Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dane Karvois, a member of my staff, be granted floor privileges through the end of the 114th Congress.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to a beloved father, a loving husband, and a fallen hero: Officer Douglas Barney of the Unified Police Department. Officer Barney was killed in the line of duty last week when attempting to question a man at the scene of an accident. In the wake of Doug's passing, the Barney family has experienced an outpouring of love and support from law enforcement officials not only in Utah, but across the Nation. As a testament to Doug's generosity and the many lives he touched, more than 10,000 people attended his funeral services on Monday. Today I join the many who mourn by honoring Officer Douglas Barney--a man of character, commitment, kindness, and courage. Doug's dedication to law enforcement was matched by his zeal for life. As a teenager, he explored the outdoors, rode dirt bikes on the hills behind his home, and raced cars on Utah's old Bonneville Raceway. As a police officer, he loved the thrill of a high-speed chase and had a knack for defusing tense situations with a well-timed joke. An indomitable sense of humor endeared him not only to those he loved, but even to those he arrested. On one particular occasion, he was tasked to handle a DUI situation involving a female arrestee whose behavior was growing increasingly erratic. Instead of reacting with force, Doug responded with humor by continuously joking with the arrestee. His off-the-cuff comedy replaced the woman's threats with smiles and her cries with laughter. Eventually, she calmed down enough to cooperate. As one of Doug's colleagues recalls, the two left ``the best of friends.'' Only Doug could have managed such a feat. Doug's humor helped him cope with the rigors of a stressful career in law enforcement. It also helped him overcome serious illness. No stranger to adversity, Doug battled back from bladder cancer just a year before his death. Cancer could weaken his body, but it could do nothing to dampen his spirits. Throughout the ordeal, Doug maintained a cheerful disposition and refined his trademark sense of humor. In addition to laughter, Doug drew strength from family. He befriended his wife, Erika, when they were growing up together in California. While Erika was studying at Brigham Young University, their relationship took a romantic turn, and Doug asked her to marry him. Erika was caught off guard by the proposal and was initially reluctant, but Doug persisted. Time and again, he asked Erika to be his wife. After several months, she finally accepted, and the two were married in 1996. Together, they had three beautiful children: Matilda, Meredith, and Jacob. Shortly after their marriage, Doug told Erika that he dreamed of becoming a police officer. With her support, he began an 18-year career in law enforcement. Doug's fellow police officers will always remember him for his work ethic, gregariousness, and larger-than-life personality. Over many years of consistent, hard work, Doug won not only the love and friendship of his colleagues, but also their respect and admiration. Like thousands across our Nation, I am deeply saddened by the passing of Officer Barney. I am immensely grateful for Doug's example and for the service of countless police officers like him. Each day, these selfless men and women risk their own well-being to ensure the safety of others. They are the most courageous of public servants, and I believe Doug was among the best of them. He was a man who lived and loved deeply. He made people laugh, he made them smile, and he helped them hope. I pray that Doug's memory might continue to inspire and bless those he loved.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, tomorrow is January 22. This is a date that has become known for two related but radically different reasons. First, it is the anniversary of the Supreme Court's infamous decision in Roe v. Wade that imposed on America the most permissive abortion regime in the world. That decision degraded human life by degrading the Constitution. At the center of the debate over the morality, legality, or policy of abortion is the fact that each abortion kills a living human being. That this fact is inescapable does not prevent many from trying mightily to escape it, but it cannot be avoided, obscured, or ignored. Let me repeat: Each abortion kills a living human being. That fact informed President Ronald Reagan when he wrote a moving essay in 1983 titled ``Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation.'' He wrote: ``We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life--the unborn-- without diminishing the value of all human life.'' The real question, he said, is not about when human life begins but about the value of human life. I believe that remains the real question today. Starting even before America's founding, the law had been on a steady march toward protecting human beings before birth. The 19th century movement that succeeded in prohibiting abortion except to save the life of the mother was led by medical professionals and civil rights activists. That consensus, however, began to unravel in the 20th century. In 1948, the United States voted in favor of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which recognizes in its preamble the inherent dignity and inalienable rights of ``all members of the human family.'' Like every Member of this body, I am a member of the human family because I am a living human being. So are you, Mr. President; so is each of us. Article 3 of the declaration states that ``everyone has the right to life.'' Words such as ``universal'' and ``inherent'' and ``all'' are unambiguous and clear. Only 25 years later, however, the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision declared quite the opposite--that the right to life is actually not universal and does not belong to every member of the human family. The Court said, in effect, that some members of the human family get to determine whether others live or die. The contradictions continued. On April 2, 1982, the U.S. Senate ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article 6 declares: Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life. This time, it took the Supreme Court just 88 days to send the opposite message. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Court reaffirmed its decision that the U.S. Constitution protects the right to abortion. In other words, the right to life is not inherent, it cannot be protected by law, and it can be arbitrarily taken away. This sort of confusion about the fundamental value of human life has put the United States in an appalling position. The United States is one of only seven nations in the world to allow abortion even into the sixth month of pregnancy. We join on that list China and North Korea, which are hardly champions of human rights. More children are killed by abortion in 2 days in America than all American servicemembers who have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Last year, we all witnessed the depths to which this degradation of human life leads. Planned Parenthood, the Nation's largest abortion provider, is in the dark business of trafficking in baby body parts and uses word games and spin to hide what it is actually doing. These aren't children or babies, says Planned Parenthood; they are products of conception. These aren't body parts; they are tissue specimens. This should come as no surprise. Stripped of inherent dignity and worth, human beings can easily become commodities. Last week, in his final State of the Union Address, President Obama said that a future opportunity for our families and a peaceful planet for our kids are within our reach. How can that possibly occur without a basic commitment to the fundamental value of human life and the inherent dignity and worth of every human being? Let me highlight one more contrast. Early feminists Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton published and edited a newspaper titled The Revolution. They editorialized against abortion and even rejected ads for abortifacient drugs, arguing that abortion was a tool for oppressing women. Elizabeth Blackwell, the first woman to receive a degree from an American medical school, strongly opposed abortion. Dr. Charlotte Denman Lozier, another trailblazer for women in the medical profession, helped and defended women who were pressured to have abortions. One writer described Dr. Lozier's work as ``thoroughly woman-affirming and life-affirming.'' These priorities of being both pro-women and pro-life have today been made enemies instead of allies. Today, the right to abortion and even its actual incidence have, for many, become signs or symbols of progress instead of oppression. This idea that the act of killing a living human being should be held up as a step forward, as a light to guide our way, strikes me as deeply misguided and as something to mourn rather than celebrate. We should instead deepen the conviction that all human beings have inherent dignity and worth. That once was, and should be again, the foundation for our culture, society, and, yes, even our politics. The Supreme Court not only degraded human life in its Roe v. Wade decision but did so by degrading the Constitution. The Court found a right to abortion not in the real Constitution but in a constitution of its own making. The real Constitution would not allow the Court to impose its own values on the Nation, and so the Court simply created a different constitution that would. By claiming to find an unwritten right in our written Constitution, the Justices seized control of the Constitution that is supposed to control them. If it is possible, I urge my colleagues to set aside the particular subject of abortion and consider what this really means. All public officials, including Supreme Court Justices, take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. That Constitution, the real Constitution, is supposed to be the primary way that the American people impose limits on government. In fact, as the Supreme Court recognized in the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision, the Constitution is written down so that those limits on government will be neither mistaken nor forgotten. In his farewell address of 1796, President George Washington said that the people's control over the Constitution is the heart of our system of government. Our freedom depends on it. With decisions like Roe v. Wade, however, the Supreme Court takes control of the Constitution away from the people, distorts our way of government, and compromises the freedom the system makes possible. Thomas Jefferson warned against allowing the Supreme Court to twist and shape the Constitution into any form it pleased. Yet that is exactly what the Court does in Roe v. Wade. Instead of conforming their decisions to the real Constitution, the Justices conform the Constitution to their own preferences, values, and agenda. They turn their oath to support and defend the Constitution into an oath to support and defend themselves. January 22 is known for the decision in which the Supreme Court degraded human life by degrading the Constitution. The Court used judicially tragic means to achieve a morally and culturally tragic end. Thankfully, however, January 22 is also known for another, radically different, event known as the March for Life. Every year for decades, hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens have come here to Washington to do just that--march for life. They represent what once was the norm: the belief that life itself is precious and that each human being has inherent dignity and worth. By coming to Washington year after year, they stake their claim that those principles can once again prevail. There is reason for hope. More than 70 percent of Americans believe that abortion should be illegal in most or all circumstances. That figure has not changed in more than 40 years. What has changed is that more Americans today identify themselves as pro-life than as pro- choice. Large majorities favor a range of limitations on abortion and in 2014 elected scores of new pro-life legislators at both the State and Federal level. Perhaps most encouraging of all, the percentage of young people who believe that abortion should not be permitted in most or all circumstances has risen steadily and significantly. The number of abortions reported each year to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has dropped by 50 percent in the last 25 years. The organization Feminists for Life was founded in 1972 before Roe v. Wade sent us into this tailspin. They have said for years that women deserve better than abortion. Life, not death, should be our priority. I hope and pray that more and more of us will be--in large and small ways each and every day--marching for life. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to complete my remarks.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to take up a piece of legislation that I am sponsoring which has recently passed the House of Representatives, the Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome Act--or SCRUB Act. Federal regulations today impose--by some estimates--a crushing burden of $1.88 trillion on our economy. That is roughly $15,000 per household and more than the entire country's corporate and individual income taxes combined. Excessive and often unnecessary rules imposed by unaccountable Washington bureaucrats strain family budgets and create conditions where small businesses struggle to create jobs. Nevertheless, the regulatory burden keeps growing year after year. The Code of Federal Regulations is now more than 175,000 pages long and contains more than 200 volumes. Since 2008, regulators have added on average more than $107 billion in annual regulatory costs. And as we near the end of President Obama's time in office, Americans should be prepared for a deluge of new rules. As has been widely reported, about 4,000 regulations are working their way through the Federal bureaucracy, with some experts predicting their costs to exceed well over $100 billion. Every President since Jimmy Carter has affirmed the need to review our existing regulations to make sure that they are efficient and no more intrusive and burdensome than is absolutely necessary. Nevertheless, administrations of both parties have failed to make meaningful reductions in the regulatory burden, with some retrospective review efforts even adding costs to the economy. Most notably, according to a study by the American Action Forum, the Obama administration's much-touted efforts to review old rules actually added more than $23 billion in costs on the economy and mandated nearly 9 million additional hours of paperwork. With family budgets stretched thin and our economy badly in need of job creation, we need to act to turn this longstanding bipartisan commitment to effective retrospective review into a reality. But to do so, we need to take the responsibility of reviewing old rules away from the bureaucrats who keep failing to make the reductions to the regulatory burden. That is why I have joined my colleagues, the junior Senators from Iowa and Missouri, to introduce the SCRUB Act. The SCRUB Act establishes a bipartisan, blue-ribbon commission to review existing Federal regulations and identify those that should be repealed to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens. It prioritizes for review regulations where major rules have been in effect more than 15 years, impose paperwork burdens that could be reduced substantially without significantly diminishing regulatory effectiveness, impose disproportionately high costs on small businesses, or could be strengthened in their effectiveness while reducing regulatory costs. It also sets other basic, commonsense criteria for recommending repeal of regulations, such as: whether they have been rendered obsolete by technological or market changes; whether they have achieved their goals and can be repealed without target problems recurring; whether they are ineffective; whether they overlap, duplicate, or conflict with other Federal regulations or with State and local regulations; or whether they impose costs that are not justified by benefits produced for society within the United States. Once the commission develops a set of recommendations, our bill requires that these recommendations be presented to the House and the Senate for approval by joint resolution. If Congress votes to approve the commission's recommendations, repeal must take place. Mr. President, I have served long enough to know that Washington's preferred solution to a tough problem is to create a commission that, once established, is rarely seen or heard from again, no matter how compelling its recommendations. Therefore, I want to lay out a few key features of how SCRUB avoids the pitfalls of so many do-nothing commissions as well as the problems encountered with other attempts to implement retrospective review. First, our bill sets a hard target for the commission: the reduction of at least 15 percent