Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to speak once again on the Social Security Disability Insurance--or DI--Program. As everyone in this Chamber should know, the DI trust fund is projected to be exhausted next year. That means, absent any change in law, we will be seeing across-the-board benefit cuts of close to 20 percent for DI beneficiaries. Over the last several months, I have come to the floor on a handful of occasions to talk about this program and the imminent depreciation of its trust fund. I have called on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work with me to address these issues. I will repeat that call today. In addition, today I have introduced three separate bills that are designed to help update and improve the administration of the DI program. As we talk about solutions to address the depletion of the DI trust fund, we should also be talking about ways to update the DI program, ways to make it easier for beneficiaries who can and who desire to return to work to be able to explore those opportunities and ways to improve efforts to deter and prevent waste and fraud. The first bill I introduced today would update and expand the Social Security Administration's tools to deter and punish fraudsters who cheat the system. The second bill would authorize the Commissioner of SSA to provide denied DI applicants with information about employment support services that are provided by both public agencies and private nonprofit organizations. That information will help denied applicants find opportunities to reenter the workforce, instead of continually cycling through the DI application process. The third bill would require SSA to review hearing decisions by administrative law judges to ensure that they are following the law as well as Social Security regulations and policy. All three of these bills are designed to improve the administration of this disability program and make it work better for beneficiaries and taxpayers. They will not, by themselves, solve all of the program's fiscal problems, but they will improve the DI system. More work will need to go into this effort, and as chairman of the committee with jurisdiction over the DI program, I am committed to solving these problems and preventing the massive benefit cuts we will see under current law. I would like to point out three things about my stated approach to dealing with the DI program. First, you will note I have not used the word ``crisis'' to describe what is happening with the DI trust fund. Second, you would be hard- pressed to find any proposal I have submitted that could credibly be characterized as ``slashing'' DI benefits. Third, nothing I have put forward either today or in the past could conceivably be thought of as ``privatizing'' disability insurance. I have to point this out because a number of people, including some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, have described the Republican efforts to address the DI trust fund depletion using some of those very same words. These individuals are currently more interested in turning this issue and the coming benefit cuts into a political football than in actually solving the problem. My question is, What good will that do for the DI program or its beneficiaries? It is not just the DI program that has problems. Social Security, in general, faces a number of significant fiscal and policy challenges. In their most recent report, the Social Security board of trustees, which includes several members of President Obama's Cabinet, recommended ``that lawmakers address the projected trust fund shortfalls in a timely way in order to phase in necessary changes gradually and give workers and beneficiaries time to adjust to them.'' That says to me the sooner we act to put Social Security on a sustainable fiscal path the better it is for Americans and their security. It clearly does not mean we should ignore the financial problems facing Social Security or kick the can down the road, hoping some future Congress will get its act together and solve the problems. Of course, providing financial sustainability to Social Security is easier said than done. There are reasonable disagreements over how best to address Social Security's fiscal shortfalls, including different views on payroll tax revenues that fund the program and how quickly promised benefits will grow in the future. Yet we should not limit the discussion to taxes and outlays. We also should look at how the program can be improved and brought up-to-date. For example, the vocational grids and medical guidelines that SSA uses in the disability program are woefully out of date, and much of the existing structure of Social Security's retirement program was developed long ago, when labor markets and work patterns were much different than they are today. We should be working to address all of these challenges, both the fiscal and policy challenges now, instead of putting them off for later days. With respect to the DI program in particular, I have been working for some time now to obtain input from experts and stakeholders across the spectrum to figure out how we can make the program work better. Joined by House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Ryan and Social Security Subcommittee Chairman Johnson, I have solicited input from stakeholders in various venues and continue to welcome ideas or proposals from anyone who wants to submit them. The bills I have dropped today are just the latest in a series of bills I have introduced to help jump-start the discussion of DI reforms. We should not sit idly by and wait for another financing cliff to appear around the end of next year. As the Social Security trustees made clear, the sooner Congress acts to address these shortcomings, the better. Neither DI beneficiaries nor taxpayers benefit from lingering uncertainty about how the impending trust fund depletion will be resolved. As I have said many times, I am ready and willing to have this conversation. Sadly, up to now, I have heard nothing in response from the Obama administration and very little from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Anyone familiar with the current state of the DI trust fund would likely acknowledge that we are going to have to reallocate resources into the fund if we are going to prevent the impending benefit cuts from happening next year. Most proposals I have seen, including those from the President's budget, involve a shuffling of money from Social Security's retirement fund to the DI trust fund, but even if we have to reallocate resources to shore up the DI program, we should not delay confronting the obvious need for reform. On this point, I will once again quote the most recent report from the Social Security trustees, which says, ``Reallocation of resources in the absence of substantive relief might serve to delay DI reforms and much-needed corrections for Social Security as a whole.'' It is true that as many of my colleagues have noted, there have been bipartisan agreements to reallocate resources within Social Security in the past. However, in virtually every case, the reallocations were accompanied by substantive policy changes. This time should be no different. The last time we reallocated resources from the retirement to the DI trust fund, DI awards were increasing unexpectedly and Congress needed to examine the reasons for this increase before acting to change the way the DI system worked. At the time, most people agreed that reforms were necessary and that the reallocation would buy the time Congress needed to come up with those reforms, get them enacted, and put the trust fund on sound fiscal footing. That was more than 20 years ago. Sadly, though not surprisingly, Congress did not follow through with the reforms, and we now face another reserve depletion in the trust fund. Needless to say, doubling down on the same strategy, a strategy that has already failed to produce the needed policy changes, is not a prudent course of action. In my view, any resource reallocation that gets enacted must be accompanied by changes in the DI program. However, the President does not seem to share this view. The administration has called for a stand-alone reallocation of payroll tax receipts away from the retirement and survivor's trust fund and into the DI trust fund. This proposal would, depending on the estimate, extend the life of the DI program to the early 2030s, at which point both Social Security trust funds, disability and retirement, will be exhausted at the same time, triggering massive benefit cuts for all beneficiaries. In fact, there are those who would argue that the Social Security retirement fund is already exhausted and deeply in debt. That is their idea of a responsible approach to a widely acknowledged fiscal problem. Outside of the stand-alone reallocation scheme, the President's budget offers precious little in the way of reforms to the DI program or Social Security in general. In other words, the Obama administration's entire answer to all of Social Security's many fiscal problems is literally to just let future Congress's and administrations deal with those problems. This, to me, would be the height of irresponsibility. While it may not be possible, absent some kind of resource allocation, to keep the DI program's current promises between now and the end of the year, we can and should take meaningful steps now to improve the program. That is my goal. I hope enough of my colleagues share this goal to make it a reality. If we are going to get there, it is going to require bipartisan cooperation on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. In other words, we are going to need to see more from the administration than we have seen thus far. It is already August. Despite my repeated requests to the administration and my friends on the other side of the aisle to engage with me to work on this issue, I have yet to hear a meaningful response. I hope that will change. There is no harm in discussing options. I am willing to discuss any and all options to fix these problems. There is, on the other hand, a great deal of potential harm to DI beneficiaries if we continue to ignore the problem while waiting for a financial cliff to force people's hands. Once again, I urge my friends on both sides of the aisle to engage on this issue now, and do not wait until it is too late to take meaningful action.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to speak once again on the Social Security Disability Insurance--or DI--Program. As everyone in this Chamber should know, the DI trust fund is projected to be exhausted next year. That means, absent any change in law, we will be seeing across-the-board benefit cuts of close to 20 percent for DI beneficiaries. Over the last several months, I have come to the floor on a handful of occasions to talk about this program and the imminent depreciation of its trust fund. I have called on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work with me to address these issues. I will repeat that call today. In addition, today I have introduced three separate bills that are designed to help update and improve the administration of the DI program. As we talk about solutions to address the depletion of the DI trust fund, we should also be talking about ways to update the DI program, ways to make it easier for beneficiaries who can and who desire to return to work to be able to explore those opportunities and ways to improve efforts to deter and prevent waste and fraud. The first bill I introduced today would update and expand the Social Security Administration's tools to deter and punish fraudsters who cheat the system. The second bill would authorize the Commissioner of SSA to provide denied DI applicants with information about employment support services that are provided by both public agencies and private nonprofit organizations. That information will help denied applicants find opportunities to reenter the workforce, instead of continually cycling through the DI application process. The third bill would require SSA to review hearing decisions by administrative law judges to ensure that they are following the law as well as Social Security regulations and policy. All three of these bills are designed to improve the administration of this disability program and make it work better for beneficiaries and taxpayers. They will not, by themselves, solve all of the program's fiscal problems, but they will improve the DI system. More work will need to go into this