Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

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

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 1243.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I call up the Lankford amendment No. 1237.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, soon the Senate will vote once again on whether to begin debate on legislation that will help shape the future of America's trade policy, and, in addition, our role in the global economy. Needless to say, I was very disappointed when many of my Democratic colleagues voted to block debate on these important issues earlier this week. I am hoping for a much different result this afternoon. This vote will set the stage for an important debate, quite likely the most significant debate that we will have in this Chamber all year. This debate will determine whether our Nation is willing and able to accept the challenges of the world economy or whether we continue in retreat and yield to the siren song of isolationism and protectionism. It will determine whether we, as a nation, are able and willing to take the lead in setting the rules for the world economy or whether we will sit on the sidelines and let other countries create the rules that will govern trade in their regions for the foreseeable future. It should be pretty clear where I stand in this debate. I support free trade and open markets for U.S. exporters and job creators. I support new opportunities for American farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, service providers, and the workers that they all employ. I support expanding American influence in the most vibrant and strategic regions in the world. The best way for Congress to help our country achieve these goals is to renew trade promotion authority, or TPA, as soon as possible. That is what we will be debating, if this vote goes the way I hope it will. TPA is the most effective tool in the Congress's trade arsenal. TPA ensures that Congress sets the objectives for our trade negotiators and that those negotiators will be able to reach the best deals possible. Without TPA we have no way of holding the administration accountable in trade negotiations and no way of making sure our country can get a good deal. Getting TPA renewed is currently President Obama's top legislative priority. He is right and we should support our President on this issue. As chairman of the Senate committee with jurisdiction over trade, it is a very high priority for me, as well. The TPA bill that will be brought before the Senate represents a bipartisan, bicameral effort to advance our Nation's trade interests. The legislation we will be debating will also include provisions to reauthorize trade adjustment assistance, or TAA, which I know is a high priority for many of my colleagues. It has taken a long time, a lot of work, and no small amount of compromise to get us to this point. People from both parties have put in enormous efforts just to get a chance to have this debate here on the Senate floor. I want to thank my colleagues for their work thus far in this effort, but also to remind them that we are not there yet. Now, I am well aware that not all of my colleagues share my views on trade. I expect that they will make those views abundantly clear in the coming days, as they should. But to do that, we need to begin that debate. I am looking forward to it. The American people deserve a spirited debate on these issues. Of course, they deserve an opportunity to see this Chamber function like the great deliberative body that it once was and under the current leadership is becoming again. Put simply, the obstruction has gone on long enough. It is time to get down to the serious business of legislating. I hope we can begin or continue that process today by voting in favor of the motion to proceed. I encourage all of my colleagues to do that so that we can get on this bill, debate it, have a full-fledged debate, and let the chips fall where they may. If we do, I think we will all feel a lot better about what goes on around this place. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue.) The Senator from Vermont.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I appreciate the excellent remarks that were made by the distinguished Senator from Ohio and other Senators on the floor this day. There is no question that the Senator from Ohio is a very strong leader when it comes to international trade, having served as the Nation's Trade Representative and having served very well. Not only was he a great Trade Representative, but he is a great Senator. I have a very high regard for him. I understand why he--just as I am--is working to push this bill through Congress. We have enough Democrats who are pro-free trade and understand what this bill will do for them, and I think we have enough Republicans. Let's just hope that we can put this through. Having said all of that, I wish to praise the President. I have had many differences with the President over the years. We have always been cordial. There is no question that I care for him, and I hope he cares for me. But the fact is that on this issue, our President happens to be right, and that is why I was pretty upset the other day when cloture was not invoked. I am glad we were able to work together to overcome that logjam and have the bill on the floor now, and hopefully we will overcome any desire to filibuster this bill in any way, shape, or form. There have been many heroic Democrats who have worked on this bill, and I want to pay homage to all of them, from Senator Wyden right on through. They all deserve a lot of credit. There are not enough, but nevertheless a good number, and those folks deserve a lot of credit for standing up for this bill the way they have. Think about it. The Senator from Ohio, Mr. Portman, said that 95 to 96 percent of all of the world's consumers live outside of the United States of America. That ought to tell anybody--even an idiot--that this bill is important and that international trade is important. We have all kinds of small and large businesses that are doing trade overseas but are severely limited because of the lack of a free-trade agreements with a wide variety of countries. The advantage of this particular agreement--and people are starting to realize that it is a very advantageous agreement--is that this will provide great trade relations. This bill will provide a means whereby 11 countries in the Asian- Pacific--through the Trans-Pacific Partnership--will have great trading rights with us, and us with them. Additionally, should this bill pass, there are 28 nations in Europe that are party to the TTIP negotiations, and this will be one of the most important things we can do to keep trade alive and interchange with these countries in ways that will benefit not only them but us. The fact is that we know that trade generally helps us to have better jobs in this country, and the proven fact is that when we negotiate free trade agreements, wages go up. So it is good for our workers, it is good for our consumers because we will be able to purchase products at better prices than we have in the past, and it is good for our country because we will lead the world in trade. Although we are far away from that right now because there are 400 trade agreements in the world and we are only signed on to 20 of them. It shows how lacking we are in negotiating the free-trade agreements that we really ought to. This bill will push us forward, and it will enable us to create free trade agreements with countries that compose 40 to 60 percent of worldwide trade. That should say to anybody that this is a good thing to do. It creates jobs, it creates opportunities, and it also creates better relationships between our Nation and the almost 40 nations currently in negotiations with us under TPP and TTIP. Having said that, there are those who do not like this bill. The labor unions, in particular, don't like this bill. I think some of the union members do, because it means a level international playing field for their jobs, higher pay, more opportunity, their States can get well and strong, that their agriculture is going to improve, their industry is going to improve, and their manufacturers are going to improve. I could go on and on. It creates more jobs, more opportunities, and higher paying jobs. It is pretty hard for anybody to really cite any reason why they should vote against this agreement. A lot of people have misconstrued-- some of the most brilliant people in the Senate--that it as though this is the final trade agreement, that is TPP, with 11 nations. This is TPP. This is the procedural agreement