in the cumulative costs of Federal regulation with a minimal reduction in the overall effectiveness of such regulation. The Obama administration's efforts at retrospective review--perhaps by mistake, perhaps by design--lacked a quantified cost reduction mandate. The result was the manipulation of the review process into a charade in which highly suspect new benefits were touted as a reason for adding costs. Our bill structures the retrospective review process in a way that prioritizes cost cutting while maintaining a responsible respect for benefits by calling for a minimal reduction in general overall effectiveness. Second, our bill does not artificially limit what costly and unjustified regulations could be repealed. Under some superficially similar but fundamentally unsound proposals for retrospective review, review would be arbitrarily limited by time or subject. Such limits would not only seriously hinder the prospect of meeting a meaningful cost reduction target, but also put numerous regulations off limits for review just because they have seen minor tweaks after a certain arbitrary cutoff. Third, our bill guarantees an up-or-down vote on the Commission's package of recommendations as a single package. This element of our bill represents the single most important feature that distinguishes it from a do-nothing commission that far too often characterizes Washington's approach to intractable problems. We should be under no illusions that every single special interest in town is going to fight to preserve the favors they have won by manipulating the regulatory process over the years, and gathering the votes to get the Commission's recommendations enacted will certainly be a difficult endeavor. Following the models of other successful means by which Congress has addressed situations in which the costs are concentrated but benefits are widely dispersed, it is absolutely vital that the Commission's recommendations be packed together as a single bill and not subject to dismemberment by amendment. Further, to put it simply, an up-or-down simple majority vote requires an actual viable pathway to repealing these regulations. Subjecting the package to the supermajority threshold would represent nothing but a death knell for the prospect of repealing these onerous rules. Moreover, because extended debate in the Senate exists to allow Senators to modify a proposal under debate, the lack of amendment opportunities seriously undermines the rationale for subjecting it to the supermajority threshold typically required to end debate. And this carefully tailored exception to the cloture rule is hardly a wild departure from precedent; rather, it follows the precedents set by numerous other pieces of legislation such as trade promotion authority and the Congressional Review Act, both of which have long earned bipartisan support. Fourth, for any given regulation, the Commission is authorized to recommend either immediate repeal or repeal through what we call cut-go procedures, whereby agencies, on a forward basis, would have to offset the costs of new regulations by repealing Commission-identified regulations of equal or greater cost. These procedures allow immediate repeal in the most urgent cases and staggered repeals of other regulations to assure a smoother process for agencies and affected entities. Mr. President, a process such as cut-go proves critical for two particular reasons. First, it provides an avenue for addressing the many regulations on the books that impose unjustifiable costs in pursuit of a legitimate goal. While some regulations on the books could undoubtedly be repealed without any meaningful negative consequences, numerous others provide important protections but in an inefficient and costly manner. The cut-go process allows agencies to repeal costly rules and replace them with more sensible ones--for example, prescribing performance standards instead of specific, oftentimes outdated technology--in a manner that reduces costs on the economy while maintaining or even improving regulatory effectiveness. Second, the cut-go process holds agencies accountable to Congress's laws, a perennial problem in the regulatory process. Bureaucratic agencies--so often devoted to increasing their own power and insensitive to the costs they impose on the economy--frequently use the excuse of limited resources to avoid retrospective review. By imposing a reasonable limit on prospective rulemaking until an agency complies with congressionally enacted repeal recommendations, cut-go ensures that the agency cannot simply ignore its duty to repeal. Mr. President, these are just a handful of the numerous reasons why the SCRUB Act provides a uniquely visible pathway to accomplishing the longstanding bipartisan goal of repealing outdated and ineffective regulations. I wish to thank my colleagues from both sides of the aisle--and both sides of the Capitol, by the way--who have joined in support of this bill, especially Senator Ernst for her leadership on this issue on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Even though she has only been in the Senate for a year, her strong and effective leadership on this issue has been a model for how to hit the ground running. I call on my colleagues in the Senate to follow the House's lead and pass this effective, commonsense approach to rooting out unjustifiably burdensome regulations. Also, as I understand it, the House has passed this bill just today. Religious Liberty Mr. President, I also wish to address another subject--the subject of religious liberty. Congress is convening for the second session of the 114th Congress at a moment in time rich with significance for religious freedoms. January 6, for example, marked the 75th anniversary of President Franklin Roosevelt's famous ``Four Freedoms'' speech. During the depths of World War II, President Roosevelt used his 1941 State of the Union Address to describe a world founded on what he called ``four essential human freedoms.'' One of these is the ``freedom of every person to worship God in his own way.'' At the end of the week, on January 16, it is Religious Freedom Day. It commemorates the 230th anniversary of the Virginia General Assembly's enactment of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. Thomas Jefferson authored the legislation and, after he left to serve as U.S. Minister to France, his colleague James Madison secured its enactment. Of his many accomplishments--and Jefferson had a lot of accomplishments--Jefferson directed that three of what he called ``things that he had given the people'' be listed on his tombstone. One of them was the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which laid the foundation for the protection of religious freedom in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Mr. President, last fall I delivered a series of eight speeches on the Senate floor presenting the story of religious freedom. I explained why religious freedom itself is uniquely important and requires special protection. At no time in world history has religious freedom been such an integral part of a Nation's character as it is here in the United States. The story of religious freedom includes understanding both its status and its substance. The status of religious freedom can be summarized as both inalienable and preeminent. As James Madison put it, religious freedom is ``precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of civil society.'' Madison also explained that religious freedom is the freely chosen manner of discharging a duty an individual believes he or she owes to God. As we have affirmed so many times in statutes, declarations, and treaties, it includes both belief and behavior in public and in private, individually and collectively. Tonight, President Obama delivers his final State of the Union Address. According to the Washington Post this morning, President Obama will speak about unity, about coming together as one American family. Until very recently, religious freedom was such a unifying priority. Last month, I described to my colleagues the unifying statement about religious freedom called the Williamsburg Charter. Published in 1988, it brought together Presidents and other leaders in both political parties, the heads of business and labor, universities and bar associations, and diverse communities to endorse the first principles of religious freedom. The charter boldly proclaims that religious freedom is an inalienable right that is ``premised upon the inviolable dignity of the human person. It is the foundation of, and is integrally related to, all other rights and freedoms secured by the Constitution.'' It asserts that the chief menace to religious freedom is the expanding power of government--especially government control over personal behavior and the institutions of society. And the charter also declares that limiting religious freedom ``is allowable only where the State has borne a heavy burden of proof that the limitation is justified--not by any ordinary public interest, but by a supreme public necessity--and that no less restrictive alternative to limitation exists.'' Congress made these principles law 5 years later by almost unanimously enacting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act--an act that I had a great deal to do with. One way to know the value of something is by the effort made to protect it. In RFRA, government may burden the exercise of religion only if it is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government purpose. That is the toughest standard found anywhere in American law. By this statute, we declared that religious freedom is fundamental, it is more important than other values and priorities, and government must properly accommodate it. The Coalition for the Free Exercise of Religion supporting RFRA was the most diverse grassroots effort I have ever seen in all of my years in the U.S. Senate. Five years after RFRA, Congress unanimously enacted the International Religious Freedom Act. Twenty-one Senators serving today voted for it-- 12 Republicans and 9 Democrats. So did Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State John Kerry when they served here. That law declares that religious freedom ``undergirds the very origin and existence of the United States.'' It calls religious freedom a universal human right, a pillar of our Nation, and a fundamental freedom. That is what unity looks like. With a Presidency no less than any other aspect of life, however, actions speak louder than words. While President Obama has paid lip service to religious freedom, as I assume he will in his annual Religious Freedom Day proclamation this week, the actions of his administration tell a different story. In 2011, the Obama administration argued to the Supreme Court that the First Amendment provides no special protection for churches, even in choosing their own ministers. The Court unanimously rejected that bizarre theory. The administration ignored religious freedom and RFRA altogether when developing the Affordable Care Act and its implementing regulations. When religious employers argued that the administration's birth control mandate did not adequately accommodate their religious freedom, the administration fought them all the way to the Supreme Court. The Court again rejected the administration's attempt to restrict religious freedom. Yesterday, 32 Members of the Senate and 175 Members of the House of Representatives filed a legal brief with the Supreme Court supporting religious organizations that are again arguing that the Obama administration's birth control mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. I want to thank my friend from Oklahoma, Senator Lankford, for working with me on this important project. I know religious freedom was important to him when he served in the House and he is already a leader on this critical issue in the Senate and I am pleased to see him in the chair today. This mandate requires religious organizations to violate their deeply held religious beliefs or pay crushing monetary fines. The plaintiffs in these cases include Christian colleges, Catholic dioceses, and many organizations that minister to the elderly and disadvantaged as part of their religious mission. They want to provide health insurance for their employees and students in a manner that is consistent with their religious beliefs. The Obama administration, however, is working hard to make those religious groups knuckle under to its political agenda. It provides blanket exemptions for churches that do not object to the birth control mandate but denies exemption to religious employers that do object. The administration exempts for-profit companies employing more than 44 million workers, including some of America's largest corporations, even if they have no objection to the mandate. Yet it is fighting to force compliance by religious nonprofit organizations that do object to the mandate on the basis of deeply held religious beliefs. Not only is that policy simply irrational, but it treats religious freedom as optional. Here is how I put it last month: Subjugating religious beliefs to government decrees is not the price of citizenship. To the contrary, respecting and honoring the fundamental rights of all Americans is the price our government pays to enjoy the continued consent of the American people. If that is true, then religious freedom must be properly respected and accommodated. And I believe it is true. Religious freedom should be a primary consideration, not an afterthought. Religious freedom should be given the accommodation that a preeminent right requires, rather than begrudgingly be given the least attention politically possible. If our leaders wish to abandon the religious freedom that undergirds America's origin and existence, they should say so. If Members of Congress now reject what they once supported and insist that religious freedom is less important than the political reference of the moment, they should make that case. If the Obama administration wants to repudiate treaties we have ratified, asserting that religious freedom is a fundamental human right, the President should be upfront about it. As with many things that happen in the twilight of a Presidency, I expect to hear much in the State of the Union Address tonight that speaks to President Obama's legacy. What will he be remembered for? What great principles or causes will be associated with the Obama Presidency? Part of President Roosevelt's legacy is that State of the Union Address 75 years ago that affirmed that practicing one's faith is an essential human freedom. What a tragedy to have President Obama be remembered for hostility to--rather than protection of--religious freedom. In the coming days, I will be presenting to each of my Senate colleagues the collection of speeches on religious freedom that I offered on the floor last fall. I hope they will encourage us in Congress, as well as our fellow citizens, to unite in our commitment to this fundamental right. This is important. Even though we may agree or disagree with certain religious beliefs, they still ought to have the right to believe them. They still ought to have the right to worship the way they want to. The fact of the matter is that is what has made America the greatest country in the world--bar none. I don't want to see it destroyed because we are doing everything we can to undermine religious freedom in this country. I refuse to allow that to happen, and I hope my colleagues will take this seriously as well. I know a number of them do, including the current Presiding Officer. I just want everybody to know that as long as I am in the Senate, I am going to be fighting for religious freedom and I hope that all of us will also. God bless America. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, today I wish to honor and congratulate Mr. Thomas Burr, the Salt Lake Tribune's Washington correspondent and newly inaugurated president of the National Press Club. Tommy has worked for the Salt Lake Tribune for 14 years, including 10 years as a correspondent here in Washington. Utah is privileged to have such a reputable journalist covering our Nation's capital. In addition to his role as the Tribune's Washington correspondent, Tommy has also served as the president of the Regional Reporters Association and chairman of the Congressional Standing Committee of Correspondents. Moreover, he is one of the youngest members ever to join the Gridiron Club & Foundation. Tommy is a native of Salina, UT, and the son of Ann Burr and the late James Burr. A graduate of Snow College and Southern Utah University, Tommy covered the Presidential campaigns of Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman and was named the top regional reporter in Washington for a record three times by the National Press Club. He is the second Utahn to hold the title of press club president. Founded in 1908, the National Press Club bills itself as the ``World's Leading Professional Organization for Journalists.'' Since its inception, the organization has hosted monarchs, heads of state, U.S. Presidents, and prominent thought leaders such as Martin Luther King and the Dalai Lama. As president, Tommy will focus on building the press club's long-standing efforts to expand press freedoms worldwide. He also intends to boost membership and speak out for journalists who face government restraints. