faulty leadership decisions--decisions made by both government leaders and industry partners. Even from within the Pentagon itself, we have heard the title of ``acquisition malpractice'' bestowed upon this program at the highest levels after the Nunn-McCurdy breach for cost growth. Time and again, my much esteemed colleague, the senior Senator from Arizona, has pointed out these shortfalls and missteps. I echo his frustrations and stress the need for an acquisition and sustainment strategy that focuses on delivering and sustaining the most available, capable, and affordable weapon systems for the warfighter. Nevertheless, we must recognize that reducing procurement numbers for the F-35 will only put an unnecessary strain on our Armed Forces. Given the dangerous state of global affairs, now is not the time to hamstring our military's capabilities. Amid the many criticisms of the F-35 program, I wish to call attention to its successes. In terms of both capability and performance, the F-35 program has made tremendous strides. On the affordability front, the price of each F-35 has dropped dramatically over the past 5 years to under $100 million per aircraft. This trend is expected to continue for at least the next 5 years in order to achieve a flyaway cost of $85 million per aircraft by 2019. In an affordability and capability sense, the F-35 is a bargain, but in addition to being a bargain, the F-35 is also an indispensable asset to our defense arsenal. The F-35 has the ability to destroy some of the most advanced air-to-air and air-to-ground systems in existence today. Many of these systems are being developed by the Russians and the Chinese. The F-35's stealth technology, advanced sensors, and weapons allow it to defeat those integrated air-defense environments. That is to our advantage, no question about it. Currently, even the most advanced versions of the F-16 and F/A-18 would be hard-pressed to defeat such threats alone. That is why we need the F-35. With the F-35, we can maintain our ability to strike any target anywhere in the world. The F-35 is not only a tremendous strike aircraft, but it is also a war-winning dogfighter. In fact, when facing legacy aircraft such as the F-16 and F/A-18 in air-to-air combat scenarios, the F-35 consistently wins these engagements. The aircraft's combination of stealth, maneuverability, and superior battlespace awareness allows the F-35 to enter the fight against legacy aircraft with a great advantage. If you ask our Marine, Navy, and Air Force pilots flying this aircraft today, they will tell you what they told me: This is the best fighter aircraft they have ever flown and the plane they want to take into battle above all others. This conclusion is shared not just by American pilots who have flown the aircraft, but also by our allies who have chosen to purchase the F- 35 out of a wide variety of aircraft that are currently available in other countries as well. As the Israeli Defense Minister recently said, ``I'm very happy that we'll know how to preserve the qualitative military edge of the Israeli Defense Forces and of the Israeli Air Force through acquisition of this important plane.'' Military might is useful only if three things occur: One, the capability is present to counter and engage the threat; two, the capacity and numbers are present for all of the threats; and three, those in power have the resolve to use them to protect the sovereignty of our Nation and its citizens. The current demand on our military requires every ounce of capability made available by advanced weapon systems and, just as important, the numbers needed to counter threats the globe over. Consider how in the past we chose to reduce the number of F-22 advanced fighters made available to combatant commanders. Originally, the program of record for the F-22 was 750 aircraft, yet we procured only 195. Today, the demand for the F-22 and its capabilities dwarfs the available jets in the inventory. In hindsight, we should have bought 1,000. Similar situations have also occurred with the B-2 bomber, the C-17 transport, and numerous other aircraft. The lesson is clear: The program of record for 1,763 F-35 A models for the Air Force and 680 B and C models for the Navy and Marine Corps have to materialize and be realized. The committees of jurisdiction should also insist to the Department that the F-35 Joint Program Office also acquire the spare parts needed to sustain the numbers and accelerate that purchase to ensure that F-35s are sustained at the level of readiness demanded by the current world dynamic. As the old adage goes, if we do not learn from history, then we are doomed to repeat it. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to complete this speech.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, over the past couple of years I have spoken numerous times on corporate inversions, the problems they cause, and various proposed solutions. I wish to take a few minutes today to comment on some of the recent developments with regard to this important issue. Inversions are a matter of great concern in our country. This is true among members of both parties, both in and out of government. As the chairman of the Senate's tax-writing committee, I have to say that for years now, most major discussions I have had on tax policy and reform with various private sector stakeholders eventually end up focusing on inversions. Virtually everyone acknowledges that inversions are a problem. When a U.S. company reidentifies itself as a foreign entity and moves its tax headquarters overseas, it shrinks our tax base. It means lost investment and growth for our country and a further demonstration of the failure of the government to create a tax environment in this country that allows businesses to flourish, create jobs, and, of course, help grow our economy. As I said, members of both parties see inversions as a problem, one that needs fixing. Sadly, the debate surrounding this national issue has too often become mired in politics and partisanship, which thus far has prevented Congress from making any real progress. Some in Washington--in the Capitol and on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue--would rather talk about inversions than solve the problem. When a wave of U.S. companies announce that they are merging with other entities and moving their headquarters offshore, the strategy seems to be to publicly attack those companies; accuse them of, among other things, lacking ``economic patriotism''; and put forward unworkable policy proposals while labelling anyone opposing those proposals as somehow being in favor of or at least indifferent to inversions. Most of the policy ideas that get put forward tend to be punitive and burdensome, with the goal, not of incentivizing companies to stay in the United States, but to forcibly prevent them from leaving. Over the past year or so of political campaigning, we have heard a lot of talk about building walls and who will be made to pay for them. Some are proposing that we build a literal physical wall to keep certain people from coming into the United States, with a supposedly clever plan to force other countries to pay for it. Well, at the same time, most of the proposals we have seen to deal with inversions would amount to building a virtual wall--a wall forged in regulation and punitive tax treatment--around the country to keep companies from leaving and making every business in America and all of their employees and individual customers pay the cost. The latest wall-building exercise came earlier this month with Treasury's temporary anti-inversion regulations and proposed regulations aimed at earnings stripping. Of course, the administration's anti-inversion approach is essentially the regulatory equivalent of a doctor who wastes all of his time and energy treating a patient's symptoms one by one as they arise without making any effort to diagnose, let alone treat, the underlying illness. Inversions are not in and of themselves a disease; they are merely symptoms of a much broader illness that will continue to infect our economy so long as we refuse to treat it. I won't keep you in suspense, Mr. President. That illness is not a lack of proper regulation; it is an overly burdensome tax system and an environment that is, on the whole, unfriendly to American businesses. U.S. companies don't move their tax headquarters offshore because they like the weather in other countries. If that were the case, I don't think so many of them would be moving to Ireland or the U.K. No. American companies invert because they face global competition, and our system forces them to compete on an uneven playing field with at least one, if not both arms tied behind their back. For example, we have the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world, and we have a tax code that effectively pays U.S. multinationals to keep their foreign earnings offshore and punishes them when they decide to bring capital back into the country. It is these factors--not a lack of appropriate regulation by the government or a shortage of ``economic patriotism'' on the part of American businesses--that make foreign countries more attractive destinations for American companies. If we want to prevent future inversions, we should spend less time tinkering around the regulatory edges and engaging in partisan rhetoric and more time trying to find common ground to actually fix our Tax Code. For the record, it isn't just inversions that are the problem. As I have noted repeatedly, even if the administration and Congress found a way, through punitive and burdensome means, to block all inversions, our tax system would still make American companies even more attractive targets for foreign takeovers, which are every bit as problematic as inversions, if not more so, and much harder to address through a purely regulatory approach. Foreign takeovers are already a problem. According to an Ernst and Young study released last year, the U.S. economy suffered a net loss of $179 billion--with a ``b''--in business and assets to foreign buyers in the decade between 2003 and 2013. The same study also found that a reduced corporate tax rate would have greatly reduced these losses, possibly eliminating them entirely. Keep in mind that unlike most inversion transactions, U.S. management is almost always fired after a foreign takeover. Other employees--local service providers and suppliers--are often targeted for elimination as well. Sadly, many Democrats in Washington, both here in Congress and in the administration, don't seem to grasp the full nature of this problem. They talk a great deal about inversions and the need to prevent them. Because the picture of a big American company moving offshore to escape taxation is particularly distressing for populist audiences, they tend to ramp up that talk and couple it with ideas on how to punish inverters in even-numbered years. Yet they have taken precious little action to fix the underlying problems that lead companies to want to invert in the first place. There was a glimmer of hope with the findings and recommendations of the Finance Committee's bipartisan International Tax Reform Working Group. However, as is far too often the case, that glimmer of hope may very well be overtaken by the politics of the moment. So instead of acknowledging that our tax system is the cause of the inversion problem, my friends on the other side have generally opted to put forward regulations that may very well be effective in curbing inversions in the short term but will do nothing to improve business conditions in the United States and could be in the order of causing companies to sell themselves to foreign buyers, which is what is happening. Within days of the release of the Treasury's latest regulations, Pfizer, a major American drug company, announced it was backing out of its proposed inversion deal with Allergan. Many observers were quick to credit the Obama administration for a supposed job well done while Democratic candidates for President openly celebrated the fact that an American company chose to subject itself to hundreds of millions of dollars in losses and penalties in order to avoid even greater losses as a result of these regulations. That is the kind of world we are living in--one where there is a willingness to demonize an iconic American company that employees tens of thousands of American workers and to cheer when it suffers massive losses. That is viewed as an affirmative qualification to be the Democratic nominee for President. Now, to be fair, I will acknowledge that, in addition to unveiling the proposed anti-inversion measures, the Obama administration also laid out a basic framework for corporate tax reform. Of course, this framework, which closely resembles similar proposals the President has included in past budgets, is woefully short on details. It is not a reform proposal with any serious potential for bipartisanship nor one with a detailed list of specific goals and objectives. It is more or less just a vaguely worded wish list of tax ideas they would like to see enacted at some point. The reaction from many sectors of the business community, including from CEOs who more often than not support my friends on the other side, proves the point. We know, basically, that the President's version of international tax reform consists of a one-time mandatory repatriation of foreign earnings to be taxed at a rate designed not to maximize any benefit but to hit a revenue target for increased spending--in other words, so they can spend more money. This would be coupled with a high minimum tax on foreign earnings, also designed specifically for increased spending, not for significantly bringing down the statutory tax rate, which, after all, is one of the few ways you can really help our American companies. Put simply, there is virtually nothing in the President's nebulous tax reform framework that would discourage companies from moving offshore. In fact, one could argue--and many have--that the President's proposed high minimum tax on foreign earnings would actually encourage more U.S. companies to invert. For example, this past November, the vice president of global taxes at Procter & Gamble, another iconic American company, was quoted as saying: ``If we take a step towards a [minimum] tax at the corporate level, we're exacerbating the problem; we're actually guaranteeing that inversions are more attractive.'' On top of these new taxes, there is no real effort in the President's tax framework to improve the business climate in the United States more generally. After all these changes, the framework would still leave the United States with a corporate tax that would be well above the average in the developed world, leaving us right where we have been. In short, this framework is par for the course with this administration. We have heard quite a bit of blame thrown in Congress's direction for not acting to prevent inversions. What we haven't heard is any serious effort on the part of the President or anyone in his administration to engage with Congress on meaningful tax reform. Like I said, the President and his supporters are far more willing to assign blame for the problems caused by our tax system than to actually work toward a solution. This is particularly true in election years, when the motto seems to be this: Why fix a problem when you can blame it on the other side? For my part, I am working to take specific steps to address these problems. I have been the Republican leader on the Senate Committee on Finance for about 4\1/2\ years now, and for 4\1/2\ years I have been calling on my colleagues and imploring officials in the administration to engage on tax reform. To date, I have seen little in the way of a meaningful response. Currently, I am working on a relatively simple but potentially effective tax reform proposal that I believe will be bipartisan and many believe would relieve a great deal of the inversion pressure on American companies and, at the very least, significantly alter the economic calculation for inversion transactions. Best of all, it would do so without punishing companies or imposing burdensome mandates. In short, my proposal would provide more carrots to keep companies from