that makes it possible for those nations to sign treaties with us knowing that when the TPP or the TTIP agreements are brought to the Senate and the House, we will simply have a right to a vote those agreements up or down. After having a complete look at them, there will be lots of transparency. People have been raising the issue that this is not transparent. Well, this is not the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement; this is the mechanism through which we can arrive at a Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. This bill provides more transparency than any other TPA agreement in the past. This opens up the world for trade and says to the other countries that we are willing to comply with certain rules and regulations if they will. And in the process, we know that we are not going to be able to conclude most of these individual trade agreements with individual nations unless we have trade promotion authority in law because these countries don't want to enter into a very difficult, intensively complex set of negotiations if their only hope is that the negotiations in the trade agreement that they signed would be brought back to the two Houses of Congress that could do whatever they want to with it and open it up to any kinds of amendments. They are not going to sign on to these trade agreements. We have had some representatives of some of these 11 countries in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations saying that unless we pass trade promotion authority, they will not sign on to any agreement, and I can hardly blame them because you never know what Congress is going to do once these agreements come back. We do have a right to know what they are. We do have a right to look at them thoroughly. We do have a right to debate them on the floor. We do have a right to vote up or down for or against these treaties, and that is a right this particular bill enshrines. That is an important right. On the other hand, we need to have TPA in order to attract other countries to negotiate and conclude agreements with our country, which is what this agreement is all about. So those who are saying ``Well, this is not transparent'' or ``We don't know what is in the TPP'' and so forth, of course they don't. It is not concluded yet. But this gives us the right to know, this gives us the right to debate, this gives us the right to vote, and this gives us the right to be part of that system. The administration has made it very clear that they will work in a way that every Senator in the Senate and every Member of the House of Representatives will have a right, if they want to, to participate in the process under certain terms that are really outlined by this particular bill. What we are talking about here today is future trillions of dollars in trade--not just billions, trillions. We are talking about the United States being a leader of the free world. We are talking about leading other nations to come and work with us for freedom in this world. Think about it. If we get those mainly Asian-Pacific countries in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement to agree to this agreement and agree to work with us on trade that will send a message to everybody in that area that they better work with the United States as well. It sends a message to every country in the world, really, that if they are willing to work in a fair way with the United States of America then we are willing to work with them. If we don't pass this legislation, can you imagine what it will do to our relationships with many of these countries that are absolutely critical to our foreign influence? I would say all 11 of the Asian- Pacific and 28 of the European countries are. These are important countries to us. Just the massive percentage of trade in the world that is done by these almost 40 countries says to anybody--any thinking person--you would be crazy not to enter into agreements that outline how we can do things, do them right, protect intellectual property, and do a lot of other things that good trading relationships can grow from. This will enable us to at least work with the United States Trade Representative, the Ambassador Michael Froman, and conclude these agreements so that everybody in our country will benefit from them. It just makes sense. Not only that, can you imagine, if we fail to pass TPA--trade promotion authority--the message it will send to almost 40 countries, including ours? Can you imagine what message that would be? Not only that, but it would interfere with foreign policy objectives for our country in many years to come in drastically bad ways. So the frightened people who don't like this approach, of giving the administration the tools it needs to be able to properly negotiate free-trade agreements with other countries need to understand that this is the best tool Congress has to give the American people the level playing field and competitive edge they have worked so hard for. It also lets other countries know they are going to have to comply with important and relevant terms--and it says to the people in all of those countries that the United States is a dependable partner to deal with. This is an important debate, and that is why it has come so far. I wish to personally applaud the heroic Democrats who are willing to stand up for this, as well as Republicans. We can always find something wrong with every piece of legislation that comes through this place. I don't know of many that have been perfect, although I am sure there have been a few. Nothing seems to be perfect, but what we try to do here is do the absolute best we can to get as close to perfection as we can. Yes, this is not a perfect bill, but, by gosh, it takes us a long way toward resolving all kinds of disputes and relationships throughout the world. This is an important bill, and we will begin the real work by holding votes on the bill on Monday. Hopefully, our colleagues will pay attention to what is in this bill and what it really means; that it is not the Trans-Pacific Partnership but that it is a means by which Congress has a say in the Trans-Pacific Partnership and TTIP, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, and it gives us some authority over these matters. Plus, it helps us to comply, cooperate with, and work with the President of the United States and the people he has designated to negotiate these agreements. It is just the right thing to do. I have to say this would be a crown for the Obama administration should we pass this through. It would be a crown to every Senator and every House Member who votes for it. It is going to be a crown that a lot of people will be able to wear for years to come--at least 6 years--and it will be helpful to future administrations as well. So I hope our colleagues will help us to pass this bill. I hope they will help us to keep amendments that shouldn't be on and that really aren't helpful off this bill. I hope they will help us to keep the poison pills that sometimes come up around here off, so this bill can pass through and become law. Then, it will enable whatever administration it is--this administration for the next year and a half, approximately--to be able to complete some of these agreements with other countries that are important to our well-being as well as their well-being, that may be as important to our relationship with them as it is to their relationships with us, and to our region as well as their region. To have the United States of America working with them and have them working with us sends a message to a lot of enemies around this world that we are making headway. We are doing things the way they ought to be done, that the United States is a good trading partner, and that as tough as it sometimes is to get these types of landmark pieces of legislation through both Houses of Congress, this one is worthwhile to put through. I hope we will conclude this in a way that will help the administration do a really good job and will help us to move forward as a nation and will help our economy and help their economies and create greater foreign policy presence for our great country around the world, especially for the countries involved in these agreements. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

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