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the achievements of Tommy Burr and thank him for his contributions to the great State of Utah. On a personal note, I am grateful for my friendship with Tommy and look forward to many more stories to come. I wish him the very best in his new role as president of the National Press Club.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I thank the leader, and I feel the same way toward him. He and I are dear friends, and we are going to continue to be dear friends, despite our differences.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise to discuss the state of the U.S. Senate. My 39 years of service in this body have given me an increasingly unique vantage point to reflect upon this institution. Over the years, I have seen the Senate both at its best--rising to meet the lofty expectations of the Framers--and, unfortunately, I have seen it at its worst. Last year I came to the floor repeatedly to speak out against what I viewed as the abuse of the Senate by the previous majority, under which this great body fell into great dysfunction. In addition to identifying these abuses, I did my best to lay out a vision for how the Senate ought to function--how we could best live up to the best traditions of our forebearers. Over the past year, since my selection as President pro tempore, I have endeavored to continue to offer what lessons I have learned and what accumulated knowledge I have acquired over my nearly four decades here to help our new Republican majority to get the Senate working again. After a year of hard work, I can report a significant degree of success. Under the leadership of our new majority leader and his team, the Senate is back to work for the American people. By the end of last Congress, these best traditions of the Senate that have allowed it to serve the Republic for so well for so long were left, in my opinion, in severe disrepair. The then-majority leadership curtailed debate on an unprecedented scale, moving to cut off debate before this body could even begin considering legislation. The leader also used the so-called nuclear option to permanently weaken the opportunity to debate nominations, including crucial lifetime nominations to the Federal court. In all of last year, the Senate voted on only 15 amendments, with the majority leadership refusing to countenance any amendment it did not support. The 113th Congress set a record for bills that bypassed committees--this institution's incubators of consensus. Instead of adhering to the committee process, the legislation was crafted in the back rooms of leadership offices and brought directly to the floor. Thanks to this institutional degradation, the Senate became a wasteland of partisan warfare. Much of the time spent in session was wasted on voting on the previous majority's messaging bills. This legislation had no chance of passing the Senate and was designed simply to buttress the majority's election-year arguments. The time that was not spent on this political gamesmanship was otherwise wasted largely on rushing through President Obama's nominees at a breakneck pace. Our new majority has thus faced the daunting task of restoring the Senate to its proper function so this body can resume its rightful role as the source of wise legislation. These efforts have produced some impressive statistics. This year, the Senate has held almost 200 votes on amendments of individual Senators. That figure is nearly 9 times as many as last year. Earlier this year, the Senate brought up more amendments in a single week than all of last year. Debate has also flourished. The Senate spent over 25 percent more days in session than last year. The majority leader has greatly curtailed the practice of filing cloture as soon as debate begins, restricting it to rare occasions that involve time-sensitive measures and, particularly, sensitive bipartisan legislation. Furthermore, our committees are all back to work. With only a few exceptions, the legislation passed by the Senate has been crafted by the committee rather than by leadership. The close, collaborative environment that the committees foster helps build bipartisan consensus, even in these polarizing times. In fact, many of our committees posted impressive statistics of bipartisan legislating. The Finance Committee--the accomplishments of which I spoke on yesterday-- has passed 37 bills, all bipartisan. The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has passed 71 bills, all bipartisan. The Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee has passed 10 pieces of legislation, and all but one was bipartisan. According to the Resume of Congressional Activity, as of December 1, the Senate had passed 391 measures as compared to 290 in 2014 and 246 in 2013. While this year's number compares favorably to the two previous years, the Senate's productivity is best measured not by a simple count of measures passed, in which a post office naming counts the same as a comprehensive budget for the entire Federal Government, but instead by the sort and substance of measures passed. This measure paints by far the best picture of the good work done by the Senate in the first year of our new Republican Senate majority. Instead of wasting the Senate's precious time on political show votes, the new majority leadership has focused the Senate's consideration on measures that can actually pass, which almost always require bipartisan support. We have also made sure to fulfill Congress's most basic fiscal management responsibilities. We passed the first bicameral budget since 2009 and the first budget that balances in 14 years. Based on that budget blueprint, the Appropriations Committee passed all 12 appropriations bills for the first time since 2009. While the minority unfortunately chose to block numerous attempts we made to pass these bills on the floor through regular order, we struck a multiyear bipartisan budget deal to last through the rest of the Obama administration. Passing this legislation warded off the threat of another shutdown or a disastrous default on our debt. We have also struck a deal on an omnibus spending bill for next year that, while imperfect, makes important progress in a number of areas, such as repealing the antiquated oil export ban to create jobs at home and ward off the influences of Vladimir Putin and other dangerous rogues abroad, increasing resources for our military at a time of great threat, strengthening the Visa Waiver Program to protect against terrorists, and provisions to bar the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to American soil. As we look forward to next year, our leadership has built a pathway to return to regular order in the appropriations process, allowing Congress to fulfill our constitutional duty to oversee the executive branch through the power of the purse. The Senate also overcame a bitter partisan dispute to pass the annual National Defense Authorization Act to further our most basic responsibility to provide for the common defense. Under the leadership of our Armed Services Committee, with colleagues on both sides, we passed into law a bill that contains a wide variety of critical defense items, from acquisition reform to aid to Ukraine. Moreover, among the most important accomplishments of the year have been the long-term challenges tackled by the Senate. Over the past few years, Congress earned a well-deserved reputation for kicking the can down the road on a number of key issues that affect Americans' lives in crucial ways-- from our commutes to our health care to our children's education. This year Congress has taken a number of crucial steps to end this cycle of irresponsible delays. Instead of passing yet another patch to the highway trust fund, we passed the first long-term highway bill in a decade; instead of leaving seniors in a lurch with yet another doc fix, we permanently fixed how Medicare reimburses physicians and passed a real down payment on real entitlement reform; instead of consigning ourselves to a backseat role in shaping the international economy of the future, we passed the first trade promotion authority legislation since 2002; instead of waiting until the last minute to pass another extension of critical tax breaks, we have struck a deal to make much important tax relief permanent and provide multiyear extensions of others, providing vital certainty to business and family budgets; and instead of leaving our schools webbed in by No Child Left Behind and the Obama administration's conditioned waivers, we passed the Every Student Succeeds Act, which the Wall Street Journal called the greatest devolution of power to the States in a quarter century. Moreover, we pushed against the Obama administration's most egregious overreach, preparing the way to reverse them under a future President. We passed Congressional Review Act resolutions to repeal the President's most onerous and job-killing labor and environmental regulations, and most importantly, we passed the Senate's first repeal of ObamaCare. Finally, after the turmoil in the confirmation process in recent years, we have moved at a deliberate pace in examining the President's nominees. Despite the spurious claims of some on the other side, our record on confirmations fits favorably within historical norms. As of December 10, 316 of President Obama's judicial nominees have been confirmed, constituting more than 37 percent of the actual active Federal bench.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to finish my statement.

Mr. HATCH. I thank the Presiding Officer. By comparison, only 292 of President George W. Bush's nominees had been confirmed at the same point in his tenure, constituting less than 35 percent of the active judiciary. There are only 65 judicial vacancies today. Vacancies have been lower in only 13 of the 83 months, or less than 16 percent of the time, that this President has held office. During 2015, the average number of judicial vacancies has been 58, the lowest average for any year of the Obama Presidency. This is a record of achievement that speaks for itself, one that easily shows why PoltiFact awarded the minority leader three Pinocchios for his accusations that the Senate, under our new Republican majority, has been unproductive by historical standards. While there have been, no doubt, many bumps in the road--and we still need more mutual restraint of both the minority and the majority--there should be no doubt that our new Republican majority has the Senate back to work for the American people. I thank the Presiding Officer for the extra time.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, now that the votes have concluded and we have successfully passed our legislation granting tax relief to millions of Americans, I want to take a few minutes to express my gratitude. This has been a very long and sometimes difficult process, but it has at almost every step been bipartisan and cooperative. I also think the results speak for themselves. This legislation, the PATH Act, will help families and job creators and grow our economy. This legislation will allow businesses and run-of-the-mill taxpayers to more effectively plan for their future. This legislation will pave the way for comprehensive tax reform, and this legislation will relieve the pressure we face every year on tax extenders and end the cliff-or-crisis mentality that surrounds much of our tax policy. It is, quite simply, a win for good government--the last of many we have enjoyed in what has been a very productive year here in the Senate. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to work on this important bill and am even more pleased to see it finally passed through both the House and the Senate. I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who worked to make this possible, who set aside partisanship and allowed both parties to realize their top priorities in this legislation without seeing it as a loss to their side. Here in the Senate, I, of course, want to thank Senator Wyden, who has been an effective and valuable partner in all of our efforts on the Finance Committee this year. I really need to thank all of the members of the Finance Committee and their staffs who worked extraordinarily hard on the tax extenders issue throughout this entire year. I also thank our distinguished majority leader, who recognized the opportunity to get another big accomplishment through the Senate this year and pushed to help us get the substance of the bill in place, and he worked tirelessly to get it across the goal line. Thanks also to our majority whip for leading another successful effort to secure the vote and shore up support within our conference. I also thank our distinguished minority leader as well. Although he and I are friends, we are quite often in disagreement on issues before the Senate. But in this effort, we were able to find a lot of common ground, and he worked hard to get us where we needed to be and was extremely effective in leading his conference. Over on the other side of the Capitol, I need to thank the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Kevin Brady. Chairman Brady is pretty new to his position, but he worked as a seasoned veteran in putting this bill together. He is, quite simply, an exceptional and excellent legislator. I thank Speaker Ryan for his work on this as well. He and I have worked well together over the past year and enjoyed a lot of victories. This is one of the biggest and most consequential, and I think he would agree. I also need to pay tribute to our staffs who put in so much time and effort to get this endeavor off the ground and to see it through to the finish. On both sides of the aisle, there have been a lot of late nights, early mornings, and neglected families during these final weeks. I really can't thank them enough. On my Finance Committee staff, I need to thank our tax team, led as always by the indefatigable Mark Prater, my chief tax counsel and deputy staff director. We all know and love Mark here in the Senate, and this bill, like every major tax bill over the last quarter century, has his fingerprints all over it. I need to thank my tax counsel, Jim Lyons, for spearheading yet another tax extenders effort, along with the rest of the Republican tax team: Preston Rutledge, Jeff Wrase, Tony Coughlan, Eric Oman, Christopher Hanna, Nick Wyatt, and Sam Beaver. I also need to thank Jay Khosla, my policy director and chief health counsel for his work on the health care issues we address in this bill and for his overall leadership in this process. Also on the health side, I want to thank Katie Simeon, one of the best health staffers on Capitol Hill. I also want to express particular thanks to Chris Campbell--he is my incomparable staff director--for shepherding another high-profile effort and major success for the Senate Finance Committee. I want to thank other members of my senior team, including Julia Lawless, Aaron Fobes, and Bryan Hickman for their work in the press and communications outreach and, of course, in building coalitions. I really do have the best committee staff in Congress, a statement I make without reservation. But with all due respect to my colleagues and their staffs, I have to make that statement. On Ranking Member Wyden's staff, I need to thank his tax team, particularly Todd Metcalf, who led the efforts for the other side and was a key liaison with the White House on these issues. Thanks also to the rest of the Democratic tax team: Tiffany Smith, Ryan Abraham, Chris Arneson, Robert Andres, Kara Getz, Adam Carasso, and Todd Wooten. I also want to than Ranking Member Wyden's health team. From Majority Leader McConnell's office, I want to thank Sharon Soderstrom, Hazen Marshall, Brendan Dunn, Scott Raab, Don Stewart, and Antonia Ferrier for all they did to help put this bill together, to negotiate the package, and to shore up enough votes to get it done. Thanks also to Monica Popp and Jane Lee from the majority whip's office. From Minority Leader Reid's office, I want to thank Drew Willison, Ellen Doneski, and Kate Leone. Over on the House side, I want to thank Chairman Brady's tax team, led by George Callas, and Dave Stewart for their work on this legislation. From Speaker Ryan's staff, I want to thank Austin Smythe and Dave Hoppe. Of course, no tax effort is ever completed without the vital assistance offered by the staff at the Joint Committee on Taxation. I want to thank JCT's chief of staff, Tom Barthold, and all of his great staff for the long hours they put in to make this sure this bill was put together right. Finally, I want to acknowledge the help we got from the Senate legislative counsel's office, particularly from Mark McGunagle, Vince Gaiani, Allison Otto, and Jim Fransen. Thanks to all of them as well. As you can see, it took a lot of people to put this bill together and get it passed. I am sure I have not mentioned everyone who played a role. Once again, I am very pleased to have been a part of this huge effort that we have been in a rush to get to this point at the end of the year. I think we all have a chance to reflect on the implications of what we have been able to do. We will all recognize the truly historic nature of this very important piece of tax legislation.