effort, and as chairman of the committee with jurisdiction over the DI program, I am committed to solving these problems and preventing the massive benefit cuts we will see under current law. I would like to point out three things about my stated approach to dealing with the DI program. First, you will note I have not used the word ``crisis'' to describe what is happening with the DI trust fund. Second, you would be hard- pressed to find any proposal I have submitted that could credibly be characterized as ``slashing'' DI benefits. Third, nothing I have put forward either today or in the past could conceivably be thought of as ``privatizing'' disability insurance. I have to point this out because a number of people, including some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, have described the Republican efforts to address the DI trust fund depletion using some of those very same words. These individuals are currently more interested in turning this issue and the coming benefit cuts into a political football than in actually solving the problem. My question is, What good will that do for the DI program or its beneficiaries? It is not just the DI program that has problems. Social Security, in general, faces a number of significant fiscal and policy challenges. In their most recent report, the Social Security board of trustees, which includes several members of President Obama's Cabinet, recommended ``that lawmakers address the projected trust fund shortfalls in a timely way in order to phase in necessary changes gradually and give workers and beneficiaries time to adjust to them.'' That says to me the sooner we act to put Social Security on a sustainable fiscal path the better it is for Americans and their security. It clearly does not mean we should ignore the financial problems facing Social Security or kick the can down the road, hoping some future Congress will get its act together and solve the problems. Of course, providing financial sustainability to Social Security is easier said than done. There are reasonable disagreements over how best to address Social Security's fiscal shortfalls, including different views on payroll tax revenues that fund the program and how quickly promised benefits will grow in the future. Yet we should not limit the discussion to taxes and outlays. We also should look at how the program can be improved and brought up-to-date. For example, the vocational grids and medical guidelines that SSA uses in the disability program are woefully out of date, and much of the existing structure of Social Security's retirement program was developed long ago, when labor markets and work patterns were much different than they are today. We should be working to address all of these challenges, both the fiscal and policy challenges now, instead of putting them off for later days. With respect to the DI program in particular, I have been working for some time now to obtain input from experts and stakeholders across the spectrum to figure out how we can make the program work better. Joined by House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Ryan and Social Security Subcommittee Chairman Johnson, I have solicited input from stakeholders in various venues and continue to welcome ideas or proposals from anyone who wants to submit them. The bills I have dropped today are just the latest in a series of bills I have introduced to help jump-start the discussion of DI reforms. We should not sit idly by and wait for another financing cliff to appear around the end of next year. As the Social Security trustees made clear, the sooner Congress acts to address these shortcomings, the better. Neither DI beneficiaries nor taxpayers benefit from lingering uncertainty about how the impending trust fund depletion will be resolved. As I have said many times, I am ready and willing to have this conversation. Sadly, up to now, I have heard nothing in response from the Obama administration and very little from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Anyone familiar with the current state of the DI trust fund would likely acknowledge that we are going to have to reallocate resources into the fund if we are going to prevent the impending benefit cuts from happening next year. Most proposals I have seen, including those from the President's budget, involve a shuffling of money from Social Security's retirement fund to the DI trust fund, but even if we have to reallocate resources to shore up the DI program, we should not delay confronting the obvious need for reform. On this point, I will once again quote the most recent report from the Social Security trustees, which says, ``Reallocation of resources in the absence of substantive relief might serve to delay DI reforms and much-needed corrections for Social Security as a whole.'' It is true that as many of my colleagues have noted, there have been bipartisan agreements to reallocate resources within Social Security in the past. However, in virtually every case, the reallocations were accompanied by substantive policy changes. This time should be no different. The last time we reallocated resources from the retirement to the DI trust fund, DI awards were increasing unexpectedly and Congress needed to examine the reasons for this increase before acting to change the way the DI system worked. At the time, most people agreed that reforms were necessary and that the reallocation would buy the time Congress needed to come up with those reforms, get them enacted, and put the trust fund on sound fiscal footing. That was more than 20 years ago. Sadly, though not surprisingly, Congress did not follow through with the reforms, and we now face another reserve depletion in the trust fund. Needless to say, doubling down on the same strategy, a strategy that has already failed to produce the needed policy changes, is not a prudent course of action. In my view, any resource reallocation that gets enacted must be accompanied by changes in the DI program. However, the President does not seem to share this view. The administration has called for a stand-alone reallocation of payroll tax receipts away from the retirement and survivor's trust fund and into the DI trust fund. This proposal would, depending on the estimate, extend the life of the DI program to the early 2030s, at which point both Social Security trust funds, disability and retirement, will be exhausted at the same time, triggering massive benefit cuts for all beneficiaries. In fact, there are those who would argue that the Social Security retirement fund is already exhausted and deeply in debt. That is their idea of a responsible approach to a widely acknowledged fiscal problem. Outside of the stand-alone reallocation scheme, the President's budget offers precious little in the way of reforms to the DI program or Social Security in general. In other words, the Obama administration's entire answer to all of Social Security's many fiscal problems is literally to just let future Congress's and administrations deal with those problems. This, to me, would be the height of irresponsibility. While it may not be possible, absent some kind of resource allocation, to keep the DI program's current promises between now and the end of the year, we can and should take meaningful steps now to improve the program. That is my goal. I hope enough of my colleagues share this goal to make it a reality. If we are going to get there, it is going to require bipartisan cooperation on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. In other words, we are going to need to see more from the administration than we have seen thus far. It is already August. Despite my repeated requests to the administration and my friends on the other side of the aisle to engage with me to work on this issue, I have yet to hear a meaningful response. I hope that will change. There is no harm in discussing options. I am willing to discuss any and all options to fix these problems. There is, on the other hand, a great deal of potential harm to DI beneficiaries if we continue to ignore the problem while waiting for a financial cliff to force people's hands. Once again, I urge my friends on both sides of the aisle to engage on this issue now, and do not wait until it is too late to take meaningful action.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, Congress provides billions of dollars in taxpayer money for many different programs in various areas, including women's health. Sometimes, however, we have to draw the line, rearrange our priorities, and put some things off-limits. This is one of those times. The taxpayers should not be funding an organization engaged not only in the abortion business but, as we now know, in the baby body parts business. In the last fiscal year, Planned Parenthood received more than one- half billion dollars of taxpayer money in the form of government grants, contracts, and Medicaid reimbursements. That is nearly $1.5 million per day, every day, and more than 40 percent of Planned Parenthood's revenue. The group's annual reports reveal what it does. In the last 3 years, it performed nearly 1 million abortions. In fact, this taxpayer-supported organization is the nation's largest abortion provider. Some of Planned Parenthood's propaganda suggests the group focuses more on promoting pregnancies than ending them. But the numbers reveal the truth. Abortion accounts for 94 percent of Planned Parenthood's pregnancy services. The number of Planned Parenthood abortions dwarfs its recipients of prenatal care by more than 15 to 1. Planned Parenthood performs 174 abortions for every 1 adoption referral. In fact, Planned Parenthood's abortion business is growing while its adoption referrals and prenatal care services are shrinking. We are also told that Planned Parenthood provides other women's health services. Those same annual reports, however, show that cancer prevention services are down 17 percent over the year before. Planned Parenthood does not provide what the American Cancer Society calls a ``very effective and valuable tool'' for breast cancer screening: mammograms. That procedure requires an FDA certification and no Planned Parenthood clinic in America has such a certification. It is no wonder that Planned Parenthood has fought anything that could conceivably reduce the number of abortions. That is the business they are in. They oppose measures to inform women about abortion dangers or alternatives, they oppose any kind of involvement by parents when children seek an abortion. They even oppose restricting the horrible practice of partial-birth abortion. We have learned recently what such a commitment to abortion produces. Not one, not two, not three, but four videos released so far show Planned Parenthood's own leaders discussing the harvesting and selling of baby parts as casually as a mechanic sells car parts. They discuss how Planned Parenthood abortionists arrange their procedures and techniques to obtain the intact baby body parts that they need. These videos are revolting. They reveal an attitude toward human life that I thought we left behind long ago, when we decided human beings were not commodities to be traded. Planned Parenthood has responded to these videos with propaganda and distraction. After the first video was released, for example, they said that it had been heavily edited, and their comments were taken out of context. That is often the first response by someone exposed by their own words. I urge my colleagues and fellow citizens not to be distracted. The Center for Medical Progress, which released the video, has made the full video and complete transcript available. Planned Parenthood also claims that it receives cost reimbursement for the ``services'' it provides. I remind my colleagues of two things. First, even if that were true, these are costs associated with the harvesting of baby body parts. We must never forget what is at the heart of this whole thing--the harvesting and selling of pre-born body parts. Second, Planned Parenthood's senior director of medical services says in one of the videos that if they can ``do better than break even,'' they are ``happy to do it.'' It appears that Planned Parenthood's only guideline is that ``this is not something that you should be making an exorbitant amount of money on.'' In the fourth video, a Planned Parenthood medical director talks about how ``a little bit of training'' will make sure that fetal organs can be removed intact. She says that charging a fee for each body part ``works a little better, just