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kevin Rosenbaum, the detailee on the Senate Committee on Finance; Andrew Rollo, detailee on the Senate Committee on Finance; Sahra Su, a fellow to the Senate Committee on Finance; and Kenneth Schmidt, clerk to the Senate Committee on Finance, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the Congress.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we have all now heard the good news with regard to our ongoing efforts to advance U.S. trade policy. We are talking about trillions of dollars over the years. After a lot of discussion and back and forth, we have come to an agreement on a path forward. I am very happy to say that finally, at long last, common sense has prevailed. On April 22, the Senate Finance Committee reported four separate trade bills--a bill to renew trade promotion authority, or TPA; another to reauthorize trade adjustment assistance, or TAA; a trade preferences bill; and a Customs and Enforcement bill. Throughout the recent discussion on trade policy, the TPA bill has gotten most of the attention. That makes sense. After all, it is President Obama's top legislative priority. If we could get it passed, its impact would be felt immediately. And he is right on that, President Obama is right on this issue, and I am happy to help him get this through, if we can. The TAA bill--the trade adjustment assistance bill--although I am not ecstatic to admit it, is part of the effort. We have known from the outset that in order to ensure passage of TPA, that TAA must move along with it. That is a concession we were always willing to make, although most of us on the Republican side are not all that crazy about TAA and many will vote against it, including me. TAA is trade adjustment assistance, and that is what the union movement has insisted on. Democrats are unanimously in favor of it. Republicans are not ecstatic about it at all. In fact, we think it is a waste in many ways, but it is the price of doing business on TPA. The path to the other two bills, the preferences bill and the Customs bill, has always been a bit more uncertain, but once again, we knew that from the beginning. I am pleased to say that we have reached an agreement that will allow us to consider and hopefully pass all four of the Finance Committee trade bills in relatively short order. Under the agreement, the Senate will vote tomorrow on our Customs bill as well as our trade preferences bill. This will pave the way for another cloture vote on the motion to proceed to a vehicle to move TPA and TAA. Although I am wary of counting my proverbial chickens before they are hatched--no pun intended--I expect we will get a strong bipartisan vote in favor of finally beginning the debate on these important bills, and we should. This is, in my opinion, the best of all possible outcomes. This is what Republicans have been working toward all along--and, I might add, some courageous Democrats as well. While we could not and still cannot guarantee that all four bills will become law, we certainly want to see the Customs and preferences bills pass the Senate. I am a coauthor of both of those bills. They are high priorities for me. It was never my intention to let them wither on the legislative calendar. I was always going to do everything in my power to help move them forward. That is why at the Finance Committee markup I committed to work with my colleagues to try to get all four of these bills across the finish line. That is the agreement which was made, and as of right now, it appears we will be able to make good on that commitment on a much shorter timeline than I think any of us expected. Yesterday was a difficult day. I think it was pretty obvious to any observer that I was more than a little frustrated. Today, I am very glad to see that my colleagues have recognized our desire to move all of these important bills and that they have agreed with us on a workable path forward. But now is not the time to celebrate. While this agreement solves a temporary procedural issue, now is when the real work begins. As I mentioned yesterday, it has been years--decades even--since we have had a real debate over U.S. trade policy here on the Senate floor, and I am quite certain we have a spirited debate ahead of us. I am looking forward to a fair and open discussion of all of these important issues. It is high time we let this debate move forward. Indeed, it is what the American people deserve. I am glad we now have a pathway forward. This is something into which the President has put an awful lot of effort. He has an excellent Trade Representative in Michael Froman, one of the best Trade Representatives we could possibly have, a very bright man. He has worked very hard on these trade deals. They won't come to fruition until we pass trade promotion authority. Keep in mind that is the procedural mechanism which will enable the administration to get final approvals by these 11 countries in Asia and the 28 countries in Europe, plus ours. This is very important, and I for one am very pleased that we have been able to get this through the Senate Finance Committee. That couldn't have happened without the help of Democrats on the other side and in particular Senator Wyden. We did part ways in this fiasco that occurred, but hopefully we are back together now. All I can say is that this is one of the most important bills in this President's tenure, and it is a bill that could benefit every State in this Union and especially my State of Utah, where we did $7 billion in foreign trade last year alone. For a State our size--3 million people-- that is pretty good, but I expect us to do a lot better under trade promotion authority. Hopefully, the final agreements that are made in TPP and TTIP will be agreements that everybody can agree will help our country move forward. It will help us to have greater relations with other countries throughout the world. It will help us to encourage our own industries to be improve and be the best in the world and will be one of those approaches that literally will shape the world at large. TPA is an important bill. I hope we can pass it. I believe we will. As I have said, I am not a fan of the TAA bill and never will be, but we understand why that has to pass as well--because the bipartisan coalition that supports it would probably not permit trade promotion authority without it. All I can say is that I have faith that we have arrived and resolved this impasse, and I hope that in the coming days we will be able to pass trade promotion authority and really put this country back on the trade path which it really deserves to be on and on which the rest of the world will be pleased to have us, where we can have greater cooperation and greater friendships and greater feelings throughout the world than we have right now. With that, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. If we could get a minute, too, I would be happy to have that. OK.

Mr. HATCH. I understand the question. They passed out with an understanding between the vice chairman of the committee and me that we would vote on them separately but would move TPA and TAA--which most Republicans hate--we would move them together, and then we would move the third one, and then we would move the fourth one. It was supposed to be done that way because everybody knew that putting the Schumer amendment on the one bill would not be acceptable in the House and would not be acceptable to the President, and that is the problem here. We all are prepared to have a vote on that bill, but the agreement was that we would vote individually on all four bills. Finally, we agreed to do TPA and TAA because your side was concerned about whether this side would allow TAA to go through. There never had been a question that we were willing to do that even though most of us hate that bill.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, in the remaining 2\1/2\ minutes we have, I want to take a few seconds of it. I urge my colleagues to support the motion to proceed. All this does is get us on the bill. We need to have a robust debate about the trade agenda, and I am willing to do that. Of course, the centerpiece is TPA--no question about it. I know our staffs have been working together to find a path forward on Enforce Customs. This is an important bill, and we need to get it through the Senate, but to do that, we need to begin debate today. Trade promotion authority is the key to our economic future. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will stand with me and President Obama and vote yes so we may update and modernize our trade laws, including TPA, and help lay the groundwork for a healthy economy for our children and our grandchildren. Ninety-five percent of the world's trade is outside of our country. Trade produces better salaries--13 to 18 percent. We have worked through all the problems in the committee. We have had plenty of amendments, lots of debate, and we put this on the floor with the understanding that it would be voted on.