inverting and fewer sticks to punish companies that try to go in that direction. While I am still working with the Joint Committee on Taxation to finalize the details of this proposal, the basic idea behind my proposal would be to streamline the taxation of business income and eliminate instances in which profits and earnings are subject to multiple layers of taxation at the company and shareholder levels. I will have more to say on this proposal in the coming weeks. Today, I am simply trying to counter the narrative that American companies can and should be forced to remain in the United States by regulation. I am trying to demonstrate that you cannot fix the inversion problem by building a virtual wall around the country to keep businesses from leaving, while at the same time keeping tax rates so high that they have to leave to be able to compete. I am trying to show why you can't build that wall expecting some other country to pay for it. Indeed, if an anti-inversion wall goes up without any real changes to improve the tax and business environment in the United States, it will be American workers and consumers that will end up footing the bill. What we are working on is corporate integration. Right now the work we have done seems to be getting some positive feedback from the Joint Taxation Committee, but they are not through with their work yet and so we are going to wait until they are. They should be through by the end of May, or at least that is what they have indicated will be their target. Hopefully, they will have some preliminary results before the end of May. But let me say, if we are right on corporate integration, then both parties should come together to resolve these problems so that we can compete with any company anywhere in the world. I can just say, in short, that this program we are devising will allow the companies themselves to bring down their own tax rates without worrying about what the wonderful Members of Congress are going to do. At the same time, by bringing down those rates, they will be able to help this economy to go forward. So far this has been revenue positive. All we want for this program is to be revenue neutral. But I think we can get there, and I hope my friends on the other side will seriously look at this because this is something we could do this year to help this country resolve its problems with regard to corporate inversions. I believe it will work. I believe it will work. But a lot will depend on the Joint Taxation Committee, and we will see what they are doing. So far the work they have done is positive. They have worked on it for a number of months now. They want to cover every possible ramification, and we are very appreciative of the work they are doing. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the conflict over the Supreme Court vacancy created by the untimely death of Justice Antonin Scalia. This conflict has two dimensions, one focusing on the nominee and the second focusing on the confirmation process. America's Founders established a system of government that preserves liberty by limiting government and including a defined role for judges. Three of America's Founders provide principles helping to define that judicial role. James Wilson signed the Declaration of Independence, helped draft the Constitution, and was one of the six original Supreme Court Justices appointed by President George Washington. He explained our system of government by saying that ``here, the people are the masters of the government.'' The second principle is from President Washington himself, who said in a farewell address, on behalf of our system of government, that the basis of our system of government is that authority to control the Constitution belongs to the people. Alexander Hamilton served in the Continental Congress, helped draft the Constitution, and became the first Secretary of the Treasury. He wrote 51 of the 85 installments of the Federalist Papers, the single most important reference for understanding the Constitution. In Federalist No. 78, he wrote that the judiciary is the weakest and least dangerous branch because judges exercise judgment but not will. These three principles outline the proper role for judges in our system of government. The people are the masters of government. They alone have the authority to control the Constitution, and judges may exercise judgment but not will. Our system of government and the liberty it makes possible requires judges who leave control of the law in the hands of the people. The conflict over the appointment of judges is really a conflict over the power of judges--a conflict over whether this should still be the proper judicial job description. Those whose political agenda fares poorly with the American people and their elected representatives want a very different kind of judge. They want willful judges who will impose their political agenda by manipulating statutes or the Constitution. This is the first dimension of the conflict over filling the Scalia vacancy. I have spoken and written extensively about how the Senate owes the President some deference regarding nominees who are qualified by both legal experience and judicial philosophy. Those considerations are relevant when the confirmation process takes place. However, the second dimension in the conflict over filling the Scalia vacancy focuses on the process, rather than the nominee. When and how the nomination process should occur is rarely a question at all, but it is a serious one under the circumstances we face today. Ignoring the integrity of the process, acting as if the ends always justify the means, would be a serious dereliction of the Senate's duty. The President has the constitutional power to nominate judges, but he cannot appoint them without the advice and consent of the Senate. However, the Constitution does not tell either the President or the Senate how to exercise their powers. Deciding when and how to conduct the confirmation process is as valid an exercise of the Senate's advice-and-consent power as is taking a final confirmation vote at the end of that process. Our late colleague Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York once said that everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts. The majority leader recently offered a similar axiom when he said that ``no matter how many times you tell a falsehood, it is still false.'' When it comes to falsehoods, Democrats and their liberal allies are telling some real whoppers. For example, the minority leader has said the Senate's obligation to hold a hearing and a floor vote for President Obama's nominee is ``in the Constitution.'' He has made that claim in different forms on the Senate floor more than 40 times. I understand Democrats want the Senate to confirm the President's nominee to the Scalia vacancy, but I cannot understand why they would put all their eggs in this completely fictional basket. As falsehoods go, this one is especially easy to expose because the Constitution obviously says no such thing. This is why the Washington Post Fact Checker called the Democrats' claim that the Constitution requires Senate consideration a politically convenient fairytale. One of the reasons the Constitution says nothing about Judiciary Committee hearings is that the committee was not created until 29 years after the Constitution was written. In fact, the committee's practice of nominees regularly appearing in public hearings did not begin until the 1960s. During the 110th Congress, Chairman Patrick Leahy denied a hearing to dozens of President George W. Bush's judicial nominees. If the minority leader is right that the Constitution requires such a hearing, then Chairman Leahy was guilty of serially violating the Constitution. Between 2003 and 2007, Senators Patrick Leahy, Charles Schumer, and Richard Durbin voted dozens of times to deny floor votes to Republican judicial nominees. So did Senators Hillary Clinton, Joseph Biden, and John Kerry. If the minority leader is right that the Constitution requires a floor vote on every nominee, then these Senators were guilty of deliberately attempting to violate the Constitution over and over again. So was the minority leader, himself, because he voted 25 times to deny the very floor votes that today he claims the Constitution requires. The Constitution does not require committee hearings, and it does not require floor votes. The Constitution leaves to the Senate the judgment about when and how to conduct the confirmation process in each situation. Republicans have made that judgment by deciding that the confirmation process for filling the Scalia vacancy should be deferred until after the Presidential election season is over. We are following the recommendation of Vice President Joe Biden in 1992, when he chaired the Judiciary Committee. The circumstances compelling his recommendation to defer the confirmation process exist in equal or greater measure today. Neither Democrats nor their leftwing allies have even attempted to argue that the 1992 Biden speech and his recommendation do not apply today. Instead, they have had three different reactions. First, some have simply dismissed it as not worth taking seriously. For example, President Obama responded by saying that ``we know Senators say stuff all the time.'' Others have complained that Republicans are misconstruing that speech or somehow taking it out of context. Just as anyone can test the minority leader's claim about the Constitution by reading the Constitution, however, they can test our discussion of Chairman Biden's 1992 speech by reading that speech--a rather long one indeed. The Washington Post read it, and reported this on February 23: Biden's remarks were especially pointed, voluminous and relevant to the current situation. Embedded in the roughly 20,000 words he delivered on the Senate floor were rebuttals to virtually every point Democrats have brought forth . . . to argue for the consideration of Obama's nominee. In his 1992 speech, Chairman Biden addressed how the confirmation process should be conducted in two different scenarios. First, he spoke about a Supreme Court vacancy in a Presidential election year. This was his recommendation: It would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That was then-Senator Biden, chairman of the committee. Second, Chairman Biden separately discussed how the confirmation process ``might be changed in the next administration, whether it is a Democrat or a Republican.'' He used the phrase ``the next administration'' no less than four times. This was his recommendation: If the President consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support. . . . But if he does not, as is the President's right, then I will oppose his future nominees as is my right. Two separate scenarios, two separate recommendations. The first scenario involved a Supreme Court vacancy in a Presidential year like 1992, and the recommendation involved the entire appointment process. Those circumstances and that recommendation apply fully today. The second scenario Chairman Biden addressed involved the next administration, outside a Presidential election year, and his recommendation involved his personal support or opposition. Those circumstances and that recommendation do not apply today. I understand Chairman Biden's recommendation for deferring the confirmation process in a Presidential election year is a very inconvenient truth for his party today. However, the only ones misconstruing that speech today are those trying to create confusion where none exists by conflating these two separate scenarios and recommendations. The third reaction to Chairman Biden's 1992 speech is to pretend that he said something he simply did not say. For example, I have heard the claim that Chairman Biden would have gone forward with the confirmation process in 1992 if the President consulted the Senate before choosing a nominee. Let me once again quote the minority leader. It is pretty clear: ``No matter how many times you tell a falsehood, it is still false.'' Read the speech. Chairman Biden said no such thing. I also want to comment on the President's recent remarks at the University of Chicago on the Scalia vacancy. For example, he said that ``there has not been a circumstance in which a Republican President's appointee did not get a hearing.'' Of course, the Senate's power of advice and consent applies across the board. If the Constitution requires hearings and floor votes for some nominees, it requires them for all nominees. Last month, the Congressional Research Service confirmed in a new memo that during the 102nd Congress, when Democrats controlled the Senate, 52--52--Republican judicial nominees never even got a hearing. Vice President Biden chaired the committee and denied those hearings. In September 1992, the New York Times reported on page 1 that this was part of a deliberate strategy to keep judicial vacancies open in the hope that Bill Clinton would be elected. The President also said there has not been a circumstance when a Republican President's nominee did not get a floor vote. Obviously, none of the dozens of nominees denied a hearing ever got a floor vote. The 52 Republican judicial nominees I just mentioned were not only denied a hearing, they were never confirmed at all. When the President served in this body, he voted to deny floor votes to multiple Republican judicial nominees. In fact, he has the distinction of being the only President ever to have voted to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee. The President was a Senator during the 110th Congress, when Chairman Leahy denied a hearing to dozens of Republican nominees. I could find no record that then-Senator Obama objected in any way that these nominees were being denied full consideration. The President also said that the increasing use of the filibuster to defeat nominees is unacceptable. Democrats first used the filibuster to defeat a majority-supported judicial nominee in 2003. They are the ones who started this. They led nearly two dozens filibusters during the 108th Congress alone, preventing one appeals court nominee after another from being confirmed. President Obama should know this because, as I mentioned, he participated in and supported this filibuster campaign. The President should also know filibusters of judicial nominees declined by 65 percent after he took office in January 2009. That did not matter to Democrats who, in November of 2013, abolished the very filibusters they had used so aggressively. The President also expressed concern that an increasingly partisan confirmation process would erode the judiciary's institutional integrity and that the American people would lose confidence that courts can fairly decide cases. I submit that the kind of judge a President advocates has a much bigger impact on the American people's view of the courts. When he was a Senator, the President said judges decide cases based on their personal views, core concerns, and what is in their hearts. When he ran for President, he told Planned Parenthood that he would appoint judges who have empathy for certain groups. As President, he has nominated men and women who share this politicized, activist approach, believing that judges may make the Constitution conform to current social practices and evolving cultural norms. I think our fellow citizens can easily see that relying on personal empathy and personal concerns is the opposite of impartiality. Since President Obama took office, the percentage of Americans disapproving of the way the Supreme Court is handling its job has risen by more than 20 points, and the percentage saying the Court is too liberal has risen steadily. Three-quarters of Americans now believe Supreme Court Justices decide cases based on their personal or political views, even though most Americans think they should not do so. The kind of judge President Obama and other liberals favor has much more to do with such trends than how we handle some procedural matters within the United States Senate. Finally, I want to respond to the minority leader's recent attack on the Judiciary Committee and its distinguished chairman, Senator Grassley. The minority leader recently made the bizarre claim that Chairman Grassley ``forced his committee members to sign loyalty oaths.'' I first thought I must have heard wrong. That statement is completely detached from reality, and, I thought, no Senator would utter something so strange on the Senate floor, but there it is in the Congressional Record. The minority leader may be referring to the letter dated February 23, signed by the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee affirming that there will be no hearing for any nominee from President Obama for the Scalia vacancy. The chairman did not force anyone to sign anything. It may come as a surprise to the minority leader, but we sincerely and freely came to the conclusion that the confirmation process should be deferred. If the minority leader really wants to characterize Senators acting together as evidence of a ``loyalty oath,'' then I have another example for everyone to consider. When Democrats led 20 filibusters of President George W. Bush's judicial nominees during the 108th Congress, not a single Democrat voted even once to end debate--not one. Every one of the 868 total votes for those filibusters was cast by a Democrat, 20 of them by the minority leader himself. Now, that is loyalty. I have yet to hear an argument from the other side regarding the Scalia vacancy that is not contradicted by present facts, by their own past actions or both. The Constitution assigns to this body the responsibility of advice and consent as an important check on the President's power to appoint. Advice and consent begins with a judgment about the best way to exercise that power in each situation. We have done so in different ways, at different times, under different circumstances. Democrats and their leftwing allies are peddling the false claim that the Constitution requires the Senate to conduct the confirmation process now for this President's nominee to the Scalia vacancy. Of course, they are free to claim the Constitution requires today the very hearings and floor votes they denied to Republican nominees in the past. They may say those falsehoods as often as they wish, but they are still false. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the FAA reauthorization legislation before us, as well as the managers' amendment filed yesterday on this key piece of legislation. This is an important bill that will ensure the airport and airway trust fund will remain solvent and that our Nation's airway system--and the countless jobs that are impacted by the system--do not have to deal with a funding shortfall or a lapse in authorization. The airport and airway trust fund finances many of our national aviation programs. Currently, expenditures from the trust fund are authorized through July 15 of this year. The provisions that ensure adequate funding for the trust fund expire at the same time. That means that, absent congressional action, national airway programs and projects will come to a screeching halt about 3 months from now. Make no mistake, this bill is about protecting jobs and consumer interests across the country. No one would benefit from a lapse in funding or authorization as either one would threaten the livelihoods of people throughout the country. While from time to time the passage of what should be considered routine legislation can get weighed down by unrelated issues, no one seriously disputes the need to get the bill over the finish line. As the Presiding Officer knows, the Senate Finance Committee, which I chair, is responsible for the tax title of the FAA bill. The trust fund is paid for through a number of tax provisions that are set to expire in July along with the authorization of expenditures from the trust fund. These provisions include longstanding taxes on domestic and international airfares, taxes on jet fuel, and others. In years past, the Finance Committee has introduced and debated legislation to renew and, if necessary, update those provisions. We typically have a markup and report the legislation out of committee. I had intended to follow a similar course with this year's FAA bill. Unfortunately, that isn't how things worked out. As we were working through the process in committee to set up an FAA markup, it became clear that my friends on the other side of this aisle saw the bill as an opportunity to add a number of extraneous items-- provisions that had nothing whatsoever to do with the FAA--to the bill and set the stage for a politically charged debate in the Finance Committee. Now, I am not one to shy away from controversy, but with an item of this importance--one that is a priority for Members on both sides--I didn't see the benefit for either side in turning the FAA tax title into another wide-ranging tax extenders bill and reducing the robust debate process in the Finance Committee to a series of controversial votes. Moreover, given the small lead time before the authorizing bill was to be up for floor debate, a markup that addressed anything more than the Finance Committee's basic responsibility to fund the FAA would have prejudiced Members on both sides in terms of preparation. For all of these reasons, we decided not to mark up the bill in committee, and, instead, to resolve the matter here on the floor. It appears that it has been resolved. There will be voting before the end of the week on a simple extension of the taxes dedicated to the airport and airway trust fund through the end of Fiscal Year 2017. Ultimately, a clean extension of the FAA taxes like the one before us is probably the best approach. My main priority in developing this legislation was to ensure adequate funding for the FAA and airway projects and programs throughout the country and to do so in a fiscally responsible manner. Over the past few weeks, we heard a lot of talk about adding additional provisions to the tax title and there were some efforts to once again stack this legislation with extraneous items. Indeed, leading up to yesterday, lobbyists and special interest groups all over town were waiting with baited breath to see what was in the tax title. Don't get me wrong. I am not a purist or foolhardy idealist. While I have made it clear that I would prefer that the Senate pass a clean FAA bill, I know that none of us can reasonably expect to get everything we want out of every piece of legislation, particularly when the goal is bipartisan compromise. I am very much in favor of practicing the art of the doable, which sometimes means accepting things I don't want to see happen. I have been willing to work with my colleagues to include other provisions in the tax title in order to get a deal on the overall FAA bill. I will leave it to others to characterize what happened in those negotiations, as none of the items under discussion were high priorities for me. I will just note that after weeks of discussion, finger-pointing, and a little bit of grandstanding, the decision was made to move forward on a clean 18-month extension of the FAA funding provisions, which once again, was my preference from the outset. Needless to say, I am pleased with the outcome. I wish we could have taken a less contentious path to arrive at this conclusion. Still, this is a good outcome for the American people and for all the industries that rely on a fully functional airway system. The legislation before us will extend the programs for a year and a half and provide greater certainty for people and businesses around the country. On top of that, it will improve security on planes and in our Nation's airports while also providing much needed improvements to help consumers and airline passengers. I know that the people of Utah in my home State are particularly interested in seeing Congress finish its work on the FAA reauthorization. Over the last few months, I have heard from many groups and businesses from Utah and elsewhere on a number of issues addressed by this bill, including airport funding, drone safety, rural airport needs, and general aviation. Many people, when they think about Utah's airways, probably think that we just have the one airport in Salt Lake City. Make no mistake, that is an important airport, not only to Utah but to air travel and shipping all across the country and other parts of the world. But my State's interest in the FAA bill extends well beyond the Salt Lake City International Airport. All told, we have 47 total airports in the State of Utah, varying greatly in purpose, size, and overall capacity, all of which would benefit from this legislation. Many of these airports have new development or expansion projects either underway or in the planning stages. The legislation before us will give assurances to these airports and allow them to plan for future needs. The bill also includes important provisions from the Treating Small Airports with Fairness Act, which constitutes section 5028 of the FAA bill. This legislation will help a number of smaller rural airports, such as some of those in Utah, to bring back TSA staff and security screening equipment if certain conditions are met. Under subtitle F of the bill, we have language taken from Pilot's Bill of Rights 2, a bill that the Senate passed with unanimous consent last year but was not yet passed in the House. The general aviation community in Utah will benefit tremendously from these provisions, which could potentially help thousands of general aviation pilots in Utah, saving them time and money in managing their health and fitness to fly. There are other provisions in the bill that will benefit Utah and most States throughout the country. In short, this is a good bill. From the FAA reauthorization provisions to the tax and funding title, it is the right approach to addressing these particular needs, and we need to get it done. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support Senator Thune's managers' amendment as well as the overall FAA bill. Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act Mr. President, I would like to talk for a few minutes on S. 483, the Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act. The Senate unanimously passed this crucial legislation last month, and just yesterday the House passed the bill as well. The bill now goes to President Obama for signature. I would like to begin by thanking Senator Whitehouse for his important work on this legislation. He and his staff have been crucial partners in helping to move it forward. I am also grateful for the support of our other cosponsors--Senators Rubio, Vitter, and Cassidy. S. 483 is not a long bill, but it is an important one. It clarifies several key provisions of the Controlled Substances Act in ways that will strengthen efforts to fight prescription drug abuse while ensuring patients retain access to needed medications. As we all know, prescription drugs play a crucial role in treating and curing illness, alleviating pain and improving quality of life for millions of Americans. Unfortunately, these drugs can also be abused. A balance is necessary to ensure that individuals who need prescription drugs for treatment receive them but that such drugs are not diverted for improper purposes. To this end, S. 483 makes three important changes to the Controlled Substances Act. First, it clarifies the factors that the Attorney General is required to consider when deciding whether to register an applicant to manufacture or distribute controlled substances. The current text of the Controlled Substances Act instructs the Attorney General to consider factors that ``may be relevant to and consistent with the public health and safety,'' but it does not provide any guidance as to what those factors might be. This vague language creates uncertainty among advocates regarding the standards they must meet to obtain a registration. S. 483 reduces this uncertainty by tying those standards to Congress's findings in section 101 of the Controlled Substances Act regarding the benefits, harms, and commercial impact of controlled substances. This change will bring clarity to the registration process and provide better guidance to regulators as they consider applications to manufacture or distribute controlled substances. The second change S. 483 makes is to delineate the standards under which the Attorney General may suspend a Controlled Substances Act registration without a court proceeding. Under the terms of the Controlled Substances Act, the Attorney General may suspend a registration to manufacture or distribute controlled substances without court process if she determines there is an imminent danger to the public health and safety. But the Act does not define what constitutes an imminent danger, leaving the Attorney General's authority under this provision essentially open-ended. This in turn leads companies to operate in the shadow of uncertainty regarding when and whether a registration might be summarily suspended. S. 483 clarifies the Attorney General's authority to immediately suspend a registration by specifying that such a suspension may be appropriate where there is a ``substantial likelihood of an immediate threat that death, serious bodily harm, or abuse of a controlled substance will occur in the absence of an immediate suspension of the registration.'' This will permit the Attorney General to issue immediate suspension orders when necessary to protect against an imminent threat of harm, while at the same time ensuring that this power does not become a sword constantly hanging over the head of law- abiding companies. In addition to these important clarifications, S. 483 will also facilitate greater collaboration between distributors, manufacturers, and relevant Federal actors in combatting prescription drug abuse. In particular, the bill provides a mechanism for companies that violate the Controlled Substances Act to correct their practices before the Attorney General suspends or revokes their registration. Even inadvertent violations may lead to suspension or revocation, disrupting the supply chain for the company's prescription drugs. This in turn can cause hardship for patients who rely on the company's drugs for treatment and cure. S. 483 alleviates this problem by allowing companies to submit a collective action plan to remediate the violation before suspension or revocation, thus ensuring that supply chains remain intact. This provision will also encourage greater self-reporting of violations and promote joint efforts between government and private actors to stem the tide of prescription drug abuse. S. 483 takes a balanced approach to the problem of prescription drugs. It clarifies and further defines the Attorney General's enforcement powers while seeking to avoid situations that may lead to an interruption in the supply of medicine to suffering patients. It reflects a measured, carefully negotiated compromise between stakeholders and law enforcement that will enable both to work together more effectively. Most importantly, it will make a meaningful difference in our homes and communities. I want to thank my colleagues for their support of this legislation, and I urge the President to sign it into law. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Wyden and I introduce S. 2775, the Technical Corrections Act of 2016, which, if enacted, will make technical and clerical corrections to the PATH Act, the major tax bill passed and signed into law this past December, and other recently passed pieces of tax legislation. Ranking Member Wyden and I have asked the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation to make available to the public a technical explanation of S. 2775. That technical explanation, which can be found in report number JCX-16-16, expresses the Finance Committee's understanding of this important legislation and is available on the JCT's website at www.jct.gov.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Wyden and I introduce S. 2775, the Technical Corrections Act of 2016, which, if enacted, will make technical and clerical corrections to the PATH Act, the major tax bill passed and signed into law this past December, and other recently passed pieces of tax legislation. Ranking Member Wyden and I have asked the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation to make available to the public a technical explanation of S. 2775. That technical explanation, which can be found in report number JCX-16-16, expresses the Finance Committee's understanding of this important legislation and is available on the JCT's website at www.jct.gov.