because we can see how much we can get out of it.'' And to top it all off, this medical director talks about how calling this gruesome business ``research'' helps to avoid getting caught. The truth about Planned Parenthood is finally coming out, and Congress should respond in two ways. First, we should exercise our oversight authority to investigate how Planned Parenthood is using the hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars it annually receives. Federal law, for example, makes it illegal ``for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any fetal tissue for valuable consideration.'' If our investigation turns up any evidence of possible criminal wrongdoing, such evidence should be turned over to the proper authorities. Second, we should stop giving Planned Parenthood taxpayer money. Even if the investigations show that Planned Parenthood has broken no laws, regulations, or other rules, we should get American taxpayers out of the business of harvesting and selling baby body parts. Senator Ernst's bill would do just that. The abortion lobby's misdirection, distraction, and spin are already in high gear. Last week here on the Senate floor, one of my Democratic colleagues said that this bill is an ``attack on women's health.'' It is no such thing. Planned Parenthood is not the only provider of prenatal services or cancer screenings. It is, however, the only organization financed by American taxpayers that traffics in baby body parts. Just as everyone should judge Planned Parenthood's words for themselves, everyone should also read this bill for themselves. It says that while Planned Parenthood will no longer receive taxpayer money, overall funding for women's health will not decrease. This bill supports women's health but defunds Planned Parenthood. This bill does not prohibit Planned Parenthood from performing abortions, it does not even prohibit Planned Parenthood from continuing its practice of harvesting and selling baby body parts. But if Planned Parenthood wants to be in this gruesome business, it should do so without being subsidized by American taxpayers. I reiterate that this bill does not reduce services for women's health by a single dime. Healthcare providers all over this country, including community health centers, offer all sorts of services for women. These include the very services that my Democratic colleague mentioned here last week, such as cancer screenings, vaccinations, breast exams, and HIV testing. Under this bill, Federal funding for such services will not be reduced, but rather re-directed to providers who are not involved in the sordid and contemptible baby body parts business. The recent revelations about Planned Parenthood have pulled back the curtain on something very ugly in our culture. Millions of abortions over multiple decades have devalued human life to the point where--at least to some--preborn babies are little more than commodities, collections of parts that can be harvested and sold. Is that the kind of country we want? No, it is not. We should use this opportunity to examine our values to chart a better course.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, soon we will vote on final passage of a bill that will provide a long-term solution to the shortfalls of the highway trust fund. If enacted, this bill will provide the longest paid-for authorization of highway and transportation spending in nearly a decade. This bill is the result of an incredible amount of work by a number of Senators, including our distinguished majority leader as well as the chairman and ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. I commend them for setting aside partisan differences to find a solution despite the cynicism and naysaying from some of our colleagues and others here in Washington. I am also pleased to have been able to play a part in these efforts, working with Leader McConnell to identify suitable offsets to pay for the reauthorization of the highway and transit programs. While the Finance Committee, which I chair, has jurisdiction over the funding stream for the highway trust fund, we had to cull together offsets from other areas and other committees in order to pay for this multiyear highway bill. This required the cooperation of multiple chairmen and committees, all working together toward a common goal. One of the most remarkable things about this bill is that it provides 3 full years of highway funding without raising taxes or adding to the deficit. We have heard time and again that a long-term highway bill would only be possible if we included a big tax increase. With the upcoming final vote on this bill, the Senate is about to prove otherwise, and it will do so with bipartisan support. This is how the Senate should operate, particularly when we are dealing with something as big and important as highway funding. As I said last week, this bill represents a victory for good government and is yet another bipartisan win for the Senate under the current leadership. Like many of my colleagues, my hope is that eventually the House of Representatives will follow suit and work toward passage of a similar long-term highway bill so that we can come together, reconcile differences, and finish the job. While I know there are some divisions on the other side of the Capitol about the Senate's overall strategy and maybe even some of the particulars in our bill, I think we have shown that a long-term bill is a realistic goal and a preferable option to yet another short-term highway patch. Once again, I am well aware of the desire of some in Congress and in the administration to marry long-term highway funding to some kind of tax reform. As the chairman of the Senate's tax-writing committee and its most outspoken supporter of tax reform, I think that idea has a lot of merit. I commend those who are thinking in those terms. Fortunately, this bill will provide just that opportunity while giving added certainty to our States as they plan their highway projects and to our builders and job creators looking to expand and hire more workers. Put simply, the Senate's highway approach is a win for everyone. The House should consider our approach, and I hope they will. Long story short, today is a good day. Today the Senate will accomplish something few thought possible. While the process has been a bit more difficult and divisive than many of us would have liked, I personally am very pleased to see the Senate function properly and govern responsibly. There are a lot of things we can fight over here in Congress, but I think we can--or at least should--all agree on the need to come together to pay for our Nation's infrastructure. I am pleased to join with my colleagues--Senators from both parties--in taking a major step toward that goal today. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as you may have heard, today marks the 50th anniversary of both Medicare and Medicaid. While the last half century has seen a pretty robust debate about the merits of these programs, today there is no question that they provide significant and vital elements to our Nation's safety net. This week many are celebrating the lives that have been saved and improved by Medicare and Medicaid over the last 50 years. While this is appropriate, I hope that we will also take the time to look at how these programs will function over the next 50 years. Let's start with Medicare. Medicare is, quite simply, a massive program designed to provide care to our Nation's seniors. Currently, it covers more than 50 million beneficiaries--roughly one-sixth of the current U.S. population--and processes more than 1 billion claims a year. Last week the Medicare board of trustees issued its report for 2015, which once again detailed the fiscal challenges facing the Medicare Program. For example, in 2014 alone, we spent roughly $613 billion on Medicare expenditures. That is roughly 14 percent of the Federal budget and 3.5 percent of our gross domestic product for a single health care program. In coming years, these numbers are only going to go up as more baby boomers retire and become Medicare beneficiaries. Over the next 10 years, the trustees project that the number of Medicare beneficiaries will expand by 30 percent. We will spend roughly $7 trillion on the program as it expands, and by the end of that 10- year period we will be spending more on Medicare than on our entire national defense. Over the next 25 years, spending on the program as a percentage of GDP will grow by 60 percent, and by 2040 about $1 out of every $5 spent by the Federal Government will go to Medicare. As spending on the program expands, so does its unfunded liabilities. Using the most realistic projections of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services--remember, this is the government agency's most realistic projections--Medicare Part A by itself faces long-term unfunded liabilities of nearly $8 trillion. The story is even worse with Medicare Part B and Part D, which unlike Part A, do not have a dedicated revenue stream. Medicare's trustees estimate $24.8 trillion in additional taxes will need to be collected over the next 75 years to pay for Medicare Part B and Part D services. When we look at the entire Medicare Program over the next 75 years, once again using CMS's most accurate projections, we are looking at $37 trillion of spending in excess of dedicated revenues. Those numbers are astronomical. They are too large to even comprehend. So rather than talk about the numbers in broad terms, let's talk about what they mean for seniors and beneficiaries. As I mentioned, Medicare Part A, which includes the Hospital Insurance, or HI, Program has a dedicated funding stream. It is paid for by a 2.9-percent payroll tax split between employers and workers, and under ObamaCare that rate went up by an additional 0.9 percent on wages over $200,000 for single tax filers and $250,000 for married couples. Due in large part to the financial downturn, Part A ran a deficit-- meaning that expenditures for the program exceeded income from the tax--every year between 2008 and 2014. Last year that deficit reached $8.1 billion in just 1 year. Because of the economic recovery and the increased tax rates, Part A is projected to generate surpluses between 2015 and 2023. However, after that, deficits are projected to return, and by 2030 the Part A trust fund will officially be bankrupt and the Medicare Program will be unable to pay full benefits to seniors. Let me say that again. In 15 years, Medicare Part A will be bankrupt. All of this, of course, assumes that current law remains unchanged and Congress is unable to reform the program. I don't think I would be going too far out on a limb to suggest that reforms to Medicare are absolutely necessary if we are going to preserve the program for future generations. Furthermore, I don't think it would be outlandish to suggest that Congress should begin working on such reforms immediately to avoid future cliffs, standoffs, and the usual accompanying political brinkmanship. I am not the only one saying that. The Medicare trustees themselves said in last week's report that ``Medicare still faces a substantial financial shortfall that will need to be addressed with further legislation. Such legislation should be enacted sooner rather than later to minimize the impact on beneficiaries, providers, and taxpayers.'' These are not the words of fiscal hawks in the Republican Congress. The Medicare board of trustees is comprised of six members, four of whom are high-ranking officials in the Obama administration, including Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, Labor Secretary Thomas Perez, Health & Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell, and acting Social Security Commissioner Carolyn Colvin. All of these officials signed on to a report recommending ``further legislation'' to reform Medicare and suggesting that it happen ``sooner rather than later.'' Let's keep in mind that we are only talking about Medicare. I haven't said anything yet about Medicaid, our other health care entitlement program, which also faces enormous fiscal challenges. Currently, Medicaid covers more than 70 million patients, and that number is growing thanks to expansions mandated under the so-called Affordable Care Act. Since the passage of ObamaCare, more than a dozen States have chosen to expand their Medicaid Programs and enrollments have surged well beyond initial projections. This has a number of people worried about added costs and additional strains on