Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Sure. I want to thank Senator Coons for that helpful overview. As a Republican, I was initially cautious when he approached me about expanding Federal civil law to create a new private right of action for trade secret theft. After all, some have suggested that State law is sufficient, but after consulting with many in the business community, I was convinced that creating a Federal trade secrets law is the right approach. Soon after its introduction, the Heritage Foundation confirmed the need for Federal legislation. Mr. Alden Abbott from the Heritage Foundation writes: The lack of a federal civil remedy for victims of trade secret theft precludes owners of trade secrets from vindicating their rights under certain circumstances. Enjoining and sanctioning trade secret thieves who cross state lines is often difficult. . . . [A] federal civil statutory remedy would make Federal tribunals instantly available to aggrieved businesses that seek injunctions, which is particularly important when time is of the essence due to flight risks. Another problem we faced was ensuring that the ex parte seizure authority could not be used abusively or for anticompetitive purposes. When we began the drafting process last Congress, we started from scratch and asked for input from all interested stakeholders, especially in regard to the ex parte provision. We received many helpful suggestions and included them in the bill. That is correct, isn't it, Senator Coons?

Mr. HATCH. That is right, I say to Senator Coons. As we prepared to reintroduce our bill in this Congress, we were fortunate to join forces with Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona. He was invaluable in fine-tuning the ex parte seizure language. Because of Senator Flake's good work, I believe the ex parte provisions are where they need to be--strong, fair, and not susceptible to abuse. Would the Senator agree with that?

Mr. HATCH. That is right, I say to Senator Coons. I never thought our bill harmed employee mobility. But when I heard these concerns, I wanted to make sure that we addressed this particular issue. So we included language in the bill this Congress that states explicitly that a person cannot be prevented from accepting an offer of employment because of his or her prior exposure to trade secrets. I think we have struck the right balance with this bill. I am not aware of any stakeholder opposition to this bill. Those who operate businesses in the real world and have to protect their trade secrets on a regular basis are strong supporters of the Defend Trade Secrets Act. The list of companies and associations that have endorsed the act is diverse and impressive. Let me read the names of some of the businesses and organizations that support this bill: Adobe, AdvaMed, American Bar Association Section of Intellectual Property Law, American Intellectual Property Law Association, Association of Global Automakers, Biotechnology Industry Organization, Boeing Company, Boston Scientific, BSA-The Software Alliance, Caterpillar, Corning, DuPont, Eli Lilly and Company, General Electric, Honda, IBM, Illinois Tool Works, Information Technology Industry Council, Intel, International Fragrance Association of North America, Johnson & Johnson, Medical Device Manufacturers Association, Medtronic, Michelin North America, Micron, Microsoft, National Alliance for Jobs and Innovation, National Association of Manufacturers, New England Council, Nike, Pfizer, Philips, Intellectual Property Owners Association, Procter & Gamble, Semiconductor Industry Association, SAS, Software & Information Industry Association, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and United Technologies Corporation. And let me mention just one more, but there are others: 3M. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters of support from these organizations.

Mr. HATCH. I ask Senator Coons, don't you think it is time that Congress acted on trade secret theft?

Mr. HATCH. First, I thank you for your work on this bill, Senator Coons. You have been a great partner in advancing this bill. I agree with you that the Defend Trade Secrets Act is ready to move-- not just through the Senate Judiciary Committee but also on the Senate floor. In fact, I think this is the type of bill that could move by unanimous consent. At the same time, we are not closing the door or turning a deaf ear to anyone who has thoughts on this legislation. Let me say, if my of my colleagues have concerns or questions about the bill, come talk to me or Senator Coons. Now is the time to resolve your concerns, and we will resolve them. If you talk to any of the companies that were initially on the fringes and that are now supporters of the bill, I think they will agree that you and I are willing to address all legitimate concerns. So work with us. I am pleased with the momentum we have already seen on this bill through industry support and in the Senate. One way that is happening is that Senators on both sides of the aisle want to support this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators James Risch, Mike Crapo, and Roy Blunt be added as cosponsors to the Defend Trade Secrets Act, S. 1890.

Mr. HATCH. I am pleased with the support we have already seen and encourage many more of my colleagues to support and help us pass this bill. Help us make this happen. It is the right thing to do. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, 2 months ago I came to the Senate floor in my capacity as President pro tempore to speak to my colleagues about the importance of maintaining decorum and respect in this body. I reminded them that decorum is essential to the proper functioning of the Senate and to its unique role in our constitutional structure. The Framers designed the Senate to be an institution of deliberation and reason, where Members would work to promote consensus and the common good rather than their own narrow, partisan interests. Today I rise once more in my capacity as President pro tempore, this time to discuss another defining feature of this body--the right to extended debate. The Framers designed the Senate to serve as a necessary fence against the fickleness and passion that drives hasty lawmaking--what Edmund Randolph called the turbulence and follies of democracy. James Madison in turn described the Senate as a bulwark against what he called the transient impressions into which the people may from time to time be led. Senators were to refine the popular will to wisdom and sound judgment, reaching measured conclusions about how best to address the Nation's challenges. It is no accident that passing bills through this body takes time. The Framers intended the Senate to be the cooler, more deliberate, more reasoned branch. As Madison once said, the Senate was to ``consist in its proceedings with more coolness, with more system, and with more wisdom than the [House of Representatives].'' Key to the Senate's deliberative nature is its relatively small size, which enables a much more thoroughgoing debate and greater opportunity for individual Members to improve legislative proposals. Longer, staggered terms also give Members flexibility to resist initially popular yet ultimately unwise legislation, and statewide constituencies require Senators to appeal to a broader set of interests than do narrow, more homogenous House districts. To these constitutional characteristics, the Senate has added a number of traditions--some formal, others informal--that have enhanced its deliberative character. Foremost among these traditions is the right to extend debate--what we today call the filibuster. For many years--indeed, for the first 130 years of this body's existence--there was no formal way to cut off debate. Senators could, in theory, speak as long as they wanted, on whatever subject they wanted. In 1917, the Senate adopted the first cloture rule, which required a two-thirds vote to end debate. Filibusters remained rare, although they were used from time to time to delay legislation. In 1975, under the leadership of Majority Leader Mike Mansfield, the Senate lowered the cloture threshold from two-thirds to three-fifths, where it has remained ever since, with the notable exception of Senate Democrats' unilateral decision last Congress to lower the cloture threshold for most nominations to a simple majority vote. The cloture threshold for legislative filibusters remains three-fifths. Now, one may wonder why a device that allows a minority of Senators to delay or block legislation is a good thing. My friends and colleagues, the junior Senator from Oregon and the senior Senator from New Mexico spoke on the Senate floor last week about the importance of majority rule and the need to allow legislation to proceed. I do not deny that obstructionism can be a serious problem. Obstinately refusing to allow any legislation to move forward or requiring complete capitulation by opponents is not statesmanship, and it is not what the Framers had in mind. But when exercised properly, the right to extended debate can measurably improve policy. The filibuster furthers two of the Senate's key purposes. First, it helps to guard against intemperate impulses that may from time to time infect our political order. Second, it facilitates the process of refining the popular will. The way in which the filibuster guards against intemperate impulses is obvious. By requiring a supermajority to pass major legislation, the filibuster ensures that a narrow partisan majority swept into office through a fluke election does not go about unravelling vast swaths of America's legal architecture. The filibuster also ensures that the same narrow majority does not run riot with new, pie-in-the-sky ideas that cost billions of dollars while producing little discernible benefit. I would point my colleagues to two major, extremely controversial measures that passed the House in 2009 but went nowhere in the Senate: the cap-and-trade energy tax and the so-called public option for health insurance. Speaker Pelosi was barely able to ram through cap and trade by a vote of 219 to 212. The public option passed by an even slimmer margin of 220 to 215. These two pieces of legislation received little consideration in this body because there were nowhere near enough votes for cloture. Absent the filibuster, however, it is likely both would have passed the Senate and become law. Had that occurred, a temporary electoral victory would have wrought fundamental changes to American energy policy and put our Nation even more firmly on the path to government-run health care. Many on the left may point to the failure of cap and trade and of the public option in 2009 as reasons to eliminate, not preserve, the filibuster. After all, it prevented progressives from achieving two of their most sought-after policy goals. But consider what happened a mere 2 years later, in the very next election: Voters delivered President Obama and the Democratic Party a sharp rebuke, voting out of office the highest number of Democratic officeholders in generations. Voters disapproved of the Democrats' policymaking, and registered their disapproval at the polls. Note, too, that the Democrats lost their majority in the House--the body that passed cap and trade and the public option--but retained their majority in the Senate--the body that never even took up either proposal. The filibuster prevented a transient Democratic majority from enacting far-reaching reforms that a majority of voters ultimately opposed. It didn't prevent all reforms. After all, the Democratic majority still managed to enact many of its policy priorities. But the filibuster prevented other extreme measures from becoming law and stopped a short-lived congressional majority from running roughshod over longstanding principles of federalism, free enterprise, and limited government. To my friends from Oregon and New Mexico and to others who argue that the filibuster is anti-democratic, I would say that it is in fact the opposite. The filibuster ensures that fundamental change comes only through sustained victories at the ballot box. It typically takes two or three successive victories at the polls to build a filibuster-proof majority. This multiyear window gives the public time to evaluate the majority's platform and to determine whether it is in fact the better course of action. If by democracy one means to win at all costs, perhaps one could say the filibuster is anti-democratic. But if democracy, as I believe, instead means the system for transforming the people's preferences into law, then the filibuster is not anti-democratic at all. Rather, it preserves the people's preferences until they decide emphatically, and with the benefit of review, that it is time for significant change. I have also said that the filibuster facilitates the process of refining the popular will. It does this in two ways. First, it gives opponents of a particular piece of legislation additional time to explain why the legislation is misguided or how it could be improved. It also gives proponents of the legislation additional time to explain why the objections are unfounded. This helps to increase understanding on both sides and also offers opportunities to correct problems with particular provisions. Second, by requiring 60 votes in order to proceed on controversial issues, the filibuster ensures increased buy-in. The process of refining the public will works only if Senators actually pay attention to legislation and devote their resources to examining it. By requiring 60 Senators to assent to legislation rather than a bare majority, the filibuster ensures that no bill passes this body without first garnering broad support. The process of getting to 60 requires more scrutiny, more investigation, and more consensus than the process of getting to a bare majority. It also decreases the likelihood of deeply flawed legislation making it to the President's desk because more Senators have to agree that the legislation warrants passage. To the extent there are problems with the filibuster, they are not problems with the filibuster itself but with how it has sometimes been used in recent years, as a matter of fact. In April of this year, I spoke on the floor about the need for mutual restraint in the Senate, about the need for both sides to exercise discretion in wielding the powers of the majority and the minority. Yes, the filibuster can be a tool for improving legislation and winning important promises from the Executive, but it can also be abused for narrow partisan ends. It can be used to bring business to a halt for irrelevant or unimportant purposes or merely to make a point. It can be used to win an unsavory favor for a particular individual or constituency, and it can be used to create false narratives about the majority's ability to govern. From time to time we hear calls--including by Members of this body-- to strip the minority of certain rights. Lately, there have been calls by some in the media, on the campaign trail, and on the other side of the Capitol to eliminate the filibuster. Though these calls to abolish the filibuster may be instinctively appealing, we should reject them. Without the filibuster and other important minority rights, the Senate would lose its unique character. It would become less a body marked by deliberation and reasoned debate and more a body where the majority gets whatever it wants. Indeed, stripped of minority rights, the Senate would merely duplicate the work of the House of Representatives. That may be advantageous for the current Senate majority, but it would not fulfill the constitutional design in creating a second House of Congress where the popular will would be refined through prudent judgment. Those who call on the Senate to abolish the filibuster should keep in mind that this is not the first Congress to face institutional challenges. Indeed, I would urge my colleagues to recall the example of Mike Mansfield, the late Senator from Montana, whom I referenced earlier. Senator Mansfield served as Senate majority leader from 1961 to 1977, longer than any other Senator in history. During Senator Mansfield's time as majority leader, the Nation confronted a number of difficult, divisive issues. Chief among these were debates over school integration and civil rights, which deeply split the Democratic caucus. Near the beginning of his tenure, when a determined minority stalled President Kennedy's legislative priorities, Senator Mansfield faced great pressure from within his own party to exert the majority's power more assertively. In an act of great courage, Senator Mansfield resisted the calls of his colleagues to bend Senate rules. Though tempted by the prospect of important political victories, he instead counselled that the remedy to gridlock ``lies not in the seeking of shortcuts, not in the cracking of nonexistent whips, not in wheeling and dealing, but in an honest facing of the situation and a resolution of it by the Senate itself, by accommodation, by respect for one another, [and] by mutual restraint.'' Senator Mansfield was absolutely right. For the Senate to function effectively, Senators of all stripes must practice mutual restraint-- Republican and Democrat, conservative and liberal, majority and minority alike. The solution to our current strife is not to change the rules but to follow them and to wield them only as necessary to improve legislation. Cooperation, not going nuclear, is what will restore this body to proper functioning. Going nuclear will only hollow out this institution and infect more of what we do with puerile partisan poison. I wish to close by quoting two great statesmen who loved the Senate and who truly understood its unique role in our constitutional system. The first quote is from the first Adlai Stevenson, who served as Vice President from 1893 to 1897. In his farewell address to the Senate, Vice President Stevenson said the following: In this Chamber alone are preserved without restraint two essentials of wise legislation and good government: the right of amendment and of debate. Great evils often result from hasty legislation; [but] rarely from the delay which follows full discussion and deliberation. Vice President Stevenson understood that deliberation and reasoned debate lead to better policy outcomes than the headlong rush to action. Delay rarely causes great evils. More commonly, it helps to avoid them. The second quote comes from a man familiar to all of us, the late Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia. Senator Byrd, who served in this body longer than any other Senator in history and who spent the vast majority of his 51 years in the Senate in the majority, said this about the filibuster and minority rights: ``[A]s long as the Senate retains the power to amend and the power of unlimited debate, the liberties of the people will remain secure.'' Senator Byrd recognized that the Senate's cooling function serves as a crucial check on transient majority impulses and on the often misguided desire to act quickly and to act at all costs. The filibuster is a key bulwark against error and against the ability of short-lived political majorities to work fundamental changes to our Nation. Although it can be deeply frustrating--particularly when misused and overused by an intransigent partisan Senate minority--the filibuster is an important element of the Senate's character and institutional structure. I urge my colleagues to resist calls to abolish the filibuster. Whatever we might win in the way of short-term political gain would be overwhelmed by the enduring, irreparable damage we would do to the Senate as an institution. I knew Mike Mansfield. I visited with him in Tokyo when he was the Ambassador to Japan. He was a great leader. He was a great human being. I also knew very well Senator Robert C. Byrd. There were times when I led the fight against labor law reform in 1977, 1978, where I was hard- pressed to like Senator Byrd because he used every tool at his disposal--procedural and otherwise--to try to put that bill forward, which would have changed the whole character of America for the worse. I was young. I didn't realize how important that man really was. But as I continued to serve in the Senate and saw his devotion to the Senate, his devotion to the Senate rules, his fairness when he dealt with both sides, I got to really respect his understanding of the procedural votes. I venture to say I don't know that anybody has ever had that full capacity as much as he did, with the possible exception of Senator Allen of Alabama, who I greatly admired also. He stood right over there on that side of the floor and took on his own party time after time. The filibuster was a very important instrument at that time, especially since Mr. Byrd was a very strong personality. The longer I served in the Senate, the more I appreciated Senator Byrd and his devotion to the rules, the Constitution, and the Senate itself. He cared for the Senate. I can remember him sitting right here in this chair. I went up to him and I said: Bob, I love you. This was right before he died. He looked like he was going to cry, and he said: Orrin, I love you too. That meant so much to me because in the early days we were principal adversaries. He had more power than I could dream of. We ended up winning on labor law reform through a miraculous sixth cloture vote. It was a great loss to Senator Byrd. He was not particularly enamored with me for the first number of years. But as we served together, fought together, and worked together, I gained tremendous experience from him and from his ability. I gained a great appreciation for Senator Byrd and his abilities and his dedication to the rules of the Senate and his dedication to not changing them and keeping those rules alive, and those rules have existed for almost a century. Nobody I know of felt more sad when he had to leave the Senate than I did. Keep in mind, that was after a lot of blood and guts fighting here on the floor where I, as a young freshman Senator, had to take it on the chin regularly because he knew the rules better than I did and he had power that was much stronger than anybody on this side of the aisle. He had a very forceful presence. I will just say this: He believed in the rules, and he lived by the rules. Even when he lost, he was a gentleman. I think that man did more for the Senate in many ways than very few other Senators did. Let's not get so rambunctious about passing anything we want to pass around here. Let's think these rules through. The more you think, the more you realize these rules are here for a reason, and they have been here a long time for a reason and have functioned amazingly well and stopped the majority from running over the minority. Every once in a while, the Democrats are in the minority, although not very often. Over the last number of years, they had the majority around 22 times and we had it maybe 6 times. I can say this: There are Democrats on the other side who really know these rules are very important, and I hope they prevail as we move on to even more difficult problems and processes in the future and in the time to come. This is a great body. It remains great in large measure because of its rules and because of the people who serve here. We should all respect the rules, and we should all respect each other for the privilege of serving in the U.S. Senate. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the recent developments in U.S. trade policy and their implications for the future. Over this past weekend, officials from the Obama administration, along with 11 other countries, reached what they believed will be the final agreement on the terms of the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP. If enacted, the TPP would be the largest trade agreement in history, encompassing approximately and roughly 40 percent of the world economy and setting standards for one of the most dynamic parts of the world, the Asia-Pacific. I will repeat what I have said many times before. I believe a strong TPP agreement is essential for advancing our Nation's economic and strategic interests in the Asia-Pacific region. However, while I have often touted the potential benefits of the TPP, I have also been very clear that I will not support just any TPP agreement. The United States has only one chance to negotiate, consider, and implement the TPP. We have to get it right. Under our system of government, both the executive and legislative branches play essential roles in developing and implementing our trade policy. While the administration has the power to reach agreements with other countries, no such agreement can go into force without Congress's approval. Congress is not just a rubberstamp in this process. We have an obligation to evaluate every trade agreement and determine if it advances our Nation's interests and serves the needs of our constituents. Toward that end, as I continue to review the deal that was struck in Atlanta, three important considerations will determine whether I can support this agreement. First, the deal must be balanced to meet the U.S. negotiating objectives established under our trade promotion authority or TPA statute which Congress passed earlier this year with strong bipartisan majorities in both the House and the Senate. Second, I must have confidence that our trading partners will actually live up to the commitments they have made under the agreement by implementing the terms and obligations included in the deal. Third, the agreement must be subjected to a thorough and rigorous congressional review, including indepth consultation with the administration. Before I talk about these factors in more detail, I want to acknowledge the many years of hard work officials in the administration, particularly those at the office of the U.S. Trade Representative, have put in to get the agreement this far. I particularly want to acknowledge the hard work of the lead negotiators at USTR who have sacrificed for years to bring this agreement to conclusion. I also want to acknowledge that over time they made a great deal of progress on a variety of fronts, but now that the administration says it has reached an agreement, it is time for Congress to intensify its review of TPP. The primary standards by which I--and I would hope all of my colleagues--will judge this trade agreement are set forth clearly in our TPA statute. As one of the original authors of the current TPA law, I worked hard to ensure that it did not just represent my priorities for trade agreements but those of a bipartisan majority in both the House and the Senate. The congressional negotiating objectives that we included in the statute spell out in detail what must be included in a trade agreement in order for it to get Congress's approval. The negotiating objectives we included in our TPA law are not just pro forma, they are not suggestions or mere statements of Members' preferences. They represent the view of the bipartisan majority in Congress as to the rights and obligations a trade agreement must contain when it is finalized and submitted for our consideration. I have to say no one in Congress worked harder and longer than I did to get that TPA bill across the finish line. I was joined by many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who put in significant time and effort as we drafted the bill, got it through the committee, and passed it on the floor. In fact, if you will recall, in the Senate we ended up having to pass it twice. Since the day we passed the bill, I, as well as many of my colleagues in both the House and Senate, have been urging officials and the administration to do all they can to conclude a TPP agreement that a majority in Congress can support. Unfortunately, when we look at some of the outcomes of the final round of negotiations, it is not clear if the administration achieved that goal. For example, it is not immediately apparent whether the agreement contains administrable and enforceable provisions to protect intellectual property rights similar to those found in U.S. law. As you will recall, this was a key negotiating objective that we included in our TPA law and a necessary component if we want our trade agreements to advance our Nation's interests in the 21st century economy. I have serious concerns as to whether the administration did enough to accomplish this objective. This is particularly true with the provisions that govern data exclusivity for biologics. As you know, biologics are formulas that are on the cutting edge of medicine and have transformed major elements of the health care landscape, thanks in large part to the effort and investment of American companies. I might add, it is one of the principal industries where we might not only be able to find treatments but also cures. It is one of the three or four things that I think can bring down health care costs immeasurably. I am not one to argue that parties to a negotiation should refuse to compromise. In fact, I have come to the floor many times over the years and espoused, sometimes at great lengths, the merits of being able to find a compromise. But--and this is an important point--a good compromise usually results in something of greater overall value for all the parties involved, and, at least according to the information now available, it is unclear whether this administration achieved that kind of an outcome for American innovators. Aside from biologics, there are other elements that, according to initial reports, may have fallen short of Congress's negotiating standards. For example, there are issues with some of the market-access provisions on agriculture, the inclusion of product--and sector- specific carveouts from some of the obligations, as well as some potential of overreaching on labor commitments. While we can't make final determinations on any of these issues without seeing the final text of the agreement, initial indications are that these items could be problematic when the agreement is submitted to Congress for approval. In the end, Congress will need to take a good look at the entire agreement and judge whether the agreement satisfies the standards we have put forward in our TPA law. Beyond the negotiating objectives, we need to have confidence that key elements of a TPP agreement will be implemented and respected by our trading partners. There are a number of important elements to consider when we talk about enforcement and implementation but, for now, I will speak once again about the intellectual property rights. For too long--indeed, for decades now--American innovators and investors haven't been able to take full advantage of our trade agreements because, quite simply, many of our trading partners either refuse to enforce intellectual property obligations or fail to implement them all together. All too often, this administration has looked the other way as other countries steal U.S. innovation and intellectual property. If countries want to trade with the United States, we should demand that they respect and enforce the intellectual property rights of American businesses and individuals. That means including strong provisions protecting intellectual property in our trade agreements and a requirement that intellectual property rights commitments be implemented before allowing the agreement to enter into force for our trading partners. Unfortunately, implementation of these types of commitments is one area where this administration has come up short in the past. Before Congress can approve an agreement as vast as the TPP, we need to be sure this has changed. We need to have detailed assurances that our trading partners will live up to all of their commitments and a clear roadmap as to how the administration intends to hold them accountable. Finally, I expect that pursuant to both the letter and the spirit of TPA, the administration will communicate and work closely with Congress over the coming weeks and months. In the short term, that means deep and meaningful consultations before the President signs the agreement. Under our TPA law, the President must inform Congress of his intent to sign an agreement at least 90 days before doing so. This period is an essential part of congressional consideration of the deal. Congress reserved this time in the statute to ensure that we would have ample opportunity to review the content of a trade agreement before it is signed by the President. In order for that review to take place, Congress must have access to the full text of the agreement, including annexes and any side agreements, before the President provides his 90-day notice. This is a vital element of TPA. The law was designed specifically to give Congress all the necessary tools to conduct an exhaustive evaluation of any and all trade agreements and to ensure that the administration is fully accountable both to Congress and to the public. There are a number of provisions and timelines in the law that help us achieve these goals. I will not list them all on the floor today. Instead, I will just say that I expect the full cooperation of the administration in meeting all of these mandates. The American people demand no less. There are no shortcuts. Let's be clear. Our Nation could clearly benefit from a strong TPP agreement, and I hope that in the end that is what we get--and these other nations can too. In the end, I hope this agreement meets all of these challenges that we have thrown out. Unfortunately, I have real reservations as to whether the agreement reached over the past weekend meets the high standards set by Congress. I will not make a definitive statement on the overall merits of the agreement until I have a chance to review it in its entirety. For now, I will just say that I am worried. I am worried that we didn't get as good a deal as we could have. I am worried that the administration didn't achieve a balanced outcome covering the congressional negotiating objectives set out in TPA. And, ultimately, I am worried there won't be enough support in Congress for this agreement and that our country will end up missing out on important opportunities. I hope I am wrong. I will continually scrutinize this agreement as details emerge. Before I can support the TPP deal struck in Atlanta, I must be convinced that the TPP is a balanced agreement that complies with the TPA law and that it has clear, implementable rules that our trading partners will follow. The TPP is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to define high-standard rules for the Asia-Pacific and to gain real access to overseas markets that our businesses and our workers need. I intend to do all I can to ensure that the agreement meets these goals. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, a few weeks ago I inaugurated a series of speeches about religious freedom. In the first speech, I said that the rights of conscience and religious exercise go to the very heart of who we are as human beings and how we make sense out of this world. No decisions are more fundamental to human existence than those regarding our relationship to the Divine, and no act of government is more invasive of individual liberty than compelling a person to violate his or her sincerely chosen religious beliefs. This is why religious freedom in and of itself is so important and must be specially protected. Last week I spoke about religious freedom in practice here in America. At no time in world history has religious freedom been such an integral part of a nation's origin and character. As Congress said when we unanimously enacted the International Religious Freedom Act in 1998, the right to freedom of religion undergirds the very origin and existence of the United States. Professor Michael McConnell, director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford, describes how, by the time the Bill of Rights was ratified, America had ``already experienced 150 years of a higher degree of religious diversity than had existed anywhere in the world.'' Together, those two speeches told some of the story of religious freedom in America. Today I will build on that foundation and examine the status and the substance of religious freedom. More fully understanding these three aspects of religious freedom--its story, its status, and its substance--will help us better evaluate where we are today and inform where we should go in the future. The status of religious freedom can be summarized as inalienable and preeminent. James Madison repeatedly identified the free exercise of religion according to conviction and conscience as an inalienable right. To America's Founders, as they expressed in the Declaration of Independence, inalienable rights have two dimensions. They come from God, not from government, and these rights are endowed--that is, they are inseparable from us and part of our very humanity. Government did not provide them, and government cannot take them away. When Virginia developed its Constitution in 1776, George Mason's draft of a declaration of rights said that the exercise of religion should receive the fullest toleration by government. Madison objected and offered language that became section 16 of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, setting what one scholar calls a new standard for freedom of conscience. Here is Madison's language. He said: That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience. This understanding of religious freedom did not end with America's founding generation. In 1853 the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved a resolution asserting that in treaties with foreign nations, the United States should secure for our citizens residing abroad ``the right of worshipping God, freely and openly, according to the dictates of their own conscience.'' The committee report on this resolution described religious freedom as fundamental, allowing the ``utmost latitude and freedom of conscience'' so that each individual ``is absolutely free to act in conformity to his own convictions.'' The fact that religious freedom is inalienable leads to another aspect of its status. In his 1785 ``Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments,'' Madison explained that religious exercise ``is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of civil society.'' Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg once wrote that to America's Founders, religious freedom was preeminent among fundamental rights. Presidents and Congress have similarly identified the status of religious freedom as preeminent among rights. In his 1941 State of the Union Address, for example, President Franklin Roosevelt included religious freedom as one of four essential human freedoms. Just 4 years later, the United States signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which asserts that religious freedom is an inalienable right universal to all members of the human family. The last several Presidents have issued annual proclamations declaring January 16 to be Religious Freedom Day. Those proclamations, by Presidents of both parties, have said that religious freedom is a core value of our democracy, that it is essential to our dignity as human beings, and that no freedom is more fundamental than the right to practice one's religious beliefs. Turning to Congress, the House Foreign Affairs Committee in 1955 approved a resolution ``reaffirming the rights of the people of the world to freedom of religion.'' The committee said that this resolution ``recognizes that the basic strength of the United States is spiritual and that all races, people, and nations of the world share with us a dependence on such strength.'' I mentioned earlier that Congress in 1998 unanimously enacted the International Religious Freedom Act. This body passed it by a vote of 98 to 0. Twenty-one Senators serving today--12 Republicans and 9 Democrats--voted for this legislation. So did Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State John Kerry when they served here. That law declares religious freedom to be a universal human right, a pillar of our Nation, and a fundamental freedom. In subsequent speeches, I will explore the responsibility of government regarding an inalienable and preeminent right such as religious freedom, but I want to note two things at this point. First, as the Declaration of Independence asserts, government exists to secure inalienable rights. Second, if a right is preeminent, it must be properly accommodated when government takes actions such as enacting legislation and issuing regulations. The status of religious freedom is that it is inalienable and preeminent. Let me turn now to exploring the substance of religious freedom in terms of both its depth, or what religion freedom is, and its breadth, or those to whom religious freedom belongs. First, depth. Starting in the early 17th century, religious freedom in America has been understood to be grounded in the individual right of conscience. Roger Williams established a settlement in 1636 for those he described as the distressed of conscience, and subsequent town agreements and ordinances restricted government to civil things and protected the liberty of conscience. This liberty of conscience encompasses not only what an individual believes but also how an individual acts on that belief. The Maryland Toleration Act of 1649, for example, provided that no person shall be troubled ``in respect of his or her religion nor in the free exercise thereof.'' The Virginia Declaration of Rights was the model for the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution. The free exercise of religion is the first individual right listed in the First Amendment. That phrase, the ``free exercise of religion,'' is very important--extremely important. The First Amendment protects not simply certain exercises of religion or the exercise of religion by certain parties but the free exercise of religion itself. Religious freedom is more than religious speech, which would be otherwise protected by the First Amendment, or attending a worship service on the Sabbath. It is, as Madison put it, the freely chosen manner of discharging the duty an individual believes he or she owes to God. This robust substance of religious freedom is described in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the United States signed in 1948. Article 18 states: ``Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.'' That is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The United States signed the Helsinki Accords in 1975. Section VII declares the signatories ``will recognize and respect the right of the individual to profess and practice, alone or in community with others, religion or belief in accordance with the dictates of his own conscience.'' Such rights derive from ``the inherent dignity of the human person and are essential for his full and free development.'' In 1992, the United States ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article 18 echoes the same robust definition of religious freedom as the right, individually or in community with others, in public or in private, to believe and to practice one's religion. This robust description expresses the depth of religious freedom. The second dimension to the substance of religious freedom is its breadth or its application across society. Earlier I mentioned the Maryland Toleration Act of 1649, which protected the free exercise of religion. It did so, however, only for Trinitarian Christians. The Puritans of Massachusetts Bay Colony outlawed the Quakers and punished heretics. In fact, Roger Williams went to what would become Rhode Island after being banished from Massachusetts because of his religious beliefs. In those days, religious freedom had depth but not much breadth. Yet seeds were being planted. In 1657, residents of a community known today as Flushing, NY, signed a petition called the ``Flushing Remonstrance.'' This petition protested a ban on certain religious practices that prevented the Quakers from worshipping, and the signers stated they would let everyone decide for themselves how to worship. America's Founders were the ones who asserted most directly that religious freedom is inalienable and, accordingly, established its breadth in the First Amendment. Rather than being limited to adherents of a particular faith, this protection applies to anyone acting according to the dictates of conscience. The status and substance of religious freedom became concretely reflected in Supreme Court decisions in the 20th century. In Sherbert v. Verner, a woman was fired from a State government job for refusing to work on Saturday as required by her Seventh-Day Adventist faith. The Supreme Court affirmed that the door to government regulation of religious belief