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to call the attention of my colleagues to the 227th anniversary of Congress' first quorum, which the House of Representatives achieved on April 1, 1789, and which the Senate achieved 5 days later. In the first week of April, the Association of Centers for the Study of Congress remembers these milestones by observing Congress Week--an annual celebration which includes commemorative events at member institutions across the country. The Association of Centers for the Study of Congress is composed of more than 40 universities that work to preserve the historical collections of Members of Congress. The organization's goal is to promote public understanding of the House and the Senate by focusing on the history of Congress and its role in our constitutional system of government. Having served as a member of this body for nearly four decades, I understand well the importance of keeping good records, which is why I am sincerely grateful for the Association of Centers for the Study of Congress and its efforts to help us in this endeavor. While Presidents have Presidential libraries maintained by the National Archives, we--the Members of Congress--are responsible for preserving our own personal documents. Only by archiving these records will historians, students, and teachers be able to appreciate the vital role that Congress has played in our national history. As President Pro Tempore, I am committed to upholding the reputation and dignity of this institution. Part and parcel to that effort is preserving the Senate's history. To this end, I strongly encourage my colleagues to keep comprehensive records of their work in Congress. Just as important as writing legislation is maintaining a thorough record of the bills we pass, so that future generations can appreciate the historical importance of our accomplishments. Serving as a Member of the world's greatest deliberative body is no small honor; it is a tremendous privilege that none of us should take for granted. The American people have placed their confidence in our ability to effect meaningful change for the good of the country. May we honor this sacred trust by keeping detailed archives of the work we do here.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise once again to address the Supreme Court vacancy created by the untimely death of Justice Antonin Scalia. The Constitution gives the nomination power to the President and gives the advice and consent power to the Senate but does not tell either how to exercise their power. Our job of advice and consent begins with deciding how best to exercise this power in each situation, and the Senate has done so in different ways at different times under different circumstances. I don't think there is any question about that. For two reasons, I am convinced that the best way to exercise our power of advice and consent regarding the Scalia vacancy is to defer the confirmation process until the current Presidential season is over. The first reason is that the circumstances we face today make this the wrong time for the confirmation process. This vacancy occurred in a Presidential election year with the campaigns and voting already underway. Different parties control the nomination and confirmation phases of the judicial appointment process. The confirmation process, especially for Supreme Court nominees, has been racked by discord in the past, and this is one of the bitterest and dirtiest Presidential campaigns we have seen in modern times. Combining a Supreme Court confirmation fight and a nasty Presidential campaign would create the perfect storm that would do more harm than good for the Court, the Senate, and of course, our Nation. The circumstances I mentioned are identical to those that led Vice President Biden in 1992 to recommend exactly what we are doing today. In June of 1992, when he chaired the Judiciary Committee, he identified these very circumstances and concluded: ``[O]nce the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over.'' To be fair, something significant has changed since 1992. The confirmation process has become even more partisan, contentious, and divisive. In 2001 Democrats plotted a procedural revolution by launching new tactics to prevent Republican judicial nominees from being confirmed. Over the next several years, they led 20 filibusters of appeals court nominees and prevented several from ever getting appointed. Then in 2013, Democrats used a parliamentary maneuver to abolish the very filibusters they had used so aggressively. The minority leader knows this because he was in the middle of it all. If the condition of the confirmation process was bad enough in 1992 for Chairman Biden to recommend deferring it to a less politically charged time, Democrats' actions since then have only made this conclusion more compelling today. The second reason for deferring the confirmation process for the Scalia vacancy is that elections have consequences. In 2012 the election obviously had consequences for the President and his power to nominate, but the 2014 election had its own consequences for the Senate and its power of advice and consent. The reason the American people gave Senate control to Republicans was to be a more effective check on how the President is exceeding his constitutional authority. The 2016 election also has consequences for the judiciary. The timing of the Scalia vacancy creates a unique opportunity for the American people to voice their opinion about the direction of the courts. On Monday the minority leader reminded us of an important axiom. Let me refer to the chart again. ``No matter how many times you say a falsehood, it is still false.'' I agree. The minority leader claims that the Senate has a constitutional duty, a constitutional obligation to hold a prompt hearing and timely floor vote for the President's nominee to the Scalia vacancy. Yesterday The Hill quoted him saying this: ``The obligation is for them to hold hearings and to have a vote. That's in the Constitution.'' By my count, then, the minority leader has made this claim here on the Senate floor more than 40 times. He said it as recently as this morning. No matter how many times he says this falsehood, it is still false. The minority leader's claim is false because the Constitution says no such thing. This is what the Constitution actually says about appointing judges: The President ``shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint.'' Nothing about hearings or votes, nothing about a timetable or schedule. I say this to my Democratic colleagues: Do you really want to stand behind a completely fictional, patently false claim like that? Do you really want to base your position on what the Washington Post Fact Checker called a ``politically convenient fairytale''? I understand that you want the Senate to conduct the confirmation process now for the President's nominee. We can and should debate that. But will none of you be honest enough to at least say what everyone in this Chamber knows--that the Constitution does not require us to do things that way? The minority leader not only contradicts the Constitution; he contradicts himself. The minority leader was serving here in the Senate in 1992. Senator Reid took no issue with Chairman Biden's conclusion that the circumstances at the time--the same circumstances that exist today--counseled deferring the confirmation process. Senator Reid did not tell Chairman Biden that the Senate must do its job. Senator Reid did not assert then what he repeats so often today--that the Senate has a constitutional duty to give nominees prompt hearings and timely floor votes. On May 19, 2005, during the debate on the nomination of Priscilla Owen to the U.S. court of appeals, the minority leader said of the Constitution--and I will refer to this chart again--``Nowhere in that document does it say that the Senate has a duty to give Presidential appointees a vote.'' In that 2005 speech, the minority leader was particularly adamant about this point. Claiming that the Senate has a duty to promptly consider each nominee and give them an up-or-down vote, he said, would ``rewrite the Constitution and reinvent reality.'' That is what the minority leader said then. The circumstances have changed, of course. Today the political shoe is on the minority leader's other foot, and he is the one claiming that nominees must have prompt consideration and up-or-down votes. By his own standard, the minority leader is rewriting the Constitution and reinventing reality. Now that it serves his own political interests and that of his party, the minority leader has reversed course and claimed in a recent Washington Post opinion column that the Senate has a constitutional duty to give nominees ``a fair and timely hearing.'' Let me once again mention 1992, when Chairman Biden denied a hearing to more than 50 Republican judicial nominees. He allowed no hearing at all, whether fair or unfair, timely or otherwise. In September 1992 the New York Times reported on page 1 that this was part of an obstruction strategy to keep judicial vacancies open in the hopes that Bill Clinton would be elected. Senator Reid served here at that time, but I can find no record of him demanding that every nominee get a timely hearing. Instead, he wholeheartedly supported his party's strategy of obstruction. In his recent Washington Post column, the minority leader also wrote that the Senate has a constitutional duty to give nominees a floor vote. Between 2003 and 2007, however, he voted 25 times to deny any floor vote at all to Republican judicial nominees. As far as I can tell, we have the same Constitution today as we did in 1992, 2003, 2005, and 2007. We have the same Constitution today with a Democrat in the White House as we did in the past with a Republican President in the White House. The minority leader cannot have it both ways. He cannot today insist that the Constitution requires the very hearings and floor votes he and his fellow Democrats blocked in the past. I suppose they will say those were lesser court judges. Well, they were still judicial nominees. On Monday, the minority leader again attacked the Judiciary Committee and its distinguished chairman, Senator Grassley. You have to go a long way to find anybody who is nicer, more competent, and more dedicated than Senator Grassley; yet he is being attacked again. I guess they think that somehow makes a difference. The minority leader held up a quote from an editorial in an Iowa paper about how the chairman is conducting the confirmation process. I don't know when the minority leader started caring about what hometown newspaper editorials said about the confirmation process, but this appears to be yet another epiphany. On February 19, 2003, the Reno Gazette-Journal criticized Democrats for their filibuster of Miguel Estrada to the U.S. Court of Appeals. A few weeks later, the Las Vegas Review-Journal called the filibuster campaign promoted by Senator Reid ``nothing more than ideological posturing and partisan blustering.'' As I mentioned earlier, the minority leader went on to vote 25 times for filibusters of Republican judicial nominees. Also on Monday, the minority leader claimed that the Judiciary Committee is not doing its job and that the chairman is ``taking his marching orders from the Republican leader.'' Later in the day, the Senate unanimously passed the Defend Trade Secrets Act. The minority leader dismissed this legislative accomplishment because it was reported out of the Judiciary Committee unanimously. He said: ``I don't see today why the Judiciary Committee should be given a few pats on the back.'' Well, that is OK with me; we don't need pats on the back. The minority leader knows better though. He knows that the strong bipartisan outcome for this legislation was the result of nearly two years of work behind the scenes, primarily at the staff level. It is painfully obvious that the minority leader desperately wants to score political points and to spin everything he can to his advantage, but to disparage and belittle the arduous work of both Democrats and Republicans, by both staff and Senators, is disgraceful and insulting. Before he denigrated this significant bipartisan achievement, he should have read the Obama administration's statement of policy on the bill. The Defend Trade Secrets Act will, the administration says, promote innovation and help minimize threats to American businesses, the economy, and national security interests. The Obama administration calls this an ``important piece of legislation'' that would ``provide important protection to the Nation's businesses and industries.'' This morning, the minority leader once again said that the Senate must do its job regarding the Scalia vacancy, and he asked, ``What is that job?'' The Senate's job is to determine how best to exercise its advice and consent power under the particular circumstances we face today. We have made that determination. We have done our job. We are making the same determination that the minority leader apparently supported in 1992. The Constitution no more dictates our decision than it did in 2009 when the minority leader correctly said that the Senate is not required to vote on nominations. No matter how many times you say a falsehood, it is still false. No matter how many times the minority leader falsely claims that the Constitution dictates how and when the Senate must conduct the confirmation process, it is still false. No matter how many times he claims that the Senate is not doing its job, it is still false. No matter how many times the minority leader questions the integrity and character of the Judiciary Committee chairman, those questions are still false. No matter how many times the minority leader contradicts himself and tries to avoid his own judicial confirmation record, his claims today are still false. The Senate today has the same power of advice and consent as when Democrats were the majority. We have the same responsibility to determine the best way to exercise that power in each situation. In 1992 Chairman Biden recommended deferring the confirmation process so that ``partisan bickering and political posturing'' did not overwhelm everything else. The false claims and disreputable tactics being used today, including by the minority leader, only confirm Chairman Biden's judgment and its application today. All of this is disappointing to me, to be honest with you. We have an honest disagreement as to when this nomination should be brought up. We have an honest disagreement as to how it should be brought up. We have an honest disagreement about the times we are in. We think this Presidential race is horrific on both sides. And I, for one, as former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, am deeply concerned that we bring up this nominee in the middle of this awful mess called the Presidential election, with all of the politics and screaming and shouting and arguing from both sides. Considering a nominee now would demean the Court. It would demean what we are trying to do around here. Waiting to consider a nominee only makes sense given that voting in this election is already underway. For reasons I have explained before--and no doubt will do so again--the confirmation process for the Scalia vacancy should be deferred until the election season is over. I am also troubled by the minority leader's attacks on Chairman Grassley. I am concerned because I think that to have any leader attack somebody as decent and as honorable as Chuck Grassley is below the dignity of this body. Whether someone has disagreements with Chuck or not, they can explain those disagreements without being slanderous or libelous. There are very few people in this body who are as honest and as decent as Chuck Grassley. I think all of my colleagues are honest and decent, but very few of them would rise to the level Chuck Grassley does. He is an old farmer who believes in doing right and who, to the best of his ability, always does right. I have been around Chairman Grassley for a long time, and I have the utmost respect for him. He is not even an attorney. Yet he is running the Judiciary Committee very well. He is a good man. He deserves to be treated like a good man and a good leader and a good chairman. We are going to have our differences in this body, but we should treat each other with the utmost respect and not accuse people of being things they are not. I can say one thing. I have served here for 40 years and Chuck Grassley has been one of the best people I have served with on either side. I think my friends on the other side understand that I care a great deal for them and that I like working with them. Sometimes we have to modify things so they are pleased, but that is part of this process. Sometimes we very vehemently disagree. That is one of the great things about the Senate--we can disagree without being disagreeable. We can find fault in the issues, but I think it is time to quit finding unnecessary fault in each other. This is the greatest deliberative body in the world. I feel good to have been able to serve as long as I have here, and I respect my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Even so, we have a disagreement on when this body should consider a nominee, and that disagreement is a sincere one. The fact is, it would be terrible to bring up the nominee in the middle of this particular Presidential election. Let me just conclude by saying I love this body and I love my colleagues. I just hope we can open the door to understanding each side a little bit better than we do. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, later this evening, the Senate will vote on the Defend Trade Secrets Act, a bill that will enable U.S. businesses to protect their trade secrets in Federal court. Senator Chris Coons and I have been working on this legislation in a bipartisan way for nearly 2 years, so it is really satisfying to see the Senate poised to vote on this important bill. To date, the legislation has 65 bipartisan cosponsors, including the distinguished Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, Chuck Grassley, and ranking member, the distinguished Senator Pat Leahy. I appreciate their support for this bill. I also commend our House colleagues, Representatives Doug Collins and Jerrold Nadler, for their tireless efforts--and others over there as well. They have been invaluable partners in advancing this legislation in the House of Representatives. Working under the capable leadership of my dear friend, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, we have come together to right an inequity facing U.S. businesses by creating a civil remedy for trade secret misappropriation. Trade secrets--such as customer lists, formulas, algorithms, software codes, unique designs, industrial techniques, and manufacturing processes--are an essential form of intellectual property. Other forms of intellectual property, such as patents, copyrights, and trademarks, are covered by Federal civil law. Trade secrets, by contrast, are the only form of U.S. intellectual property where the owner does not have access to a Federal civil remedy for misuse or misappropriation. As a result, billions of dollars each year are lost to trade secret theft, which stifles innovation by deterring companies from investing in research and development. Currently, the only Federal vehicle for trade secret protection is the 1996 Economic Espionage Act, which makes trade secret theft by foreign nationals a criminal offense. But this remedy criminalizes only a small subset of trade secret theft and relies on the thinly stretched resources of the Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute such offenses. One experienced trade secret practitioner told me recently that the Justice Department typically only considers prosecuting cases with more than $100,000 in damages. This is because trade secret investigations and prosecutions are more resource intensive and complex than most other Federal crimes, requiring a deep technological and scientific background. Given these constraints, the Justice Department and the FBI are reluctant to commit scarce resources to investigate and prosecute a single matter, especially when the same effort could result in the prosecution and conviction of other Federal crimes. Therefore, it is not surprising that in the 20 years since the Economic Espionage Act became law, Federal prosecutors have charged only about 300 defendants for economic espionage or trade secret theft. And because these cases frequently involve multiple defendants, this equates to an average of about 10 prosecutions annually. Clearly, current Federal law is inadequate in resolving the many challenges our businesses face in today's innovation economy. State laws have proven inadequate to protect victims of trade secret theft. Since most businesses today operate across one or more State lines, having a uniform set of standards that defines legal protections for trade secrets is crucial. That was the rationale behind creating the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, which sought to achieve nationwide uniformity in trade secret law. But over time, most States have adopted their own trade secret laws. In fact, State laws today are perhaps even more variable in their treatment of trade secrets than they were at the time the Uniform Trade Secrets Act was proposed in 1979. This next mixed bag of differing legal regimes forces victims of trade secret theft to wade through a quagmire of procedural hurdles in order to recover their losses. For example, if an attorney needs testimony from a witness in another State, she must first apply to her local court, asking that it request the other State to issue its own subpoena for the document or deposition. This process can take weeks, which is an eternity in a trade secret case. Under a uniform Federal standard, the process would be far more efficient. That is because all Federal courts apply the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, allowing attorneys to obtain documents and testimony from a witness in another State without having to apply to that State's court system. Essentially, enabling businesses to protect their trade secrets in Federal court removes an unnecessary and time-consuming layer of bureaucracy. Streamlining access to remedies is critical in trade secret cases where an expedited judicial process may be necessary to deal with thieves who pose a flight risk. Unfortunately, once a company's intellectual property is leaked and the information is made public, the trade secret loses its legal protection. Put simply, State law is designed for intrastate litigation and offers limited practical recourse to victims of interstate trade secret theft--the contrast between intrastate and interstate. Maintaining the status quo is woefully insufficient to safeguard against misappropriation. U.S. companies must be able to protect their trade secrets in Federal court. The Defend Trade Secrets Act will do precisely that by providing trade secret owners access to both a uniform national law and the ability to make their case in Federal courts. Likewise, the bill allows victims of trade secret theft to obtain a seizure order in extraordinary circumstances. This type of order would allow misappropriated property to be seized so that it isn't abused during the pendency of litigation. To ensure that companies do not use the seizure authority for anti-competitive purposes, this legislation requires those seeking redress to make a rigorous showing that they own the trade secret, that the trade secret was stolen, and that third parties would not be harmed if an ex parte order were granted. The bill also allows for employees to move from one job to another without fear of being wrongfully charged with trade secret theft. In addition to the overwhelming bipartisan support among my Senate colleagues, more than 50 companies and associations have endorsed the Defend Trade Secrets Act. Leaders in the technology, life sciences, manufacturing, energy, automotive, agricultural, and telecommunications sectors support this bill, among others. Many letters and opinion pieces have been written in support of the bill. Let me briefly share some of the comments from our Nation's business leaders. In an op-ed published in The Hill, Aric Newhouse from the National Association of Manufacturers states, ``The [Defend Trade Secrets Act] encourages investment in cutting-edge research and development and will have an immediate, positive impact on our innovative sector, ultimately creating jobs and opportunity in manufacturing in the United States.'' In a piece published by the Washington Times, David Hirschmann from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce writes, ``The Defend Trade Secrets Act creates a federal civil cause of action that currently does not exist. Creating a new federal civil cause of action will help industry help itself.'' In an op-ed in the Washington Examiner, Mark Lauroesch from the Intellectual Property Owners Association writes, ``Every day without this law, our companies are losing millions of dollars to trade secret theft.'' Victoria Espinel from the BSA Software Alliance writes in the Huffington Post, ``The Defend Trade Secrets Act would provide that important, missing remedy, and help usher in the harmonized system that will benefit not only software innovation but our entire American economy.'' Guy Blalock from Utah's IM Flash writes in the Salt Lake Tribune, ``Enacting the bill will have an immediate, positive impact on innovative companies that create jobs in this country.'' In a joint op-ed published in the Salt Lake Tribune, Rich Nelson from the Utah Technology Council and Lane Beattie from the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce write that the Defend Trade Secrets Act ``equips business owners with the tools they need to combat trade secret theft.'' Finally, Eli Lilly's Michael Harrington and Microsoft's Erich Andersen in an op-ed published in Forbes write, ``This thoughtful and carefully considered legislation will adapt America's trade secret regime to reflect 21st Century realities and will strengthen this critical form of intellectual property.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the op-eds from which I have quoted following my remarks. Throughout my 40 years of service, I have been a part of almost every significant intellectual property initiative that has come before the Senate--from the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which sought to streamline our copyright system for the digital era, to the America Invents Act, which overhauled our patent system to help ensure American innovators' property rights are adequately protected in the 21st century. Legislating in the area of intellectual property requires patience and perseverance. The bill on which we are voting tonight has been 2 years in the making. Initially, providing a Federal standard and civil remedies for trade secrets had little support. It took much effort not only to identify the precise nature of the problem--a problem that amounts to hundreds of billions of dollars in economic loss for U.S. companies annually--but also to develop a solution that could garner the support of virtually all stakeholders. This required soliciting input from a broad range of interests and working closely with dozens of trade associations, affected businesses, and policymakers on both sides of the aisle. The final version of the legislation that the Senate will pass later this evening reflects input and additions from a broad coalition of interested parties. It also reflects a number of instances where a careful balance had to be struck between competing interests. As has been true of several recent intellectual property efforts, the interests of the technology sector and the pharmaceutical industry are not always aligned. The same was true when it came to trade secrets. Yet we worked hard to develop a solution that could meet the needs of both. This balance is perhaps best exemplified by the joint op-ed I mentioned a moment ago, coauthored by the general counsel of one of America's leading pharmaceutical companies and a senior executive from one of America's prominent tech companies. As chairman of the Senate Republican High-Tech Task Force and coauthor of the Hatch-Waxman Act, I know how critical it is to strike the right balance such that both high-tech and life science industries can support a bill. We have struck that balance with the Defend Trade Secrets Act. Not only will we succeed in defending the trade secrets of American businesses, I hope the passage of the bill will serve as a springboard to spur congressional action in other areas of intellectual property, including patent litigation reforms. I commend in particular House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte for his steadfast work in this regard, and I stand ready to do everything in my power to help him in this endeavor. Tonight's passage of fundamental trade secret law reform would be a significant achievement at any time, let alone in the challenging partisan environment we face today. Indeed, today's Senate vote is not only a watershed moment for the intellectual property and business communities; it is also an example of what Congress can accomplish when we put our party politics aside and focus on areas of agreement. Throughout my Senate service, I have always sought, whenever possible, to seek common ground in order to advance public policy priorities that will benefit the American people and the American economy. With this bill, we have done just that. I want to thank Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for leading the Senate in such a way to make constructive bipartisan legislating possible. I appreciate his support for this legislation and his willingness to devote valuable floor time to help ensure its passage. Tonight we will add the Defend Trade Secrets Act to a long list of legislation the Senate has passed in the last 15 months since the senior Senator from Kentucky assumed leadership of the U.S. Senate. This is yet another example that the Senate is back to work for the American people. I also want to take this moment to thank the staff members who have been instrumental in getting us to this point. Let me start by thanking my senior judiciary counsel, Matt Sandgren, whose relentless determination helped make tonight a reality. I also thank my chief of staff, Rob Porter, for his unmatchable leadership in shepherding this bill forward. Together, Matt and Rob have been an invincible team, working hand in glove throughout this process. I personally appreciate their excellent work. I also recognize my superb press team for their efforts, J.P. Freire, Matt Whitlock, and Sam Lyman. I am also appreciative of my dedicated law clerks, Ryan Karr and Jaclyn D'Esposito. I also acknowledge the important contributions of Senator Coons' current and former staff: Ted Schroeder, Andrew Crawford, Erica Songer, and Jonathan Stahler. There are also several staff on the Senate Judiciary Committee who have been instrumental in helping with this key intellectual property bill: Rita Lari Jochum, Jonathan Nabavi, Alexandra Givens, Danielle Cutrona, Eric Haren, Lee Holmes, Lartease Tiffith, Gary Barnett, Daniel Swanson, Ray Starling, Ethan Arenson, Chad Rhoades, and Sam Simon. I also acknowledge the following House staff for their hard work and commitment to this bill: Shelley Husband, Branden Ritchie, Jennifer Choudhry, Sally Larson, Jason Everett, and David Greengrass. Finally, I thank the many staff members from majority leader Mitch McConnell and minority leader Harry Reid who helped to make this bill's passage a reality. I wish to especially thank Laura Dove, Sharon Soderstrom, Hazen Marshall, John Abegg, Chris Tuck, and Ayesha Khanna. Enacting meaningful public policy reform in the midst of a contentious Presidential election is something to celebrate. In very real ways, this bill will help strengthen our economy and allow businesses to grow and create additional jobs for hard-working Americans. I hope my colleagues will join me in safeguarding American ingenuity by voting for the Defend Trade Secrets Act. They will not be sorry by doing that. I understand Senator Coons is here, and I want to recognize him and all the work he has done with me on this bill. He is a wonderful partner on the Judiciary Committee, and I personally appreciate him very much. With that, 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. I thank my colleague and longtime friend from Iowa, Senator Chuck Grassley, for the question. Indeed, the Defend Trade Secrets Act provides a trade secret owner with a right of action to go to court ex parte to have the trade secret seized and returned before the misappropriator can divulge it and cause it to lose its protection or before significant destruction of evidence. The provision is tailored to prevent abuse--balancing the need to recover a stolen trade secret with the rights of defendants and third parties. We drafted the bill to require the party seeking ex parte review to make a rigorous showing that they owned the secret, that it was stolen, and that third parties would not be harmed if an order were granted. We required a hearing at the earliest possible date. We also included damages for wrongful seizure, including attorney's fees. Could the Senator discuss the intent behind that language?