State budgets, particularly when the Federal share of the expanded program is set to scale back in 2 years. Already, without the expansion under ObamaCare, Medicaid took up nearly one-quarter of all State budgets. That is right: Nearly $1 out of every $4 spent at the State level goes to Medicaid, and that number is going to get much higher. In the recent years, combined Federal and State Medicaid spending has come in around $450 billion a year. By 2020, that number is projected to expand to around $800 billion a year or more, and with all of this expansion--that increased fiscal burden and instability--we are not seeing improvements in care provided by the program. Put simply, Medicaid is probably the worst health insurance in the country and the President's health care law did nothing to improve the quality of care provided by the program. Fewer and fewer doctors accept Medicaid because it pays them so little, and the program's reimbursement formulas for prescription drugs limit beneficiaries' access to a number of important medications. Ultimately, we are going to be spending more and more on Medicaid in the coming years--and as a result expanding our debts and deficits-- without providing better care for beneficiaries. Between Medicare and Medicaid, we will spend more than $12 trillion over the next decade with precious few improvements to show for it. Former CBO Director Doug Elmendorf referred to these two programs as ``our fundamental fiscal challenge.'' If you look at the numbers and the dramatic expansion projected in the coming years, he was right. Keep in mind, we still have Social Security, which faces nearly $11 billion in unfunded liabilities over the long term as well as the exhaustion of one of its trust funds, the disability trust fund, by the end of next year and complete exhaustion by 2034. Separately, these three major entitlement programs present unique challenges that have to be addressed in order to preserve them--and our Nation's safety net--for future generations. Combined, they threaten to swallow up our government and take our economy down with it. Once again, these aren't doomsday scenarios. No one seriously disputes the fact that absent real and lasting reforms, our entitlement programs present real threats to our fiscal well-being. The disputes typically arise when we begin talking about the specifics of reform. Some would just as soon use the looming entitlement crisis as a political weapon to scare current and near beneficiaries into believing the other side wants to take their benefits away. Others support the idea of entitlement reform in principle but are too afraid to sign on to any specific proposals out of fear it would be used against them in the next election cycle. This dynamic has resulted in a longstanding stalemate, where the possibility of real reform has, for years now, seemed remote. However, recently we have seen signs that it may in fact be possible to overcome this stalemate. Earlier this year, Congress passed the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015, a bipartisan bill, which among other things repealed and replaced the Medicare sustainable growth rate, or SGR, formula. Now, repealing SGR was, in and of itself, a significant improvement to the Medicare Program, but there are other Medicare reforms in the law as well. These include a limitation on so-called Medigap first-dollar coverage and more robust means testing for Medicare Parts B and D. These aren't fundamental Medicare reforms, and they will not move the program from its massive projected deficits into future solvency, but keep in mind that for years the idea of bipartisan Medicare reform seemed like a pipedream. Yet with passage of the SGR bill, we were able to take a meaningful first step toward this all-important goal. Of course, the first step is only a first step if it precedes additional steps, and that is what we need now. Congress must take additional steps to improve these programs and preserve them for our children and grandchildren. As the chairman of the committee with jurisdiction over these programs, I have been actively engaged in the effort to reform our entitlement programs. In 2013, when I was still the ranking member, I put forward five separate proposals to reform Medicare and Medicaid. All of them were serious, commonsense ideas that had received bipartisan support in the recent past. I shared these ideas at every opportunity. I put out documents, fact sheets, and gave numerous speeches on the floor. I even passed them along directly to President Obama, although I didn't ever get a response from him. Two of those ideas were, at least partially, included in the legislation we passed to repeal SGR. The other three ideas, as far as I am concerned, are still on the table. I have also teamed up with leaders in the House to call on the disability community and other stakeholders to help us come up with ideas to address the impending exhaustion of the Social Security disability trust fund. I have introduced legislation to improve the administration and fiscal integrity of the disability insurance program. In other words, I stand ready and willing to work with any of my colleagues--from either party or from either Chamber--to address the coming entitlement crisis before it is too late. I have put my own ideas on the table, but I don't think the debate should be limited to my ideas. I invite all of my colleagues to come forward so we can work together to find solutions to these massive problems. I know that when I think about these problems, my thoughts turn to my 23 grandchildren and 16 great-grandchildren--and everybody else's grandchildren and great-grandchildren--who will suffer from any promises we fail to keep and will pay the price of any mistakes we fail to correct. On this landmark anniversary of the Medicare Program, I urge my colleagues to also consider future generations of Americans and the costs and burdens we will pass on to them if we fail in this endeavor. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today, I pay tribute to Duchesne County--a remarkable Utah county that is celebrating its 100th birthday. Located in northeastern Utah, Duchesne County is rich with natural resources and home to some of the State's most majestic scenery. Thousands flock to the region each year to fish its streams, which include the Strawberry, Duchesne, Lake Fork, and Yellowstone Rivers. Even more enjoy its mountains, including Utah's highest, King's Peak, which is 13,528 feet above sea level. Its vistas are breathtaking and its valleys are serene and beautiful. The county has a meaningful history that traces its roots to Native American culture. In fact, much of present-day Duchesne County was originally part of the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservations. In the early 1900s, other settlers began arriving in the region after Congress passed the Dawes Act. To farm and make improvements to the land, the government offered these individuals 160 acres under the Homestead Act. Today, approximately 18,000 Utahns live in Duchesne County and contribute to its quality of life. Livestock and farming along with oil and natural gas resources continue to drive the local economy. Just like its early pioneers, Duchesne County's citizens work hard not only to support their families, but also to make their communities and our State a wonderful place to live. Duchesne County captures the best of small town America. Its towns are charming and its people are dedicated and patriotic. I have always enjoyed visiting the many wonderful towns in Duchesne County and getting to know its citizens. Again, I wish to congratulate Duchesne County on the marking of its centennial. This is a noteworthy time indeed, and I want to wish the many Utahns who call this place home many more years of happiness living and working in this beautiful county.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to address the Senate in my capacity as President pro tempore. I hope my colleagues will give attention to what I am about to say and will take it to heart because I speak from the heart out of respect for my colleagues and out of love for this great body in which we are all privileged to serve. The Senate has a long and justly celebrated tradition of comity and respect among Members. Although there have been occasional exceptions throughout history, on the whole, Senators have taken great care to treat each other with courtesy and respect, both in private discussions and in public deliberations. We do this for several reasons--first, because mutual respect is essential for us to be able to work together to forge consensus on difficult issues that stir deep and sometimes divisive feelings. Passing meaningful legislation in this body typically requires the two parties to work together, and that, in turn, requires a trust and a certain level of good will. Courtesy and decorum foster an atmosphere where we can work in good faith to find common ground, where we can appeal to nobler instincts to do what is best for all Americans, not just those of a particular partisan persuasion. The second reason we treat each other with courtesy and respect is because it is the honorable thing to do. We come to this body as 100 men and women with vastly different backgrounds, life experiences, and views on how government should operate. But we share a common humanity and a common goal to improve this great Nation and to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. We divide into parties and join caucuses. We fight passionately about matters of tremendous consequence. But we do not become enemies. We remain colleagues. And colleagues treat each other with respect. We treat each other with honor even when we feel another has perhaps not accorded us the same esteem. Squabbling and sanctimony may be tolerated in other venues or perhaps on the campaign trail, but they have no place among colleagues in the U.S. Senate. The third and most important reason we treat each other with courtesy and respect is because we are the people's representatives. We are not here on some frolic or to pursue personal ambitions; we are here because the people of the United States have entrusted us with the solemn responsibility to act on their behalf in shaping our Nation's laws. This is a high and holy calling. It is not something to take lightly. It is a sacred trust in which pettiness or grandstanding should have no part. We are here to do serious work. In doing this work, egos will inevitably be bruised. Feelings from time to time may be hurt. This is inherent in the nature of politics. But we are here to carry out the people's business. We serve the people, not our own egos. When we are on the losing side of a particular debate, when we are disappointed, we pick ourselves up and move ahead to the next challenge. Our Nation's Founders designed the Senate to play a special role in our constitutional system. In contrast to the more raucous, populist House, the Senate was to be a body of deliberation and reasoned judgment. Senators were to seek the common good and consider national, not just parochial, interests in crafting legislation and considering nominees. Decorum is essential to executing this constitutionally ordained role. Deliberation and reasoned judgment require an atmosphere of restraint, an atmosphere of thoughtful disagreement. Deliberation without decorum is not deliberation at all; it is bickering. And bickering is beneath this body. Regrettably, in recent times, the Senate floor has too often become a forum for partisan messaging and ideological grandstanding rather than a setting for serious debate. It has been misused as a tool to advance personal ambitions, a venue to promote political campaigns, and even a vehicle to enhance fundraising efforts--all at the expense of the proper functioning of this body. Most egregiously, the Senate floor has even become a place where Senators have singled out colleagues by name to attack them in personal terms and to impugn their character--in blatant disregard of Senate rules which plainly prohibit such conduct. The Senate floor has hosted many passionate debates on crucial issues over the years. Tempers from time to time have flared. Voices have on occasion been raised. But we have almost universally confined our criticisms to policies and to ideas, to what we think is wrongheaded about particular bills or proposals. We have not, at least in my memory, called our opponents dishonest or sought to disparage their motives. To