was ``tightly shut'' and set a standard that only barely opened the door to government regulation of religious behavior. The Court said that government limitations on religiously motivated conduct could be justified only by ``the gravest abuses, endangering interests.'' Therefore, the Court said, Government must have more than a mere rational reason for restricting religious practice. In 1981, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the Sherbert standard by holding that government may ``justify an inroad on religious liberty by showing that it is the least restrictive means of achieving some compelling state interest.'' This holding was consistent with the path of American history regarding religious freedom. The protection of something, after all, goes hand in hand with that thing's value. If religious freedom is inalienable and preeminent, then it must be properly protected by law. All of that changed in 1990. In a case titled ``Employment Division v. Smith,'' two Oregon State employees were fired for using peyote, a controlled substance, in their Native American religious ceremonies. The law did not single out religious use of this drug, but its application to these individuals seriously inhibited the practice of their religion. The Court should have applied the Sherbert standard and required the State to show a compelling justification for applying this law against religious adherents. Instead, the Court turned the Sherbert standard on its head. The Court did exactly what it had rejected in Sherbert less than 30 years earlier, holding that the government needs nothing more than a rational reason for a general law or regulation that restricts the practice of religion. In other words, so long as the government is not explicitly targeting religion, the First Amendment provides no protection at all for the free exercise of religion, as that case held. The Court effectively demoted religious freedom from a fundamental right to little more than an optional fringe benefit. In my opening statement at the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing in September 1992 on a legislative response to this decision, I said the Smith standard is ``the lowest level of protection the Court could have afforded religious conduct.'' In Smith, the Court made it sound as if the Sherbert decision had spawned an epidemic of people using religious objections to obeying laws. The truth is that Courts had not applied the Sherbert standard strictly at all but with what the Congressional Research Service has described as a light hand. In the years between the Court's decision and Sherbert establishing the compelling interest standard and its decision in Smith abandoning that standard, Federal courts rejected more than 85 percent of religious exercise claims. Government today compromises, burdens, and even prohibits the exercise of religion not by overt assault but by covert impact. Zoning ordinances can restrict where churches may meet, whether they may expand their meeting places, and what services they may offer; religious institutions may be forced to hire individuals who do not share their faith; and regulations may prohibit individuals from wearing items required by their faith or require employees to work on their Sabbath. If government exists to secure inalienable rights such as religious freedom, it must properly respect and accommodate that right even as it becomes more and more intrusive. In fact, it is the increasing reach of government that makes vigilance about protecting religious freedom more, not less, important. Requiring a compelling reason to restrict religious practice identifies religious practice as important. Requiring only a rational reason to restrict religious practice identifies it as worth very little. It is hard to overstate the impact of the Smith decision. It stopped dead in its tracks the long and steady progress toward real protection for religious freedom. Government has its greatest impact on religion today not by direct suppression but by indirect restriction. If the status of religious freedom as inalienable and preeminent compels its protection, then reducing that status, as the Court did in Smith, opens religious freedom to restriction and prohibition. Congress responded to the Smith decision by enacting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA. We were motivated by the very understanding of religious freedom that the Supreme Court had abandoned; namely, that religious freedom is inalienable and preeminent. RFRA does by statute what the First Amendment is supposed to do. Under RFRA, government may substantially burden the exercise of religion only if doing so is the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling governmental purpose. Congress enacted RFRA for one simple reason. While the First Amendment protected the free exercise of religion itself, by changing what First Amendment means, the Supreme Court in Smith put the free exercise of religion itself at risk. The Court made every exercise of religion by everyone vulnerable to governmental restriction, interference, and even prohibition. RFRA restored religious freedom by setting a standard of protection that reflects the true value of what it protects and applies that standard across the board. This principle is so powerful that RFRA not only passed Congress almost unanimously, but it was supported by a coalition of unprecedented ideological breadth. That consensus existed because we rejected numerous requests to go beyond setting the standard and dictate how it should be applied in certain cases. We refused to do that in RFRA because the First Amendment does not do that. We set the right standard and left its application to the courts in individual cases. In a 1994 religious exercise case, Justice David Souter urged the Court to reconsider its decision in Smith and described what is truly at stake. He wrote: ``The extent to which the Free Exercise Clause requires government to refrain from impeding religious exercise defines nothing less than the respective relationships in our constitutional democracy of the individual to government and to God.'' Properly understanding the status and substance of religious freedom naturally puts those relationships in order. Misunderstanding or distorting those principles interferes with these relationships and imperils this fundamental human right. In 1997, the Supreme Court held that RFRA applies only to the Federal Government because the Congress did not have authority to extend its protection to State and local government. As Smith had done, this decision made every religious practice by everyone vulnerable to government restriction. By these two decisions, the Supreme Court ensured that no one in America had either constitutional or statutory protection to practice their faith. I introduced the Religious Liberty Protection Act in June 1998 to reestablish the religious freedom that the Supreme Court had again taken away, having been an author of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Like RFRA did, this legislation set a tough legal standard reflecting the true status and substance of religious freedom and left it to the courts to apply this standard to individual cases. Unfortunately, although it had bipartisan support, consideration of this bill stalled in the 105th Congress. I next introduced a Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act to protect religious freedom for as many and as completely as possible. It set the same rigorous standard for government interference in the practice of religion, requiring that such actions be the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling government purpose. Within 2 weeks both the Senate and House had passed this legislation without objection. As he had done with RFRA, President Bill Clinton signed this legislation into law. It is shocking how little it took--just two Supreme Court decisions-- to stall America's centuries-long journey of religious freedom. As a result, the law today does not adequately protect religious freedom. You and I can claim the First Amendment's protection only if the Federal Government explicitly targets our religious practice. The First Amendment is not available at all when State and local governments restrict or even prohibit religious practice altogether. Even the legislation passed unanimously by Congress is unavailable when State and local governments restrict religious freedom. We live in troubled times, and many things we once took for granted are being challenged and even attacked. Today the rhetoric about religious freedom does not match the reality. In his 1810 State of the Union Address, President James Madison said that a well-instructed people can alone be a free people. The more we understand how religious freedom is inalienable and preeminent, how it is deep in substance and broad in application, the better equipped we are to promote and defend it. Only then will government not only pay lipservice to the fundamental right to religious freedom but will provide for and properly accommodate it so that it will be a reality for all of us. These remarks are very important because a lot of people don't realize that religious freedom is not as free as the original Founding Fathers expected it to be. Even though we have had some very interesting cases, not the least of which was the Religious Freedom Restoration Act case, we are not there as far as true and noble protection of religious freedom throughout this country. Fortunately, most States do respect this, and fortunately, hopefully, most governmental people respect this as well. But that is not enough. We need to change these things and get religious freedom the preeminent position it really holds as the first clause of the First Amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, last week I came to the floor to speak on the subject of religious liberty in America. I explained why religious liberty matters, why it is important, and why it deserves special protection from government interference. I also used my remarks to welcome Pope Francis to Washington and to recognize the historic nature of his visit. I was struck by the Pope's emphasis on religious liberty while he was here and by his concern for the state of religious liberty, not just around the world, but in the United States as well. In his address at the White House, Pope Francis said that many American Catholics are ``concerned that efforts to build a just and wisely ordered society respect . . . the right to religious liberty,'' and he called on all Americans to ``be vigilant . . . to preserve and defend [religious] freedom from everything that would threaten or compromise it.'' Before Congress, Pope Francis, spoke of the delicate balance required to combat violence and extremism while at the same time safeguarding religious liberty. And in Philadelphia, he declared that the right of religious exercise extends well beyond the church door. He said: Religious freedom certainly means the right to worship God, individually and in community, as consciences dictate. But religious liberty, by its nature, transcends places of worship and the private sphere of individuals and families. Like Pope Francis, I too am concerned about threats to religious freedom in the United States. Last week, I announced my intention to give a series of speeches on the subject of religious liberty, and I continue with that purpose today by speaking about the history of religious liberty in America. As my remarks will show, concern for religious liberty has been a critical feature of our Nation from the beginning. The desire to enjoy the freedom to live one's faith was a motivating factor for many of our earliest settlers. Once here, they set about creating societies in which religion could have full room to flourish. At times they fell prey to the same sectarian narrowmindedness that bedeviled the nations of Europe, but on the whole our forebears enjoyed and permitted a broader range of religious freedom than could be found most anywhere in the world or the planet at that time. As the heirs of their efforts, we have the obligation to continue their commitment to religious liberty. Freedom of religion is part of the very fabric of our Nation. It is not only enshrined in the text of our First Amendment, it also permeates our history, our very identity as a nation. Protecting and promoting freedom of religion is at the heart of the American project. Let's begin at the beginning. The first permanent European settlers here in America were Pilgrims seeking to escape religious oppression. Leaders such as John Winthrop guided Puritans and other groups of Pilgrims from Europe to the New World in search of a place where they could practice their religious beliefs according to their own conscience. The Pilgrims' journey to Massachusetts Bay is considered such an important part of the American story that a mural depicting the embarkation of the Pilgrims hangs in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol. This great painting stands as a symbol and constant reminder of America's place as a safe harbor for those seeking religious liberty. Following the success of the Puritans, other religious minorities, including the Quakers, Congregationalists, Baptists, Jews, Methodists, Presbyterians, and a host of German and Dutch sects, came to the American Colonies to practice their faith in peace. Unfortunately, many of these minorities did not find the religious tolerance they had hoped for. The Massachusetts Bay Colony, for example, punished heretics and adopted the Old World view that nonadherence to the state religion was a crime against the state. True to the American ideal, however, these religious minorities did not give in. Instead, they pressed on in search of new locales where the promise of religious freedom could be found full bloom. Roger Williams, the founder of the first Baptist church in America, was among the most notable dissenters from religious orthodoxy. Williams believed that the church in Massachusetts was not sufficiently separated from the church of England and openly questioned the legitimacy of the Colony's charter. Forced to flee his home in Boston for fear of being arrested, Williams found refuge among the Natives. He went on to purchase land from the Massasoit tribe and established a new settlement that he gave the rather auspicious name ``Providence.'' A few years later, Providence and several other communities joined together to form the Rhode Island Colony--the first Colony in the New World--to offer religious liberty to all sects. Citizens in Rhode Island could attend the church of their choice without fear of government reprisal. Mr. President, we see in the founding of Rhode Island the seed of the idea that all people should be free to practice their faith. If Massachusetts represented the flight of persecution, then Rhode Island constituted the next step in the path toward religious freedom--the extension of free exercise. Rhode Island was not the only safe harbor in the New World for religious minorities. There was also Pennsylvania, which was named for William Penn, a Quaker. English authorities imprisoned Penn in the Tower of London for writing pamphlets critical of the Church of England. After he was released, Penn established the Pennsylvania Colony as a refuge for practitioners of his own Quaker faith. Another example is the Dutch Colony of New Netherland, later known as New Amsterdam and today known as New York. When New Amsterdam was founded in 1625, its Articles of Transfer assured New Netherlanders that they could ``keep and enjoy the liberty of their consciences in religion.'' No city better symbolizes the religious diversity of America than New York City, which should be unsurprising given that New York was one of America's earliest havens of religious liberty and tolerance. It bears mention that although many of the early American Colonies aspired to provide religious liberty to all citizens, colonial America often fell short of this ideal. In 1689, for example, England's Parliament enacted the Act of Toleration, which granted freedom to non- Anglicans to hold their own religious services provided they properly registered their ministers and places of worship. However, the act did not extend the right to hold public office to nonconformists and explicitly excluded Catholics and Unitarians from all benefits provided by the act. Moreover, ministers of minority sects could be imprisoned for failing to apply for licenses or for preaching outside of authorized locations. In 1774, Virginia authorities imprisoned some 50 Baptist ministers for failing to heed the Toleration Act's requirements. That the trajectory of religious liberty in America has not always been a straight line, however, does not diminish the centrality of religious freedom to the American ideal or to the history and growth of our Nation. Looking back centuries later, we rightly criticize colonial leaders for failing to give full freedom to religious practitioners. But the initial failure of some colonial leaders to live up to the ideal was ultimately overwhelmed by the success of later colonists and by the significance of religious liberty through the entire American project. As I said last week, our Nation exists because of religious liberty. The freedom to practice one's faith was central to the founding and growth of the American Colonies. Furthermore, the guarantees of religious liberty found in the colonial charters, coupled with the breadth of religious diversity in pre-revolution America, are nothing short of remarkable. As Stanford professor Michael McConnell--one of the great constitutional experts in our country--has noted, in the years leading up to the Revolution, America had ``already experienced 150 years of a higher degree of religious diversity than had existed anywhere else in the world.'' I come now to the American Revolution and subsequent ratification of the Constitution. It was through these crucial events that the ideal of religious liberty had so long motivated the colonists to become part of our fundamental charter of government. George Washington, while leader of the Continental Army, issued a command concerning religious liberty to the revolutionary troops: ``[A]s far as lies in your power, you are to protect and support the free exercise of the religion of the Country, and the undisturbed enjoyment of the rights of conscience in religious matters, with your utmost influence and authority.'' That was George Washington. Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, likewise emphasized the centrality of religious freedom for our new Nation. In 1786, the Virginia Legislature adopted a statute on religious freedom written by none other than Thomas Jefferson. This law said that ``all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matter of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities.'' Jefferson's words in the Statute for Religious Freedom had a profound influence on James Madison, whom we revere today as the father of the Constitution. Madison reflected Jefferson's vision in his own writings, declaring that ``[t]he religion of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man to exercise it as these may dictate.'' The original Constitution, ratified in 1788, did not contain a bill of rights because the Framers believed the structure they had created would effectively guard against tyranny. They also worried that enumerating rights could lead to mischief, as officials might argue that any right not enumerated did not exist. But the Framers eventually reversed course, and a few years later Madison drafted and the States ratified the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. The first of these amendments formalized the guarantee of religious liberty already found in many State constitutions and deeply embedded in the fabric of American society. The words are familiar to all Americans: ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' The principle that had motivated the initial settlement of America and that had grown and matured in concert with the growth and maturation of the Colonies themselves had found expression in our fundamental charter. Of course, ratification of the First Amendment is not the end of the story. From the founding generation down to the present day, the importance of religious liberty to the American ideal has continued to manifest itself in a variety of ways. Consider the experience of the Ursuline nuns of New Orleans. These French sisters were the first congregation of Roman Catholic nuns in the United States. They came to America in the early 1700s and settled in New France, which later became Louisiana. Following the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, the sisters of the Ursuline Convent grew concerned that they would lose their rights to their property and mission now that their charter was under the jurisdiction of the United States. The mother superior of the Ursulines petitioned President Thomas Jefferson to ask that the sisters be allowed to keep their property in New Orleans. President Jefferson responded powerfully, telling the Sisters: ``The principles of the Constitution and government of the United States are a sure guarantee to you that [your property] will be preserved to you sacred and inviolate and that your institution will be permitted to govern itself according to its own rules, without interference from the civil authority.'' President Jefferson spoke the truth. Indeed, the Old Ursuline Convent and Mission survives to this day. It is located in New Orleans' famous French Quarter and is the oldest building in the Mississippi River Valley. The Old Ursuline Convent is an emblem of the vitality and centrality of religious liberty in American life. A persecuted religious minority, unpopular in its day and even reviled in some backward segments of society, received a personal guarantee from the President of the United States that their rights and property would remain secure under the protection of the U.S. Government. Here we see religious liberty not only as ideal but as reality. To return to my earlier formulation, Massachusetts represented the flight from religious persecution, Rhode Island and other Colonies the extension of free exercise. Now in the Constitution we have the guarantee of religious liberty to all people in all