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, the bill we are considering today contains a provision in section 305 providing for some tax relief for refiners whose costs will increase as a result of the repeal of the ban on oil exports. This provision permits refiners to modify the calculation of production activities income to lessen the impact of high transportation costs in bringing crude oil to their refineries. The provision permits adjusting such activities income for properly allocable transportation costs. Many times transportation costs are embedded within an invoice and not broken out as a separate line item, such as included in the delivered price of crude. These are clearly transportation costs intended to be taken into account for purposes of this section.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Now, Mr. President, before the Senate adjourns for the year, I want to speak once again on Puerto Rico's financial and economic challenges. Yesterday, we heard frustration from a number of my friends on the other side of the aisle about the fact that the end- of-the-year legislative vehicles did not include any changes in bankruptcy law to make Puerto Rico eligible for chapter 9 and to allow those to protections to be retroactively applied to its debts. Sadly, we also heard a number of misrepresentations, false claims, and statements that effectively impugn Republican motives as we are working to address the Puerto Rican challenges. Boiling it all down, some of my friends on the other side of the aisle argued that Republicans are somehow holding up retroactive chapter 9 eligibility for Puerto Rico in order to protect interests of ``hedge funds''--of all things. To back that claim, loose numbers, apparently drawn from some kind of random number generator were put forward, claiming that hedge funds hold maybe anywhere between 15 to perhaps 50 percent of Puerto Rico's outstanding debt of over $73 billion. Conveniently, they did not go into great lengths to define the term ``hedge funds,'' making it pretty easy to throw numbers around without a clear link to any real discernable facts. Nonetheless, even if so- called hedge funds held 50 percent of Puerto Rico's debt, the remaining 50 percent is held by others, including millions of retirees and near- retirees spread across our country and in Puerto Rico itself. That includes mom-and-pop investors in Florida, the State of Washington, Connecticut, Illinois, Utah, and every other State, and in Puerto Rico itself. Of course, those complicating facts do not seem to matter to some of my friends who claim that anyone not in favor of immediately chapter 9 eligibility for Puerto Rico must be a shill for hedge funds. That is total bull. They should tell that to the retiree who, once bankruptcy proceedings result in reduced payments on bonds issued with the understanding and expectation that current law would apply to debt being issued, would wake up to the news that their nest egg had suddenly taken a hit. Of course, those middle-class investors, the millions that aren't wealthy venture capitalists, would likely not be aware that their modest portfolio took that hit because some Senators have lumped them into some vaguely defined category of rich fat cats who don't deserve the protections of the law. If we are going to have the debate about these issues, we are going to need to specify exactly what we are talking about, not only with regard to who will actually be impacted by the proposed bankruptcy change, but also about what the change would actually do. Yesterday, many of my friends on the other side suggested here on the floor that Republicans are simply denying tools to Puerto Rico that are currently available to municipalities in all 50 States. However, that is a misrepresentation. My colleagues are not simply demanding that Puerto Rico be given access to chapter 9 restructuring authority for fresh debt offerings. They want that authority, plus an additional allowance for Puerto Rico to retroactively apply chapter 9 to debts already issued. That is for debts issued under current conditions that explicitly do not allow for application of chapter 9, which lenders took into account when formulating the terms of their contracts with Puerto Rico. Our friends want to change the rules after that fact--or those facts. That is not, in the words of one of my colleagues, ``the very same tools that are available to municipalities in all 50 States.'' That is a post-hoc change to lending conditions which carry far more serious rule-of-law implications than my friends want to acknowledge. No matter, they say; those pesky rule-of-law concerns are almost irrelevant. Lenders, according to my colleagues, knew perfectly well that rules of the lending transaction can be changed by the Federal Government after the fact. Lenders, they say, know that the Federal Government can step in and expropriate wealth and change conditions of an agreement after expectations have been formed and the conditions of the transactions have been agreed upon. Well, the Federal Government can do many things, I suppose. But that does not ensure that what it does is good policy, nor does it mean that anyone entering into any contract should build into the terms and expectation that Congress, simply because it can, will step in and change the rules midstream. Yet my friends on the other side have casually and even flippantly suggested that all of Puerto Rico's creditors knew, or at least should have known, that the laws governing their debt transactions are subject to change at any time. In any event, who cares? After all, according to my friends, we are only talking about a bunch of rich hedge fund managers. I think every Senator here representing every State in the Union should care. If it is what the majority wants, we can go ahead and cast aside expectations on credits already issued. But we should then, at the very least, be willing to consider that such actions will alter expectations of creditors moving forward. That could easily mean higher costs of borrowing to every municipality in every State of the Union, and in every territory. These are not itty-bitty things. That would include Puerto Rico, Utah, Florida, the State of Washington, New Jersey, Connecticut, Illinois, and all of the rest. Even with all of these obvious yet unaddressed considerations, my friends yesterday decried that chapter 9 authority was not being granted to Puerto Rico this week. Yet in discussions I have had with Democrats in Congress and with administration officials, chapter 9 is not even what they really want, nor is it applicable. What they really want and what they have made clear to me is something far broader, which would not only give municipalities in Puerto Rico access to chapter 9, but also a brand new bankruptcy authority created out of whole cloth, which encompasses all of Puerto Rico's $73 billion or more of debt and includes pension obligations of well over $40 billion. These are serious problems. You cannot flippantly think they are solved just by passing a law. That is not chapter 9, by the way; it is all new bankruptcy authority. That new authority, which is not what Democratic Senators talked about on the floor yesterday, also includes ``general obligation'' debt of Puerto Rico, which enjoys special protection under Puerto Rico's own constitution, which is apparently of little consequence to my friends' agenda. The question I have is, If we are going to get in the business of ignoring rule-of-law issues and creating fresh new bankruptcy law and provisions for a U.S. territory--which does not have that, neither do the other territories--why would not heavily indebted States start to believe that we should do exactly the same for them? More importantly, why would creditors not start to believe that as well? These moral hazard problems do not seem to be an issue for my friends, which, in my view, is both disappointing and reflective of some fundamental misunderstandings of the working of expectations in credit markets. Let's be clear: I share the frustration of my dear friends on the other side of the aisle when it comes to Puerto Rico but probably for different reasons. I have been working to find ways to address Puerto Rico's challenges throughout the year, not just in the past couple of weeks. We have been working to do so in a bipartisan way. I have come to the floor and committed on the record to working in good faith with my colleagues toward finding a solution. I am working and will continue to do so. Today, I am somewhat frustrated. Since August of this year, many others and I have been asking for audit financial statements from the Government of Puerto Rico. Despite assurances that we would receive them, we have not. We have been repeatedly told, and were reminded yesterday, that there is or will be a humanitarian crisis in Puerto Rico because of indebtedness and a health system in crisis. Yet, despite my numerous inquiries, I have heard little from health officials in the administration. What I have heard is that the Department of Health and Human Services seems to be gathering data, analyzing the facts, and may be ready to make some administrative changes in a year or two--maybe. In the face of what we are told is a humanitarian crisis, you would think that health officials would have at least had an urgent meeting or two with relevant committees of jurisdiction here in Congress. Unfortunately, to my knowledge--and I am that relevant chairman here in the Senate--there has been no such outreach. Similarly, you would think that those in Congress and the administration who are putting forward proposals to grant more health funding for Puerto Rico would acknowledge the costs of their proposals, particularly given the numerous inquiries I have made in that regard. You would also think they would let us know upfront whether they want to offset any of those costs, and if they do, how they plan to do so. I have asked, but I have gotten no response. I have also asked administration officials how much is needed for health system relief and what they have in mind when they say it should be provided in a ``fiscally responsible'' way. I have not gotten an answer. I worry that parties, including the Government of Puerto Rico, have not made sufficient efforts to arrive at a negotiated debt restructuring with creditors, despite encouragement from me and others to get to work. Throughout the year, I have offered to work with anyone who wants to help the people of Puerto Rico to find a solution. I have worked productively and will continue to do so with administration officials. I have had constructive meetings with many Puerto Ricans, including the current Governor and others. I have had gracious visits and offers of productive collaboration from interested House Members, including Representatives Velazquez, Serrano, Gutierrez, and Pierluisi. I want that to continue. Many of us are intent on persevering and continuing to arrive at solutions. Even with incomplete information on Puerto Rico's finances and the reluctance of administration health officials to engage, I have joined with Senators Murkowski and Grassley to put forward tools, funding, and tax relief to help to begin to address what we know about Puerto Rico's challenges. Our bill provides tax relief to workers, tools--but no mandates--to help put pensions on a sustainable path, and oversight and assistance in budgeting, transparent accounting, planning, and attainment of fiscal sustainability. All told, our bill puts forward more than $7 billion of relief without costing Federal personal taxpayers a dime. Let me repeat that--more than $7 billion of relief. In the interest of bipartisanship, the bill was put forward without provocation of sensitivities of my friends on the other side of the aisle concerning things such as labor laws, shipping laws, and the like. Nonetheless, the bill was not included in the end-of-year legislative vehicles that we voted on today, just as the Democrats' super chapter 9 proposal was not included. Yet if you listened to some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle yesterday, you probably walked away with the notion that my Republican colleagues and I are simply shilling for a bunch of hedge fund speculators. You probably thought we were holding up a simple and fair application of tools that everyone else has to adjust and restructure debt that will not cost the Federal Government anything. You were probably also surprised to learn that Republicans don't even realize that Puerto Ricans are American citizens. I am not making that up. One of my colleagues actually said that. We all know those claims were--to be more blunt than I typically like to be--a bunch of baloney. Speaking for myself, I can only say that if I am shilling for anyone on this issue, it is for the people of Puerto Rico and not for speculators, hedge funds, unions or standing in political polls. I am not preventing access to tools everyone else has because that is not even what my colleagues are asking for. Not only do I realize that Puerto Ricans are American citizens, I believe the people of Puerto Rico are valuable and cherished fellow Americans, not political pawns. In closing, while others may wish to engage in political dart- throwing exercises, I am not interested, and I believe it is a disservice to the people of Puerto Rico, who deserve our continued efforts. I intend to continue working with anyone who wants to work with me to arrive at tools, support, and assistance that will help the people of Puerto Rico--not particular politicians or interest groups here or on the island. My goal, and the goal of anyone who wants to keep working with me or join me anew, is simple: help the people of Puerto Rico and help get Puerto Rico on a path to fiscal sustainability, economic growth and stability, and greater efficiency in government. We can do it. I am dedicated to doing it, and we have given them the benefits so they can carry this over until the end of February, maybe into March, while we try to work on what it really should be, a very good resolution of these problems. In the meantime, I hope Puerto Rico will get us their financials--their audited financials. That would be of great help to us. We have given some time here now because it was impossible to put together a major bill on this matter and have everybody support it. So we have given time, we think we can get this done, and I intend to get it done one way or another the best we possibly can so Puerto Rico isn't just helped, it will be helped to go into the future, and Puerto Ricans who have had to leave that territory for jobs will want to return and be members of the citizenry of Puerto Rico again. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. If the Senator will yield for a comment.