bring personal attacks to the Senate floor would be to import the most toxic elements of our current political discourse into the well of the Senate, into the very heart of this institution. This would serve only to pollute our deliberations, to break the bonds of trust that are essential for achieving some measure of consensus, and to invite the dysfunction that so saturates our media and popular culture into this storied Chamber. For those of us who care about the Senate as an institution and who want it once again to help solve the vexing challenges that face our Nation, such misuse of the Senate floor must not be tolerated. Each of us--Republicans and Democrats alike--must stand together in support of the Senate's time-honored traditions of collegiality and respect. We must stand resolute in requiring that the Senate's formal rules requiring dignity and decorum be observed. And we must ensure that the pernicious trend of turning the Senate floor into a forum for advancing personal ambitions, for promoting political campaigns, or for enhancing fundraising activities comes to a stop. There are enough other platforms for those seeking to accomplish those objectives; the Senate floor need not be one. Mr. President, I recognize that many of my colleagues are quite new to the Senate and may not yet have had many opportunities to experience its proper institutional role as a forum for reasoned deliberation and constructive debate. Some are less familiar with its traditions of comity and respect. Others may know little of the Senate's history in rising above parochialism and narrow self-interest. And a few, I regret to say, seem unconcerned for its historic pivotal role in promoting consensus and helping to overcome our Nation's challenges. As one who has had the privilege of serving here for the past four decades, I can attest from firsthand experience that the Senate can be and has been in times not too far past a distinguished and constructive body that does much good. I recall vividly times when this body was marked by good will rather than rancor and disrepute. In some respects, the Senate today is but a mere shadow of its former self, another casualty of the permanent political campaign. This is deeply disheartening to those like myself who were here to experience this body's better days, and it has severely damaged the proper governance of our Nation. Mr. President, I have been frank in my remarks today. This candor stems from my genuine concern for this body and its future. I have been frank because I have seen so much of what I love about this body frittered away in recent years for small-minded, shortsighted, partisan gain. By virtue of my long service here in the Senate and my role as President pro tempore, I am a dedicated institutionalist. I care deeply about this institution and want it to work. Our current majority leader has made important strides in putting the Senate back on a path toward meaningful deliberation and constructive lawmaking aimed at the common good, but his efforts and those of other Senators on both sides of the aisle who take the long view in seeking to build up this institution will not suffice unless each one of us is committed to instilling comity and respect as a core feature of everything we do. Let's each move forward with a renewed sense of honor and respect, a resolve not to tolerate misuse of the Senate floor, a commitment to do our part to restore civility and constructive debate as defining characteristics of this body, and a renewed willingness to work together for the good of all Americans. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, in January 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt delivered his State of the Union Address as World War II was underway in Europe. Even in that dark time, President Roosevelt reminded us all of what he called ``the simple, basic things that must never be lost sight of in the turmoil and unbelievable complexity of our modern world.'' Religious freedom was one of the four essential freedoms President Roosevelt outlined in that speech. President Roosevelt's counsel applies today as the pace and degree of social and cultural change increase. Last month, for example, the Supreme Court held that laws defining marriage as it had been defined at all times and in all societies are now unconstitutional. A bill has just been introduced in this body that would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in areas such as employment, public accommodations, housing, and education. Some are even calling for punitive measures, such as revocation of tax-exempt status, for religious institutions that do not accept such social and cultural changes. Debates about these issues continue in all three branches of government, and I might say, branches of both Federal and State governments among commentators and experts across the media and institutions, both religious and secular, and among our fellow citizens. President Roosevelt's words ``turmoil and unbelievable complexity'' seem to describe the situation today. Yet these debates are not occurring on a blank slate. Some advocates of the social and cultural changes now underway ignore or perhaps never understood the history, importance, and value of religious freedom. They seem to treat religious freedom as optional and are willing to cast it aside as a casualty of achieving certain political objectives. That would be a grave error. I wish to describe to my colleagues the backdrop for considering or implementing these recent social and cultural changes. The religious freedom Americans enjoy has been nearly 400 years in the making. Almost two centuries before American independence, one religious community after another came to these shores seeking freedom to practice their faith. Professor Michael McConnell, perhaps America's foremost scholar of religious liberty, writes that by the time the First Amendment was ratified, ``the American states had already experienced 150 years of a higher degree of religious diversity than had existed anywhere else in the world.'' The first individual right in the Bill of Rights is the free exercise of religion. The choice of words is significant. The First Amendment does not protect only some exercises of religion or religious exercise only by some people but the free exercise of religion itself. This term, the free exercise of religion, had appeared in American legal documents at least as early as 1648 and was a deliberate choice by those drafting the new Constitution. In 1776, the Virginia legislature considered a constitution for the Commonwealth. George Mason proposed this language, ``that all men should enjoy the fullest toleration in the exercise of religion.'' James Madison thought this implied that the right to practice religion was a governmental favor rather than an inalienable right. He proposed this language instead, ``All men are equally entitled to the full and free exercise of [religion], according to the dictates of conscience.'' America's Founders saw religious freedom as an inalienable right that government must respect rather than something the government can decide whether to tolerate. In fact, as Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg has written, America's Founders saw religious freedom as preeminent among fundamental rights. Religious freedom in America has two general features. It is universal in that it is a natural right shared by all people and a constitutional and civil right protected by law. Religious freedom in America is also robust in that it has three dimensions--it is freedom not only of belief but also of behavior, it is freedom that may be exercised publicly as well as privately, and it is freedom to act both individually and collectively. These two basic features of religious liberty, that is both universal and robust, can be seen not only in American history and heritage but also in the commitments that we, as a nation, continue to make. I will give three examples. In 1948, the United States joined 47 other nations in approving the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 18 of that declaration states that every person has a fundamental right to religious freedom, including ``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.'' There you see both the universal and robust nature of religious freedom. The United States reaffirmed this view of religious freedom by ratifying the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article 18 repeats the principle that everyone has the freedom ``either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.'' In 1998, Congress enacted the International Religious Freedom Act, which passed by a voice vote in the House and by a vote of 98 to 0 in this body. This law States that religious freedom ``ungirds the very origin and existence of the United States.'' Congress has declared religious liberty to be a fundamental right, a pillar of our Nation, a universal human right, and a fundamental freedom. So 32 Senators serving today--18 Republicans and 14 Democrats--voted for that position either here or when they served in the House. In addition to Congress, Presidents have issued an annual proclamation designating January 16 as Religious Freedom Day. On that day in 1786, the Virginia legislature adopted the Statute for Religious Freedom. In his proclamation--and I will refer to the chart--President Clinton proclaimed in his proclamation on religious freedom to be a fundamental human right, essential to our dignity as human beings, one of the most sacred of human rights, one of the core values of our democracy. President George W. Bush said in his proclamation on his Religious Freedom Day that religious freedom is the foundation of a healthy and hopeful society, the birthright of every man, woman, and child throughout the world, one of our Nation's most cherished values, one of our fundamental freedoms, and a cornerstone of our Republic. President Obama has said in his proclamations that religious freedom is one of our country's fundamental liberties, the right of every person to practice their faith, how they choose, a critical foundation of our Nation's liberty, a universal human right, an essential part of human dignity, a natural right of all humanity. The Supreme Court has held many times that religious freedom is a fundamental right, and as it did in 1981, has held that the First Amendment ``by its terms, gives special protection to the exercise of religion.'' There is no getting around the fact that universal and robust religious freedom is the foundation of this Nation and an integral part of our national identity and character. It is a preeminent right recognized by all three branches as fundamental. That is an important word. This is our heritage, and it is the backdrop for our debates occurring today over social and cultural changes. Some advocates of these changes are spinning a fictional tale about religious freedom in America. They may feel this narrative serves their political agenda, but that does not make their narrative true. As I described earlier, religious freedom in America is both universal and robust. It includes both belief and behavior in public and in private, individually and collectively. The advocates I have described want instead to make religious freedom selective rather than universal and reduce it to nothing more than an individual private belief. One of my Senate colleagues, for example, said in an interview shortly after the Supreme Court's decision that the First Amendment protects the freedom of ``institutions of faith . . . to observe deeply held religious beliefs. But I don't think it extends far beyond that.'' This is more than rhetorical spin in the service of a political agenda; this is simply wrong. From its very origin, the concept of religious freedom in America has always been an individual right. From the earliest laws of the 17th century, to the founding of America in the 18th century, to the laws, treaties, and proclamations of the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries, religious freedom is first and foremost an individual right. The Supreme Court's very first case involving the free exercise of religion in 1878 involved an individual. Adell Sherbert in the 1960s and Paula Hobbie in the 1980s--both Seventh-day Adventists--went to the Supreme Court after being fired for refusing to work on their Sabbath. Perhaps the most notorious free exercise case, Employment Division v. Smith, was brought by an individual. Whether these individuals won or lost, never did the courts say the right to religious exercise was not theirs. The argument by some that institutions but not individuals exercise religious freedom is mystifying for another reason. Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act--an act I had a lot to do with-- in 1993 to make it difficult for government to interfere with the free exercise of religion. We saw it coming and we passed that bill 97 to 3, and it passed unanimously in the House. When a company went to court arguing that a Federal mandate burdened its religious exercise, liberals objected because, they said, only individuals may exercise religion. But now they say that only churches exercise religion. Think about that. They argued at one time that only individuals may exercise religion, and now they are saying only churches can. Which is it--churches, individuals, or, as some would have it, none of the above? The Supreme Court also contributed to this false narrative in its recent marriage decision by saying that the First Amendment protects religious organizations and persons, as they advocate or teach principles that are important to them. But that is not what the First Amendment says, nor does that describe its full meaning. Advocating or teaching would be protected under the First Amendment's free speech clause. The First Amendment separately protects the free exercise of religion, which includes much more. The current debates over social and cultural changes, including same- sex marriage and prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, must take proper account of the history, importance, and value of religious freedom. This is not a new concern. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, for example, had a conference on this topic 10 years ago. Scholars on both sides of the same-sex marriage issue agreed that legislating same-sex marriage without robust religious accommodations would create widespread legal conflict. In 2009, a group of leading scholars wrote the New Jersey Legislature, which was considering a bill to legalize same-sex marriage, outlining such conflicts for both individuals and organizations. I believe the best way forward is clear. Religious freedom should be properly accommodated rather than ignored, disparaged, or distorted, as some would do. Those acting on their religious beliefs about marriage, for example, should not face government retaliation or discrimination. And statutes prohibiting discrimination should include robust religious exemptions. Doing so expands rights and protections on one side without diminishing or eliminating them on the other. I supported the Employment Non-Discrimination Act last Congress, for example, because it took this balanced approach. And my State of Utah similarly enacted a law that both protects against discrimination and protects the exercise of religion. Government should not be in the business of retaliating against people because of their religious beliefs. This is true when individuals worship privately as well as when they gather together in religious organizations or associations. When government retaliates against a person or a group for acting in accordance with deeply held religious beliefs, it undermines religious freedom and sends the message that the opinions of government officials trump rights of conscience. It tells worshippers that their right to religious exercise--far from being fundamental--exists at the pleasure of the State. That is precisely the view that James Madison, the primary author of the Bill of Rights, rejected. Government retaliation further tells the believer that he or she is disfavored; the believer's views are out of bounds; they have no place in our modern, advanced age. This view of government as the supreme arbiter of faith and morality is contrary to the vision of our Founders. It is contrary to the First Amendment. It is contrary to the line of cases that culminated in the Supreme Court's recent marriage decision. Religion-based restrictions on intimate conduct, the Court said, must be struck down because moral disapproval cannot form the basis of law. How ironic it would be if the very principle that underlay the victory over traditional marriage were suddenly cast aside in the effort to enforce the new morality. When government tells religious believers that they must conform to current State creeds or lose out on contracts, licenses, accreditation, funding, and other benefits, it puts them in an extremely difficult and indeed sometimes impossible position--either violate your beliefs or forgo something which others have ready access to and which you may need to carry out your mission. Government should not be in the business of coercing citizens to condone conduct their sincerely held religious beliefs forbid; rather, government should allow space for the free exercise of religion. Surely we can work to end discrimination without retaliating against religious groups and schools for following practices they all agree are rooted in sincere religious belief. Surely there is space in antidiscrimination laws, such as the one recently introduced here in the Senate, for religious exemptions for religiously affiliated groups, schools, and organizations. My point today is that religious freedom is not optional. It is a fundamental human right that is central to our existence and identity as a nation, and it is the backdrop against which the current debates about social and cultural changes must proceed. Finally, I wish to ask my colleagues what principles would attract the support of the following: Republican and Democratic Presidents; the chairman of People for the American Way; the president of Focus on the Family; the chairman of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; the president of the AFL-CIO; leaders of the faith communities, including Jews, Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, Baptists, Seventh-day Adventists, and Buddhists; and the chairmen of both the Democratic and Republican National Committees? Can anyone think of anything that can bring all of those people together? What could they possibly agree on that would really mean anything? These and many more leaders of government, academia, faith communities, business, law, and minority groups all signed the Williamsburg Charter. This document was first presented to the Nation on June 25, 1988, on the 200th anniversary of Virginia's call for a Bill of Rights to be added to the Constitution. The charter presents certain first principles that are in the shared interest of all Americans. These include that religious freedom is a precious, fundamental right and an inalienable right founded on the inviolable dignity of the person. These are the Williamsburg Charter's principles about religious freedom--a precious, fundamental, and inalienable right founded on the inviolable dignity of the person; that it is our Nation's first liberty and undergirds all other rights and freedoms secured by the Bill of Rights; and that it allows citizens to shape their lives, whether private or public, on the basis of their beliefs. If these leaders who differ in so many ways and disagree on so many issues could agree on these principles, we should certainly be able to incorporate them into current debates. The signers of the Williamsburg Charter said that ``the ignorance and contention now surrounding the [Constitution's religion] clauses are a reminder that their advocacy and defense is a task for each succeeding generation.'' I could not agree more. President Reagan said it best: Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same. I personally believe we can rise to that challenge. I think we must rise to that challenge. Religious freedom is the first mentioned freedom in the Bill of Rights. Frankly, it is time to get back to the constitutional principles that have made this country the greatest country in the world, and we can do it without violating other people's rights. Some desire to reduce religious rights in favor of other people's rights. Well, we don't have to hurt other people's rights by acknowledging and accepting the fact that religious freedom is an absolute necessity for a great society such as ours and has been an undergirding principle that has helped make this country the greatest country in the world. Madam 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, after last night's cloture vote, we are one step closer to providing a long-term solution for the shortfalls in the highway trust fund. Soon we will begin debate on legislation that will provide more clarity and certainty to our States and to highway builders and workers throughout the country. Earlier this week, I was pleased to learn that our distinguished majority leader and the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee were able to reach a bipartisan agreement to authorize and fund a long-term highway extension. I want to commend both of them and everyone who was involved in putting this bill together for their hard work and willingness to put partisanship aside in order to help the American people. Now the rest of us need to follow their example. I want to express my support for this bipartisan highway bill and urge all of my Senate colleagues to do the same. The legislation that we will soon be debating would authorize expenditures from the highway trust fund for 6 years and provide 3 years of funding. It would do so without adding a dime to the deficit and without raising taxes. Over the last few months, we have all heard from the naysayers who claimed that such a feat was impossible, that there was no path forward to provide long-term highway funding without a massive tax increase. I am pleased to see our colleagues have provided us with such a path. All we have to do is be willing to walk down that path. This bipartisan bill provides us with a historic opportunity when it comes to highway funding. It would provide the longest extension of highway funding we have seen in over a decade. I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--including some who will likely come out against this bill--like to point to the 2012 MAP-21 legislation as a paragon for how Congress should consider and pass a long-term highway bill. Of course, MAP-21 extended highway funding for only 2 years. This legislation we will be debating this week will go for a significantly longer period of time. In short, passage of this bill would be a significant victory for good government, and, of course, it would provide a great example of what is possible when Members of both parties work together. Of course, we have seen a number of these types of examples in the Senate this year. For example, earlier this year we passed legislation to permanently repeal and replace the Medicare sustainable growth rate system, a problem that had plagued Congress and our health care system for years. Shortly thereafter, we passed a bipartisan bill to combat human trafficking. And, of course, after that, Members from both parties in both Chambers came together to renew trade promotion authority and update our trade laws for the 21st century. The Senate is working again, and I don't think it is going to stop any time soon. I think the highway bill will be the next item we add to the long list of bipartisan victories we have achieved in the Senate under the current leadership. We just need to keep moving this bill forward. Of course, this bill isn't perfect either. Anyone who is desperate to find a reason to vote against this legislation could likely scour through the text and find some frivolous reason. The pay-fors in the bill--at least as far as I am concerned--don't all represent ideal policy choices. But we shouldn't hold a good bill hostage while we search for perfection. Indeed, as I said a number of times here on the floor in recent months, I have been here in the Senate for 39 years, and in that time I don't remember voting on very many bills I thought were perfect. This is a good bill. It is not meant to be a partisan wish list or a political messaging vehicle. It provides a serious and workable solution to a legitimate problem, and it was designed to get support from Members of both parties. Once again, I want to commend my colleagues for getting us this close to a solution on highways. As we all know, the House has taken a different path with regard to highway funding. They have sent over a 6-month patch with the intention of using that time to work on a solution that would both fix problems in our Tax Code and provide for