places within the jurisdiction of our great land. The Constitution and its guarantee of free exercise is the culmination of the process that began when the Pilgrims first set foot on the Mayflower way back in 1620. But the Constitution is only as effective as we, through our fidelity, make it. Regrettably, the guarantee of free exercise has at times been undermined or even abridged by narrowminded sectarianism or fear of new creeds. Such divergence from the promise of religious liberty is not cause to question the continuing value of religion or to claim that the promise of religious freedom is a false promise. Rather, it is reason to dedicate ourselves to the ideal enshrined in our Constitution that all men and women have an inalienable right to choose for themselves what they believe and how they will practice their beliefs. As many of my colleagues know, I am a descendent of the early Mormon pioneers who, much like the Pilgrims of the Mayflower, fled persecution and discrimination by abandoning their homes for a new place of refuge. In the case of the Mormon pioneers, they migrated, many by foot and in harsh conditions, in a mass exodus across the Great Plains over the Rocky Mountains, and, finally, into Salt Lake Valley and other settlements throughout the Intermountain West. Brigham Young was a great colonizer and sent people all over the West to settle the West. One of the attributes of the Mormon pioneers that I admire most is that after having endured mob violence, the martyr of their prophet, the burning of their homes and places of worship, and their forced flight into the American wilderness, they never lost their deep love of the United States and our Constitution. I am very pleased the people of Utah remain a deeply patriotic people, with a profound respect and admiration for our Constitution. In more recent years, our leaders have continued to reaffirm the importance of religious liberty in American life. In 1948, the United States was one of the original signers of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which proclaims that every person has the right to freedom of religion, including the right to ``manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship or observance.'' Four decades later, in 1990, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, a crucially important piece of legislation that prohibits government from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion unless doing so is necessary to further a ``compelling government interest.'' I was honored to be one of the principal authors of RFRA and count its passage of one of the greatest moments of our time in this body. The bill passed the Senate 97 to 3 and passed the House without recorded opposition. An enormous coalition of groups from across the ideological spectrum--including the ALCU, the American Muslim Council, the Anti-Defamation League, the Christian Legal Society, and the National Council of Churches--came together in support of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The breadth and depth of support for RFRA was a sign of the enduring importance of religious liberty in American life. Indeed, RFRA demonstrated that religious liberty is the rare issue that unites Americans of all stripes. One other recent marker of the continuing significance of religious freedom in America is found, interestingly enough, in a bill aimed at protecting religious freedom in other countries. In 1998, Congress unanimously passed the International Religious Freedom Act, which created an ambassador-at-large for International Religious Freedom within the State Department and a bipartisan U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. The very first words of the act proclaim that ``[t]he right to freedom of religion undergirds the very origin and existence of the United States.'' This statement, approved by all 535 Members of Congress and signed into law by the President, encapsulates the overarching theme of my remarks today. Freedom of religion is central to the American ideal and to the history and development of our Nation. From the earliest settlers to the revolutionary generation, to the 19th century, to the modern day, religious freedom has been a driving force in American life. Without the quest for religious liberty, there would be no United States, and without the continued guarantee of religious freedom, there can be no American ideal. This is the fundamental rule in our society, a fundamental maxim, a fundamental part of the Constitution, a fundamental belief for virtually everyone in America who has any religious inclinations at all. I am proud to be a citizen of this great Nation. I don't want to see religious liberty infringed upon, abused, not tolerated or denigrated. We have to stand up for it. We have to make sure everybody knows we are not going to change one of the basic precepts of the American experience--one of the basic precepts, from the beginning of this country until today. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, last night, this body approved a resolution authored by Senator Wyden and myself designating September 2015 as National Kinship Care Month. While many may not be aware, there are approximately 2,700,000 children living in kinship care around this country. That means millions of grandparents, aunts, uncles, and other relatives are looking after children in every urban, rural, and suburban county of the United States. These caregivers have stepped forward, often at great personal expense, out of love and loyalty to care for children during times in which biological parents are unable to do so. They provide safety, promote well-being, and establish stable homes and environments for extremely vulnerable children during very challenging circumstances. They serve in a time of upheaval and great change for these children, assisting them to recognize their self-worth and potential. Kinship care also enables the children to maintain family relationships and cultural heritage as they continue residence in the native community of the child. This resolution sends a clear message that the Senate is proud of and wishes to honor these everyday heroes, kinship caregivers, who throughout the history of the United States, have provided loving homes for parentless children. It is my hope that National Kinship Care Month can provide each of us with an opportunity to recognize and celebrate the sacrifice and devotion of kinship caregivers. And while there is still a great deal of work we can do to ensure that all children have a safe, loving, nurturing, and permanent family, regardless of age or special needs, kinship care providers exhibit a template of care and sacrifice that should be provided for every child in this great country. I am very proud of this resolution and this acknowledgement, and I thank my colleagues for giving it their unanimous support.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to say a few words about the latest developments in international trade. As most of my colleagues know, this week officials from the Obama administration are meeting in Atlanta with representatives from our negotiating partners in the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP. Many reports indicate that our trade negotiators are hoping to conclude talks and finalize a deal over the next few days. Now, as the Presiding Officer is aware, I was an original author of the legislation that renewed trade promotion authority, or TPA, earlier this year. I fought extremely hard to renew TPA because I believe it is an absolutely essential tool to ensure we get the very best trade agreements possible. For years I have been one of the most outspoken proponents in Congress for full engagement in the various trade agreements that have been under negotiation, including the TPP. A strong Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement could greatly enhance our Nation's ability to compete in an increasingly global marketplace and result in a healthier economy and more high-paying jobs that come with increased U.S. trade. After all, when we are talking about the 12 countries currently taking part in these negotiations, we are talking about 40 percent of the global economy. As a group, TPP countries represent the largest market for our goods and services exports. Trade with these countries already supports an estimated 4 million U.S. jobs, and, with a good trade agreement in place, I believe it can do even better. The Asia-Pacific region, where this agreement is focused, is one of the most economically vibrant and fastest growing areas in the world. According to the International Monetary Fund, the world economy will grow by more than $20 trillion over the next 5 years, and nearly half of that growth will be in Asia. Unfortunately, our share of exports to the Asia-Pacific has been on the decline, as exports to the region lag behind overall U.S. export growth. One reason U.S. companies have lost so much market share in this very important part of the world is that many countries in the region maintain steep barriers to U.S. exports while they have been negotiating to remove many of the same types of barriers for other countries, most notably for places such as China and the European Union. On average, Southeast Asian countries impose tariffs that are five times higher than the average U.S. tariff. In addition, their duties on U.S. agricultural products often reach triple digits. There are also numerous other barriers, such as regulatory restrictions, that impede access for U.S. exporters in many of these countries. These obstacles, and increased global competition, have made it increasingly difficult for U.S. companies to remain competitive in Asia. Put simply, a strong TPP Agreement is the best tool we could have to increase the growth of U.S. exports to the Asia-Pacific region. There are also important strategic and security reasons to support a strong TPP Agreement. We have all seen in recent years how the economies of our Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiating partners have been shaped by China's expanding economic influence. I think we would all prefer that the United States remain the world leader in trade. If we want to maintain and expand our influence in the Asia-Pacific, it is essential that we more fully engage in that region. A strong TPP Agreement will facilitate that engagement and help ensure that trade patterns develop under a U.S. model, operating under U.S. rules and applying U.S. standards. A strong TPP Agreement can help us create high-paying jobs through increased exports, as well as help secure our strategic and economic position in the Asia-Pacific region. But to do all of that, we need a strong agreement. That is why I have been pushing the Obama administration to negotiate wisely in order to reach a TPP Agreement that advances our Nation's interests and provides significant benefits for American workers and job creators. Despite these obvious advantages to concluding a TPP Agreement, I think it is critically important that the administration take the time necessary to get the agreement right. A number of key issues are outstanding, and how they are resolved will go a long way to determining whether I can support the final agreement. Our country has a long history of negotiating and reaching high- standard trade agreements. While they haven't all been perfect, our existing trade agreements have, in my view, advanced our interests in foreign markets and strengthened our own economy. There are a number of reasons why, historically, our trade negotiators have fought long and hard to get gold-standard agreements. The most obvious reason is that anything less is unlikely to pass through Congress. If the administration is serious about not only getting an agreement but getting an agreement passed, they need to make sure they get our country the best deal possible. If that means continuing negotiations beyond Atlanta, so be it. Getting a good agreement will be worth the wait. Over the years, I have laid out very clearly what I think a good agreement looks like. These ideas are embodied in the recently enacted TPA law. If the administration and our negotiating partners do conclude an agreement this week, they can be sure that I will examine it very carefully to ensure it meets these standards. As I have stated many times before, if the agreement falls short, I will not support it. I don't think I will be alone on that. I am as big a proponent of expanding U.S. trade as you will find in this Chamber, with the possible exception of the Presiding Officer, and, in concept, I very much support the idea of a Trans-Pacific Partnership. While I worked very hard for a number of years to get a TPA bill through Congress, I have made it abundantly clear that I will not support just any deal, whether it is this or any other future administration that wants to sign it. We need to get a good deal. Indeed, as I have said, we need to get the best deal possible. No one--at least no one from our side of the negotiations--should be in a hurry to close talks if it means getting a less-than-optimal result for our country. Ultimately, I don't believe anyone in the administration wants to reach an agreement that will not pass in Congress. I think our negotiators understand these concerns. My hope is that, as they move through the latest rounds of talks in Atlanta this week, they consider what it will take to get a deal through Congress. If we look at the bipartisan coalition that supported our TPA bill, we should get a pretty good sense of the balance it will take to get enough support here in the Senate and over in the House. Put simply, if TPP does not reflect that balance, it is hard to see how it will be successfully enacted into law. As always, I am an optimist. I know we can get a good deal here, and, for my part, I am going to do all I can to help ensure that we do. I don't think I am alone when I say I am going to be watching very closely to see what happens in Atlanta this week. All of us have an interest in the outcome of these negotiations. Hopefully, in the end, those of us who have supported TPA and its promise of better trade terms for U.S. workers and expanded market access for American goods and services will not be disappointed at the outcome. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the legacy of Elder Richard G. Scott, a man whose humble example and unwavering conviction had a deep and meaningful impact on my spiritual life. For nearly three decades, Elder Scott served as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. On Tuesday, he passed away from causes incident to age. Although millions mourn his death, we find peace in the knowledge that he is reunited with his beloved wife, Jeanene. As a missionary, a father, and an apostle, Elder Scott worked tirelessly and served selflessly. Many of us were inspired by his counsel, and even more were blessed by his kindness. He was a man of great faith and unbending principle, who in his own quiet way spent decades sharing the light of Christ with people throughout the world. Elder Scott's beginnings were as humble as his demeanor. When he was just a boy, his father taught him the virtues of manual labor, instilling in him the desire to craft, toy, and tinker with anything he could get his hands on. It was evident from an early age that Elder Scott would be a talented engineer, and he pursued that field of study when he enrolled in The George Washington University. To support himself through school, Elder Scott took odd jobs that gave him the chance to work with his hands. He spent summers fishing on lobster boats, logging in the forests of Utah, and repairing railroads for Union Pacific. While in college, he met Jeanene Watkins, the woman who would win his love and forever change his life. Quickly and effortlessly, Elder Scott fell for Jeanene, but before he could ask for her hand in marriage, she challenged him to serve a mission for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Elder Scott's decision to embark on an LDS mission to Uruguay was the opening chapter in a long life of dedicated service. He returned from Uruguay with his faith refined and his testimony fortified. With this newfound conviction in Christ, Elder Scott married Jeanene in the Manti, UT, temple; and together they started a family. For Elder Scott, his family would be an anchor throughout a long and successful career as a nuclear engineer on the immediate staff of renowned U.S. Navy Admiral Hyman Rickover. For over a decade, Elder Scott served his Nation, but he was again called to serve God when he returned to South America as the President of the Argentina North Mission. As a missionary president, he directed all proselytizing and service efforts for hundreds of young volunteers. After returning from Argentina with his family, Elder Scott continued his ecclesiastical service, first, as a regional representative for the Church in both North and South America, and later, as a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy. In October 1988, he was ordained to be an apostle in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Elder Scott visited congregations of Latter-day Saints gathered throughout the world. He spoke fluent Portuguese and nearly impeccable Spanish. When possible, he took special care to address each congregation he visited in their native tongue. But there was always one language he spoke better than any other, the language of empathy. Elder Scott was no stranger to heartbreak. In fact, he came to know it very well. Two of his children preceded him in death, and his beloved wife, Jeanene, passed away in 1995. But amid tragedy, he found peace and healing through faith in Christ. Sadness sowed the seeds of compassion, and his capacity for empathy was boundless. When he spoke, he spoke as one who knew intimately well the sorrow that stems from suffering, but also the comfort that comes from healing. In all things, he communicated love. Whether through words of counsel or quiet acts of service, he radiated the goodness of God and shared it abundantly with others. Mr. President, I will be forever grateful for Elder Richard G. Scott--his life, his love, and his example. I will miss Elder Scott dearly, as will all those who knew him. I send my deepest condolences to his family. May God comfort them in this time of grief, and may his love be with them always.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this is a historic week in Washington, DC. Later today Pope Francis will arrive in Washington for a 2-day visit. During his time here, the Holy Father will meet with President Obama, celebrate mass, canonize a new saint, and address a joint meeting of Congress. This will be the first time a Pope has ever addressed Congress. In light of Pope Francis's historic visit, I believe today is an appropriate time to reflect on the importance of religious liberty in American life. This will be the first of a series of addresses I will be delivering on this vital subject. Religious liberty is an issue of deep significance to me. I come from a family of faith. I represent a State that was founded by religious pioneers fleeing persecution. In my many travels, I have seen people express religious devotion in a multitude of ways, affirming their belief in the Divine through song, word, and deed. I have also seen misguided government officials limit religious expression, often in the name of security or some other nebulous goal. I have seen people of courage stand up to these officials, refusing to accept claims that the commands of the State trump rights of religious belief, nor am I alone in viewing religious liberty as a vitally important subject. Indeed, throughout our history, protecting religious liberty has been a priority of lawmakers and laymen alike. As far back as 1657, residents of the community known today as Flushing, NY, petitioned colonial leaders to end restrictions on religious practice that prevented some community members from practicing their faith. Their petition, known as the Flushing Remonstrance, declared that community members should be allowed to decide for themselves how to worship. In 1776, 120 years later, Virginia adopted a declaration of rights that proclaimed in no uncertain terms that ``all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience.'' This was followed a decade later by the famous words of the First Amendment, which forbids Congress from making any law that prohibits the free exercise of religion. More recently, our leaders have continued to affirm the importance of religious liberty in both word and deed. In 1984, the United States joined 47 other nations in approving the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which of course proclaims that every person has a right to ``manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship or observance.'' Four decades later, in 1800, Congress passed a law declaring that government may not ``substantially burden a person's exercise of religion,'' unless doing so is necessary to further a compelling government interest. Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barrack Obama have all issued proclamations affirming the continued importance of religious liberty in American life. President Obama's most recent proclamation, issued on January 15 of this year, called religious freedom a ``fundamental libert[y].'' He declared that every person should be ``free to choose and live their faith.'' There can be no question that religious liberty has been a central concern throughout our Nation's history. Over the coming weeks, I will discuss a number of topics related to religious liberty. These topics will include, among other things, the legal and political history of religious liberty in our country, the ways in which religious liberty is under attack both at home and abroad, and what we in Congress should do to protect religious freedom against such encroachments. I will also address the history and importance of religion in the public square and the ways in which religion is beneficial to society. Today, however, I begin with first principles: why religious freedom matters, why it is important, why it is worth protecting. It is common, when speaking of religious liberty, to begin by noting that religious exercise is the first individual right listed in the Constitution. This priority of place denotes that religious exercise has special significance. Of all the potential rights out there, both God-given and manmade, the Founders chose to list religious freedom first. Part of this, no doubt, had to do with history. The United States exists because of religious freedom. The Pilgrims set sail because they wanted to go to a place where they could practice their beliefs free from state interference. The Founders of Maryland similarly sought a new land where an oppressed religious minority, Catholics, could live out their faith openly and honestly. Pennsylvania was a haven for Quakers and other religious groups. Although the motivations of colonists were multifaceted, the desire for religious freedom was a driving force behind many settlers' decisions to come to America. They came to escape persecution, to practice their religion as they wished without the need for official state sanction or the threat of state-sponsored suppression. But history is not the end of the story. There is something inherent in the nature of religious exercise that merits special protection. To explain, I first need to talk a bit about the character of government. I will then connect my discussion back to religious liberty. Government is, at bottom, a war of wills. It is how we answer the fundamental question of all human relations: Who decides? Government is the instrument by which we place certain conduct off- limits or make other conduct compulsory and then back up those rules with threat of force. We may extol democracy as the best and highest form of government, while at the same time disparaging autocracy or other dictatorial regimes, but the difference between these governments is a difference of form, not function. All governments limit individual freedom. The question is, Who decides what those limits are and how far they extend? When government limits freedom, it makes a value judgment that the conduct proscribed is less important, less worthy, than whatever goal the government is seeking to accomplish. Take the fight against drugs. Long ago, Congress made a decision that avoiding the devastating consequences of drug addiction and drug violence is a more worthy goal than permitting people to choose for themselves whether to ingest certain mind-altering substances. We made a value judgment that reducing violence and preventing addiction is more important than giving people unfettered control over what they consume. It is easy to see why. Violence and addiction are tangible, devastating harms that ruin lives and destroy aspirations. The ability to consume mind-altering substances, by contrast, is a narrow concern that does not go to any core concept of personhood. In other areas, the calculus may be more complicated. Whether we are debating the proper approach to energy production, health insurance, infrastructure investment, education standards or tax reform, we weigh competing values. The policy we ultimately select depends on which values to which we give greater weight. Now to religious liberty. I said earlier that religious liberty merits special protection. Indeed, it deserves preeminent protection against all other rights. The reason is that rights of conscience and of religious exercise go to the very heart of who we are as human beings and how we make sense of our world. There can be no higher value than enabling people to find purpose in their lives, to make sense of the sorrows and disappointments, as well as the joys that attend life here on the Earth. Indeed, the choices we make about what we believe and about whom we stand among are the most important choices we make in life. When a person feels called by a higher power to perform some act or to refrain from some activity, that person is defining himself by reference to his beliefs. Those beliefs may seem irrational to some or silly to others, but to the person who holds those beliefs they make all the difference in the world. When government interferes with religious exercise, it seeks to insert itself into the place of God. It tells a believer that his views about what really matters may be an interesting curiosity, a nice psychosocial experiment, perhaps, but that at the end of the day they are illegitimate. The state's interests must prevail because the state is the source of justice and truth. What is going on is a value judgment. Just as with all other government decrees, when a state commands a person to violate his religious beliefs, it makes a value judgment that the state's objectives override all contrary concerns. It just so happens that in this case, those contrary concerns are an individual's most personal, deeply held beliefs. This is a problem for three reasons: First, we have or are supposed to have a limited government. Our government is supposed to serve us. It is supposed to help us flourish, not vice versa. But the government that overrides religious belief is not a limited government; it is a tyranny. It presumes power to decide for its citizens the most fundamental and defining choices of life: who we are, why we are here, what our purpose is, and how we find happiness. No decision is more fundamental to human existence than the decision we make regarding our relationship to the Divine. No act of government can be more intrusive or more invasive of individual autonomy and free will than the act of compelling a person to violate his or her sincerely chosen religious beliefs. We should have more humility than to think we can define better than our fellow citizens the purpose of life and the ends thereof. Certainly a limited government such as ours ought not tell its people that it knows best on matters far beyond its ambit. Second, valuing transient policy objectives over deeply held religious beliefs places citizens on the horns of an impossible dilemma: either obey God whose commands are eternal and unalterable or obey the state, which controls life, liberty, and property here on Earth. There are some who seek to equate religious liberties with other forms of liberty or to downgrade it to a form of ``belief liberty.'' Under this view, as explained by LDS Apostle Dallin H. Oaks, there is nothing particularly special about religious liberty. It is merely the ability to believe as one chooses about spiritual matters, just as one might choose a political party, a favorite philosopher or a favorite actor, but there is no equivalency. Religious liberty alone goes to one's conception of self of one's place in the universe. It alone goes to those most fundamental questions that help us find purpose in our lives. What is more, it implicates duties that transcend mere personal choice and become obligatory in the life of the believer. Professor Robbie George, the chairman of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, explains powerfully the flaw in the claim that religious liberty is just another type of so-called belief liberty: The right to follow one's conscience, and the obligation to respect conscience--especially in matters of faith--obtain not because people as autonomous agents should be able to do as they please; they obtain, and are stringent and sometimes overriding, because people have duties and the obligation to fulfill them. . . . The right of conscience is a right to do what one judge's oneself to be under an obligation to do, whether one welcomes the obligation or must overcome strong aversion in order to fulfill it. When government denies religious freedom, it forces believers to choose between duty to God and duty to man--duty to man backed by a threat of force. No government that values its citizens' agency and certainly no limited government that exists at the suffrage of the people should put its citizens to such an impossible choice. The third reason why valuing State objectives over religious beliefs is a problem is that it sets up the State as moral arbiter. I will speak only briefly to this point. When the State declares certain beliefs out of bounds or unworthy of protection, it tells the world that the opinions of government officials trump rights of conscience. It tells believers that government knows best and that their benighted views--the believers' views, that is--have been weighed and found wanting. The current wisdom, which may be contrary to the wisdom of all human history, must triumph for no reason other than it is current and currently favored by government elites. All must fall before the State, which is supreme both in matters of might and morality. This aggressive view of the State's moral authority has no place in a system of limited government and is completely contrary to our constitution. Humility should be our watchword. We should remember that we may be wrong. Now, this doesn't mean religious freedom should be unlimited, that there should be no boundaries on religious exercise. When a religious practice causes injury or threatens to upend important State goals, government does have a proper role to play in balancing interests. But the standard that must be met before the State intervenes should be very high. Again, we are not talking here about mere personal preferences, about things people would rather do or not do, all else being equal; we are talking about acts that, as Professor George puts it, individuals feel they have an obligation to do, an obligation that comes not from family or friends or from society but from God himself. Before we ask individuals to contravene commands they believe come from a higher power, we had better be sure that what we are asking is absolutely necessary. We had better be sure that what we are asking furthers a compelling government interest and is the only way to accomplish that interest. Only this standard, which requires government to exhaust all other options before invading the religious liberty over its citizens, adequately accounts for the centrality of faith in the lives of believers and the proper relationship between individual and State. Mr. President, my argument today has been based on first principles, on the inviolate right of each and every person to look out for himself or herself, the purpose of life, and his or her place in the universe. It has also been based on the principle, enshrined in our Constitution, that ours is a limited government that exists to serve, not dominate, its people. I have purposely stayed away from arguing that religion is a good thing, a net benefit to society, because I believe religious freedom deserves special protection separate and apart from whether religion makes men and women better citizens. Religious liberty should be a protected value because the State has no authority to tell individuals how they should approach the Divine or prescribe for them the meaning of their lives. It is a matter of autonomy, a question of who serves whom. But I would be remiss if I did not briefly outline the many ways religion and religious exercise have benefited our Nation. Today, many people sadly view religion as a sort of fetter, a chain that holds us back as a society from achieving our true potential. They see religion as the antagonist of social justice, as a refuge for reactionaries who do not understand or who fear our modern world. This view is not only shortsighted, it is ignorant. The two greatest social movements in our Nation's history--the abolition movement and the civil rights movement--were inspired by religious conviction and led by religious leaders. We speak today of Dr. Martin Luther King, but we forget that before he was a doctor, he was a reverend. In 1967, the year before his death, Reverend King proclaimed: Before I was a civil rights leader, I was a preacher of the Gospel. This was my first calling and it still remains my greatest commitment. . . . [A]ll that I do in civil rights I do because I consider it a part of my ministry. Religion instills in our youth principles of morality and right behavior. I do not claim that religion is necessary for a person to be a good citizen, but I do affirm that religion, rightly practiced, instills virtues--concern for others, a desire for good, objectives beyond the mere pursuit of something pleasures--that lead to engaged citizens and a healthy society. Happily, religious freedom is not just a good in and of itself but is a good for society as well. I will have much more to say on this topic in a future set of remarks. For present purposes, I will conclude with this point: Religious liberty is a fundamental feature of our Republic. It is why we exist as a nation. It helps to explain why we have endured so long despite our many differences. It has been a bedrock of our laws for centuries and was largely uncontested until only a few years ago. It deserves continuing protection as a preeminent value because it safeguards our ability as citizens to find purpose in our lives and to divine for ourselves who we are. It matters more than any other freedom. That is why it was listed first in the Constitution. Too many of our fellow citizens--perhaps even too many in this body-- have lost sight of the purpose and importance of religious liberty and of our duty as legislators to protect the freedom of all citizens to believe and to act according to their beliefs. I will return to this theme in the coming weeks as I deliver additional remarks on this most crucial topic. All I can say is that religious freedom means everything to me. I think it means everything to people of good will who really have studied how this Nation came about, how it progressed, how it has overcome some of the most monumental problems in the history of the world, and how we have been so successful after all these years. We have a tendency in this current climate, in this current world to start to decry religious belief. I want to make sure that we don't end it, that we augment it, and that we get back to where we should be as a Nation so that we can continue to maintain this great Nation as the greatest Nation with the greatest freedom and the greatest Constitution in the world. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today in strong support of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. This bill recognizes an indisputable fact and it stands for an indispensable principle. The fact is that each of us was a living human being before birth. The principle is that each human being has inherent dignity and worth. The Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade degraded the Constitution, and the regime of virtually unrestricted abortion that it spawned continues to degrade our culture. It degraded the Constitution by reducing it to little more than a prop and using it as a cover for imposing the opinions of individual Justices. This decision is perhaps the best example of what Justice Benjamin Curtis warned about in his dissenting opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford. He wrote that when the opinions of individuals control the Constitution's meaning, ``we have a government which is merely . . . an exponent of the individual political opinions of the members of [the Supreme] Court.'' That is exactly what Roe v. Wade is. In addition to degrading the Constitution, the abortion regime spawned by Roe and maintained by its progeny continues to degrade our culture. This effect is inevitable because that regime is built on the dark proposition that humanity itself has no inherent worth that demands respect and that individual members of the human family can be killed for any reason at any time before birth. It was not always like this. Just 25 years before Roe v. Wade, the United States voted for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The very first statement in the preamble recognizes ``the inherent dignity and . . . the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family.'' Article 3 states that everyone has the right to a life. Just 2 years after the U.S. Supreme Court created an unlimited right to abortion in Roe v. Wade, the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany came to a very different conclusion. Reviewing a law that allowed abortions in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, the German court said that human life is the supreme value in the constitutional value and ``the vital basis for humanity and the prerequisite of all other basic rights.'' What a contrast. The United States has degraded human dignity by striking down a law protecting preborn children. Germany promoted human dignity by striking down a law endangering preborn children. Our Supreme Court said that a preborn child is not a person under the U.S. Constitution and would not even address whether that child is a living, human being. The German court said that every human individual possessing life is covered by the German Constitution, including preborn human beings. One of the most successful coverups in legal and social history has misled Americans into believing either that abortion is not legal for any reason at any time in this country or that this radical abortion regime is the norm around the world. Neither is true. Today the United States is one of only seven nations in the entire world to allow elective abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Other members of that club include China and North Korea. The bill before us would prohibit the unjustified killing in the womb of human beings who can feel pain. The bill recognizes three justifications: when abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother and when the pregnancy resulted from rape or from incest against a minor. This bill would do nothing more than move the United States a step away from the most extreme abortion position in the world. The Supreme Court may be preventing us from upholding in law the inherent dignity of all human beings before birth. That does not mean, however, that we should not defend that dignity for as many members of the human family as we can. That is why I support the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act before us today. This bill is consistent in two different ways with how the Supreme Court has set rules for abortion regulations in the past. In Roe v. Wade, the Court drew a line at certain points in pregnancy reflecting something that the Court found to be medically meaningful. The end of the first trimester, the Court said, was related to the relative safety of the abortion procedure. The end of the second trimester, the Court said, marked the time when a preborn child could potentially live outside the womb, at least with artificial aid. The Court said that these lines, which identify when certain abortion regulations are permissible, should be drawn ``in the light of present medical knowledge.'' That is exactly what this bill does. As its findings state, there is substantial medical evidence that a preborn child is capable of experiencing pain by 20 weeks after fertilization, if not earlier. I might add that this is not a recent discovery. Americans United for Life, for example, published a monograph more than 30 years ago reviewing the medical evidence. Dr. Vincent Collins, professor of anesthesiology at the University of Illinois, wrote that the entire sensory nervous system is functioning well before the 20-week point. More recently, Dr. Maureen Condic, Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah School of Medicine, has testified before Congress and written that the scientific evidence regarding fetal pain is undisputed. That evidence shows that the brain's circuitry responsible for the detection, and its response to pain is established well before the 20-week mark. This bill is consistent with precedent in another way. The Supreme Court has approved actually prohibiting abortion after a point when the preborn child takes on an important quality that justifies protection. In Roe v. Wade that reality was the viability or the ability to survive outside the womb with artificial aid. In this bill, that quality is the ability to feel pain, which has been universally recognized as compelling. Both medicine and the law, for example, impose a duty to relieve or to avoid pain. Just look at the Web site of the National Institutes of Health. It includes an article by Dr. Eric J. Cassell, Professor of Public Health at the Cornell University Medical College. He writes that the obligation of physicians to relieve human suffering stretches back into antiquity, and he calls relief of suffering ``one of the primary ends of medicine.'' The clinical guidelines for acute pain published by the Federal Government stated that ``the ethical obligation to manage pain and relieve the patient's suffering is at the core of the health care professional's commitment.'' The American Academy of Pain Medicine has publicized an Ethics Charter which outlines how physicians must implement ``the ethical imperative to provide relief from pain.'' If medical professionals have a fundamental obligation to relieve human suffering, they should be prohibited from imposing human suffering before birth. In its most recent abortion decision, the Supreme Court acknowledged that certain ethical and moral concerns can justify a specific abortion prohibition. The prevention of intentional pain and suffering, the very core and one of the primary ends of medicine, certainly qualifies and justifies the policy in this bill. Turning to the law, the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Federal courts across the country are considering whether the drugs used in lethal injection cause extreme or unnecessary pain and, therefore, violate the Eighth Amendment. Some have said that it does. If the infliction of pain can make executing the guilty unconstitutional, I believe that the infliction of pain should make aborting the innocent illegal. Or look at the civil side of the law. Juries award multimillion dollar verdicts against medical professionals and facilities for failing to relieve pain in their patients. One article in the Western Journal of Medicine reviewing such cases concluded that ``there is a standard of care for pain management, a significant departure from which constitutes not merely medical malpractice but gross negligence.'' If failing to prevent pain in the sick can make a physician liable, physicians should be prohibited from inflicting pain on healthy children before birth. Madam President, I began by saying that Roe v. Wade and the abortion regime it spawned has degraded both the law and our culture. I am echoing the thoughtful words of President Ronald Reagan, who in 1983 published an essay entitled ``Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation.'' He wrote that abortion-on-demand is not a right granted by the Constitution but was an act of raw judicial power. And he wrote, ``We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life--the unborn--without diminishing the value of all human life.'' The American people have embraced this view. By more than 2 to 1 Americans support what this bill would do--prohibiting abortions after 20 weeks--and the percentage of women supporting a 20-week ban is even higher than the national average. I think opponents of this legislation owe the American people an explanation. Why does a physician's ethical duty to prevent pain begin only when someone is born? Why shouldn't that duty begin when someone can feel pain? Why do we care so much about preventing even the most despicable criminals from feeling pain but turn a blind eye to the pain inflicted on innocent preborn children? The Supreme Court has said from the beginning that the right to abortion must be balanced with other compelling interests. Why does medical knowledge matter when it facilitates abortions but not when it can prevent the pain caused by abortion? This bill recognizes the indisputable fact that each of us, including each individual Member of the Senate, was a living human being before we were born. This bill reflects the indispensable principle that each individual member of the human family has inherent dignity and worth. Prohibiting the killing of innocent human beings who can feel pain is only a small step in the right direction, but it is a step we must take. I don't think there is a legitimate excuse for not taking that step. It is horrifying to me that some in the Senate don't understand this or, if they do, continue to march down the path of indiscriminate abortion on demand. I think they are going to have to pay a price for that someday. It is a shame it has come to this type of a standard where you cannot protect preborn children who can feel the pain of abortion and feel the pain of some of the medical techniques some of these abortionists use. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to address the topic of criminal justice reform. There has been a lot of discussion in Congress recently on this subject. Nearly all of the conversation has focused on sentencing. Various proposals have been introduced to cut prison sentences, augment judges' ability to sentence below statutory minimums or allow prisoners to earn early release for good behavior. A number of my colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee have been meeting behind closed doors for months to try to reach a compromise--a compromise that incorporates elements of these various proposals. I rise today to address the broader parameters of criminal justice reform and to remind my colleagues that sentencing reform is only one piece of the broader effort that has been underway for some time now in both houses of Congress. There are a number of other aspects of criminal justice reform that merit our attention, foremost of which is the need to ensure meaningful criminal intent requirements in our statutes and regulations. Over the past several years, a unique coalition of Members and stakeholder groups from across the ideological spectrum have been working together to address the problem of overcriminalization. There is broad, bipartisan agreement in many quarters that Congress has criminalized too much conduct and mandated overly harsh penalties for too many crimes. Congress's persistent recourse to criminal law as the answer to today's society ills has cost taxpayers millions of dollars and branded as criminal conduct that may be unwitting or not even blameworthy. It has also resulted in thousands of Americans losing their livelihoods or liberty for reasons that, upon closer examination, seem not entirely justified. The overcriminalization problem manifests itself in a variety of ways. First is through the sheer number of Federal crimes. There are now nearly 5,000 criminal statutes scattered in the U.S. Code. But statutes are only part of the story. In addition, there are an estimated 300,000 criminal regulatory offenses buried in the 80,000- page Code of Federal Regulations--300,000. If the administration promulgated one criminal regulation per day--that is, if it created one new crime each day--it would take 822 years to create that many criminal regulations. The entire Code of Hammurabi was only 282 laws. Our current Federal criminal code--statutes and regulations together--is over 1,000 times that size. I am not saying Hammurabi should be our model in many things, but surely 300,000-plus Federal crimes is overkill. If Hammurabi could govern ancient Mesopotamia with fewer than 300 laws, surely we can make do with less than 300,000. It is not just the sheer number of crimes. Overcriminalization also manifests itself through the creation of arcane, obscure, and, frankly, ridiculous crimes. For example, under Federal law it is a crime punishable by up to 6 months in prison to use the 4-H Club logo without authorization. It is also a Federal crime, again punishable for up to 6 months in prison, to walk a dog in a Federal park area on a leash that is longer than 6 feet. Why on Earth do either of these actions need to be Federal crimes? I do not dispute that really long dog leashes can be annoying. I can understand why the 4-H Club would not want pretenders roaming around claiming to serve the heads, hearts, hands, and health of youth. But these are not the proper subjects for criminal penalties. Whatever crises exist with overlong dog leashes or imposter 4-H clubs can be dealt with through civil means. The problem with such obscure and esoteric crimes--aside from the sheer embarrassment they should cause to Congress and the promulgating agency--is that they criminalize conduct that no reasonable person would know was illegal. Walking a dog on a 7-foot leash is not inherently wrongful, nor is putting a 4-H Club logo on a sign. Even if common sense might suggest checking with the 4-H Club before using its logo, no sane person would think it is a crime to do so. The upshot is there are who-knows-how-many crimes on the books that the average person has no idea about and that criminalize conduct no reasonable person would think is wrong. According to a recent book, the average American unwittingly commits three felonies per day. That should deeply trouble all of us--and not because it suggests anything wrong with the average American. We are a nation of laws. We are supposed to be guided by the rule of law. Our criminal law--indeed, the very idea that it is proper to brand some conduct, and some people, as criminal--is predicated on the notion that individuals know the law and are able to choose whether to follow it. If, as I have suggested--and as many scholars agree--we live in a country where much otherwise benign conduct has been labeled criminal and where decent, honorable citizens can become criminals through no fault or intent of their own, then we have a problem on our hands. Our criminal laws should be aimed at protecting our communities and keeping bad influences off our streets, not tripping up honest citizens. The third way the problem of overcriminalization manifests itself is through the vague, duplicative, and even conflicting terms of many of our criminal laws. Put simply, many of our criminal laws are bad laws. They are poorly written, they sweep too broadly, and they give too much power to overzealous prosecutors. Consider the case of John Yates, who was convicted of violating the so-called anti-shredding provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. This extraordinarily broad law, which Congress passed in the wake of the Enron scandal, prohibits the destruction of any ``tangible object'' with intent to impede, obstruct or influence a Federal investigation. Yates was not an Enron executive or any sort of corporate executive, he was a fisherman. His crime? Discarding a small number of undersized fish from his boat after a State inspector found him carrying fish slightly below the minimum legal size. Yates appealed his conviction all the way to the Supreme Court on the ground that the statute did not apply to his conduct. By a 5-to-4 vote the Court agreed. In a remarkable move, the dissenting Justices, who had voted to sustain Yates's conviction, heaped scorn on the anti-shredding statute. They called it a ``bad law--too broad and undifferentiated, with too- high maximum penalties.'' Its vague terms and overly harsh penalties were ``unfortunately not an outlier, [but rather] an emblem of a deeper pathology in the Federal criminal code.'' These words should be a wake-up call. For too long Congress has criminalized too much conduct and enacted overbroad statutes that sweep far beyond the evils they are designed to avoid. Surely, of all the categories of law we pass in Congress, we should take most care with criminal laws. Criminal laws empower the State to deprive citizens of liberty and precious, financial resources. They carry serious collateral consequences, including the loss of the right to vote, the right to own a firearm, the ability to hold certain jobs, and they permit the State to brand citizens with that most repugnant of all titles--criminal. There is simply no excuse for sloppily drafted, slapdash criminal laws. Too much is at stake. Related to the problem of poor draftmanship is the fourth way the overcriminalization problem manifests itself, through the absence of meaningful mens rea requirements. The need for strong mens rea protections, I believe, is of particular concern and will be the rest of the focus of my remarks. ``Mens rea'' is Latin for guilty mind. The term expresses a time- honored, fundamental feature of our criminal law that in order for an act to be a crime, the actor must have committed the act with malicious intent. The requirement of a guilty mind protects individuals who unwittingly commit wrongful acts or who act without knowledge that what they are doing is wrong. The person who mistakenly retrieves the wrong coat from the coatroom does not become a thief merely because he took something that wasn't his. Only if he takes a coat knowing that it belongs to someone else has he committed a criminal act, for only then has he acted with criminal intent. Similarly, a person enters land that he believes is public property but that in fact belongs to another person does not thereby commit criminal trespassing. Only if the person knows she is not legally entitled to enter the property is she guilty of a criminal offense. In an era when our statute books and regulations overflow with criminal offenses, mens rea protections are even more important. Many modern criminal offenses, such as the dog-walking offense I mentioned earlier, involve conduct that is not inherently wrongful. Only a person who knows the details of such offenses--and knows they exist--would know that conduct in violation of the offenses is criminal. This is different from traditional crimes such as assault or theft, which even a child knows is wrong. With 300,000-plus Federal crimes on the books, you can be sure the vast majority are not traditional crimes that everyone knows are wrong but rather obscure provisions known only to a select few in the bowels of the Federal bureaucracy. It doesn't take 300,000 individual crimes to cover the categories of conduct everyone knows is wrong. Without adequate mens rea protections--that is, without the requirement that a person knows his conduct was wrong or unlawful-- everyday citizens can be held criminally liable for conduct that no reasonable person would know was wrong. This is not only unfair, it is immoral. No government that purports to safeguard the liberty and rights of its people should have the power to lock up individuals for conduct they did not know was wrong. Only when a person has acted with a guilty mind is it just, is it ethical to brand that person a criminal and deprive him of liberty. Unfortunately, many of our current criminal laws and regulations contain inadequate mens rea requirements or even no mens rea requirement at all. Far too often, such laws leave people vulnerable to prosecution for conduct they thought was lawful. Consider two examples. The first is Wade Martin, an Alaskan fisherman who sold 10 sea otters to a buyer he thought was a Native Alaskan but who turned out not to be. Authorities charged Wade with violating the Marine Mammal Protection Act, which criminalizes the sale of sea otters to non-Native Alaskans. The fact that he thought the buyer was a Native Alaskan was irrelevant. Prosecutors had to prove only that the buyer was not, in fact, a Native Alaskan. The absence of the criminal intent requirement meant Wade could be convicted regardless of whether he knew what he was doing was wrong. Wade pleaded guilty to a felony charge and was ordered to pay a $1,000 fine. Second is Lawrence Lewis, a janitor at a retirement home who was charged with criminally violating the Clean Water Act when he diverted backed-up sewage at the retirement home to a storm drain. Lawrence thought the storm drain was connected to the city's sewage system, but it turned out it emptied into a creek that ultimately connected to the Potomac River, a protected waterway. The Clean Water Act required proof only that Lawrence diverted the sewage into the storm drain. It required no proof that he knew the drain connected to a creek that emptied into the Potomac or that he knew he was violating the law. Lawrence pleaded guilty and was sentenced to probation. These and other examples demonstrate the danger of missing or incomplete mens rea requirements. Even before we get to the point of sentencing, the fact that people can be swept up in the criminal justice system and convicted for doing things they thought were lawful is deeply troubling. Any sentence they receive for their purported crimes is unfair because they should not even have been charged criminally in the first place--or at the very least the government should have to prove criminal intent in order to convict. This is why it is important for my colleagues to keep in mind the full scope of our overcriminalization problem. Sentencing is only one part of the criminal justice process--an important part to be sure but only one part in a very long process. That process begins in Washington, where we in Congress decide what conduct to criminalize and what the government must prove in order to convict. Among the most important choices we make when crafting a criminal law is deciding what level of criminal intent the government must prove. Must the person know he or she was acting unlawfully? Is it enough that the person intended the wrongful act or is it enough merely that he or she knew their actions would produce a certain result? The answers to these questions determine whether the person even committed a crime in the first place, separate and apart from what the felony should be if he is convicted. As one expert has written, ``While sentencing reform addresses how long people should serve once convicted, mens rea reform addresses those who never should have been convicted in the first place: people who engaged in conduct without any knowledge of or intent to violate the law and [conduct] that they could not reasonably have anticipated would violate a criminal law.'' Surely we can all agree that a person should not be branded a criminal and locked up for doing something they did not know was wrong. Unsurprisingly then, from the inception of the anti- overcriminalization movement, ensuring that criminal laws have adequate mens rea protections has been a bipartisan priority. During the hearings of the House Overcriminalization Task Force, Chairman Sensenbrenner declared that ``[t]he lack of an adequate intent requirement in the Federal code is one of the most pressing problems facing this Task Force. . . . '' Ranking Member Bobby Scott similarly warned that without adequate mens rea protections ``honest citizens are at risk of being victimized and criminalized by poorly crafted legislation and overzealous prosecutors.'' Representative Conyers said that ``when good people find themselves confronted with accusations of violating regulations that are vague, address seemingly innocent behavior, and lack adequate mens rea, fundamental principles of fairness and due process are undermined.'' But in the Senate there has been a notable absence of discussion about mens rea and the need for robust mens rea protections. There has been a lot of talk about sentencing but little about mens rea. It is time to change that. For the past several months, I have been working on legislation to address the deficiencies in mens rea requirements in existing statutes. My bill would set a default mens rea requirement for all statutes that lack such a requirement. It would ensure that courts and creative prosecutors do not take the absence of an express criminal intent standard to mean the government could convict without any proof of a guilty mind. My bill would also clarify that when a statute identifies a mens rea standard but does not specify which elements of the crime that standard applies to, the standard identified applies to all elements of the crime unless a contrary purpose plainly appears in the text of the statute. My bill would not mandate a particular mens rea standard for all crimes, nor would it override existing standards set forth in statutes. All it would do is set a default for when Congress has failed to specify the criminal intent required for conviction. Congress would remain free, however, whenever it wanted to specify a different mens rea standard for a statute, replacing the default with its own chosen standard. The default would operate merely in the absence of congressional action. It would bring clarity, ensure that Congress does not--through oversight--create crimes without any mens rea requirement, and protect individuals from being convicted for conduct they did not know was wrong. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important legislation and urge all of them to give it their support. Any deal on sentencing and any package of criminal justice reform must include provisions to shore up mens rea protections. In fact, I question whether a sentencing reform package that does not include mens rea reform would be worth it, and I am not alone. Many members of the overcriminalization coalition--members who helped lay the key intellectual and political groundwork for the negotiations now underway--believe strongly that any criminal justice reform bill that passes this body must include mens rea reform. I agree. There can be no more important work that we do here in Congress than ensuring that honest, hardworking Americans are not unjustly imprisoned. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today marks the 228th anniversary of the signing of the Constitution. Two hundred twenty-eight years ago, 39 brave and wise men set their names to the document that has guided our government and our politics ever since. With each passing year, I am increasingly astounded by the genius of those who framed our Constitution. The world was a very different place back in 1787. There was no electricity, no railroads, no air conditioning. Crossing the Atlantic Ocean took months, and news traveled slowly on horseback. Our Nation, which today covers the continent, comprised only 13 States with a combined population of 4 million people. That is roughly the current population of Oklahoma today. Despite these vastly different circumstances, the Framers created a system that has endured for over 200 years and has become an example to the world of stability and strength. They did so by enshrining in the Constitution certain fundamental principles about government and the source of rights, coupled with an objective, honest view of the failings of human nature. The Framers recognized that our rights come from God, not government, and that it is the role of government to secure, not create, rights. They recognized that government unrestrained is a threat to liberty and that in order to protect citizens from government's constant tendency to expand its sphere, ambition must be made to counteract ambition. Parchment barriers, as Madison famously intoned, will never suffice. Thus, the Framers created the separation of powers: federalism, checks and balances; an independent judiciary; a bicameral legislature; and an executive that, while unified, lacked the power of the purse. Each branch of government would have to share power with the others, just as States and the Federal Government would have to share power as well. By preventing any one branch or any one level of government from being able to act unilaterally in its affairs, the Constitution ensured that no one individual or group would be able to run roughshod over any other. And just as important, the Constitution ensured that no major policy change could occur without substantial support from large numbers of Americans at all levels of government and society. The genius of the Constitution lies in its insight that prosperity requires stability. Temporary majorities come and go. Their favored policies may or may not be wise. Some years ago there was a great concern that the Earth was cooling. Now there is worry in the same quarters that it is warming. Policies that may have seemed wise at one point in time later reveal themselves to be foolish, even dangerous. By dividing power among branches, States, and Washington, our Constitution helps avert sudden, large mistakes even as it enables more modest improvements supported by broad coalitions. The Constitution's division of powers also protects against the natural inclination toward self-aggrandizement. This inclination occurs both at the governmentwide level and at the individual level. An unchecked Federal Government bent upon remedying all of society's ills will tend naturally to swallow the States, each of which has far fewer resources than the Federal leviathan. At the individual level, officeholders competing for power and prestige battle against each other as they try to enact their visions into law. Our constitutional system ensures that the Federal Government does not altogether consume the