Mr. HATCH. I thank the Senator. He is one of the really good people in this body. I am so grateful he is on the Senate Finance Committee. We have a lot of good people in this body, but the Senator from Maryland is one of my favorite people. He works hard, he is very articulate, he is very intelligent, and although he is too liberal for me, he works hand-in-glove with the rest of us on the committee to make things work. Frankly, if I were from Maryland, I would probably be as liberal as he is. All I can say is that he is a great man to work with, he is a great man in the Senate, and I happen to care a great deal for him.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to complete my remarks.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as we count down the remaining days on the 2015 legislative calendar, there is still quite a bit of work to do and a few more big-ticket items to put to bed. Still, even with so much still on our plates, I believe it is appropriate to take a look back at the year we are now finishing up and reflect on what we have been able to accomplish. Now, 2015 has been a big year in the Senate. After many years of unproductive division and stagnation, the Senate finally has returned to work. While some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have tried to downplay the productivity we have enjoyed under the current Senate leadership--and the Washington Post Fact Checker awarded them some Pinocchios for their efforts--no one can seriously argue that things haven't changed around here. Under the current Senate majority, the committees have been allowed to function and work. Under the current Senate majority, we have had fuller and fairer debates on the Senate floor. Probably most important of all, under the current Senate majority, the Senate has actually been doing the people's business. Instead of being bogged down with divisive, political show votes, we have tackled tough challenges-- including numerous challenges that have plagued this body for many years--and we have delivered results, usually with a strong bipartisan majority, which I find to be very heartening. I am pleased to say this new trend toward efficiency and bipartisan success has been evident in the Senate Finance Committee, which I have been privileged to chair since the 1st of January this year. I would like to take some time to pay tribute to my colleagues on the Finance Committee and the successes we have enjoyed this year. I will start with the basics, just some top-line numbers. In 2015, the Finance Committee held 30 full committee hearings to discuss various legislative efforts, conduct oversight of the administration, and to question executive branch nominees. There were also two subcommittee hearings. We convened 10 separate markups to consider and report legislation and nominations. Let's dig a little deeper with the numbers. In terms of legislation, the Finance Committee moved at a historic pace in 2015, considering and reporting 37 individual bills. Those are more bills than the committee reported in the past four Congresses combined and more than any single Congress in the last 35 years. I just have to reiterate that I am not comparing 2015 to any single previous year. I am comparing it to the entirety of past Congresses. We have moved more legislation in just 1 year than the Finance Committee has in any entire Congress in the past three and one-half decades. Even more striking is the fact that every one of the 37 bills we reported this year enjoyed overwhelming bipartisan support in the committee. So far, 9 of those 37 reported bills have been signed or incorporated into law, and several more are likely to get there before the end of this week. In addition, three other bills that came through the Finance Committee were discharged and subsequently signed into law. However, while these raw numbers may be impressive, they only tell part of the story. If we take the time to delve into the specifics of our efforts on the Finance Committee, we will see that we have actually enjoyed significant successes in each of our major areas of jurisdiction, including tax, trade, health care, Social Security, and oversight. I have often spoken about many of our individual achievements on the Senate floor, but I think they deserve another mention today. Trade. I will start by talking about our efforts with regard to international trade policy. We began 2015 with a desire to advance a bold and ambitious trade agenda that would update our trade laws for the 21st century global economy and set the stage for American leadership in the international marketplace. By any measurable standard, our efforts have been a smashing success. The centerpiece of our trade agenda was the legislation to renew trade promotion authority, or TPA. Prior to this year, it had been nearly three decades since a TPA bill was fully considered and reported out of the Senate Finance Committee. Our TPA bill received a strong bipartisan vote in the committee and another one on the floor. Actually, to be precise, we had to pass it twice in the Senate, with similar results on both occasions. This legislation put in place strong negotiating objectives to ensure our negotiated trade agreements reflect the collective will of Congress. It also empowered our negotiators to reach the best deals possible by providing a path to getting fair up-or-down votes for future trade agreements, giving our trading partners the assurances they need to put their best offers on the table. I don't want to go into too much detail today about any specific trade agreements that may or may not make their way to Congress in the future. I just want to point out that the Finance Committee's TPA bill--now a law--will ensure that we have all the information we need to make an informed decision on any agreement that Congress has the ultimate say over whether any agreement enters into force. In addition to TPA, the Finance Committee developed legislation to renew some of our most vital trade preference programs, including preferences for Haiti and countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and the Generalized System of Preferences, or GSP, Program. These programs are key tools in our arsenal for assisting developing nations and providing important benefits for job creators and consumers here at home. The preference bill was signed into law after getting a near-unanimous vote in both the House and the Senate. We also crafted the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act, a bill which will, among other things, authorize the Customs and Border Protection agency and update our processes and standards for enforcement at our borders, most notably with regard to the protection of intellectual property rights, an issue that has long been of particular interest to me. This legislation also had a lot of support in the Senate and in the House. The conference committee, which I chaired, charged with reconciling the differences between the House- and Senate-passed versions of the bill, filed its report just this last week. My hope is that we will consider and pass this conference report as soon as possible. International trade is a key element of a healthy U.S. economy. We have made great strides toward promoting trade and improving global trade standards already this year--and hopefully we will be able to make a few more in the very near future. Entitlement reform. The Finance Committee has also enjoyed significant success when it comes to entitlement reform, which I think has surprised many people around here. For years--decades even--we were told that bipartisan entitlement reform was impossible. The political stakes, according to the naysayers, were far too high. The parties and stakeholders, they said, were too entrenched. Yet, in 2015, we have successfully enacted significant reforms to our two most ``untouchable'' entitlement reform programs: Medicaid and Social Security. In April, Congress passed, and the President signed, legislation originally drafted and reported out of the Finance Committee in late 2014 to repeal and replace the Medicare sustainable growth rate--SGR-- formula. Although it has been a little while since the bill passed, I think we all remember the periodic scramble to find short-term offsets to patch the SGR and kick the can even further down the road. It was, quite frankly, an embarrassment we forced ourselves to endure year after year and a prime example of government ineptitude and our apparent inability to do anything in Congress to fix it. That all changed this year with the passage of the committee's legislation, which not only reformed Medicare in terms of the SGR but also featured cost-saving measures within the underlying program. These included a limitation on so-called Medigap first-dollar coverage, more robust means testing for Medicare Parts B and D, and program integrity provisions that have strengthened Medicare's ability to fight fraud. While we are on the subject of Medicare reform, I will mention that the Finance Committee also reported the Audit and Appeals Fairness, Integrity, and Reforms in Medicare--or AFIRM--Act earlier this year. This bipartisan bill is designed to address the already massive backlog of Medicare audit appeals while also allowing for increased efforts to improve program integrity and reduce improper payments out of the Medicare trust fund. It will make life much easier for both Medicare beneficiaries and their doctors who, under the status quo, wait, on average, a year and a half before an appeal is processed and they are able to know for sure whether their claims will be covered or if they will be paid for the services they perform. In addition to these steps forward on Medicare, Congress also passed--as part of the recent budget and debt-ceiling bill--legislation to reform the Social Security Disability Insurance Program, or SSDI, and to prevent benefit cuts looming in the not-too-distant future. Congress knew for years that the SSDI trust fund would be exhausted in 2016 and did little to address it. Despite my pleas and those of a handful of others, they did little to address it. I might add that for the Obama White House and our friends on the other side of the aisle to engage on this issue, it took some time. Facing the prospect of across- the-board benefit cuts for all SSDI beneficiaries, the Finance Committee developed proposals to extend the life of the trust fund and put in place needed reforms to the SSDI Program itself. Most of these proposals were included in the final legislation. While, admittedly, these reforms are not the fundamental changes both the SSDI Program and Social Security more broadly need to be sustainable for future generations, they represented a very real first step toward that long-term goal and are the most significant changes to any Social Security Program enacted in the past three decades. Clearly, much more work needs to be done to put both Medicare and Social Security on firm fiscal footing. The same is true of Medicaid and other entitlement reforms. Still, the steps Congress took this year toward fixing those programs were the biggest we have taken in a long time. I am pleased to acknowledge that the efforts that led to those steps began in the Senate Finance Committee. Highways and Infrastructure. One of the biggest and greatest successes we have had in the Senate this year was the passage and enactment of a long-term extension of the highway trust fund. The final highway bill, which we passed a few weeks ago, provides 5 years of continuous highway funding, the longest extension of transportation funding since 1998 and one of the longest since the Reagan years. Prior to this year, the typical cycle for funding highways went something like this: Step 1, leaders of Congress recognize and acknowledge a near-term exhaustion of highway funding. Step 2, those same leaders work with the relevant committee chairmen to cobble together enough offsets to pay for a short-term extension, usually somewhere between 6 and 18 months. Step 3, Congress passes a short-term extension with little fanfare and absolutely no celebration. Step 4, every Member of Congress spends the next 6 to 18 months complaining about this process. Step 5, start again at Step 1. Thankfully, we broke that cycle this year. We began with a goal to provide the longest extension possible. I was determined to do all I could to find a way out of this rut, which is why I believed we had to think a little outside the proverbial box and look everywhere for potential offsets. Generally speaking, the Finance Committee is responsible for the financing title of any highway bill that goes through the Senate. Usually, we focus on areas within our jurisdiction as we search for offsets. But over the years, those resources became harder and harder to come by, requiring us to look elsewhere. The committee spent weeks examining numerous options and alternatives. Many thought we could not come up with much more than just one 1 or 2 years. Eventually, we were able to present our distinguished majority leader with a list of potential offsets that could provide funding for a long-term highway bill without raising taxes or increasing the deficit. That list we came up with on the Finance Committee, in large part, formed the basis of the long-term highway bill that we passed earlier this month, which has provided much needed certainty for our States as they plan and complete highway projects, preserving jobs and stimulating growth in our economy. That long-term Transportation bill was, after all, a win for good Government and for bipartisanship in Congress. To a lesser but not insignificant extent, it was also a win for the Senate Finance Committee. Tax. The committee also took important steps toward fixing our Nation's Tax Code in 2015. From the beginning of the year, the Finance Committee began considering and reporting bipartisan tax legislation aimed at specific needs for our country. For example, in January, we reported the Hire More Heroes Act, which relieves small businesses of burdensome ObamaCare mandates that made it harder for them to hire veterans. This legislation was signed into law in July. In February, we held a markup to consider 17 separate tax bills, all of them bipartisan, all of which passed without objection through the committee. To date, two of those bills have become law, and, hopefully, before we adjourn this week we will pass legislation that incorporates at least 11 more. Adding those 11 bills to the Finance Committee total, 20 of the 37 bills we reported will have been signed into law. That is a pretty good batting average, and when you include the bills we discharged from the committee, the grand total comes to 23 separate bills out of our committee signed or incorporated into law--not bad for a year's work. In addition, at the beginning of the year, we launched five separate tax reform working groups in an effort to advance the larger tax reform conversation. These working groups, each of them cochaired by a Republican and a Democrat, spent months examining various areas of the Tax Code, listening to stakeholders and learning the various pressure points and tradeoffs that come with any significant changes to our tax laws. This past summer, each of the five groups released a report detailing their findings, outlining reform opportunities, and acknowledging areas of likely disagreement. I am not naive. I know that tax reform, whenever it happens, will be a long, difficult process. However, I believe the effort our committee members put in with these working groups will make a difference in how that process plays out and how the tax reform debate unfolds in the future. While these are important steps for tax policy and tax reform, I am hoping that we can take an even larger step before we adjourn for the year. Earlier this week, leaders and tax writers in both the House and Senate, and from both parties, reached an agreement on legislation that would provide significant tax relief for millions of families and job creators around the country. We would do so mostly by unwinding the near-annual tradition of extending expired tax provisions. Like the SGR and highway funding, the periodic tax extenders exercise has been a constant source of consternation around here, with a new cliff or crisis developing with any hint that expiring provisions would be not be extended. Sometimes we haven't extended them. And, of course, the whole ordeal has been further evidence that Congress is incapable of making tough choices in order to govern more effectively--at least in the minds of some. The bill we unveiled this week--which the House passed earlier today with an overwhelming bipartisan vote--would change that dynamic by making many of the most important consequential tax provisions permanent, significantly relieving the ongoing extenders pressure, and allowing for a more sensible approach to tax policy. I spoke about this legislation at length on the floor yesterday. Permanent tax policy, such as the kind we would achieve in our bill, means more certainty for taxpayers: individuals, families, and businesses. It means an improved revenue baseline for future tax reform efforts. More than anything, it means tax relief for hardworking taxpayers, to the tune of about $680 billion over 10 years. We moved this effort forward on the Finance Committee in July when we marked up the so-called extenders package, taking note of Senators' priorities and desires for long-term solutions and setting the stage for a real discussion about permanence. We took that momentum into the bicameral, bipartisan negotiations, and, ultimately, the bill reflects many of the preferences expressed in the committee. Our bipartisan tax bill also contains a 2-year moratorium on the medical device tax under ObamaCare, something that has been very harmful to our medical device industry. We will look at that in 2 more years. For years now, we have seen support grow on both sides of the aisle for repealing this horrendously misguided tax, the medical device tax. It has been a top priority of mine since the day ObamaCare was signed into law. Other Members of the Finance Committee have led on this issue as well, and one way or another we are going to get it done. For now, we have a good first step: a bill crafted by both parties to suspend the tax for 2 years. Two similar suspensions of ObamaCare taxes are included in the Omnibus appropriations bill, including a 2-year delay of the so-called Cadillac tax--which is just a massive middle-class tax hike disguised as a tax hit on the rich--and a 1-year moratorium on the health insurance tax. In other words, on top of permanence in the Tax Code and relief for taxpayers across the country, we have bipartisan agreement to delay or suspend some of the more harmful elements of the Affordable Care Act. It is not a bad way to end the year, if you ask me. Of course, now we have to pass these bills. In a day or so, I think we will. Health Care and Human Services. Let me move on to another important area of our committee's jurisdiction: heath care and human services. We have been very active in the Finance Committee in this space as well. Most recently, we