long-term highway funding. The idea of linking highways to tax reform has a lot of support here in Washington. Like I said, that is the path the House has opted to go down, and I know leaders in the Obama administration have a similar vision. I want to make one thing clear. I support tax reform. I have been and will continue to be the most outspoken Member of the Senate in favor of robust, bipartisan tax reform. I agree with many of my colleagues that linking that effort to the highway funding could make a lot of sense. Luckily, the Senate's highway bill will allow us to continue to pursue that path. Keep in mind, that under this bill, we will have 3 years of additional authorized highway expenditures to pay for when all is said and done. This means that whenever we can agree on a tax reform package, whether it is 6 months from now or later, it will still be possible--and likely just as sensible--to tie the two efforts together. My colleagues also need to keep in mind that while this legislation addresses the immediate need for highway funding, the fundamental issues that fuel the need for tax reform will remain in place. We will still face an increasing number of corporate incursions and foreign takeovers. Our tax rates will still be too high, and our Tax Code will still be altogether too complicated and burdensome. In other words, if Congress passes this bipartisan, long-term highway bill, we will still be under enormous pressure to fix our Nation's broken Tax Code and to provide relief to struggling job creators and taxpayers throughout the country. No one should question that. Once again, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bipartisan highway package. It provides a realistic path forward to a solution that all of us want to see. Traditionally, Members of both parties have been able to come together to deal with our Nation's infrastructure. For the sake of our citizens who need better roads and highways; for our builders, engineers, and job creators, who want to grow and expand; and for our workers who need good jobs, I hope we can do so with this important legislation. Now, having said that and having found good in what both the House and Senate are trying to do, I think it is important to point out that delaying this for 6 months is not going to work. I can see the same roadblocks thrown up every step of the way, and then you get to the end of that particular time and the leverage is going to be with those who want to stall this fight to begin with. So I am concerned about doing that, especially when we have what really is a very good highway bill here in the Senate and could solve at least these problems for a while, and we can still work on tax reform in the process. I have no illusions. I have been around here for a long time, and I know how difficult tax reform is going to be. I also know it takes Presidential leadership, which I hope will be there when the time comes. But we have no guarantee it is going to be there. I can remember many months ago that I said to the President: If you want tax reform, send us a well-thought-out bill, and we will see what we can do to put it through. I am still waiting, and I can say that to put all our apples in that particular basket may not be the smartest thing we can do, especially since we are going to be in an election year next year. That could make it very, very difficult by the end of this year to really do what we all know we should do. This bill answers that problem. It gets rid of one very important big problem, and that is our highway funding. It is no secret that we on the Finance Committee provided--and they didn't think we could do this--really around $82 billion, which we found in the code. We did not expect all $82 billion to be used, but they were there, and it would have given us approximately a 6-year highway bill. That is not going to happen now. But to have a 3-year highway bill, with some of the things we were able to come up with--even though some are difficult and controversial--is nothing short of a miracle. So I think we have to get this done. We need to show the House that the Senate is moving ahead, and we also need to cooperate with our friends in the House when it comes to tax reform. I hope we can bring both Houses together and do tax reform before the end of the year. It would be wonderful if we could. I don't have any illusions about it, however. But I think we ought to do what we should do, what we have to do, and what needs to be done at this particular time. With that, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH. I will be happy to withhold.

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. HATCH. I want to thank her.

Mr. HATCH. This has not been an easy thing to do, and she has taken some unnecessary and unjust criticism for trying to do the art of the doable here in the Senate. I just want to tell her it has been a privilege to work with her, and I want to make sure that together--and with the help of others--we get this bill through for the benefit of this country and for the benefit of our highways. I know how hard the Senator from California and the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma have worked on the highway bill. So I just want to say I have tremendous respect for the Senator and appreciate her efforts in this regard and want to give kudos to her. Keep it up. We have to get this done.

Mr. HATCH. If the Senator will yield again--

Mr. HATCH. I remember when we finally got together. It was way back in 1980-1981.

Mr. HATCH. From that point on we found ways of coming together and getting things done that are monumental and landmark pieces of legislation. There is no reason why we can't do that today. Let me just mention that on the Committee on Finance we have put out of the committee almost 40 bills that are bipartisan--not just one Democrat or one Republican, but bipartisan in nature--not the least of which is the highway bill--the funding, rather. And I just have to say that we are doing what we should do here. I think people feel good about it. I have had people come up and say it is wonderful we are having amendments again and working together and we are getting things done. And I certainly attribute some of that to the distinguished Senator from California and the work she is doing here in the Senate. I do personally appreciate working with her. Let's get this done. I will do everything in my power to help the Senator from California, and I thank her so much.

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, throughout the history of the Republic, certain decisive moments have fundamentally altered the national security of the United States. For good or for ill, these moments have defined eras of time and changed the course of history. These landmarks include President Roosevelt's decision to turn the United States into an arsenal of democracy to defeat fascism; President Truman's adoption of a strategy to confront communism and rebuild Europe; President Nixon's initiative to open up relations with China; and President Reagan's policies that led to the fall of the Soviet Union. Other such moments reflect serious errors in judgment, mistakes that continue to echo today. One recent example is President Obama's decision to remove U.S. forces from Iraq prematurely. This shortsighted move squandered the gains of the surge and plunged Iraq into chaos, leading to the rise of the Islamic State. Another especially instructive example is in the Clinton administration's fumbled attempt to block North Korea's development of nuclear weapons. Back then, I came out strongly against the Agreed Framework with North Korea. Sure enough, that naive diplomatic effort created barely a speed bump, as the fanatical North Korean regime raced ahead in building a nuclear arsenal. President Obama's nuclear deal was clearly one such landmark moment in American foreign policy, but the question remains: Is it a crowning achievement of American diplomacy or is it a grave mistake that we will all come to regret dearly? I think we have to find out. Since the President's announcement of the agreement, I have endeavored to examine it carefully and thoroughly, and I look forward to the review process led by the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, who has promised a full and fair scrutiny of this particular deal. Nevertheless, my initial review has raised serious questions about whether this agreement forecloses Iran's path to a nuclear weapon. If left unanswered, these concerns lead me to believe that this agreement could end up being a catastrophic mistake. Time and again, the Obama administration has promised that this agreement will add stability to the region. However, the details lead me to believe that the deal will, in fact, seriously destabilize the region. If the deal is implemented, $150 billion in Iranian assets that are currently frozen in the world's financial institutions will be once again made available to the regime, which is a prime benefactor of terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. These terrorist groups continually threaten one of our closest allies, and of course that is Israel. The fact that much of this money will be used to promote international terrorism is not even disputed by the Obama administration. Just this past weekend, President Obama's National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, stated: ``We should expect that some portion of that money would go to the Iranian military and could be potentially used for the kinds of bad behavior that we've seen in the region up until now.'' While I am troubled that the administration now uses a term such as ``bad behavior'' to describe international terrorism, Ms. Rice is undoubtedly right about where this money will go. Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute points out what happened when the European Union previously opened trade with Iran as an incentive for Tehran to moderate its behavior. Iran's response was to take ``that hard currency windfall and put it disproportionately into its covert nuclear and ballistic missile program.'' As such, by implementing this agreement, the United States will permit the financing of international terrorism not only against Americans but also against our closest allies, including Israel. But funding terrorism is just for starters. This agreement also removes the conventional arms embargo against Iran after 5 years. Reportedly, the Russians were particularly intent upon this clause. They stand to benefit if the Iranians spend some of their $150 billion windfall to buy Russian arms. In fact, Russia has already committed to sell them its highly sophisticated S-300 surface-to-air missile system. This highly capable weapon system could protect Iran's nuclear sites if the regime violates the agreement. Moreover, this agreement also lifts the ballistic missile embargo against Iran after 8 years. This is an incredibly troubling development. My examination of the deal also brings into question whether the administration achieved our primary objective: preventing Iran from producing enough fissile material to build a nuclear weapon. For years Iranians have stockpiled advanced centrifuges to produce this material. Yet this deal does not force them to part with this critical equipment. In fact, after 8 years under this agreement, the Iranians will be able to begin building and stockpiling more than 200 advanced centrifuges a year. Moreover, the means to deploy a nuclear device were not fully addressed by this deal. The agreement mentions that Iran will not pursue activities that could contribute to the design and development of a nuclear explosive device, but it fails to detail most of the specific tools, equipment, materials, and components that are necessary to manufacture and fabricate a nuclear explosive device. This is not a done deal. Eleven weeks ago, 98 Senators voted for the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act. While far from perfect, this bipartisan legislation gave Congress a vital say in whether this Iran deal goes forward. Let us not waste this opportunity. Those who served before us did not shirk their responsibility to weigh in on the serious foreign policy decisions of their day. I urge all of my colleagues in this great body to stand with me in examining this agreement with great caution about its implications for the security of the United States and our allies in the region. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, are we in a quorum call?