Mr. HATCH. My time is just about gone, but go ahead.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, later today, the Senate will vote on whether to begin debate on the future of the U.S. trade policy. It is a debate that has been a long time coming. In fact, we haven't had a real trade debate in this Chamber since at least 2002. That was 13 years ago. Think about that. Let's keep in mind that 95 percent of the world's consumers live outside of the United States and that if we want our farmers, our ranchers, manufacturers, and entrepreneurs to be able to compete in the world marketplace, we need to be actively working to break down barriers for American exports. This is how we can grow our economy and create good, high-paying jobs for American workers. While the chatter in the media and behind the scenes surrounding today's vote has been nearly deafening, no one should make today's vote more than it is. It is, once again, quite simply, a vote to begin debate on these important issues. Now, I know some around here are unwilling to even consider having a debate if they can't dictate the terms in advance, but that is not how the Senate works and, thankfully, that is not the path we are going to take. I have been in Congress for a long time, so I think I can speak with some authority about how this Chamber is--under normal conditions and regular order--supposed to operate. Of course, before this year, it had been a while before this body had worked the way it was supposed to. Hopefully, today's vote can serve as a reminder, and we can go to regular order on these bills and do it in a way that brings dignity to this Chamber again. Once again, today's vote will decide only whether we will begin a debate on trade policy. It will not in any way decide the outcome of that debate. Indeed, the question for today is not how this debate will proceed but whether it will proceed at all. Right now, everyone's focus seems to be on whether we will renew trade promotion authority--or TPA--and that will, of course, be part of the trade debate. TPA is a vital element of U.S. trade policy. Indeed, it is the best way to ensure that Congress sets the objectives for our trade negotiators and provides assurances to our trading partners that if a trade agreement is signed, the United States can deliver on the deal. As you know, the Finance Committee reported a strong bipartisan TPA bill on April 22. The committee vote was 20 to 6 in favor of the bill. It was a bipartisan vote. That was a historic day. Before that day, the last time the Finance Committee reported a TPA bill was in 1988, almost three decades ago. But that is not all we did on that day. In addition to our TPA bill, we reported a bill to reauthorize trade adjustment assistance, or TAA, a bill to reauthorize expired trade preference programs, and a customs and trade enforcement bill. These are all important bills--each one of them. They all have bipartisan support. I was a principal author of three of these four bills, and I don't intend to see any of them left by the wayside. However, that looks like it is becoming increasingly what might really happen here if we don't get together. Everyone here knows that I am anxious to get TPA across the finish line. And though it pains me a little to say it, TAA is part of that effort. We know our colleagues on the left have to have that. While I oppose TAA, I have recognized--and I have from the beginning--that the program is important to many of my colleagues, some of whom are on this side of the aisle as well, and it is a necessary component to win their support for TPA. On a number of occasions, including at the Finance Committee markup, I have committed to helping make sure that TPA and TAA move on parallel tracks, and I intend to honor that commitment. Toward that end, if we get cloture on the motion to proceed later today, I plan to combine TPA and TAA into basically a single package that can be split by the House, and move them as a substitute amendment to the trade vehicle. And, I have to say, Congressman Ryan, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, understands that TAA has to pass over there as well. In other words, no one should be concerned about a path forward for TPA and TAA. That was the big debate throughout the whole procedural process. And even though it raises concerns for a number of Republicans, including myself, these two bills will move together. The question ultimately becomes this: What about the preferences and customs bills? There are two other bills here. I have committed in the past to work on getting all four of these bills across the finish line or at least to a vote on the floor, and I will reaffirm that commitment here on the floor today. I will work in good faith with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and in both the House and Senate to get this done. Regarding preferences, the House and Senate have introduced very similar bills, and, in the past, these preference programs--programs such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act and the generalized system of preferences--have enjoyed broad bipartisan support. My guess is that support will continue and that there is a path forward on moving that legislation in short order. Admittedly, the customs bill is a bit more complicated. However, I am a principal author of most of the provisions in the customs bill. Indeed, many of my own enforcement positions and priorities are in that bill. Put simply, I have a vested interest in seeing the customs bill become law, and I will do all I can to make sure that happens. I will work with Senator Wyden and the rest of my colleagues to find a path forward on these bills. I don't want any of them to be left behind. But we all know that the customs bill has language in there that cannot be passed in the House. I don't know what to do about that. All I can say is that we can provide a vote here in this body, and who knows what that vote will be. I am quite certain that if we are allowed to proceed today, these bills--not to mention any others--will be offered as amendments. But in the end, we can't do any of that--we can't pass a single one of these bills--if we don't even begin the trade debate. If Senators are concerned about the substance of the legislation we are debating, the best way to address these problems is to come to the floor, offer some amendments, and take some votes. That is how the Senate is supposed to operate, and we are prepared to operate it that way. I might add, though, we have to get the bill up. And if there is a cloture vote and cloture fails, Katy bar the door. I know there are some deeply held convictions on all sides of these issues and that not everyone in the Senate agrees with me. That is all the more reason to let this debate move forward and let's see where it goes. Let's talk about our positions. Let's make all of our voices heard. I am ready and willing to defend my support for free trade and TPA here on the Senate floor. I will happily stand here and make the case for open markets and expanded access for U.S. exporters and refute any arguments made to the contrary. And I am quite certain there are a number of my colleagues who would relish the opportunity to tell me why they think I am wrong. They should have that right. None of that happens if people vote today to prevent the debate from even taking place. We need to keep in mind that we are talking about bipartisan legislation here. All of these bills are supported by Senators on both sides of the aisle. This isn't some partisan gambit to force a Republican bill through the Senate. And, of course, let's not forget that, with TPA, we are talking about President Obama's top legislative priority and one of the most important bills in this President's service as President of the United States of America. This is a debate we need to have. I am prepared to have it. The American people deserve to see us talk about these issues on the floor instead of hiding behind procedural excuses. I urge all of my colleagues, regardless of where they stand substantively on these issues, to vote to begin this important and, hopefully, historic debate on U.S. trade policy. Let me say, I am basically shocked that after all we have done--the large vote in the committee, the importance of these two bills in particular but all four of them, and the importance of trade promotion authority and trade adjustment assistance to the President--that we now have a bunch of procedural mechanisms that could make this all impossible. It is hard for me to believe that this could take place. We had an agreement--the two sides--and I am concerned about that agreement being broken at this late date, when we were so happy to get these bills out of the committee and get them the opportunity of being on the floor. I have to say, as a Republican and as a conservative, I have been willing to carry the water for the President on this because he is absolutely right that TPA and TAA should pass, especially TPA. On TAA, I have questions on it and I wish we didn't have to pass it, but I have agreed to see that it is on the Senate floor as part of passing TPA. The bill deserves to pass. However, we know that the President does not like the language that was put into the customs bill and neither do I, at this point, because I think it could foul up the whole process, the way I am hearing from the other side. We understood we were going to