worked with our colleagues on the Budget and HELP Committees to put together the reconciliation legislation repealing ObamaCare, which, after it passed in the Senate, paved a way toward finally putting a repeal bill on the President's desk. This is a key promise for congressional Republicans, one that we delivered on just a few short weeks ago. In June, the Finance Committee held a markup where we considered and reported 12 separate health care bills representing a number of priorities for our committee Members on both sides of the dais. In keeping with the ongoing trend for 2015, all of these bills had overwhelming bipartisan support. So far, three of these bills have been signed into law. In addition to these successes, the Finance Committee has spent 2015 engaged in some very important ongoing efforts that we believe will yield results in the near future. One of those efforts is to improve Medicare services for patients living with chronic illnesses. We held two hearings this year to examine this issue. We sought and received the advice and recommendations of various stakeholders and have released those recommendations to the public. The committee's efforts on chronic care reflect a bipartisan desire to significantly improve the quality of care for Medicare patients at greater value and lower cost, without adding to the deficit. This work will go on into next year as we continue to review and analyze proposals with an aim toward developing bipartisan legislation. Another one of our ongoing efforts has been to improve our Nation's foster care system. This year, we held two hearings related to this topic--one on group homes and another on prevention. Last month, utilizing what we learned in these hearings and with input from numerous stakeholders, Ranking Member Wyden and I reached an agreement on legislation that we called the Family First Act, which will increase the availability of prevention services to allow children at risk of going to foster care to remain safely at home and to reduce the reliance on group homes for children under the foster system. As we all know, entering the foster care system can be particularly traumatic for a child. Over the years, we have seen ample evidence suggesting that placement in group homes significantly increases children's risks and potential for victimization. Our bill would give States greater flexibility, with the goal of keeping children with family members and ending the overreliance on group homes. The Family First Act is supported by advocates and stakeholders across the country. We hope to mark up and report this bipartisan legislation early in the new year. I also need to acknowledge our committee's oversight efforts. We have been anxiously engaged in numerous efforts on the Finance Committee to shine a light on government failures and overreach, as well as some potentially corrupt practices in the private sector. Most notably, this summer we concluded our investigation into the IRS's targeting of conservative groups. This was the only bipartisan investigation into this scandal, and our report, which was roughly 5,000 pages long, provided the most detail yet about what went on at the IRS and the extent of incompetence and bad decisionmaking that led to those unfortunate events. In addition, the report provided numerous recommendations for improvement at the IRS and in a number of ways set the stage for consideration of legislation to reform that agency's operations. In addition to the IRS report, the committee has provided the most rigorous and extensive oversight of the implementation of the so-called Affordable Care Act, revealing many of its fundamental flaws and uncovering a number of failures and missteps on the part of this administration. This has included, for example, an exhaustive look at the ObamaCare co-ops, which in recent months had been failing at an alarming rate at the cost of billions of dollars in taxpayer funds. Needless to say, we haven't taken our eyes off of ObamaCare. The committee has also been conducting ongoing investigations and oversight into the questionable contracting practices within the Department of Treasury. We have taken a good, hard look at the tax return preparation industry and practices that have led to stolen identification and tax refund fraud. In fact, our investigation has already led to new practices at the IRS and within the industry aimed at reducing instances of this terrible crime. This is just a small snippet of our oversight efforts over the past year. The Finance Committee, given its massive jurisdiction, has always had a reputation for aggressive oversight, and we have continued that tradition, and then some, in 2015. Finally, I just want to remark on one more of our ongoing efforts--I suppose you could put this one in the miscellaneous or multidiscipline file--with regard to the looming debt crisis in Puerto Rico. We have taken a close look at this issue in the committee, and we even held a hearing on it. Along with the leaders on the Judiciary and Energy and National Resources Committees, we have introduced legislation that-- using the limited information we currently have about Puerto Rico's dismal predicament--would improve the island's finances and economy by providing responsible tax relief and transitional assistance to the territory's government. In addition, we worked to get a provision in the Omnibus appropriations bill that authorizes the Treasury Department to provide Puerto Rico with technical assistance, including help with budgeting, forecasting, cash management, fiscal planning, improving tax collections, and the like. This is something we are going to have to continue to work on, and in the coming weeks and months the Finance Committee will continue to consider various proposals--including the bill we introduced last week--aimed at helping the people of Puerto Rico. By the way, we challenged Puerto Rico to give us audited financials so that we could really work on this under the best possible terms. I intend to see that we help Puerto Rico, and hopefully we can do that. We have now provided them the means so that they should be able to carry on through next February, and hopefully during that time we will come up with some solutions that make sense not only to Puerto Rico but to our taxpayers and others. As you can see, we have been very busy and effective in our corner of the Senate thanks to the diligent efforts of all of our Finance Committee members. I have had the privilege of serving as chairman of this committee during such an eventful and productive time with so many committed and honorable Members of the Senate on both sides of the aisle. I, of course, have to thank Ranking Member Wyden for his work on the committee. He has been a valuable partner, and at every step of the way, he has worked hard to ensure that all of the committee's efforts were bipartisan. He has played a huge leadership role in almost all of the successes I have mentioned here today. I also wish to thank the other members of our committee. If you look down the Finance Committee roster, you will see--from top to bottom-- every member has a reputation for working hard and achieving results. On the Republican side, we have Senators Grassley, Crapo, Roberts, Enzi, Cornyn, Thune, Burr, Isakson, Portman, Toomey, Coats, Heller, and Scott. They are good people who are working in the best interest of this country. For the Democrats, we have Senators Schumer, Stabenow, Cantwell, Nelson, Menendez, Carper, Cardin, Brown, Bennet, Casey, and Warner. And, of course, we have Senator Wyden. And you can also include me in there. Every one of these members has played a key role in our success on the Finance Committee, and I am very grateful to have the opportunity to work with them all. I don't want this to sound like a farewell speech. I don't want anybody to think that with all this gushing and all these thank-yous, we are nearing the end of anything. Last time I checked, I will still be the chairman of the Finance Committee in 2016 and we are still going to have this great group of Senators serving on the committee. Most significantly, our Nation will still be facing a number of important challenges in the coming year. We can't and we won't be sitting on our laurels in 2016. While I am pleased to have this opportunity today to take a short trip down memory lane, everyone both on and off the Finance Committee should be prepared: We are just getting started. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to a man who has dutifully served our Nation as a public servant for more than 30 years--Mr. John B. Johns. John will retire from his role as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Maintenance Policy and Programs at the end of this year. We will miss his leadership, his tenacity in tackling the impossible, and his courage in the face of adversity. I have had the privilege of knowing John for several years and have always been amazed at his commitment to our country and his devotion to our military. In his current role, he is responsible for the oversight of the Department of Defense's maintenance program that exceeds an annual budget of $80 billion. During his distinguished career, John has been deployed twice--first to Iraq in 2010, where he served as the director of the training and advisory mission and the director of logistics for the Iraqi Security Forces; and second to Afghanistan in 2013, where he served as the executive director of Afghan National Security Forces Sustainment for the International Security Assistance Force. One of John's primary duties in his current position is to host the annual Department of Defense Maintenance Symposium that recognizes excellence in maintenance activities within the Armed Services and the Coast Guard. During this event, the Department recognizes leaders and organizations for the superior service they render to promote the readiness of the U.S. military. I wanted to read the remarks that John offered at this year's symposium last week. The title of John's address is ``Maintaining America's Defense.'' His words are as follows: ``For seven years this community has been very kind to me; you have been gracious and patient as I spoke from this stage. I now ask you to indulge me one last time as I speak of maintaining America's defense. Brave warriors have fought and died, and their brothers and sisters stand watch today, in harm's way, to both secure and maintain peace, to deter and defeat forces that are committed to a future fundamentally different than the one you and I envision. The world is a complex, dangerous, and unstable place with evolving threats, both new and old. The reality is we are facing skilled, determined enemies that would just as soon strike at us as they would take a breath. They clearly do not share the same view on humanity, nor the value of life, as we do. This environment demands the flexibility, agility and lethality that only our United States Military can provide. From the first shots that signaled the birth of our country, men at arms have served as an instrument of state, and their strength, as individuals and as a force, have enabled and secured both victory and peace. Today, the presence of United States Forces, controlling the battle space, conducting strike operations with the ability to see but remain unseen, to dominate the land, sea, and air, to rain fire and destruction, provide clarity to all those that contemplate harm to us or our interests. That aggression will not be tolerated. But, as you know, we have not always acted properly, nor responded with appropriate speed, to events in the world that have demanded our attention. We make many mistakes, and it is true we are slow to anger. But, once our limit has been breached and restraint abandoned, there is nothing on this planet, nor has there ever been, like the hell unleashed from coiled fury of the United States Military. You should all be proud of the role you play in maintaining that capability--most recently, maintaining readiness of our forces over a decade of continuous combat, in two complex theaters, in unforgiving environments, while maintaining a credible presence throughout the rest of the world. You enabled this, and for that, you should be proud. All of you in this room know a ship not ready to sail, or an aircraft not ready to fly, has no value. And, since we have had the need for weapons, we have had the need for those that maintain them. This eternal bond is a covenant, a sacred promise, between those that generate readiness and those that apply it, and we seal this covenant with a commitment to excellence. All of you in this room, and those you represent, should be rightfully proud, an embodiment of this covenant and commitment, reminding any who mistakenly underestimate the power and will of our United States Military that we are capable of striking with speed and violence. So where, then, should we expect the approach of danger; what will be its origin? I suggest our greatest enemy, our greatest threat, is not Russia; our greatest enemy is not ISIS, ISIL, DEASH, or whatever we are calling them now; it's not China, it's not North Korea, and it's certainly not climate change. Yes, of course, they are all threats; I would never say they're not. But they are born of something much more fundamental. I suggest our greatest threat is the dangerous mix of mediocrity, poor judgment, and tolerance--here, on our ground. In his Lyceum address, Lincoln said, `Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth in their military chest, with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer--If it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us; it cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author, and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.' Our greatest enemy is the dangerous mix of tolerance and mediocrity-- mediocrity fueled by those lacking honor, judgment, courage and determination, and the tyranny of tolerance characterized by slumbering apathy, a comfortable denial of reality, and paralyzing bureaucracy. This toxic mix, this deadly combination, creates or fuels all other threats, allowing what would be a simple challenge to evolve into danger. Our enemies demand greatness of us; our partners in the world, to which we have made commitments, demand greatness of us; our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, coastguardsmen demand greatness of us; those that have made the ultimate sacrifice demand greatness of us. And we should demand it from ourselves. But, absent clear and present danger, we approach greatness hesitantly and inefficiently, only when compelled, operating at the edge of greatness, at risk of losing it. We have many examples of those who have achieved greatness. Some we will recognize tonight just as we have in the past. And we should continue to recognize those that rise above and achieve truly uncommon things, but contemplate that word ``uncommon.'' It means some stand on the pinnacle of true greatness and others do not. As hard as that is to accept, we all know it to be true, and the slope to that pinnacle of greatness is steep. Many never make it to the top, and many can't find a way to stay there. It takes much to climb and takes even more to remain there. Those that stand at the top, however, are those that change the world. They set an uncommon path to achieve uncommon things, and we see this greatness through their achievements and their character. But let's be careful because they are not the only ones with claims on the future. Those at the bottom, and even those that occupy the middle ground, can also claim this power to change the world but, clearly, not in the same way as we desire. So what differentiates those that carry the banner of greatness? What allows those to scale that slope to the peak of performance? What robs those at the bottom from the ability to climb? What defines the middle ground of mediocrity? What do we need to know about standing on the pinnacle? And how do we avoid a fall from greatness? For this I refer to four words used so well by John F. Kennedy in a speech to the Massachusetts State Legislature one month before he was inaugurated as President of the United States. He said, `When the High Court of History sits in judgment of us all, no matter our station, our success or failure, will be measured by the answer to four questions. Were we truly men of honor? Were we truly men of judgment? Were we truly men of courage? And, were we truly men of determination?' Honor--to do the right thing and treat others with respect. Judgment--to see the future and the path to get there. Courage--to take action and speak the truth. Determination--to produce required results and finish what we start. These are the words that define greatness; words that serve as our test that guide our every thought, our every decision, our every action; words that should determine who we consider friends with whom we surround ourselves and how we choose leaders; words that should fill both our minds and our hearts. And where we fall on the scale defined by these words will determine not only our success or failure as individuals but also our