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the Hatch-Bennet amendment amends the early learning grant program to allow States to use Pay for Success Initiatives to improve the quality and coordination of the State's system of early learning and care services. My home State of Utah has the first-ever pay for success program designed to expand access to early childhood education for at-risk children. The Utah High Quality Preschool Program delivers a high-impact, targeted curriculum that increases school readiness and academic performance among 3- and 4- year-olds. As children enter kindergarten better prepared, fewer students will need to use special education and remedial services in kindergarten through 12th grade, allowing schools and States to save money. We should build on this success and empower other States to do the same. I should reiterate that this amendment only allows government funds to be used if the program is successful, encouraging effective use of taxpayer dollars. We should be allowing States to use their funding to encourage ground-up, evidence-based practices. I look forward to seeing meaningful results.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to express serious concern about an ongoing project at the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD. It is called the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting--or BEPS--Project. BEPS is a program that is intended to address perceived flaws in international tax rules that have allowed multinational corporations to shift profits--but not necessarily corresponding economic activity--from high-tax to low-tax jurisdictions. These strategies, in some cases, had a negative impact on the tax basis of OECD countries, creating a need for solutions. Unfortunately, it appears that the project has moved well beyond its original mandate, and many U.S. companies are rightly concerned that they may be facing significant negative consequences. This should concern all of us in government as well. Let's talk for a minute about how we got to where we are today. In 2012, the G20 tasked the OECD with developing a comprehensive and coordinated approach to addressing certain aggressive tax-planning strategies. As we all know, the G20 is an international forum for governments and central bank officials from 20 major economies around the world which meets periodically behind closed doors to discuss financial matters and, even though it has no formal charter, arrive at agreements. The G20's direction resulted, at least in part, because of the BEPS project. It was originally supposed to be limited in scope, with a focus on discrete actions to address inappropriate tax avoidance. The idea was to find ways to possibly arrive at consensus on how to prevent those strategies that result in very little or no taxation of profits or what some have come to call ``stateless income.'' The OECD released what it called its BEPS Action Plan in 2013. The plan identified 15 action items for changes in tax policy. Among those action items were recommendations to modify domestic laws to, one, strengthen controlled foreign corporation or CFC rules and limits on interest deductions; two, prevent tax treaty abuse; three, increase taxpayer reporting requirements and information sharing among governments; and, four, develop a multilateral instrument to implement certain BEPS actions. Discussion drafts have been released on many of the action plan items and final reports are anticipated to be finalized and delivered to the G20 later this year. The Obama administration's Treasury Department has been actively involved in the BEPS project. Last summer, Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary for International Tax Affairs Robert Stack stated that ``failure in the BEPS project could well result in countries taking unilateral, inconsistent actions thereby increasing double taxation, the cost to the U.S. Treasury, and the number of tax disputes.'' Now, given this and other statements from Treasury officials, it appears Treasury believes its role in the BEPS project is to protect the U.S. tax base from erosion and to protect U.S. multinational companies from actions from other countries that could lead to double taxation and time-consuming disputes. In that regard, Treasury has been actively negotiating on behalf of the U.S. Government to reach consensus on the BEPS action items. These are laudable goals. However, I do not believe these goals have been achieved. Indeed, just last month, Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary Stack himself faulted the UK and Australia for taking unilateral actions targeting U.S. multinationals, possibly contrary to the commitments those countries have made in their treaties with the United States. More importantly, I am very concerned there are bigger issues at play and that the BEPS project has far exceeded its original mandate. Once again, BEPS was meant to be limited in scope, focusing on the prevention of tax strategies that yield inappropriate results. Instead, it appears to have become a mechanism for rewriting global tax strategies--potentially including those commonly used by U.S. companies--behind closed doors without the input or consent of Congress itself. As we all know, only Congress can make changes to U.S. tax law. Yet no representatives from Congress have been offered a seat at the table in any of the BEPS negotiations. Sure, the OECD has been quite forthcoming in meeting with Members and congressional staff, but in the actual BEPS deliberations, all the decisions are being made by unelected bureaucrats in Paris and not by anyone from the Senate or House of Representatives. The Senate Committee on Finance, which I chair, is currently engaged in an effort that we hope will eventually lead to comprehensive tax reform. This has been a long-term effort and Members of both parties and both Chambers of Congress have been engaged in this endeavor for quite some time. Yet while Congress continues to work toward this long- term goal, the Treasury Department is negotiating the BEPS action items, which may attempt to commit the United States to make changes to our domestic tax laws, without any substantive input from Congress or Congress's tax-writing committees. We know this is a problem. Indeed, certain positions already agreed to by the Treasury Department as part of the BEPS project could materially damage U.S. tax reform efforts. Congress and the administration need to work together on these issues. When I say ``work together,'' I do not mean that Treasury officials should only periodically come to the Hill in order to brief congressional staff on decisions that have already been made. I mean administration officials should not make any commitments that could impact U.S. tax policy without adequate consultation and explicit agreement from Congress. We all remember when, years ago, then-Treasury Secretary Geithner decided to reach an agreement with other officials in the G20 regarding funding for the International Monetary Fund or IMF. After reaching this agreement, without any significant input or consent from Congress, the Obama administration presented, and continues to present, the issue of altered IMF funding as an ``international commitment'' the administration made and Congress must honor. Put simply, that is not an appropriate model for pursuing and achieving changes to U.S. law. And if the administration intends to use a similar model for the changes recommended by the BEPS project, that is, as the saying goes, a dog that just won't hunt. I am going to put this as simply as I can. Congress is the steward of the American taxpayer resources. Those resources are not bargaining chips for international agreements that may or may not advance our Nation's interests. Make no mistake, international cooperation and consensus are important. I don't object to unified actions toward common goals and shared objectives, but when the resources of U.S. taxpayers are on the line--as they appear to be with the BEPS project-- Congress must play a significant role. Once again, some of the BEPS action items would commit the resources of U.S. taxpayers either in the form of alterations to tax rules governing the taxation of U.S. multinationals or in the form of resources American taxpayers will have to expend in order to abide by the terms of the BEPS action items. Last month, the OECD held a conference on the BEPS project here in Washington, DC. Prior to the conference, the House Ways and Means Committee chairman, Paul Ryan, and I sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Lew outlining our concerns with several of the actions proposed under the BEPS project, including country-by-country reporting, ``master file'' documentation, potential limits on interest deductibility, and others. Those specific proposals could have far- reaching negative consequences for U.S. multinationals and the U.S. Government. For example, consider the master file documentation scheme envisioned in the BEPS project. Under this proposal, companies would have to provide additional detailed and intricate information about their tax plan and business models to foreign tax authorities. If we impose this requirement on U.S. businesses, what assurances do we have that these foreign governments would keep the information confidential? I don't know, and no one from Treasury has told me. What about countries with prevalent state-owned enterprises that would greatly benefit from this type of information? Wouldn't the BEPS proposal force U.S. companies to reveal sensitive information to foreign governments that either own or substantially back competing enterprises? I don't know, and no one at Treasury has told me. I could go on for quite a while about these proposals, especially given the broad scope of the BEPS project, the breadth of possible tax effects, and the potential negative impact these proposals could have on our companies and our economy. Needless to say, as the chairman of the Senate's tax-writing committee, I have many concerns. Before any additional steps are taken, and before we can even consider moving on any of the BEPS action items, we need more information. In fact, the President's lead negotiator on BEPS, Deputy Assistant Secretary Stack, stated we need to slow down the pace of the BEPS work substantially. We need to know more about the costs relative to the benefits of the BEPS proposals. We also need to know whether the IRS is capable of sharing sensitive tax information with foreign tax authorities without violating the confidentiality of American businesses. After all, the IRS does not have the best track record. Between the fraud and overpayment rates on various refundable tax credits and other breaches of trust at that agency, we have more than enough reasons to be concerned about whether the IRS can effectively and appropriately implement a plan for global information sharing. To address these questions, I sent a letter today to the Comptroller General asking that the Government Accountability Office engage with me and my staff to begin an indepth analysis of these issues, so we can at least get a sense as to how the OECD's proposals might impact the U.S. economy, including employment, investment, and revenues. In the coming months, I will be reaching out to other experts as well. It is difficult to imagine the analysis and discussions that would have to accompany consideration and adoption of BEPS-related rules and schemes can be completed by September, when the OECD has stated it hopes to render final action plans by the time of the next G20 meeting. But as I stated, even if final reports from the BEPS project are released on schedule, many, if not all, of the action plan items would need congressional action in order to be implemented in the United States. So, again, I urge Treasury to work very closely with Congress on this and not tie our hands as we move toward tax reform by consenting to bad outcomes. I urge them to consider the interests of U.S. taxpayers and not make any commitments that would impose unnecessary burdens on American companies and put them at a competitive disadvantage. The United States has always recognized the right of other countries to tax income earned within their borders, to the extent such taxation is consistent with treaty obligations. However, regardless of what some in other countries may think, the U.S. tax base should not be up for grabs in an international free-for-all, and I expect officials at the U.S. Department of Treasury to remember that. In fact, I demand they remember that. Mr. President, I will have much more to say on these matters in the coming weeks and months. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes to make a presentation.