have votes on TPA and TAA, without getting into the currency problem that will still be alive on the customs bill. I am very concerned about this because we have come this far, and we should follow through and get this done. The President will be better off, the country will be better off, and all of us will be better off. And we can walk away from this, I believe, in the end feeling that we have done the right thing. This is the best thing that could be done for our country. We have to be part of the free-trade movement in this country and in this world. There are 400 trade agreements out there. We have only agreed to 20 of them. These trade agreements generally bring jobs that are much better paid than other jobs in our society, between 13 and 18 percent more. For the life of me, I will never understand why the unions are so opposed to it and, thus, so many Democrats are opposed to it. I can't understand it, because this will create jobs, and generally the better jobs--the jobs that unions can then fight to unionize if they want to, which they have a right to do under our laws. Yet every time these matters come up, they are a principal impediment to getting free-trade agreements passed. Look, I think Ambassador Froman has done a very good job up to now, but his hands are tied. If we don't pass TPA, he is going to have a very difficult time, ever, bringing about the TPP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TTIP, which is 28 European countries plus ours. TPP is 11 countries plus ours, mainly in Asia--not the least of which is Japan, which our Trade Representative believes he can get to sign a trade agreement with us. I believe he can. But I don't believe he can do it without TPA. We have already been told by the Ambassador from New Zealand that they are not going to sign without TPA. So to hamper the passage of TPA because of some desire to do otherwise is not only a mistake, but it flies in the face of the support this President needs and should have on this particular bill. Now, I understand there are folks on the other side who just aren't for free trade and they are not for trade bills. And they have a right to feel that way. I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is making it impossible to pass these bills and get them through the Senate, which is the path we are on right now. If the votes are against cloture, I suspect our path to getting this done--to improving our trade throughout the world, to allowing us to compete worldwide the way we should--is going to be severely hampered, if not completely hurt. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his kindness in doing that. I listened to the debate, and I have to say I am very disappointed. Everybody knew that Senator Schumer accommodated us--the ranking member and myself--in putting the language on the Customs bill. In fact, here is what Senator Schumer said: And, explicitly I did not offer the currency amendment to the TPA bill. We were told that it would not be part--if it were part of TPA it might kill it. My goal is not to use currency to kill the TPA bill and not to kill the TPA bill, it's to get currency passed. And that's why we offered it to the customs bill, on the view, strong view, that no one disputed in committee that we'd get a vote separately on the customs bill on the floor, that it would come to the floor just like the other bills. That was the agreement. The distinguished Senator from Oregon knows that was the agreement; that we were going to lump the two together, the TPA and TAA--although I would have preferred to have those voted on separately, but we agreed to do that because there was a concern on the Democratic side that maybe we wouldn't put TAA out. That was a ridiculous concern because we know TPA can't pass unless you give the unions what they want on TAA. So we grit our teeth and we were willing to do that. We put them together so we could accommodate again. And it was completely understood that the AGOA bill, the next two bills, would be voted on separately. Senator Schumer knew, and said so; that he realized it would give the House a very, very bad stomachache because they probably couldn't put this bill through with that language on it. I even agreed with Senator Schumer that we could have hearings later. He could bring up a bill. We would have hearings. We would have a markup on the currency matters because there are a lot of people who would like to see something done on currency--but not to destroy the TPA bill or, should I say, all of the negotiations that this administration has been conducting with regard to TPP--the Trans- Pacific Partnership--with 11 nations, including Japan, which has always been difficult to get to the table because they have very great concerns there, but they were willing to come to the table. And it might ruin TTIP, which is 28 nations in Europe. Forty to sixty percent of all trade in the world would come through these two agreements that would be done by the Trade Representative, subject to the review by Congress provided in TPA, which happens to be the procedural mechanism pursuant to which we can assert congressional control over these foreign policy agreements, these trade agreements. So there was no agreement to bring these up all at one time. The first time I heard that was, I think, yesterday or the day before, and I was flabbergasted. To have our colleagues vote against cloture on a bill the President wants more than any other bill, after he talked to them, is astounding to me. So I am going to take a moment to talk about what transpired this afternoon because I think it warrants further discussion. As I stated this morning, with today's vote, we were trying to do something good for the American people, to advance our Nation's trade agenda and to provide good jobs for American workers, all of which would happen should we get this through both Houses of Congress and the President signs it into law. Now, to do that, we can't have killer amendments put on bills that everybody knows will kill it and that the President can't sign. I know people disagree with us on how we intended to get there. That much was clear from the outset. Sadly, these colleagues--who have always been against TPA--were unwilling to have a discussion about their disagreements in a fair and open debate, and, I have to say, that was all of them on the other side today. Instead, they voted this afternoon to prevent any such debate from taking place. We are willing to debate, we are willing to have amendments, but I am also only willing to abide by the agreement we have with Senator Schumer with regard to the Customs bill. That was the agreement, and I compliment Senator Schumer for being willing to put it on there because he knew it would kill TPA. Needless to say, I am disappointed by this outcome. While we are talking about trade policy at large, the bill receiving the most attention was, of course, the TPA bill, which is bipartisan. I made sure it was bipartisan--that we could work together, that we could come together, that we could all basically feel good about it--and it passed 20 to 6, which is astounding to even me. I didn't know we would get seven Democrats on the bill, and I compliment the distinguished ranking member for working hard to get seven Democrats on the bill. But still, that doesn't take away the fact that the minority leader and others don't want any bill at all. While we are talking about trade policy at large, I would just say the bill receiving the most attention was, of course, the TPA bill, which is bipartisan, supported by Republicans and Democrats in both the House and the Senate, by the way, not to mention the President of the United States and his administration. On April 22, the bill was voted out of the Senate Finance Committee by a historic vote of 20 to 6, with seven Democrats on the committee voting to report the bill. The bill which was President Obama's top legislative priority, by the way, was riding a wave of amendments headed to the floor. Yet, today, the mere thought of even debating this bill was apparently too much for my Democratic colleagues to bear. Nothing changed. It is the same bill we reported out of committee. I can remember the happy time we had talking about how wonderful it was to finally get this bill out of the committee, after going to 10 p.m. one night and actually beyond that for staff. This is the same bill we have been talking about for months. The only thing that was different today than just a few days ago was the strategy being employed by the opposition. As we all know, the TPA bill wasn't the only trade bill reported out of the Finance Committee in April. We also reported a bill to reauthorize Trade Adjustment Assistance, a bill to reauthorize some trade preference programs and a Customs and Enforcement bill. A few days before we were to begin the floor debate on trade policy, we heard rumblings from our colleagues on the other side, and we started hearing statements from some Senators, including some who had generally been supportive of TPA, that they would only support the pending motion to proceed if they had assurances that all four bills-- TPA, TAA, preferences, and Customs--would be debated and passed at the same time. That never was the agreement, and everybody understood that. These new demands brought forward at the eleventh hour were problematic for a number of reasons, most notably because, as reported out of the