contribution to our organizations, our country, and the world. Where we fall on this scale will determine our legacy. There is much at stake and we cannot afford to aspire to anything less than greatness. And we should remember our actions, or inaction, affect the strength of our military, the posture of our country, and the security of the world. I would not be speaking to you this way if they did not, if somehow the world spun on, immune to our words and behavior, but that is not the case. Every day we send soldiers, marines, sailors, airmen, and coastguardsmen into harm's way. We send them to defeat an enemy that tests the will of our United States Military. We send them to provide aid and comfort to those in need, and we send them to mature foreign security forces and governments struggling to shape their own destiny. In executing these missions they not only secure our liberty but also serve as the single greatest symbol of liberty in the world. Collectively, they are the most capable force that has ever existed. Every day they signal to a world at war that both the hand of compassion and the sword of justice extend across the world. There is great honor in this, and many have worn that badge. Many of those are still with us, but too many are not, having paid the ultimate price, made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of our country. But, after all we have done and the price we have paid, the world remains a chaotic, complex, and dangerous place. To see this all you have to do is pay even a little attention to the situations in Iraq, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, Russia, Ukraine, Western Pacific, Nigeria, Libya, in our board rooms, on our production floors, in our class rooms, on our televisions, and in our governments. Now, I could say, let's just all work it out. Let's bring everybody together on any infinite number of problems, conflicts, disagreements, and just work through them. How simple that sounds. Surely that would work. But haven't we tried that before? How many times have we tried that before? And, yet, here we are still facing some of the most vexing problems we have ever faced. In fact, at times it seems that we are reliving some things we thought we had solved, only to see them re- emerge. Among many questions we must ask--why has it taken over a decade to develop the sustainment strategy for our new strike fighter, figure out the basic rules that govern a global spares pool, and appropriately budget to stand up supporting depot maintenance capability? Why, after diligent collaboration and full transparency, could the Department, Industry, and Congress, with all our might, find ourselves incapable of passing common-sense revisions to the depot maintenance-related statutes that would have benefited all of us? Why, after over half a decade and endless debate, could we not implement an enterprise, performance-based approach integrating a collection of individually executed contracts across the Military Departments that would have offered greatly improved supply availability and reduced cost? Why have we seen nearly a decade-long decline in naval aviation readiness with misleading and confusing explanations for root causes and corrective actions, from denial that there even is a problem to the use of false narratives underlying recovery strategies? Why, after a completely integrated, multi-service team approach, taking nearly half a decade, can we not make a much-needed unmanned air system software depot source of repair assignment? And why, after a decade long effort to develop the capability and capacity of the Iraqi and Afghan Security Forces, have we seen the near complete disintegration of those forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, defying all comprehension, a failed supply system, and a dysfunctional maintenance strategy that violates all reasonable logic? How is this possible? Why do we tolerate this? Some may think my thoughts lack sophistication or I simply don't understand. I'll acknowledge that we face complex situations, but I assure you, I understand all too well. The fact is we tolerate too much. We tolerate mediocrity or even incompetence. We tolerate lies and half-truths. We tolerate irresponsible self-interest. We tolerate political expediency. We tolerate any other innumerable demonstrations of misbehavior. But let's not confuse tolerance with much needed compassion, empathy, and flexibility. Certainly, we need to see other perspectives and accept alternative paths. And we know empathy and flexibility are key ingredients in collaboration, but that doesn't mean we need to tolerate things that are fundamentally wrong, things that will lead us down the path to ruin. I see no honor in this, no judgment, no courage. In these cases, we must have absolutely no tolerance--no tolerance for incompetence, no tolerance for those without integrity, and no tolerance for self-interest that overrides the greater good. And, just to be clear, this is purely and simply an issue of leadership. Some may not see it. And some may be misled, burdened with the inability to differentiate between true leadership and those impersonating leaders. But those that are tired of political correctness, the endless pursuit of consensus, unprofessional behavior, and paralyzing bureaucracy, they understand. And those that expect vision, those that expect strategy, those that expect executable plans, those that expect fairness, honor, judgment, courage, determination from our leaders, they understand. And we should certainly not tolerate the behaviors of the few with cavalier disregard of the facts, the few that masquerade as leaders, and those that can't recognize it or lack the will to deal with it as they should, those that are threatened by honesty and candor that send the signal that this is ok and that even reward it. Tolerance here is insidious and dangerous. It doesn't take many examples to poison a culture and affect generations. We cannot afford to let this happen. We cannot afford anything less than greatness. This is why I am speaking this way. We must have the courage to recognize good performance, regardless of whether it is politically correct, and deal appropriately with bad performance. We must have the courage to speak truth to those below us, around us, and above us. Ambiguity, half-truths, misleading messages, and lies demonstrate poor judgment and lack of courage. Tolerance of this, at best, creates inefficiency and weakness, and at its worst, danger. We all should have the judgment and courage to recognize this, call it for what it is, and dedicate ourselves to eliminating it. In this moment we require leaders. We require leaders that are capable of seeing new patterns in complexity and conflict and applying new methods to achieve unconventional and uncommon outcomes. We need leaders at all levels that have no tolerance for status quo and mediocrity. We need leaders with competence and courage, with the ability to learn and adapt quickly. We need leaders that are comfortable making decisions and taking action in the face of significant ambiguity, unclear guidance, and near impossible timelines. We need leaders that know how to generate both unity of command and unity of effort. It remains all our duty to recognize and contribute to the greater good. We must be able to understand the interests of others and exercise the flexibility and skill in accommodating those interests while protecting our own. And just because we can see the need for collaboration doesn't mean we can just wish it into being. There is a science to collaboration and we must be well practiced at it. In fact, we should all be experts because we must accept the simple fact that no truly great thing is achievable without others. No great accomplishment was, or ever will be, possible without collaborative effort. In fact, the more complex a thing, the more challenges we face, the more disciplines are involved, the more integration is required, and the more collaboration is demanded. It is time for collaboration based on respect--respect for well-argued positions, respect for expertise, respect for remarkable performance. It is time for collaboration rooted in both art and science. It is time to put in place principles that bind us by covenants and not just contracts or legal documents. It is time to evolve from practitioners to experts and evangelists. There is clearly science in this, but science is not enough. We need the `artist.' We need the artist to apply the principals of this science. Like any great piece of art, it is not simply a collection of canvas and paint applied in the correct order. There is an ingredient that only the artist can provide, an ingredient that differentiates a common work from one that is uncommon. And what makes relationships so difficult is that more than one person is painting on the canvas at the same time and, still, the result must look as though only one artist held the brush. We need the artists; we need the leaders that know this and have the skill to execute it. It is time, it is always the time, to carefully and ruthlessly choose these leaders--leaders that understand what I have just said; leaders that demonstrate extraordinary courage, honor, determination, and judgment; leaders that understand how to nurture and protect innovation; leaders that understand and can enable collaboration. For it will be only those leaders that will take us to new heights of performance and to deeper connections between all parties necessary to solve the most complex problems of our time. It will be only those leaders that will move us aggressively forward in the right direction, intolerant of misbehavior and relentless in the pursuit of excellence. For us, we see this as our duty. We are determined to the produce results that are required by our military and our country--to fight and win on any battlefield, of any kind, at any time. The future is ours to shape. And make no mistake, the high court of history will hold each of us accountable with the lives of those we send to stand on future battlefields. I ask you to consider what I have just said. In this job I have had the honor to see the work of patriots, those that generate readiness for those that apply it, to support and serve beside those that stand in harm's way, and to place coins in the hands of thousands that embody the words honor, judgment, courage, and determination. And what is left for me to do now is simply say thank you. Thank you to those that secure our freedom, no matter their position. Thank you to those for which I have great admiration and to which I will always be in debt.'' John's speech is a lesson to us all. I personally will strive to answer the call and live up to the virtues he praises: honor, judgment, courage, and determination. As I stated in a video message to this year's symposium attendees, I count myself fortunate and blessed to call John a friend and wish him continued success in his future endeavors. Thank you.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am happy to join my friend and Finance Committee colleague in expressing our gratitude to Ambassador Moore. Here in Washington, he witnessed the passage of three trade agreements, as well as historic trade legislation earlier this year that reflects many of the values he fought to instill in global trade policy. Ambassador Moore was always there with advice and good counsel as we navigated difficult waters, and his irrepressible spirit and good humor will be sorely missed.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, last night after months of discussion and several weeks of intense negotiations, bipartisan leaders from both the House and the Senate reached an agreement on both the substance and a procedural path forward for legislation that will provide millions of American families and businesses with much needed tax relief and set the stage for comprehensive tax reform in the future. The bill, which we are calling the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act--or PATH Act--of 2015, would make a number of temporary tax provisions permanent, putting an end to the repeated tax extenders exercise that has plagued Congress for decades and giving greater certainty to U.S. taxpayers across the board. There are no two ways about it; this is a historic bill. It is actually the latest in a long line of historic bills we have considered in the Senate this year, and it has quite a bit in common with some of the other efforts we have tackled in 2015. For example, for many years now, much of what we have done in Congress has been dictated by the next deadline, cliff or crisis around the corner. More often than not, the tendency has been to simply kick every can down the road and then give speeches about why we shouldn't do that anymore. This year the Senate has worked to end the practice of governing by crisis. Among other things, we have passed bipartisan legislation to repeal and replace the Medicare sustainable growth rate, or SGR, formula and to provide long-term funding for highway and infrastructure projects. Both of these issues had plagued Congress for decades, with permanent or long-term fixes seemingly always out of reach, regularly demonstrating that Congress was too divided and too ineffective to reach any meaningful solutions. The same could be said for tax extenders, which has been an almost yearly exercise in relative futility, characterized by partisan bickering as the deadlines approach, with short-term extensions enacted at the last minute, leaving no one--certainly not American taxpayers-- feeling better in the end. Yet, with the PATH Act, as with the SGR and highway funding bills, we have been able to reach a bipartisan agreement that would effectively end this cycle. We have to pass it. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, 52 separate tax provisions--what we typically refer to as extenders-- expired at the end of 2014. That is 52 separate provisions that, on a relatively frequent basis, face expiration and require us to reach agreements on further extensions. Our bill would reduce that number down to 33 provisions--still far too many--but a significant relief in terms of ongoing extenders pressure. Most importantly, the bill makes permanent many of the most consequential extenders provisions, the ones that tend to drive the crisis-and-cliff mentality when it comes to tax extenders, further relieving the pressure and allowing Congress to function more effectively. By adding more permanence to the Tax Code, we will allow families and businesses to better plan for the future. In addition, we will adjust the tax and revenue baseline to make conditions vastly more favorable for comprehensive tax reform in the future, a major priority for members of both parties. Most importantly, passing this legislation and making more tax policies permanent will provide significant tax relief for hardworking taxpayers in every walk of American life, from the middle class to military families to the working poor. It will do the same for businesses and job creators throughout our country, resulting in a healthier U.S. economy, increased growth, and more American jobs. Put simply, more permanence in the Tax Code will be a good thing for our country, and the PATH Act will provide just the kind of permanence we need. Let's take a few minutes to look at some of the key provisions of this legislation. I will start by talking about some of the biggest priorities that my friends on the other side of the aisle brought into the recent negotiations. As we all remember, President Obama's so-called stimulus included provisions that made some of the biggest refundable tax credits in the Tax Code even more refundable, including the earned-income tax credit, or EITC, and the child tax credit, or CTC. These increased credits-- which, when boiled down, are essentially additional cash payments made directly from the government to an individual filing a tax return--were originally designed to be temporary and have had to be extended a number of times over the years. Going into these negotiations, Democrats essentially demanded that the enhancements for the EITC and CTC, along with a partially refundable college tax credit that was also created in the stimulus, be made permanent. As you might expect, Republicans were reluctant to go down that road, not because we don't want to help families who benefit from these credits but because we know refundable credits are particularly susceptible to error, fraud, and overpayment. These types of improper payments are well documented, particularly with regard to the EITC, where every year we lose tens of billions of dollars to either deception or bureaucratic mistakes. However, we opted to accept making these credits permanent because doing so allowed the negotiations to move forward. But we did demand--and the Democrats agreed--to include significant provisions to improve the program's integrity with regard to these credits in order to reduce improper payments going forward. In fact, if enacted, the program integrity provisions in this bill will be the most robust improvements to address