States by limiting and enumerating the Federal Government's powers and by promising that all powers not delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to the States. The Constitution also forces rival officeholders to work together in its design to prevent any one person from unilaterally making, changing or eliminating laws. Madison famously said that ``if men were angels, no further government would be necessary.'' He further posited that ``if angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.'' Well, as everybody knows, we are not angels, and we need controls on government to keep it in its proper sphere. The Constitution provides these controls by dividing and diffusing power and by forcing those who seek change to work with others who may not share their views. Unfortunately, there are some who view the Constitution as an obstacle to overcome, a barrier to supposed progress. These individuals find fault with the fact that the Constitution makes change difficult and requires broad, long-lasting consensus in order to enact major reform. Surely the exigencies of the day, they argue, weren't by passing or even ignoring the separation of powers, federalism, and other elements of our constitutional structure. Although some of these individuals may be well-intentioned, they are fundamentally disguised. The fact is that the Constitution is not an obstacle. It is a guide-- a guide for how we should approach our contemporary problems, for how we should think about our roles as citizens and legislators, for how we should conduct ourselves as we debate the problems of the day. The Constitution limits government in order to preserve freedom. It makes each branch the equal of the others and the States the equal of Washington, DC. It provides a check on all government action. It divides power among multiple sources because no one individual or office can be trusted with all authority, and it requires cooperation at all levels and all stages to ensure that changes in law are thoroughly vetted rather than rammed through by temporary majorities. These are the principles that should guide us as we seek solutions to our Nation's challenges. These principles apply in any number of situations. A law that coerces States into coordinating or expanding programs against their will by threatening to cut off all funding for noncompliance makes States the subordinates, not equals, of the Federal Government. Executive action that purports to suspend vast swathes of our Nation's immigration laws does not honor Congress as a coequal branch, nor do statements threatening that if Congress does not act, the President will. The Constitution does not give the President a blank check. It requires him to work with Congress--a coequal branch--to move the ball forward. Executive hubris is the antithesis of fidelity to the Constitution. More in line with what the Constitution teaches is a willingness to reach out to include fellow officeholders. A President who works all levers of government to find broad agreement understands the lessons of the Constitution. President Reagan did this with tax reform and entitlement reform. President Bush did it with education reform and financial sector reform. Legislation that preserves the separation of powers, rather than delegating vast lawmaking authority to an unelected bureaucracy, also honors the Constitution's teachings, and so do regulations that stay within the bounds of agency authority. When agencies exceed their statutory mandate, they actually do violence to the Constitution's careful system of checks and balances. They assume power that is not theirs to take and remove decisions from the give-and-take of the democratic process. This is particularly problematic when the obvious purpose of the agency action is to bypass Congress. EPA's recent carbon rules are but one example. When the administration found itself unable to pass cap and trade, even through a Democratic Congress, it turned to administrative fiat. It mattered not that the Clean Air Act provides no authority for the administration's exceptional harsh rules--rules that will depress economic growth and cause energy costs to soar, I might add. What mattered was the goal of reducing carbon emissions. But the Constitution does not give the President power to right all wrongs, it requires him to work with Congress so the two bodies together can address our Nation's problems. Cooperation, the Constitution teaches, yields better results than imprudent unilateral action. More generally, all laws that expand the government risk ignore the lesson of the Constitution. When we vote to expand government, we set ourselves against the very purpose of the Constitution to restrain the powers of the Federal Government. True, the Constitution created a more robust government to remedy the defects in the Articles of Confederation, but in creating a more robust government it placed check upon check upon check on that government. A government that can compel citizens to purchase products they do not want or to provide products repugnant to their most deeply held religious beliefs is a danger to liberty. Whenever we carve out new space for the Federal Government, we must be exceedingly careful not to upset the careful balance of the Constitution. The Constitution also provides more subtle lessons on how we should conduct ourselves as Senators and elected officials. The overarching genius of the Constitution, as I have said, is its recognition that flourishing requires stability. Unchecked majorities are dangerous, not only because they tend to invade minority rights but also because in their enthusiasm for change, they may enact policies that cooler reflection would reveal to be unwise. The ongoing debacle of ObamaCare is an example of this inaction. Flush with the Presidency, a majority in the House and their first filibuster-proof majority in the Senate in over 30 years, Democrats enacted fundamental changes to American health care that have forced millions of Americans off their own plans, caused premiums to skyrocket, and further insinuated government into decisions that should be made between doctors and patients. Had my colleagues on the other side of the aisle paid greater heed to what the Constitution has to teach, they might not have rushed so headlong into these problems. The Constitution teaches the virtue of prudence and incremental reform. Rather than seeking fundamental changes, as President Obama promised during the 2008 campaign, Democrats should have focused on retaining those aspects of American health care that work well, including doctor choice, innovation, and quicker access for treatment, even while attempting to correct deficiencies. A more modest package that sought to preserve what worked, rather than an anonymous bill so large no one had any time to actually read it, could have avoided many of the problems ObamaCare is now causing. It might even have retracted some Republican votes. Instead, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle chose a party-line vote using an obscure legislative procedure that became necessary only after the people of Massachusetts--Massachusetts--elected Scott Brown, to block the bill. They did so in such a rush, as Speaker Pelosi so memorably revealed, that they didn't know what was in their bill. My colleagues across the aisle, along with the rest of America, are now paying the price for their improvements. My remarks on this Constitution Day have focused on the lessons the Constitution has to teach, as well as the dangers we risk when we ignore its wisdom. I wish to close by calling upon my colleagues to pay greater heed to the lessons of the Constitution when writing and voting on legislation. There is an unfortunate tendency, in my view, to think of the Constitution as the courts' domain, to leave it entirely up to the courts to decide whether a law is constitutional. We in Congress just write laws; it is up to the courts to do the constitutional stuff. This tendency to leave things to the courts diminishes our role in the constitutional system and misses the many lessons the Constitution has to teach. The judiciary's role in assessing constitutionality is a narrow one. Courts have not asked whether any law is consistent with the Constitution's overall spirit or the principles that animate it. Rather, they ask whether it satisfies some legal role announced in a previous case. Is the regulated activity commerce? Is the punishment for noncompliance a tax or a penalty? But fidelity to the Constitution is about much more than narrow, legal reasoning. Honoring the Constitution involves looking to the principles that undergird it--values such as individual liberty, separation of powers, federalism, respect for civil society, and democratic accountability. In determining whether a given course of action is wise, all of these things are important. ObamaCare again provides an example. ObamaCare, in my view, is unconstitutional, not only because it exceeds Congress's power under the Constitution but also because it violates many of the enduring principles made manifest in the Constitution. It invades liberty by compelling individuals to purchase insurance against their will and undermines federalism by coercing State governments to expand Medicaid. It dilutes the separation of powers by transferring vast legislative authority to the Executive--and on and on. The same is true of the President's order suspending immigration laws for up to 5 million illegal immigrants. It attempts to transmute legislative authority to determine who may lawfully enter our country into an unbounded Executive prerogative not to enforce the law, it end runs democratic accountability by ignoring the wishes of the people's duly elected representatives, and it undermines the respect for civil society by sanctioning conduct contrary to our laws. Whether a law meets whatever legal test the Supreme Court has set forth does not end the inquiry for those of us who seek the Constitution as our guide. We would do well to revive what James Ceaser and others call political constitutionalism: the notion that it falls mostly to political actors such as ourselves making political decisions to protect and promote constitutional goals. For some programs, such as ObamaCare, it means repealing the program root and branch and replacing it with one that is both more effective and more in line with our constitutional values. For other programs that have become more embedded in the fabric of American society, advancing the cause of constitutionalism will involve more incremental reform. All of our entitlement programs need improvement. We must think hard about how we can reform these programs to better serve those for whom they were intended. James Madison called the Constitution a miracle. I think he was right on point. The Constitution is a miracle because it has endured for over 200 years. It is a miracle because of what it teaches about prudent government and the need to guard against human failings. It is a miracle because the lessons it provides are just as relevant today as they were 228 years ago. I have to say it is a miracle because well over 160 nations in this world have tried to copy it and under none of those nations does it work as well as this country. In some ways we are starting to lose the Constitution because of some of the actions and activities of those who want to win at any cost. May we ever look to the Constitution for guidance and pay it increased fidelity as we discharge our duties here in Washington and across this great land. I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the attached documentation from the Office of Compliance be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have been a Member of this body for nearly four decades. During that time, I have had the honor of participating in numerous debates that shaped the course of our future, but I can think of none more important than the one in which we are now engaged. The Iranian regime is one of our most dangerous foes. It has declared the United States to be the ``Great Satan.'' It has repeatedly claimed its intent to ``wipe Israel off the map.'' It has perpetrated violence against American servicemen and civilians alike. It has sewn conflict across the most volatile region of the world. And it has repressed its people by some of the most ghastly methods imaginable. Indeed, we should remember throughout this debate that our quarrel is not with the Iranian people. The Iranian people are our friends. We should remember throughout our plight and their desire for a cooperative relationship with the United States and the rest of the world. Instead, it is the dictatorial and fanatical regime that seeks to build and even use nuclear weapons, to destabilize the entire region, and to kill Americans and Israelis. Given the threat posed by this rogue regime, preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability is absolutely critical. It is a goal shared across party lines as well as among many of our friends and allies abroad. All of us here prefer to prevent Iran from acquiring this capability by diplomatic means if possible rather than by armed conflict. In light of this shared desire to resolve the Iranian threat without a war, I examined the Obama administration's proposed agreement hopeful, if skeptical, that I could support the agreement. Nevertheless, the duty incumbent upon us as Senators is not to accept or reject this deal based upon knee-jerk reactions or blind partisan loyalty but rather to determine our stances based on thorough examination and reasoned judgment. Regrettably, after much study, I have concluded that this is a catastrophically bad deal that I must strongly oppose. Now, at the outset, I should note that the media is reporting that President Obama has gathered the votes to support his Iran deal. In reality, he has done no such thing. Were this a treaty, it would fall well short of the two-thirds requirement. It won't--and it can't--even muster a majority in either the House or Senate. There is nothing bipartisan about support for this deal. Only the opposition is bipartisan, and only the opposition is a majority. The deal lacks the most important kind of support--that of the American people. A strong majority of Americans oppose this deal, and they are right to do so. Far from blocking the Iranian regime's path to nuclear weapons capability, this agreement actually secures what Mark Dubowitz, the executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, calls a ``patient pathway'' to nuclear weapons capability. Consider the timeline. From day one, the Iranian regime will be allowed to enrich uranium using thousands of centrifuges and to conduct nuclear research and development. After 8 years, the regime will be allowed to begin building hundreds of new advanced centrifuges annually and will be allowed to expand its ballistic missile program. After 15 years, it will be permitted to use advanced centrifuges to enrich uranium on an industrial scale, to stockpile significant quantities of enriched uranium, and to build heavy water reactors, according to the State Department's own fact sheet. After only 10 years, Iran's breakout time to rush for a nuclear weapon drops ``almost down to zero,'' as President Obama himself admitted. In the words of former Deputy National Security Advisor Juan Zarate, this deal ``stalls, [then] enables, and then validates an Iranian nuclear program.'' All that the Iranian regime has to do is abide by the terms of the agreement to achieve threshold nuclear status--with an expanded infrastructure for the production of nuclear materials and a visible means of delivering a nuclear weapon to targets as far away as the United States. Moreover, the deal's means of verifying the Iranian regime's compliance with these temporary limits on its nuclear programs are, frankly, pathetic. Our only peaceful means of recourse under the deal, the so-called snapback mechanism, involves an incredibly cumbersome process. It allows the Iranian regime to delay international inspections for up to 24 days without recourse, a critical gap that experts such as former International Atomic Energy Agency Deputy Director General for Safeguards Olli Heinonen and former National Nuclear Security Administration Deputy Administrator for Defense William Tobey assert could allow Iran to hide evidence of illicit nuclear activities. Other parties' intransigence could also drag out the snapback mechanism more than 2 months before reimposing U.N. sanctions, approximately the same length of time as Iran's current breakout timetable, according to President Obama. Furthermore, the deal only makes the snapback mechanism available for instances of ``significant nonperformance,'' leaving no mechanism to respond to the kind of incremental cheating that has characterized the Iranian nuclear program thus far. Perhaps most troubling, it remains unclear whether weapons inspectors will even have access to all Iranian nuclear facilities in the first place. Senior officials of the Iranian regime have repeatedly claimed that the deal does not allow access to military sites. The agreement's language appears to have been left deliberately vague on this point, hardly an encouraging development. Moreover, press accounts of an IAEA side deal with Iran indicate that the international watchdog has already agreed to rely on the Iranian regime to conduct its own inspections at the Parchin weapons testing site, providing the IAEA with only photographs, videos, and environmental samples. Former IAEA Deputy Director General Heinonen may have put it best when he observed: If the reporting is accurate, these procedures appear to be departing significantly from well-established and proven safeguards practices. At a broader level, if verification standards have been diluted for Parchin or elsewhere and limits imposed, the ramification is significant as it will affect the IAEA's ability to draw definitive conclusions with the requisite level of assurances and without undue hampering of the verification process. Regarding these troubling reports, I have a number of outstanding questions and concerns that have only been amplified by the Obama administration's steadfast refusal to share the text of the agreement with Congress. This intransigence amounts to an evasion of the spirit and possibly the text of the bipartisan Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, a development that rightfully sows doubt and concern about what else the Obama administration might be hiding. In light of these incredible concessions to the Iranian regime, I am also deeply troubled by the great benefit the Iranian regime stands to enjoy from this deal. To use the succinct words of one scholar, ``President Obama is agreeing to dismantle the sanctions regime permanently. In return, Tehran is agreeing to slow the development of its nuclear program temporarily.'' The current sanctions regime has imposed heavy costs on the Iranian economy. Oil exports have dropped by 60 percent. The inflation rate has risen to 40 percent. And foreign companies, deterred by harsh penalties, have avoided investing in Iran, thereby isolating Iran from the global economy. Along with the threat of military action, these sanctions played a critical role in bringing the Iranian regime to the negotiating table, and we should thus be very careful before sacrificing this leverage. In exchange for these minimal, temporary concessions, the Iranian regime stands to reap enormous rewards in sanctions relief. According to figures cited by President Obama, the Iranian regime will regain control of more than $150 billion currently frozen in the world's financial institutions. Sanctions relief will also allow an influx of international businesses into Iran, bringing about greater revenue for the regime. Where should we expect this money to be spent? Will it go to the long-suffering Iranian people who are the victims of this regime, a people who have long contributed to the advancement of civilization and the good of mankind, a people whose true spirit has been continually repressed for almost 40 years, a people who have paid a high price because of the radical fundamentalism of their leaders, and a people who look to us for strength in the defense of our ideals, not capitulation to this heinous regime? Unfortunately, we cannot expect such an outcome. If history is any guide, we should expect the Iranian regime to use sanctions relief to pursue its dangerous aims, including: to support its terrorist proxies that represent a dire threat to the stability of the whole region, such as Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and the murderous Assad regime in Syria; to encourage the ``swarming of [foreign] businesses to Iran,'' which the Iranian foreign minister believes will make it ``impossible to reconstruct'' broad international sanctions; to take advantage of the lifting of the U.N. arms embargo after 5 years to purchase sophisticated weapons systems such as the Russian S-300 air defense system, which would make American or Israeli military action against the Iranian nuclear program even more difficult than it already would be; and to shore up the political and financial standing of the most radical elements of the Iranian regime, reducing the likelihood of internal reform and a more constructive Iranian foreign policy. If the Iranian regime suddenly becomes flush with cash, what incentive will it have to change priorities 15 years from now? Doesn't this deal reward what the Obama administration called ``bad behavior'' in one of the most astonishing understatements that I have ever heard? And in the words of one expert, ``when in the course of human history did getting $100 billion [or $150 billion] at the stroke of a pen ever convince anyone that they have been wrong all along?'' For a deal built on the unfounded hope that the Iranian regime would change its ways, I see very little reason to expect success. And for an agreement that would supposedly reinforce the position of the Iranian moderates and bring relief to the Iranian people, I see only the prospect of strengthening the hand of the hard-liners and of sanctions relief diverted for more violent misadventures, rather than for the benefit of the Iranian people. Reflecting on this spectacularly bad deal, I can only conclude that Obama administration