Mr. HATCH. That is correct. We expect the provision will be used in instances such as when a trade secret misappropriator is seeking to flee the country or planning to disclose a trade secret immediately.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I am trying to assess the financial and economic challenges facing Puerto Rico, an issue I have been speaking about since last summer. In fact, it was July of last year when I first wrote to Treasury Secretary Lew, expressing my concern about the fiscal situation in Puerto Rico and inquiring about the Obama administration's plans to address this predicament. While I did eventually get a response from the Treasury Secretary, numerous questions that I asked in that initial letter to this day remain unanswered. Over the ensuing months, I made other inquiries to Health and Human Services Secretary Burwell because, for some time now, we have been told that funding--or to be more specific, a decline in funding--for Federal health care programs was a factor contributing to Puerto Rico's debt crisis. So as the chairman of the Senate committee of jurisdiction over most of those programs, I wanted to know what HHS thought needed to be done. Not surprisingly, I am still waiting for a substantive response to those inquiries. Instead of detailed proposals, I was initially told simply that health funding issues surrounding Puerto Rico are difficult and that the administration expected Congress to address these issues in a fiscally responsive way--and to do it quickly. Eventually, last month, with the release of the President's budget proposal, we learned that the administration wants to provide $30 billion--that is with a ``b''--in additional Medicaid funds for Puerto Rico. When asked how the administration thought we should pay for this, Secretary Burwell suggested we simply adopt the President's budget. However, given that there are more surviving members of The Beatles than there are Senators willing to vote in favor of an Obama budget, I don't know if anyone can take that suggestion very seriously. That is the sum total of the input we have gotten from the administration on dealing with Puerto Rico's health funding issues--a proposal for dramatically increased spending with no credible way to pay for it and a demand that we provide that funding as quickly as possible. That is all they are willing to say publicly on this matter, even though administration officials have labeled this a humanitarian crisis. By the way, buried in all of the details is the fact that this proposal for increased Medicaid funds is meant to shore up an inequity created by the so-called Affordable Care Act. Apparently, the Democrats' partisan health law provided billions in additional Medicaid funding for Puerto Rico, but also included a cliff--or a point in time when that funding would drop off quickly and dramatically--and that cliff is fast approaching. Let's be clear: The Democrats constructed that cliff, presumably knowing what they were doing at that time. The Democrats in Congress voted for it, and the Democrat in the White House signed it into law. No Republican in Congress supported that cliff. Yet, now we are told that we must act quickly to eliminate the cliff that they have created and add even more funds without a realistic way to pay for them. And, on top of that, Democrats in Congress have labeled any hesitation on the part of Republicans to fix a problem they created and to fix it in the exact way they prescribe as callous indifference toward the plight of the American citizens living in Puerto Rico. I have been as clear as I can be on this issue. I have said repeatedly that I want to work with my colleagues to find a solution, but we need to do so in a manner that is fiscally responsible with an eye toward righting the irresponsible course taken by the Government of Puerto Rico. Toward that end, I, along with a number of my colleagues, have repeatedly requested audited financial statements from the Government of Puerto Rico. One would think that is a reasonable request. These requests date back to last September with the first hearing I held on these issues in the Finance Committee. That was six months ago, yet we still don't have that information from fiscal year 2014, let alone 2015. In addition, last month I wrote a 9-page letter to the Governor of Puerto Rico, asking a number of questions about Puerto Rico's finances, and I asked that they be answered by the first of this month. I have received no answers to these questions. In the face of a humanitarian crisis, it seems to be too much to ask of the Government of Puerto Rico that they provide some verifiable financial information so that Congress can make an informed decision about how to handle this very difficult situation. And, apparently, some of my friends on the other side of the aisle are ready and willing to spend tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer funds without all the relevant information and to publicly attack anyone who questions that strategy. So far, my friends on the Democratic side, including Members of Congress and the administration, have been generally unwilling to provide even the most basic information about how much their various proposals for Puerto Rico would cost the Federal Government or whether they intend to offset those undisclosed costs. And none of them show an interest in even discussing ways to help Puerto Rico return to a more sustainable fiscal and economic course. Yet they repeatedly have the audacity to accuse Republicans of indifference to the struggles faced by the residents of Puerto Rico. Sometimes I feel as though I am all alone, trying to solve this problem without any help from the other side, and there are even difficult times on our side. The absurdity of this debate, if that is what we want to call it, is compounded by the fact that the only practical and fiscally responsible legislation introduced in Congress to address these issues has come from Republicans. As most of my colleagues should know, even with the severely incomplete information we have, Senators Grassley and Murkowski, who chair the Judiciary and Natural Resources Committees, and I have introduced a bill that would provide some tax relief and fully offset funds to Puerto Rico for transition assistance as well as an oversight authority to help ensure that Puerto Rico establishes credible budgets and future fiscal plans. Our bill provides the platform needed for sustained economic growth and a return of access to credit markets. However, neither the administration nor any of my friends on the other side of the aisle have shown much interest in discussing the substance of our bill. One would think they would want me to bring it up, and if they wanted to amend it, they could amend it. We have to do this. We can't just play around with this. Instead, we have seen the aforementioned proposals to send tens of billions of dollars in health funds to Puerto Rico, no questions asked, and a proposed bankruptcy scheme that my colleagues have misleadingly claimed would simply give Puerto Rico access to chapter 9 debt relief--the same access we give to every municipality in the country. Of course, as I have made clear on a number of occasions, the so- called chapter 9 access they are seeking for Puerto Rico doesn't really resemble the actual chapter 9 of the current Bankruptcy Code. In reality, their proposal would create, for lack of a better word, a super chapter 9 specifically for Puerto Rico and grant the territory unprecedented authority to restructure its debt. And that is the territory not having a special supervisory board to make sure they do restructure its debt. Before I say more about the super chapter 9 proposal, I just want to make clear that I and others have been working for quite some time now to find an agreeable solution to these problems. We have done so even while the Government of Puerto Rico refuses to provide anything resembling a complete picture of its finances, which, it seems to this Senator, ought to be the first thing that is done. I have been working with colleagues in both the House and the Senate to explore legislative options. And while I don't want to speak for anyone else at the moment, I will say we have been willing to consider various debt restructuring mechanisms for Puerto Rico, balancing the need for fairness and equal treatment for similarly situated parties. However, as we consider various approaches, I want to make three things perfectly clear. First, the Government of Puerto Rico must negotiate in good faith with its creditors, and creditors must do the same with Puerto Rico. It would be a mistake for officials in Puerto Rico to hold out or drag their feet on good-faith bargaining efforts in an anticipation of congressional action. Second, contrary to claims made by some of my colleagues, none of us have any interest in helping out the ``vultures'' or ``speculators'' looking to profit out of the misery created in Puerto Rico. If anyone uncovers illegal actions taken by investors in Puerto Rico, then by all means they should be prosecuted. If anyone can identify any investors whose actions are clearly predatory and unethical, we should all rain shame upon them. And, if former Federal Government officials who travel through the revolving door of the administration are found to be unduly enriching themselves off of Puerto Rico's plight, their actions should be brought to light. I have no qualms with any of that because my goal and the goal of my Republican colleagues is to provide sensible and reasonable solutions to help the people living in Puerto Rico. However, this does bring me to my third point. Innocent and ethical investors from Utah, New York, New Jersey, and every other State in the Union, as well as good-faith investors in Puerto Rico, should not be casually labeled as ``vultures'' or ``speculators'' and should be treated as any other similarly situated investor. A retiree or near- retiree in Sandy, UT, who invested part of her retirement savings in Puerto Rican debt instruments, which carry Federal tax preferences, is no less deserving of repayment than any other similarly situated claimant. It is easy to make exaggerated claims that the bondholders are all rich people; they are not. Thousands and thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, are average people who have trusted the bonds. Teresa and Julio Garcia, who are residents of Puerto Rico, along with other middle-class Puerto Ricans who own a significant share of Puerto Rico's debt, are certainly not vultures and don't deserve unequal treatment. Residents of Puerto Rico who are retired or near retirement and who are numbered among Puerto Rico's bondholders, but don't happen to receive public pensions, do not deserve to see their savings depleted in order to favor certain public pension benefits in Puerto Rico. To some, that last example may seem oddly specific; however, if you look at the super chapter 9 proposals put forward by Democrats, the intent to favor public pensions over private bondholders--even those whose retirement savings are invested in those bonds--is explicit. What is wrong with worrying about private bondholders who are like Julio and his wife? Regarding those public pensions, it is true that Puerto Rico tried to reform the retirement systems for its government employees and did end up making some lasting changes from one of its programs. Nonetheless, the territory has not followed through on some aspects of the reforms it did make, and even in the face of dire fiscal conditions, some of Puerto Rico's major public pension systems remain unchanged. And for my friends on the other side, it appears that any effort to encourage Puerto Rico to substantially improve its public pension systems as the island restructures some of its debt would be out of the question. That just can't be. Madam President, as we see increasingly large municipal bankruptcies and States with mounting fiscal pressures, severely underfunded public pensions almost always seem to be lurking in the background. Until now, Detroit was probably the biggest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history, with a debt of around $18 billion. Now Puerto Rico is coming to Congress for help to deal with $73 billion of debt and $43 billion of shockingly unfunded public pension obligations, bringing the total to more than $115 billion. It would be beyond irresponsible to offer aid to Puerto Rico without taking at least some action to improve public pension reporting and transparency. Given the growing crisis of underfunded public pensions around the country, which I have been warning my colleagues about for years now, taking no action will ensure that States and municipalities that have been responsible with their pensions and their fiscal planning will see their costs go up as a result of the bad and imprudent actors. On this point, officials of the Securities and Exchange Commission and municipal market analysts overwhelmingly agree: Increased transparency on public pension liabilities is clearly necessary. Earlier this week, while our bicameral work to produce passable legislation to address the problems in Puerto Rico has progressed, some of my friends on the other side of the aisle decided to chime in once again with another round of implausible policy proposals and fresh political attacks. The latest group of bills introduced by Democrats includes a number of repackaged ideas from last year, including unscored and unsound proposals to allocate funds and direct aid as well as a renewed effort to grant unprecedented debt resolution authority for Puerto Rico. The only real difference between the ideas we have seen already and those that were included in the bills this week is that Democrats are apparently now willing to be upfront about the fact that the debt resolution authority they are seeking isn't just the same chapter 9 everyone else has, but an entirely new animal altogether. Last year, my friends on the other side had a bill to provide Puerto Rico with an ability to apply chapter 9 debt resolution authority on a retroactive basis. The reasoning and rhetoric behind the bill was that municipalities in every State have access, and so should Puerto Rico-- never mind the retroactivity. Now, however, the goalposts are being moved. My friends have now introduced their super chapter 9 bankruptcy scheme devised by administration officials. Of course, this new super chapter 9 is not something available to other municipalities or States. It is, in fact, without precedent. It includes virtually all government debt in Puerto Rico and blows right through a payout protection afforded to general obligation debt that is in Puerto Rico's Constitution. This not only steps directly on Puerto Rico's autonomy, but it also sends dangerous signals by telling municipal bond markets to no longer regard general obligation debt issued by States as being safe, as previously expected. That, of course, means higher costs to States for funding things like infrastructure projects, and it is something that many State Governors