waste, fraud, and abuse of the Tax Code in nearly 20 years. Essentially, this compromise of refundable credits was the very definition of a win-win situation, particularly when you consider the other provisions that have been included in this legislation as a result, and we really never did this before. We all knew there was fraud. With this bill, we will be able to secure key incentives for economic growth. For example, the bill makes permanent section 179, small business expensing, which allows small businesses--the drivers of American job creation--to grow and invest with more immediate tax benefits. This has been a top priority for many Members of Congress, not to mention virtually everyone in the business community. The PATH Act will also improve and make permanent the research and development tax credit, the vital tax provision for companies and industries that thrive on innovation and research--areas where the United States continues to lead the world. This has been something I have fought for every year--year after year after year. We have always gotten it, but it has never really worked as well as it should because there was no permanence to it. Now it will be permanent, and that is a great step forward. Our bill also extends the term for bonus depreciation, giving more companies greater incentives to invest in assets that will help their businesses grow and expand. This, too, has been a longtime priority for the business community and many Members of Congress. While we were not able to make it permanent, we did improve and extend this important tax incentive. The bill will also make key improvements to make America more competitive on the world stage. For example, it permanently extends the active financing exception, or AFE, from subpart F income, and it provides a 5-year extension for the controlled foreign corporation, or CFC, look-through provision. Both of these tax provisions give American companies owned by American stockholders and employing American workers a greater ability to compete internationally. This is important if, like me, you want to see U.S. companies remain U.S. companies. In addition to these top priorities for businesses and job creators in the United States, the PATH Act would provide significant tax relief for families. The bill makes permanent the deduction for State and local sales taxes. It makes permanent the low-income military housing credit and the employer wage credit for Active-Duty military employees. It provides a long-term extension and an expansion of eligibility for work opportunity tax credits. All of these provisions benefit American families in various regions under a number of different circumstances. Our legislation will ensure that millions of Americans who benefit from these tax provisions will be able to rely on and plan around them well into the future--not a bad result, if you can ask me. I am not done yet. In addition to the many benefits we will provide to families and businesses, the PATH Act will also give significant tax relief to charities. It would, for example, make sure that charitable distributions from IRAs remain tax-free on a permanent basis, and the charitable deduction for contributions of food inventory would also be made permanent under the bill, as would the provision that incentivizes S corporations to make charitable contributions of property. I have covered quite a bit of ground here, and I am really only going through the highlights. I haven't even gotten to the ObamaCare provisions yet. As we negotiated this legislation, the most difficult part was probably dealing with the rumor mill, which I suppose was not unexpected. Most of the really outrageous rumors we heard during this process dealt with provisions of the so-called Affordable Care Act. People were claiming that Senate Republicans had agreed to bail out the ObamaCare Risk Corridor Program in order to get a deal. We heard that there was an agreement to provide tax relief to prop up the failing ObamaCare exchanges. But, of course, none of these rumors were true. This exercise in tax permanence was never going to be used to solidify ObamaCare, and Republicans never for a second considered allowing that to happen. However, because many Democrats have begun to recognize some of the more problematic elements of the President's health law, we agreed on the need to suspend one of the more harmful taxes imposed under ObamaCare. The bill includes a 2-year moratorium on the medical device tax--one of the more unpopular and poorly drafted taxes included in the health law that has in recent years drawn the ire of Republicans and Democrats alike. This moratorium is important not only because it demonstrates the bipartisan opposition to the tax, but because it will help patients and consumers throughout the country who have seen their health care costs go up because of the medical device tax. I have been a particular advocate to get rid of that lousy tax, and we are ultimately going to get rid of it, but at least we are rid of it for the next 2 years. We will see what happens in those 2 years. When all is said and done, this legislation provides roughly $650 billion in tax relief over the next 10 years for families, job creators, and others. That is real money that will help millions of people and provide real growth for our economy. That is the real value of greater permanence in our Tax Code and is the biggest reason we need to pass this legislation. Don't get me wrong: I don't believe this is a perfect bill by any means. It is not even close to perfect. As I have grown fond of saying, if we were living in the United States of Orrin Hatch, this legislation would look a lot different. Although it pains me to admit sometimes, that is not where we live. Here in the real world, any undertaking worth the effort is going to require compromise. I know I say that a lot. In fact, I probably said something about the importance of compromise and learning the art of the doable every time we have considered a high-profile piece of legislation this year, but that does not make my arguments any less true. This is a good bill, period. Anyone, if they are so inclined, could cling to the parts they don't like and make excuses to vote no. Taken as a whole, both parties should be able to support the overall package we put together, and without question, every one of us should welcome the positive impact this bill will have on our economy and our future legislative efforts here in the Congress. I urge all of my colleagues to support the PATH Act and provide real tax relief at this critical time. Before I close, I just have to note that a lot of work has gone into this legislation. Every provision of this bill has had a number of champions in the Congress who have worked for years to preserve and enhance these provisions in the hopes of eventually making them permanent. I want to acknowledge some of those efforts here today, particularly those of my colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee. For example, the deduction for State and local sales taxes, which this bill makes permanent, has had a number of champions on both sides of the aisle. In our committee, Senators Enzi, Cornyn, Thune, and Heller have all made this issue a priority, and our legislation will ensure that their work pays off. Another one of the more significant tax provisions this bill would make permanent is the research and development tax credit. This has been a top priority of mine for many years, and Senators Cornyn, Crapo, and Roberts have also played leading rolls in this effort over the years. Section 179, small business expensing, will also be made permanent under this bill, and Senators Toomey, Roberts, Thune, Portman, and Isakson have all been leaders on this issue for many years. The bill would also make permanent the accelerated 15-year depreciation for restaurants and retail, a provision that Senators Burr, Cornyn, Crapo, Heller, Isakson, Roberts, and Portman have all worked long and hard to keep in place. Of course, I could always add my own name to every one of these. In addition, Senator Enzi has been a big supporter of making the active financing exception, or AFE, permanent. Our bill, once again, accomplishes this goal. On the charitable side, Senator Roberts has been a strong supporter of the S corporation basis adjustment for charitable contributions and the charitable deduction for food inventory contributions, both of which will be made permanent by passing this bill. Senator Thune has also been a leader with regard to the food inventory deduction, and he has also worked to ensure that charitable distributions from IRAs remain tax-free--another permanent provision in the PATH Act and something all Republicans support. Senator Heller has championed the special rules for real property contributions made for conservation purposes--yet another item our bill makes permanent. The deduction for teacher classroom expenses is also made permanent in this bill. Senator Burr has been a strong supporter of that provision and deserves a lot of credit for it. In addition, the PATH Act will make the low-income housing tax credit permanent--something both Senator Roberts and Senator Crapo have worked on for some time. All of the people I have mentioned have been very active Members on the Republican side. Senator Portman has pushed to extend the work opportunity tax credit and to expand it to include the long-term unemployed. His proposed modification is included in our bill, as is an unprecedented 5-year extension for this credit. Thanks, Senator Portman. We appreciate your work on this. We have seen him work so hard on so many of these issues. We are grateful for him, and I am really grateful to have all of these people on my committee helping out. Of course, this is not an exhaustive list. Right now I am focusing mainly on temporary provisions that we will make permanent by passing the PATH Act. If I start talking about my various colleagues' efforts on shorter term extensions in the bill, we would be here all day. I do, however, also want to give credit where it is due on the ObamaCare provisions. For years now, opposition to the misguided medical device tax--that is the most charitable description of that tax you will ever hear from me--has been gaining momentum. Throughout that time, Senators Toomey, Burr, and Coats have worked very hard on the Finance Committee to push for a repeal. As I noted earlier, our bill would take a significant step forward in this effort by imposing a 2- year moratorium on this job-killing tax. I might add that I haven't mentioned my colleagues on the other side, but certainly Amy Klobuchar has stood right with me, as have so many on the other side of the aisle as well, in getting rid of that tax. It is only for 2 years, but ultimately we are going to get rid of it completely, and we have to do that. Let me just say that it is a pleasure for me to work with Senator Wyden, the ranking member. He has worked with us on many of these issues, and so have others on the Democratic side of the aisle, but the leadership on many of these issues has come from these people I have mentioned, and I want to make sure the people who are listening will understand this. As one can see, the PATH Act reflects the efforts and priorities of many Members of the Senate--not just members of the Finance Committee but Members on both sides on some of these very important issues, as they would have to be. I thank my Democratic friends for helping. As the debate on this important bill begins in earnest, I am particularly grateful for the work my colleagues on the Finance Committee have put in to advance the interests of their constituents. Each of our Members has put a huge stamp on this legislation, and with a little luck and a handful more votes, their work will be permanently enshrined in the Tax Code, and that is no small achievement after all of these years of trying to make some of these provisions permanent. There are, of course, others who have also worked hard on various parts of this bill. Virtually every Senator--or at the very least every Senator's constituents--has high-priority items included in this bill. That is a big reason why it is important that we get this done for the American people. Again, I am happy to bring together both Democrats and Republicans on this important set of tax changes that is long overdue. I am very pleased to work with my Democratic colleagues as well, many of whom deserve credit. Being in the majority, we had to have the efforts of these Republican people whom I have been praising here today.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to complete two sets of remarks.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to a beloved Utahn who was taken years before his time--Nathan Graham. Nate was not only a celebrated member of the tightly knit community of Utahns here in Washington but was also a well-respected former staffer of the U.S. Senate. Tragically, at the young age of 37, Nate was struck by a random infection and passed away unexpectedly while on a business trip to China last week. Although he is no longer with us, the great love he shared with others remains in our hearts. Born in Layton, UT, Nate graduated from Northridge High School before studying political science at Weber State University and moving to Washington, DC. From 2003 to 2009, he served as a legislative assistant for my friend and former colleague Senator Robert F. Bennett. Nate was Senator Bennett's key staffer on the Transatlantic Policy Network--a group that includes U.S. and European elected officials as well as business, policy, and academic leaders in Europe and the United States. As a military legislative assistant, Nate also worked closely with combat leaders at Utah's military installations, including Hill Air Force Base, the Dugway Proving Ground, and the Utah Test and Training Range. In this capacity, he also advanced Senator Bennett's priorities on the Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs. The Senator's agenda included increasing funding for microfinance programs, strengthening the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and working to acquire the F-35 aircraft at Hill Air Force Base. As Senator Bennett's trusted adviser, he accompanied the Senator to Europe several times for TPN business and meetings. He also traveled to Egypt, Taiwan, and China in support of Senator Bennett's work on foreign policy. Nate's trademark humility endeared him to all. He never thought himself above anyone else, and he was always helpful and kind to everyone, regardless of status or position. Nate even had a special reputation as a mentor to Senator Bennett's junior staff. He looked out for young staffers just starting their careers and actively searched out new experiences for their professional development. Following his time in the Senate, Nate entered the private sector, accepting a position with Procter & Gamble as their senior manager for global government relations and public policy. Although Nate never worked for me directly, he was a gifted public servant whose contributions were highly regarded across the entire Utah delegation and by me personally. Speaking to Nate's character, Senator Bennett--who is going through his own personal battle with cancer right now--sent me the following note over the weekend: Nate Graham was a valued and much-loved member of my staff who was on track for great success in life, both professionally and with his beautiful family. This is a terrible tragedy. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family. We will miss him terribly. While Nate was working for Senator Bennett, he met and fell in love with his sweetheart and eternal companion, Melanie Mickelson. I know Bob was delighted when he could be a matchmaker for some of his staffers. In addition to Melanie, Nate is survived by their four sons: Rowen, James, Lincoln, and Griffin--who was born just 2 months ago. Nate was an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, having served an LDS mission in Honduras and Belize. Just 6 weeks before he passed away, he was released as the bishop of a local congregation in Arlington, VA, where he built a reputation for fostering a community of love and friendship. A tidal wave of support has washed over the Graham family in the wake of Nate's passing. In just a few days, friends and neighbors have already raised nearly $100,000 in a crowdfunding effort to support this family. I wish to close with the words of the Scottish poet Henry Francis Lyte, from his hymn, ``Abide With Me,'' which he wrote on his deathbed in 1847. This song is well beloved across the LDS community. It offers comfort and peace amid the sadness of loss: I fear no foe, with Thee at hand to bless; Ills have no weight, and tears no bitterness; Where is death's sting? Where, grave, thy victory? I triumph still, if Thou abide with me. We believe Nate now abides in a holier place. His family is in our thoughts just as they are in our prayers. May God comfort them, and may He comfort all of us as we mourn the loss of an exceptional friend, father, and husband. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.