officials proved to be weak negotiators because of an absolute desperation for a deal--almost any deal. These massive concessions to the Iranian regime for so little in return were produced by this administration's knee-jerk aversion to the prospect of using military force, a preoccupation demonstrated by the constant rhetoric that we hear from the White House that the only alternative to this deal is war. That claim is patently false. We can and should go back to the negotiating table. While reassembling the sanctions coalition that this agreement throws away will not be easy and may not even be fully possible, a nation as strong as ours still has plenty of tools at our disposal. Our unparalleled economic and military might give us significant leverage to get a better deal, and we should not be misled by overly simplistic rhetoric to conclude otherwise. War is never a happy matter to contemplate, especially from a position of responsibility such as in the Senate. In this body, we are saddled all too often with the sorts of decisions in which real people's lives hang in the balance: those of our friends and neighbors; our fellow countrymen; our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines; and even those in faraway distant places who look to America as a guardian of freedom and peace, what Abraham Lincoln called the last, best hope of Earth. None of us relish the prospect of war, especially in an age in which our weapons have a power almost too terrible to contemplate. In particular, neither I nor any of my colleagues seek a war with Iran; as I stated before, the Iranian people are not our enemies. They are our friends. No people have paid a higher price for the regime's record of terrorism, mass murder, corruption, and duplicity than the Iranians. The prospect of inflicting collateral damage on our long-suffering friends further counsels against any course of action that leads to war. It is not a cavalier attitude about war that leads me to oppose this deal; it is my unwavering judgment that this deal makes war much more likely that leads me to oppose it. Let there be no doubt. A deal that paves rather than precludes Iran's path to a nuclear weapons capability makes war more likely. A deal that makes the Iranian regime more confident of its ability to protect its nuclear program from international pressure and military action makes war more likely. A deal that funnels tens of billions of dollars to terrorists bent on destabilizing the Middle East makes war more likely. A deal that provokes a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region on the globe makes war more likely. A deal that surrounds Israel not only with a nuclear Iran but also eventually with numerous other regimes with nuclear weapons capability and a genocidal attitude toward the Jewish State makes war more likely. And a deal that puts the Iranian regime and its terrorist allies one turn of a screwdriver away from a nuclear weapon and a means of delivering it anywhere across the world makes war more likely. War may come, but it is not inevitable. As Members of ``the world's greatest deliberative body,'' it is our duty to discern the wisest course of action that preserves the security of the United States and our allies--that reduces the risk of war but does not let the strong desire for peace we all share cloud our judgment about how we best preserve that peace. In this solemn debate, it is my hope that the voice of reason will have the power to change minds and overcome the pressures of our politics that have the power to lead us astray. I am encouraged in my hope by the fact that almost every Member to come out in support of this deal has noted its significant flaws. The opposition to it has been unambiguous, strong, and bipartisan, and it constitutes a strong majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. I want to pay tribute to four of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have bucked significant political pressure to vote their consciences against this bad deal. We still have a chance to change course. All that is required is the bravery and good judgment to lead our Nation and the world to an agreement that can actually preserve the long-term peace. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in opposing this disastrous deal and in supporting a better way forward. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, earlier today, the Senate Finance Committee finally and at long last issued its report on its bipartisan investigation of the IRS's treatment of organizations applying for tax- exempt status. As you will recall, this investigation began 2 years and 2 months ago after we became aware of allegations that the IRS had targeted certain organizations for extra and undue scrutiny based on the groups' names and political views. These were serious allegations. Indeed, they struck at the very heart of the principle--one that everyone should agree on--that our Nation's tax laws should be administered fairly and without regard to politics or partisanship. Despite the inherently political nature of these allegations, the Finance Committee, which has exclusive legislative jurisdiction and primary oversight jurisdiction over the IRS, immediately opened a full bipartisan investigation into this matter. The investigation officially began on May 21, 2013, under the direction of former Chairman Max Baucus and myself, when I was the ranking member. When Senator Wyden assumed the leadership of the committee last year, he agreed to continue the bipartisan work we had begun, and I am very grateful to him. This bipartisan cooperation has continued unabated since I became chairman in January of this year. That investigation concludes today with the release of our report. While much has been reported about the IRS's political targeting over the last 2 years, it is important to note that the Senate Finance Committee has conducted the only bipartisan investigation into the matter. Consequently, I believe the report we have issued today will serve as the definitive account of the personal political biases, management failures, and other factors that led the IRS to unfairly target certain organizations applying for tax-exempt status. Once again, the public has a right to expect that the IRS will administer the Tax Code with integrity and fairness in every context. Yet, for many conservative organizations that applied for tax-exempt status during the last 5 years, the IRS fell woefully short of that standard. The committee's bipartisan report examined these events in great detail. Let's take a look at what we now know after 2 years of exhaustive investigation. We know that the White House's focus on activities of tax-exempt organizations intensified after the Supreme Court issued its Citizens United decision in January 2010, culminating in many ways with President Obama's wrongheaded castigation of the Court in his State of the Union Address and continuing throughout 2010 until the midterm elections. The Finance Committee's report contains clear evidence that the IRS and other agencies heeded the President's call. For example, just a few weeks after the President's speech before Congress, the IRS made a pivotal decision to set aside all incoming tea party applications for special processing--a decision that would subject these organizations to long delays, burdensome questions, and would ultimately prove fatal to some of their applications. Around that same time, the Department of Justice was considering whether it could bring criminal charges against 501(c)(4) organizations that engaged in political activities. The Federal Election Commission had also opened investigations into conservative organizations that aired political ads. The IRS met with both agencies, providing input on the proposals of Department of Justice and information to the Federal Election Commission on organizations that were under investigation. These actions leave little doubt that, when Congress did not pass legislation to reduce spending on political speech, the administration sought alternative ways to accomplish the same goal. Regardless of whether an explicit directive was given, the President gave the order to target conservative groups at every opportunity--the State of the Union, in press conferences, and in TV interviews. He did not send a smoking gun email because he did not need to. He gave the order for everyone to hear, and his political allies at the IRS followed those orders. The report clearly shows that conservative groups were singled out because of their political beliefs, and gross mismanagement at the IRS allowed this practice to continue for years. We know the IRS systematically selected tea party and other conservative organizations for heightened scrutiny, in a manner wholly different from how the IRS processed applications submitted by left- leaning and nonpartisan organizations. Although the IRS knew that the tea party applications were too dissimilar to be grouped under a common template, it continued to segregate them for screening and processing based on the presence of certain key words or phrases in the applicants' names or applications, such as ``Tea Party,'' ``9/12,'' and ``Patriots,'' as well as indicators of political views that included being concerned with government debt, government spending or taxes, educating the public via advocacy, lobbying ``to make America a better place to live'' or being critical of how the country was being run. Some tried to mitigate these facts, claiming that the IRS similarly targeted left-leaning groups. Indeed, this argument is posited in the additional Democratic views. However, as our investigation made clear, the IRS's treatment of conservative organizations was without question different from that given to left-leaning and nonpartisan organizations. True enough, some liberal organizations were also denied tax-exempt status during this period. However, with one exception that affected just two organizations, all left-leaning organizations that were, according to the Democratic views, improperly treated had participated in activities that legitimately called their tax-exempt status into question. The IRS did not target these groups based on their names or ideology. Instead, it evaluated their actual activities that were known to the IRS--activities that, in many cases, properly resulted in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status. That same deference and attention to detail was not offered to tea party groups and other organizations. As a result, many of the tea party applicant groups gave up on the process, and some of these groups ceased to exist entirely, based, at least in part, on the failure to obtain tax-exempt status. Once again, we know all this happened. It is spelled out in great detail in the committee's report. On top of all of this, our investigation revealed an environment at the IRS where the political bias of individual employees such as Lois Lerner--who was, once again, the Director of the Exempt Organizations unit--was allowed to influence agency decisionmaking. The IRS's upper management gave Ms. Lerner free rein to manage applications for tax-exempt status. During our investigation, the Finance Committee found evidence that Lerner's personal political views directly resulted in disparate treatment for applicants affiliated with the tea party and other conservative causes. Ms. Lerner orchestrated a process that subjected applicants to multiple levels of review by numerous components within the IRS, thereby ensuring they would suffer long delays and be required to answer burdensome and unnecessary questions. Lerner showed little concern for conservative applicants, even when Members of Congress inquired on their behalf, allowing their applications to languish in the IRS bureaucracy for as long as 2 years with little or no action. The IRS began to resolve these applications only after some of the problems became public in 2012, but, of course, by that time the damage had been done. Our investigation also uncovered a pattern at the IRS of continually misleading Congress about its handling of applications submitted by tea party organizations. Specifically, top IRS officials, including Doug Shulman, Steve Miller, and, of course, Lois Lerner, made numerous misrepresentations to Congress in 2012 and 2013 regarding the IRS's mistreatment of these groups. As if that wasn't bad enough, the IRS impeded congressional investigations--including our investigation--by failing to properly preserve a significant portion of Ms. Lerner's emails and then concealing the fact that the emails had been lost from the committee for months. Long before these allegations surfaced, the IRS was already one of the most feared and loathed agencies of the Federal Government. Virtually all Americans had some level of either apprehension or animosity toward the IRS, due in large part to the power it had to impact the lives of everyday, hard-working taxpayers. Then, beginning at least in 2010, if not sooner, the IRS made things even worse, demonstrating a pattern of incompetence, mismanagement, political bias, and obstruction toward congressional oversight. As a result, the agency has in many respects lost the public's confidence. There is a lot of work that needs to be done if the agency is ever going to restore that confidence and regain the public's trust. I believe the Finance Committee's report gives the best account we have of how that trust was broken. It spells out in great detail the organizational and personnel problems that plagued the agency and allowed partisan agendas and political tribalism to influence important decisions. I hope all of my colleagues will take the time to examine this report and its findings. The report itself is over 400 pages long and includes roughly 5,000 pages of additional supporting documents. In other words, all of my colleagues have a lot of reading to do over the August recess. I hope we will take a close look at the events detailed in the report and come together to work on legislative solutions that will prevent this kind of misconduct from happening again in the future. In closing, I want to acknowledge the hard work and countless hours of time spent by the Finance Committee staff who worked on this report. All told, they conducted over 30 exhaustive interviews and reviewed more than 1.5 million pages of documents. They also drafted numerous versions of this report and performed countless other tasks necessary to bring this investigation to a close. The bipartisan committee staff whose diligence and devotion to duty made this investigation and report possible include the following: John Angell, Kimberly Brandt, John Carlo, Austin Coon, Michael Evans, Daniel Goshorn, Christopher Law, Jim Lyons, Todd Metcalf, Harrison Moore, Mark Prater and Tiffany Smith. All of them deserve our gratitude for the work they have put in. I also thank former Chairman Baucus for his work in starting this investigation, as well as my colleague Senator Wyden, who once again continued to work with us in a bipartisan fashion to get us to this point. I personally appreciate both of those gentlemen very much. I have to say it wasn't easy for them to sit through some of this stuff. Nevertheless, it has been a privilege to work with them. This is the first of a number of speeches I will probably give on this subject. Hopefully it gives everybody a little bit of an understanding as to why we are so upset and a little bit of understanding about the report we have issued today and have put on the Web page. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. Look, people can make up their own minds about this. Read the doggone report. We cannot read it and just say: Brush it off; there is just one rogue employee there. There are all kinds of employees that are mentioned in the report. We can't just wipe it off because we were unable to interview the Treasury Department or the White House. We can't just wipe it off, when we look at all the information there, and just say: Well, this was a bad apple in the IRS, and it was just an ordinary course of events. They mistreated liberal groups or progressive groups, so-called, as much as they did the conservative groups. There is no question they didn't. There were very few progressive groups, and it was easy to understand which ones they were looking at. My gosh, some of those have had criminal accusations against them. There are only a few of them, compared to the wide group of people on the conservative side--that they knew were conservatives and they put on the BOLO list, the ``be on the lookout'' list. Now, yes, we weren't able to get into the Treasury Department, and we weren't able to get into the White House and what they did or didn't do in these areas. I don't think we can read this report and conclude that this is just a terribly dysfunctional IRS. I think we can agree that we all knew that before we had this report. But this is a very serious report. By the way, the report is signed off by both Democrats and Republicans. We can't just wipe it away and say: Well, this is just a bunch of bad apples at the IRS. Lois Lerner took the Fifth Amendment. She refused to testify in front of the House. Now, she had a right to do that, and I would be the first to stand for that right. But why would she do that? The fact of the matter is that it was a dysfunctional IRS, and it was being managed by people who were bright enough to not be dysfunctional. I am not going to say much more because we will answer every one of the distinguished Senator's approaches here this evening. I would just suggest: Read the report. It is signed off by Democrats and Republicans. We can't just blow it off by saying this was just the dysfunction at the IRS. We all know the IRS is dysfunctional, and part of the reason it is is that the IRS is supposed to represent every citizen in this country in a fair and balanced way. But it is governed by a union. They can't even fire somebody at the IRS without going through all kinds of hoops, and then they are going to have a rough time firing them no matter how bad they are. We all know that. We have seen it year after year here. To just brush this off like it is just one bad apple there--there are more apples there than Lois Lerner. All I can say is this report is a very serious report. It can't be just brushed away. It is a serious report for many reasons. One reason is that conservative groups, by a vast majority, were mistreated--and mistreated in election years, where they were trying to make a difference. I am not saying I agree with them. All I can say is they had a right to get their 501(c)(4) status determined and not just dragged out past the election. That alone is something that ought to cause everybody in this country to be a little bit frightened that the IRS can do that. I don't want it done for liberal groups that way. If the Republicans were ever totally in control of the White House, the Justice Department, the IRS, and the Treasury, I wouldn't want anybody treated like these conservative groups were treated. I would probably differ with some of those conservative groups, myself. But they deserve to be treated with respect and with dignity and under the law. And they were not. And we can't just brush it off on just one person being out of line. I am very concerned about it. I suggest people read the report. Read the report. There were some things we weren't able to look into. I wish we had been able. I think we might have been able to more definitively lay this out. But to make a long story short, read the report--something that my colleagues on the other side agreed to. Then read the minority views, then read the majority views, and see what you think. But I will tell you this: You have to be alarmed. The most dangerous agency in our government happens to be the IRS, the Internal Revenue Service. They can break anybody overnight. People are afraid of the IRS, and with good cause. When we see what happened here, they are going to have to be even more fearful--unless we can straighten this mess up. I intend to see that it is straighten up--or straightened out, may be a better way of saying it. I am very concerned about this. We had people who were mistreated. I might not agree with them, but they were mistreated, in comparison with the liberal groups, which you would have questions about them anyway-- some of them. Well, I am sure we will debate this even more. I don't want to take more of the Senate's time tonight. But I am extremely concerned because I don't think there is an agency in government that causes more fear in the hearts of people than the IRS. And when we see the mess they did, we can't just chalk it up to just a few rogue employees there at the IRS. When we see the mess they did, we have to stop and think: My, gosh, is this the way our country is run? Is this the way the IRS is run? Can we do anything about it? Or do we just have to, as citizens, sit back and forget about it? Well, we are not going to let them forget about it. This is a very, very important report. I think the majority and minority views are worth reading. I don't see how we can conclude at the end of it that there is not a tremendous problem there. Keep in mind that when the inspector general investigates and if he doesn't find an absolute, they say he doesn't find anything. They are not going to pick on anybody. I have a lot of respect for the inspector general at the IRS. I remember his being criticized because apparently he is a Republican. But he is not going to accuse anybody if he doesn't have the evidence. In this case, there is a whole accumulation of evidence that we cannot ignore and just brush away under the guise that this is just a rogue person. There were other people there as well who caused this calamitous set of events, and we have to not just brush it away. We have to look at it, and we have to find a way of straightening out the IRS so it is not a partisan institution--which most Americans believe it is, and almost every conservative believes it is. Now, we are making some strides here, and I am going to continue to push on to see that we make strides. But I have to say, ask the American people out there what they think. Read the report, and then we will talk about it some more. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to finish this speech regardless of time.