have said they worry about and do not support. Needless to say, this freshly constructed bankruptcy scheme is extremely risky. Though my friends are now being transparent about the relief they want, it doesn't make their proposals any more palatable. The bills introduced this week include proposals beyond the super chapter 9 proposal. While these ideas are not at all new, it is worth taking a few minutes to go through them individually. First, we have provisions, as poorly constructed this year as they were last year, calling for additional Medicare and Medicaid funds for Puerto Rico. Second, we have proposals to extend parts of the U.S. personal income tax system that provide direct aid to U.S. taxpayers to people in Puerto Rico, excluding any part that requires positive tax payment. Residents of Puerto Rico do not file Federal income tax returns or pay any personal Federal income tax, yet my colleagues want the earned- income tax credit and child tax credits to be paid out to residents of Puerto Rico. Of course, the Joint Committee on Taxation--the nonpartisan scorekeeper and adviser when it comes to tax policy--has already indicated that such a scheme would be rife with administrative difficulties and fraud. It is, at the very least, difficult and counterintuitive to expect the IRS to properly operate an income tax program for people that are not subject to the income system to start with. However, that doesn't seem to faze my friends on the other side. Third, we have a control board to oversee the restructuring of Puerto Rico's debt that under the bill would be populated by Puerto Rican political appointees. That is one of the problems--the political appointees in Puerto Rico. Why don't they start thinking about all the taxpayers in America? Clearly, the structure of this proposed control board would subject any financial decisionmaking in Puerto Rico to the same political wrangling that got the territory into this mess in the first place. Yet the obviousness of these problems seems to have escaped my colleagues. As with last year, we do not know the precise cost of the health funding and refundable tax credit proposals because my friends have not been interested in getting them scored or in disclosing how much they cost. Essentially, my colleagues want to have a debate about their proposals without any real discussion of what they will cost the American taxpayers. I have been here only about 39 years--actually, 40--but I think that is long enough to know that anyone who puts forward legislation designed specifically to throw taxpayer funds at a problem without disclosing how much they actually want to spend isn't all that interested in passing the legislation. Instead, what people tend to want in those situations is to send a political message that they care about a problem while the other side does not. Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps my friends on the other side do want to see their proposals become law. If that is the case, they would be glad to know that I have worked with JCT and the Congressional Budget Office to get a ballpark figure on the cost of their proposals. All told, the provisions put forward in the bill Senator Menendez and some of his colleagues introduced this week would cost Federal taxpayers more than $45 billion, and probably closer to $50 billion, at least from what we can tell from the legislative language, which is not the clearest I have ever seen. I can only assume that the administration does not support these bills, given that, in what little communication we have had with them on these issues, they have consistently admonished us to address the Puerto Rico problem in a ``fiscally responsible way.'' I have a hard time imagining any argument that the approaches proffered by my friends this week would satisfy even the loosest definition of fiscal responsibility, at least not until they come up with a semireasonable way to offset the $50 billion cost. Once again, given all these ominous realities, I have to assume that these bills are more about politics than solutions. As I said, people who are serious about solving a problem typically don't propose tens of billions of dollars in spending without actually disclosing the costs and talking about offsets. No, people who put out big ideas without a plausible path to get them enacted are usually more interested in talking about a problem than they are in solving it and more interested in political posturing than actually helping people. Let me say that again. People who put out big ideas without a plausible path to get them enacted are usually more interested in talking about a problem than they are in solving it and more interested in political posturing than in actually helping people. This Senator is not interested in the politics surrounding the crisis in Puerto Rico nor in what the polls say on this issue. I have been working for some time now to craft a legislative solution that can actually pass because I am more interested in enhancing the lives and opportunities of our fellow citizens in Puerto Rico than I am on the political impact this debate could have between now and November. Since last summer, well before almost anyone in Congress really began thinking about the challenges facing Puerto Rico and long before we sought any outlandish legislative proposal from our friends on the other side, I have been calling on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work with me to find serious and credible solutions to help the people, not the politicians, in Puerto Rico. I repeat that call today. If there is anyone who wants to put people far out in front of politics and frankly address these problems instead of merely talking about them, my door remains open--wide open--and I hope some will walk through to help us get this done. I want to get this done. I believe the people of Puerto Rico deserve having it done, but it has to be done right, and it can't be done by gouging everybody else in America for profligacy and improper conduct in Puerto Rico. With that, Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I appreciate the comments of my distinguished colleague from Texas. As usual, he is right on and one of the great leaders on trying to balance the budget through a constitutional amendment. I personally appreciate his efforts and his expertise in doing that. Filling the Supreme Court Vacancy Madam President, on a different subject, I rise today to speak about the need for the Senate to do its job regarding the Supreme Court vacancy created by the untimely death of Justice Antonin Scalia. The Constitution gives to the President the power to nominate Supreme Court Justices, and President Obama has exercised that power by nominating Judge Merrick Garland. The Constitution gives to the Senate the power of advice and consent, and it is time for the Senate to do its job. The sound bite ``do your job'' is catchy, quotable, and short enough to fit in very large letters on a large chart that Democratic Senators bring to this floor. Rarely, however, have so few words been so misleading for so many. This cliche begs but does not answer the most important question: What is the Senate's job regarding the Scalia vacancy? When Democrats and their liberal allies say ``Do your job,'' they really mean ``Do as we say now, not as we did then.'' Saying that would be more honest, but then no one else would be persuaded by it. So they say that the Constitution provides the Senate's job description, requiring a prompt Judiciary Committee hearing and a timely floor vote. There may be a constitution somewhere that says such a thing, but it is certainly not in our Constitution--the Constitution of the United States--that each of us has sworn an oath to support and defend. In a way, I am not surprised that liberals would use a made-up, fictional constitution to pursue their political goal. After all, they favor judges who do the same thing. From the time he was a Senator serving in this body, President Obama has said that judges decide cases based on their personal empathy, core concerns, and vision of how the world works. My goodness. If that were the case, any philosopher could be a Supreme Court Justice. He has nominated men and women who believe that judges may change the Constitution's meaning based on things such as cultural understandings and evolving social norms. Give me a break. The kinds of judges liberals favor see unwritten things in our written Constitution. They discover things between the lines of our written charter that come not from those who drafted and ratified the Constitution, not from the American people, but from the judges' own imaginations. If the Constitution we have--the one our fellow citizens can read-- suits them, then activist judges will use it. If not, then activist judges will make up a new constitution that is more useful to their purposes. America's Founders fashioned a system of government with built-in limits, including a defined role for unelected judges. The Supreme Court observed in the famous case of Marbury v. Madison that the Constitution is written down so that these limits will be neither mistaken nor forgotten and is intended to govern courts as much as legislatures. The activist judges whom liberals favor reject those limits. They look at written law such as the Constitution and statutes merely as a starting point, as words without any real meaning. Their oath to support and defend the Constitution is really an oath to support and defend themselves, since in the long run their constitution is one of their own making. So I am hardly surprised that today Democrats and their leftwing allies turn to a fictional constitution when telling the Senate to do its job. That constitution, however, simply does not exist. The real Constitution leaves to the President and to the Senate the decision about how to exercise their respective powers in the appointment process. What is the Senate's job regarding the Scalia vacancy? The Senate's job is to determine the best way to exercise its advice and consent power under the circumstances we face today. Thankfully, we are not without guidance in deciding the best way to exercise our advice and consent power regarding the Scalia vacancy. We can, for example, look at precedent. It hardly takes a law degree to know that a precedent is more legitimate if it is more similar to the situation before us. Comparing apples and apples is more helpful than, say, comparing apples and rocks. That is just a matter of common sense. Candidly, the fictional claims offered in recent days suggest that some of the lawyers among us could benefit from even more common sense. Over the years, the Senate has considered nominations in different ways at different times, depending on the circumstances. Consider these precedents with great bearing on the current circumstances: The Senate has never confirmed a nominee to a Supreme Court vacancy that opened up this late in a term-limited President's time in office. This is only the third vacancy in nearly a century to occur after the American people had already started voting in a Presidential election, and in the previous two instances--in 1956 and 1968--the Senate did not confirm a nominee until the following year. And the only time the Senate has ever confirmed a nominee to fill a Supreme Court vacancy created after voting began in a Presidential election year was in 1916, and that vacancy arose only because Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes resigned his seat on the Court to run against incumbent President Woodrow Wilson. There is also another precedent that has received little attention but is worth considering. President John Quincy Adams nominated John Crittenden to the Supreme Court in December 1828, after Andrew Jackson won the Presidential election. The Senate, by voice vote, rejected an amendment to a resolution regarding the Crittenden nomination that asserted it is the duty of the Senate to confirm or reject a President's nominees. In one of its reports on the confirmation process, the Congressional Research Service discussed this vote and concluded: ``By this action, the early Senate declined to endorse the principle that proper practice required it to consider and proceed to a final vote on every nomination.'' I believe the precedents, such as they are, support the principle that the Senate must decide for itself how to exercise its power of advice and consent in each situation. We have another source of guidance for how to exercise the advice and consent power in the particular circumstances of the Scalia vacancy. In 1992--another Presidential election year during divided government-- then-Judiciary Committee Chairman Joseph Biden, now our Vice President, addressed this very issue. Senator Biden recommended that if a Supreme Court vacancy occurred that year, the entire appointment process--both nomination and confirmation--should be deferred until the election season was over. Here is what he said in a lengthy interview with the Washington Post: If someone steps down, I would highly recommend the president not name someone, not send a name up. If [the president] did send someone up, I would ask the Senate to seriously consider not having a hearing on that nominee. Chairman Biden also explained the reasons for this recommendation. He said, for example, that an election-year nominee would be caught up in a ``power struggle'' over control of the Supreme Court. He was prescient. In that interview, Chairman Biden also said: Can you imagine dropping a nominee, after the . . . decisions that are about to be made by the Supreme Court, into that fight, into that cauldron in the middle of a presidential year? . . . The environment within which such a hearing would be held would be so supercharged and so prone to be able to be distorted. A week later, Chairman Biden addressed the Senate about the confirmation process and further explained his recommendation for deferring the appointment process should a Supreme Court vacancy occur. He repeated his recommendation regarding how to handle a Supreme Court nomination occurring that year. Let me refer to this chart and read it: President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not--and not--name a nominee until after the November election is completed. . . . [I]f the President . . . presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over. Chairman Biden again explained the reasons for this recommendation. The confirmation process had degraded in the wake of controversial nominations, and the Presidential campaign that year looked to be particularly bitter. As a result, he said, partisan bickering and political posturing would overwhelm the serious evaluation required. In addition, the Presidential election season was already well underway, and different parties controlled the nomination and confirmation phases of the appointment process. Chairman Biden could have been talking about 2016 instead of 1992. In fact, each of the factors leading to his recommendation for deferring the appointment process in 1992 exists in the same or greater measure today. Not a single Democrat objected to Chairman Biden's recommendation to defer the appointment process. Not one. Not one Democrat. If what Democrats say today is true--that the Constitution requires a prompt hearing and a timely floor vote for every nomination--surely someone, anyone would have said so in 1992. Not so. My colleagues will search the 1992 Congressional Record in vain for the slogan ``do your job.'' It appears that a different Constitution was in force in 1992 because no Democratic Senator or leftist organization insisted that the Constitution required a prompt hearing and timely floor vote. No one claimed that the Senate would be shirking its constitutional duty by following Chairman Biden's recommendation. The first step in exercising our power of advice and consent regarding the Scalia vacancy then is to decide how best to do so in the circumstances we face today. Precedent generally, and guidance from past Senate leaders specifically, counsel strongly in favor of deferring the confirmation process until after the Presidential election season is over. That is clearly the best course for the Senate, the judiciary, and, of course, the Nation. That conclusion is reinforced by another important factor: Elections have consequences. Democrats and their leftwing allies also use that axiom but want people to believe that 2012 was the only election relevant to the Scalia vacancy. They want people to believe that because President Obama was reelected in 2012, he should be able to appoint whomever, whenever, and however he likes. That idea must appear in another provision of the Democrats' fictional constitution because, once again, the real one says no such thing. The 2012 election did give the President the power to nominate, and he can exercise that power however he chooses until his final minutes in office next January, and I will uphold that right. He has exercised that power by nominating Judge Merrick Garland. The 2012 election, however, was not the only one with consequences. The 2014 election, for example, had tremendous significance for the Senate's power of advice and consent. The American people gave control of the Senate, and therefore control of the confirmation process, to Republicans. Here, too, we may find some guidance from our friends on the left in addressing this circumstance. President Ronald Reagan nominated Judge Robert Bork to the Supreme Court in 1987. This was 3 years after his reelection and a year after the Senate majority changed hands. Here is how the New York Times addressed the argument that elections have consequences: The President's supporters insist vehemently that, having won the 1984 election, he has every right to try to change the Court's direction. Yes, but the Democrats won the 1986 election, regaining control of the Senate, and they have every right to resist. The same circumstances obviously exist today. By the way, no one should waste time wondering if the New York Times has applied the same principle today. It, of course, hasn't. In addition to 2012 and 2014, the 2016 election will have tremendous consequences for the American people and the courts. It will give the American people a unique opportunity to express their opinion about the direction of the courts by electing the President who nominates and the Senate that gives advice and consent. Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, have very different views about the kind of judge that America needs. Justice Scalia represented a defined, modest approach to judging while, as I mentioned earlier, President Obama has advocated an expansive and activist approach. I have served on the Judiciary Committee longer than all but one Senator since the committee was created 200 years ago. One thing is clear to me: The conflict over judicial appointments is a conflict over judicial power. The two models of judicial power or judicial job descriptions that I have described have radically different consequences and implications for our Nation and our liberty. The American people have expressed increasing concern about the Supreme Court's direction since President Obama was elected. Most Americans, for example, believe that Supreme Court Justices decide cases based on their personal views and object to their doing so. With Justice Scalia's untimely passing, the American people now have a unique opportunity to have a voice in charting a path forward. I cannot conclude today without addressing what is widely understood to be part of the President's strategy in nominating Judge Garland to the Scalia vacancy. The Senate confirmed Judge Garland to the U.S. Court of Appeals by a vote of 76 to 23 in 1997. This, I take it, is supposed to suggest that the Senate should do likewise regarding Judge Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court. So there is no mistake, I will say this as clearly as I can: The confirmation process regarding the Scalia vacancy will be deferred until after the election season is over for the reasons I have explained. That decision has nothing whatsoever to do with the identity of the nominee, and Republicans made our decision known weeks ago, before the President had chosen anyone. I think highly of Judge Garland. But his nomination doesn't in any way change current circumstances. I remain convinced that the best way for the Senate to do its job is to conduct the confirmation process after this toxic Presidential election season is over. Doing so is the only way to ensure fairness to the nominee and preserve the integrity of the Supreme Court. I also want to emphasize that the considerations relevant to an individual's nomination to one position do not necessarily lead to the same conclusion regarding his nomination to another position, especially the Supreme Court. Here, too, I want my colleagues to be aware of guidance we can draw on from the past. In 1990, then-Chairman Joseph Biden presided over the hearing on the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. He said: ``[T]here is a fundamental distinction between what is required of and should be sought of a circuit court judge and a district court judge and a Supreme Court Justice.'' He was right then, and he is right today. Democratic Senators made the same point in 2005 when they sought to distinguish their earlier support for John Roberts' appeals court nomination from their intention to oppose his Supreme Court nomination. Mr. Schumer, our distinguished Senator from New York, for example, called it a whole new ball game. He said, ``you've got to start from scratch.'' Senator Leahy agreed, saying that the Supreme Court is different from the lower courts. I couldn't agree more. Add this to the list of standards that my Democratic colleagues have reversed now that the partisan shoe is on the other foot. Senate Republicans have explained repeatedly and in detail why the best way to exercise our advice-and-consent power in this situation is to defer the confirmation process. That conclusion is completely unrelated to whether the President chooses a nominee, or if he does so, who that nominee is. President Obama could have followed Vice President Biden's 1992 advice and deferred a nomination to fill the Scalia vacancy. He chose not to do so. For the reasons I have discussed--precedent, past guidance, and the consequences of elections--the Senate should follow that advice and defer the confirmation process for the good of the Senate, the Judiciary, and the American people. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise to discuss the vacancy created by the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Those of us who knew the late Justice well are still mourning the loss of a dear friend, and the Nation is feeling the loss of one of the greatest jurists in its history. We will never find a true replacement for Justice Scalia, only a successor to his legacy. We owe it to the late Justice's extraordinary legacy of service to ensure that we treat confirmation of his successor properly. My friends in the Democratic minority have settled upon one mantra above all others in addressing this vacancy; that the Senate must ``do its job.'' While I have no doubt this talking point has been poll tested and refined to serve as the most effective political attack possible, the truth is that this point is completely uncontroversial. I have not heard a single one of my Republican colleagues argue that the Senate should not do its job with respect to the Supreme Court vacancy. Where we have a legitimate difference of opinion is how the Senate can best do its job. Article II, section 2 of the Constitution divides the appointment process into two--two--distinct roles: the power of the President to nominate and the power of the Senate to provide its advice and consent. Despite the wild claims of some of my Democratic friends to the contrary, the Constitution does not define how the Senate is to go about its duty to provide advice and consent. It does not dictate that the Senate must hold confirmation hearings or floor votes on the President's preferred timeline. After all, how could the Constitution provide such instruction if the Judiciary Committee did not come into existence until 27 years after the Senate first convened in 1789? Indeed, the Judiciary Committee only began holding confirmation hearings in the past century, and nominees only began appearing before the committee regularly in the past 60 years. In fact, the Constitution prescribes no specific structure or timeline for the confirmation process, and the Constitution's text and structure, as well as longstanding historical practice, confirm that the Senate has the authority to shape the confirmation process how it sees fit. In other words, the Senate's job is to determine the best way to exercise its advice and consent power in each unique situation. Over the years, the Senate has considered nominations in different ways at different times, depending on the circumstances. Consider these precedents with great bearing on the current circumstances. The Senate has never confirmed a nominee to a Supreme Court vacancy that opened up this late in a term-limited President's time in office. This is only the third vacancy in nearly a century to occur after the American people had already started voting in a Presidential election. In the previous two instances, in 1956 and 1968, the Senate did not confirm the nominee until the following year. The only time the Senate has ever confirmed a nominee to fill a Supreme Court vacancy created after voting began in a Presidential election year was in 1916, and that vacancy only arose when Justice Charles Evans Hughes resigned his seat on the Court to run against incumbent President Woodrow Wilson. Key Democrats have long expressed strong agreement with the decision to defer the confirmation process in these circumstances. For example, Senator Chuck Schumer, the incoming Democratic leader, argued in July 2007--with a year and a half left in President George W. Bush's term and with no Supreme Court seat even vacant--that the Senate ``should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances.'' Vice President Joe Biden argued in 1992, when he was Judiciary Committee chairman, that if a Supreme Court vacancy occurred in that Presidential election year, ``the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.'' Past practice and the well documented past positions of key Democrats certainly support the notion that deferring the confirmation process is an option reasonably available to the Senate in certain circumstances. As for its appropriateness in the present situation, one need only consider how the confirmation process would be further poisoned by election-year politics. As a member of the Judiciary Committee for nearly four decades, I have witnessed the judicial confirmation process become increasingly divisive and sometimes--oftentimes, as a matter of fact--downright nasty. First came the campaigns of character assassination waged against Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. Then came the Senate Democrats' unprecedented filibusters of President George W. Bush's lower court nominees. Then came the attempt to deny an up-or- down vote on the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court--a move supported by then-Senators Obama, Biden, Clinton, Reid, Durbin, Schumer, and Leahy. Finally came the unilateral use of the nuclear option to blow up the filibuster and pack the DC Circuit Court of Appeals--widely considered the second most powerful court in the Nation--with liberal judges committed to rubberstamping the President's agenda. Those who were responsible for every single one of these major escalations in the so-called judicial confirmation wars have no credibility to lecture anyone on what a proper confirmation process should look like in this situation. For those of us who have fought against the breakdown of the confirmation process, the prospect of considering a nomination in the middle of what may be the nastiest election of my lifetime could only further damage the long-term prospects of a healthy confirmation process. Deferring the process is in the best interests of the Senate, the judiciary, and the country. The tenor of the debate since Justice Scalia's passing has only confirmed how right we were to take a stand to defer the process until after the election. For example, a speech I delivered to the Federalist Society on Friday was briefly disrupted by protestors chanting ``Do your job,'' ironically just as I began to explain why our approach to this vacancy is the best way the Senate can indeed do its job. Now, I do not mind protestors speaking their minds, but I don't appreciate it when they try to prevent others from expressing differing views. That a respectful discussion among attorneys was disrupted by professional activists wielding materials from Organizing for Action, a political arm of the White House and the Democratic National Committee, demonstrates what I have been saying all along: Considering a nominee in the midst of a Presidential election campaign would further inject toxic political theater into an already politicized confirmation process. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of an article from Politico detailing the extensive political coordination between the White House and the parent organization of these protestors that risks turning what should be serious consideration of a weighty lifetime appointment into an election-year political circus.

Mr. HATCH. Furthermore, Madam President, the minority leader has turned his daily remarks on the floor into constant diatribes against the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. These diatribes rank among the most vicious and most personal attacks I have heard on the Senate floor in my nearly four decades in this Senate body. Having myself served as chairman of the Judiciary Committee for more than 8 years, I know that the position is no stranger to controversy and political hardball. But the vile and unfair attacks on Senator Grassley's independence and work ethic have gone too far. I have had the privilege of serving with Senator Grassley for more than 35 years. I know no one more committed to doing his job. Senator Grassley has not missed a vote in a record-setting 27 years--when he was home in Iowa, touring the awful damage of the Great Flood of 1993-- and yet still manages to hold townhall meetings in all 99 of his State's counties every year. He sets the gold standard of service in the Senate. If anyone knows his mind, it is Senator Grassley. Each of us is entitled to our opinions on issues that come before this body, even controversial ones, but I want to condemn in the strongest possible terms the notion that a difference of opinion with Senate Democrats means that Senator Grassley is compromising his own integrity or the independence of the Judiciary Committee he leads. These attacks come very close to impugning his character, and that sort of behavior is beneath the dignity of this body. The minority leader came to the floor to seize on the comments of the senior Senator from Texas to manufacture what I consider to be another cheap political attack on the Republican majority. In those comments, Senator Cornyn had speculated that the election-year political environment could, unfortunately, turn any Supreme Court nominee into a political pinata. The minority leader's comments are a total mischaracterization of Senator Cornyn's record of fairness toward nominees of both parties and of Senate Republicans' intentions in this situation. After all, the whole point of deferring the nomination and confirmation process is to limit the mistreatment of any nominee, as Senator Cornyn suggested in his remarks. This unfounded accusation is also deeply ironic, coming from the party that stooped to the character assassination of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. If there is anyone who has been treated like a pinata in this debate, it has been Senator Grassley. Now, Chuck Grassley is as tough as they come, and I have every confidence that he will weather these attacks. But if these scorched-earth political tactics reflect the length some of the Democratic minority are prepared to go in an election-year confirmation battle, there can be no better illustration of why we should defer this process. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.