Finance Committee, the Customs bill faces a number of problems both with the White House and the House of Representatives, and my friends on the other side realized that in this bipartisan effort that we were making together. They recognized that there were problems for both the White House and House of Representatives that would prevent it from being enacted into law any time soon. I will not detail all the problems, but I think most of my colleagues know what they are. But I will say that those problems existed from the beginning and we knew about them at the outset. We had people on the committee who were totally opposed to this bill. I made sure they had a right to bring up their amendments. I respect them. I don't agree with them. I can't even agree on how they ever reached the positions that they do. But the fact is they have a right to do that, and we protected that right. Now, I might say these problems existed from the beginning. We knew about them from the onset. That is why the ranking member of the Finance Committee and I agreed at our markup to move our four trade bills separately. As one of the principal authors of three of the four trade bills, I want to be very clear because there has apparently been some confusion on this point. There was never a plan to move all four of these bills together or as part of TPA. While we agreed that TPA and TAA would have to move on parallel tracks--we did agree to that--there was no such agreement with regard to the other bills, only a commitment that we would do our best to try to get all four enacted into law, with no guarantees that they would be but to do our very best. The agreement with TPA and TAA was honored. Both the majority leader and I made clear today that if cloture was invoked on the motion to proceed, we would file a substitute amendment that included both of these bills--TPA and TAA. We also made commitments--commitments I had already made--to work with our colleagues to find a path forward on the Customs and the preferences legislation. But that was not enough, apparently. We have had numerous discussions regarding alternative paths for other trade bills. That was not enough, either. The only thing they would accept was full inclusion of all the trade bills at the outset of the debate. We could not agree to that, and they knew it. Of course, to be fair, some of the Democrats were not necessarily insisting that the four bills be part of the same package. Instead, they just wanted guarantees that all of them would be enacted into law. That is not the way it works around here. I do not even know how to comment on that. It is, to put it bluntly, simply absurd to think that a Senate leader can guarantee any bill will become law before a debate even begins. Yet those were the demands we faced over the last few days. Although they were obviously impossible, we worked in good faith to try to reach an accommodation with those who--in my opinion--were not working in good faith. And I am willing to forgive that. Even then, there was no path to yes. Of course, as we all know that the idea for demanding a ``four bills or no bills'' strategy did not originate in the Finance Committee. This demand materialized last week and came directly from the Senate Democratic leadership, virtually all of whom oppose TPA and their President on this bill, outright. Sadly, it seems they were able to sell this idea to other Members of their caucus, including more than a few who should know better. We were never talking about reaching an agreement with people who wanted a path forward on good trade legislation. We have been talking about an idea devised for the sole purpose of stopping progress on TPA. At least for today, it appears they have been successful. Once again, I am disappointed. A lot of work has gone into this effort in both the Senate and the House of Representatives--not to mention the administration. I, personally, have been at this from the very moment I took over as the lead Republican on the Senate Finance Committee in January 2011. In January 2014--more than a year ago--I introduced legislation with the former chairmen, Max Baucus and Dave Camp, that formed the basis of the bill that we had hoped to start debating this week. Both Baucus and Camp were committed to this effort. Sadly, Chairman Camp retired and Chairman Baucus was sent off to China. When Senator Wyden took over the committee, I worked with him to address his concerns about the bill, and that work continued after I took over as chairman this year. Even though I thought some of his proposals were unworkable, I bent over backwards to accommodate his desires, because in the end, I thought it would broaden support for TPA, and I wanted to please him, as my partner on the committee. Chairman Ryan joined us in this effort, and we did all we could to put together a bill and a path forward that both parties could support. We met with Chairman Ryan regularly. Until the last few days and the advent of these new demands materializing out of whole cloth, I thought we had been successful. Even after these new demands came up, I did my best to find an agreement, working right up to the vote to find a reasonable path forward. But, apparently, something reasonable was not in the cards. Everyone here knows I am an optimist. I still believe we can get something done, that we can work something out. I have told the President the same. I am still willing to do what it takes to pass these bills. I hope my colleagues will see the light here and come to the table with some realistic alternatives for a path forward. Until that happens, the President is going to have to wait on these trade agreements, as will all the farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, and other job creators in our country who desperately need market access and a level international playing field in order to compete. In the future, if we see a sharp decline in U.S. agriculture and manufacturing and if the United States retreats from the world, ceding the Asia-Pacific region, in particular, to China's overwhelming economic influence, people may very well look back at today's events and wonder why we could not get our act together. I am already thinking that. Why couldn't we get our act together? I certainly hope that does not happen--that these other nations-- particularly China--take advantage of our not getting our act together. Perhaps, in my frustration, I am being a little dramatic. Still, I have no doubt that some will come to regret what went on here today--one way or another. As for me, I have no regrets. I have done all I can to get these important bills across the finish line. I am going to continue to do all I can in the future to get these bills across the finish line. Unfortunately, after today, it is very unclear how many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are willing to do the same. I believe there are honest, good people on that side of the aisle who want to make this right, who want to make up for what happened here today. I feel confident that is so. I am going to proceed on the basis that that is so. I sure hope it is so because, my gosh, to put this Nation's foreign policy--especially in the Asia-Pacific region, in particular--on hold when we could be building relationships in these countries as never before and at the same time spurring on international trade as never before is a matter of grave concern to me. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, it is an honor today to pay tribute to a renowned educator and a highly regarded prosthodontist, Dr. Gordon J. Christensen. Dr. Christensen has had a meaningful impact on dentistry across the Nation, and he continues to influence the field today through his wide-reaching publications. Appropriately, the board of directors of the CR Foundation will be honoring Dr. Christensen for his contributions to the field at its upcoming 40th Anniversary Celebration on May 8, 2015. Born on November 10, 1936, Gordon Christensen completed predental studies at Utah State University in 1956 and received a DDS degree at the University of Southern California in 1960. He completed a master's degree in restorative dentistry at the University of Washington in 1963 and earned a PhD in higher education and psychology at the University of Denver in 1972. Dr. Christensen has also received honorary doctorate degrees from Utah State University and Utah Valley University. In 1976, Dr. Christensen and his wife, Dr. Rella Christensen--a well- respected dental consultant--started Clinical Research Associates, now known as the CR Foundation. He is presently serving as CR's chief executive officer and is a member of the board of directors. Dr. Christensen and his wife volunteer full-time for CR to conduct research in all areas of dentistry. The Christensens publish the findings of their research in the Gordon J. Christensen Clinicians Report, a publication of the CR Foundation. The Clinicians Report is translated in 7 languages and distributed to more than 100,000 dentists across 92 countries. The Christensens have developed an expansive readership, and their groundbreaking research has positively impacted the dental health of hundreds of thousands of patients worldwide. Dental professionals who subscribe to Clinicians Report are unreserved in their praise of Dr. Christensen. I would like to share some of the appreciation Dr. Christensen recently received from three dental professionals. Richard K. Dimsdale, DDS, wrote: ``Dentistry would never have made the advances it has over many years without the help, guidance, & research you have contributed!'' Ted Cross, DDS, wrote: ``The Gordon J. Christensen Clinicians Report has not only saved me tens of thousands of dollars of purchasing mistakes, but has also immeasurably improved the care my staff and I offer our patients.'' And Bob Dolan, DDS, wrote: ``I recently retired after 54 years of practice. I believe I have been in contact with Gordon for 20 or 30 or more years and have really appreciated the great-unbiased information. Thank you Gordon (and your dear wife) for all you have done for me and for dentistry these many years.'' Dr. Christensen also founded and directs Practical Clinical Courses, PCC, in Utah, an international continuing education organization providing courses and videos for dental professionals. In connection with PCC, he has presented over 45,000 hours of continuing education throughout the world. As a frequent contributor to professional journals, Dr. Christensen holds editorial positions with 10 dental publications. He is also the recipient of many fellowships, masterships, and diplomas from various dental specialties and organizations worldwide. Early in his career, Dr. Christensen helped initiate the University of Kentucky and the University of Colorado Dental Schools. He also taught dentistry courses at the University of Washington. For the Christensens, dentistry seems to run in the family. Both of Dr. Christensen's sons work in the field: William is a prosthodontist and Michael is a general dentist. The Christensen's lovely daughter, Carlene, is making her own contributions as a teacher. After more than 55 years in private practice, Dr. Christensen remains active in treating patients. He continues to influence dentistry across the world through his continuing education lectures and the Clinicians Report. He is truly one of dentistry's great leaders, and it is with great respect, gratitude, admiration, and affection that I pay tribute to Dr. Gordon J. Christensen.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, Congress unanimously passed the International Religious Freedom Act in 1989 with a 98-to-0 vote in this body for that legislation, including 19 Senators still serving today-- 11 Republicans and 8 Democrats. We asserted that religious freedom ``undergirds the very origin and existence of the United States.'' Yet, religious freedom today is under attack across the country. Political activists are attacking religious freedom as the enemy of equality, claiming that laws protecting religious freedom are designed to enshrine discrimination in State law. This effort is misinformed, it is misguided, and it is misleading. It will serve only to harm religious freedom and to demonize religious people, many of whom would be allies in the effort to promote equality. The attack on religious freedom misunderstands the history and importance of religious freedom in America. That story began more than 400 years ago, as one religious community after another came to these shores so they could freely live their faith. As far back as December 1657, residents of the community known today as Flushing, NY, signed a petition called the Flushing Remonstrance. This petition protested a ban on certain religious practices that prevented the Quakers from worshipping. The petition signers stated that they would let everyone decide for themselves how to worship. One hundred twenty years later, the original States and the Federal Government specifically protected religious freedom in their Constitutions. Indeed, the phrase America's Founders chose for the first individual right listed in the First Amendment--the free exercise of religion--is very important. The free exercise clause is not limited to particular exercises of religion or to the exercise of religion by certain parties but instead protects the free exercise of religion itself. James Madison wrote in 1758 that exercising religion according to conviction and conscience is an inalienable right. Two hundred years later, Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg declared that ``to the Founding Fathers, freedom of religion was regarded to be preeminent among fundamental rights.'' This belief in the special importance and preeminent status of religious freedom did not end with America's founding generation. In his famous 1941 State of the Union Address, President Franklin D. Roosevelt asserted that ``the right of every person to worship God in his own way'' is an essential human freedom. Just 4 years later, after the end of World War II, the United States signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This crucial document includes religious freedom as one of the inalienable rights universal to all members of the human family. Our last several Presidents have issued annual proclamations declaring January 16 Religious Freedom Day. This date marks the anniversary of the Virginia General Assembly's adoption of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. In this year's proclamation, President Obama said that religious freedom is a fundamental liberty and defined religious freedom as the right of every person to live and practice their faith how they choose. In previous years, President Obama has called religious freedom a universal and natural human right and an essential part of human dignity. President George W. Bush similarly declared that no human freedom is more fundamental than the right to freely practice one's religious beliefs. President Clinton said that religious freedom is a fundamental human right, a core value of our democracy, and essential to our dignity as human beings. I want my colleagues to appreciate how robust religious freedom has historically been in our country. Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that religious freedom includes ``freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest . . . religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.'' In America, religious freedom has always included freedom in both belief and behavior, in private and in public, individually and collectively. Today's attacks on religious freedom know none of this. Instead, they dismiss religious freedom as a sham, as little more than an excuse for mean-spirited people who want to discriminate. Today's opponents of religious freedom laws either do not know or do not care that religious freedom is an integral part of the origin, the identity, and the very life of our Nation. They are also clearly misinformed about how, even in America, the reality of religious freedom has not always matched the promise of religious freedom. The truth is that government does many things that compromise, burden, and even prohibit the exercise of religion. The Flushing Remonstrance was necessary because community leaders allowed religious freedom for some but not for others. Government has even sometimes passed laws explicitly designed to limit or stamp out particular religious practices or religious communities. More often, government undermines and restricts the exercise of religion through indirect impact. General laws that on their face do not explicitly target religion can nonetheless have a profound impact when applied to particular religious practices. Zoning ordinances may restrict where churches can meet, whether they may expand their meeting place, and what services they may offer. Religious institutions may be forced to hire individuals who do not share their faith. Regulations may prohibit individuals from wearing items required by their faith or require employees to work on their Sabbath. Government at all levels--Federal, State, and local--is becoming ever more intrusive in virtually every facet of life. Unless government is mindful of its impact on religious practices, government will become increasingly intrusive in matters of religion as well. The attack on religious freedom is also misinformed about how important religious liberty laws are to protecting the exercise of religion. Prior to 1990, for more than a century the Supreme Court's interpretation of the free exercise clause had gradually moved toward broader application and stronger protection. In the 19th century, for example, the Court said that the First Amendment protected religious belief but not religious conduct, even though the First Amendment makes no such distinction. The Court subsequently adopted a more unified view of religious practice and set a standard that made it difficult for government to interfere with either belief or conduct. In 1981, the Supreme Court made clear that government ``may justify an inroad on religious liberty by showing it is the least restrictive means of achieving some compelling state interest.'' This standard was important for two reasons. First, it reflected the general importance of religious freedom in our country. Second, it applied to both religious conduct and religious belief and protected against both direct and indirect government burdens and restrictions. In a 1990 case entitled ``Employment Division v. Smith,'' the Supreme Court regrettably reversed course. Under the Court's new interpretation of the First Amendment, as set forth in Smith, the free exercise clause applies only when government directly burdens religion with a law targeted at religious practice. The clause provides no protection at all when government burdens religion indirectly through a generally applicable law or regulation. Before the Smith decision, it had been difficult but not impossible for government to interfere with the exercise of religion. Government had to show that a law or regulation burdening religion furthered a compelling State interest and was the least restrictive means of achieving that interest. I might add, under the Court's new Smith standard, however, government can make religious practice not only difficult but even impossible. Provided government does not specifically target religion for disfavor, it can pass all sorts of laws that interfere with worship, practice, or belief. It would be hard to overstate the impact of Smith. In 1992, the Congressional Research Service found that as a result of Smith, ``free exercise claims have become markedly unsuccessful.'' Remember that the government has its biggest impact on religion not through direct suppression but, rather, by indirect restriction--by disregarding religious practice as something needing special attention. Under Smith, government can do exactly what the First Amendment forbids and prohibit the free exercise of religion so long as it does so through generally applicable laws rather than laws targeted at specific groups. Congress responded to Smith by enacting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA. I had a lot to do with that. RFRA's standard mirrored what the Supreme Court had only a few years earlier said the First Amendment required--namely, that government may impose a substantial burden on the exercise of religion only if it is the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling government purpose. RFRA does not automatically protect any specific exercise of religion, nor does it automatically prohibit any specific government action that burdens religion. RFRA sets a standard that requires balancing government action against religious freedom and puts a thumb on the scale in favor of religious freedom. RFRA leaves it to the courts, in individual cases based on real facts, to determine whether a particular exercise of religion or a particular governmental action is more important. In 1997, the Supreme Court held in City of Boerne v. Flores that RFRA applies only to the Federal Government. This meant that once again religious practice was vulnerable to virtually any restriction, regulation, or prohibition by State or local government. States responded to the Flores decision just as Congress had responded to the Smith decision: They immediately began enacting State religious restoration acts that set the same standard for State and local governments that the Federal statute still imposes on the Federal Government, the Federal statute called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. These State RFRAs differ in a few minor ways from the Federal RFRA but are identical to the Federal RFRA in the core provision that really matters--the standard that government must satisfy in order to burden religious exercise. Under all of these statutes, government action that burdens religion must be the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling government purpose. I want my colleagues to understand two things about these religious freedom laws: First, States are enacting State-level Religious Freedom Restoration Acts for the same reason Congress did. Without such laws, every exercise of religion is vulnerable to restriction or even prohibition by government. Second, State versions of RFRA operate the same way the Federal statute does. They set a standard and then leave that standard for courts to apply in individual cases with real facts. In every case, the party claiming RFRA protection must show that government action imposes a substantial burden on his or her exercise of religion, and the government must show that this burden is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest. Without this protection, government action will trump religious practice in almost every case. With this protection, government action will have to accommodate religious practice in at least some cases. Those attacking religious freedom today are completely misinformed about why these laws are passed and how they work to protect religious freedom. They want people to believe that RFRA was passed to provide cover for discrimination masquerading as religious practice and to therefore oppose efforts to pass or strengthen State-level RFRAs. That account is complete fiction. RFRA was passed so that the fundamental inalienable right to practice religion can have at least some protection. What would happen if we treated the free speech clause of the First Amendment the way these activists treat the free exercise clause of the First Amendment? No one would be protected against government restrictions on speech because a few people might say things the rest of us don't like. In addition to being misinformed about religious freedom in America and how the Religious Freedom Restoration Act protects it, the attack on religious freedom today is misguided because discrimination--not religious freedom--is the real problem. I am sure my colleagues have heard the sound bite that RFRA legalizes discrimination. NBC News, for example, reported last year that the Arizona RFRA ``would have permitted businesses in the state to deny service to gays and lesbians for religious beliefs.'' I explained how RFRA works to make crystal clear that this claim is false. Neither the Federal Government nor any State RFRA legalizes, permits or prohibits anything. RFRA sets a standard that government must meet when its actions burden the exercise of religion. Courts apply that standard in individual cases based on real facts to decide whether the religious practice or the government action is more important. I need to make one more important distinction before looking at another reason why this claim is false. Those attacking religious freedom today use a very broad brush when raising the specter that businesses will ``deny service.'' They apparently want us to believe that businesses everywhere are intent on turning away customers, on not doing business with certain people. That not only makes no sense, but it just plain is not true. Instead, the controversy exists only with regard to a few businesses that supply particular goods or services for weddings. A small number of business owners apparently feel that, while they gladly serve the general public and provide goods and services to all types of customers, providing certain specific goods or services for a same-sex wedding would amount to supporting or endorsing something inconsistent with their religious beliefs. Think what you want about those business owners, I want my colleagues to know that RFRA does not protect their decision to refuse service today. Here is what has to happen for a case pitting RFRA against a claim discrimination to exist. The particular State where the business is located must have a law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in places of public accommodation such as businesses. The State must also have not only a Religious Freedom Restoration Act but one that applies between private parties. The business would have to violate the antidiscrimination law and, if the business were sued, argue that the antidiscrimination law imposed a substantial burden on the exercise of religion. Only then would a judge decide whether--in that case based on its specific facts--the antidiscrimination law or the business owner's religious beliefs were more important. Do you see why the claim that RFRA, by itself, legalizes discrimination is absolutely, completely false? Not only does RFRA not legalize anything, the situation in which RFRA would even be involved does not exist anywhere in America today. Right now, according to the Human Rights Campaign, 17 States have the necessary antidiscrimination law, and only 4 of those 17 have a Religious Freedom Restoration Act. And of those four, none has a RFRA that applies to lawsuits between private parties. In other words, the number of States today in which a business could look to RFRA to justify discrimination is precisely zero. Moreover, the current controversy, misinformed and misguided as it is, has no doubt diminished the likelihood that States with antidiscrimination laws will now enact religious freedom laws. Discrimination, not religious freedom, is the real problem. Despite what the activists want everyone to believe, Americans practice religion every day in innumerable ways that have nothing whatsoever to do with anyone's sexual orientation or gender identity. In the very few situations in which religious freedom and discrimination might overlap, RFRA would actually be the way to sort out the conflict--the mechanism to balance these competing interests. Even though the exercise of religion is a fundamental and inalienable right, it is not absolute. Many courts have found that government has a compelling interest in prohibiting discrimination. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an excellent analysis of this point by David Rivkin and Professor Elizabeth Price Foley that appeared in the Wall Street Journal be printed in the Record following my remarks. Here is the bottom line. The situation that activists want everyone to believe is sweeping the country cannot exist anywhere in America today. If the day ever comes when that situation does arise, many applying RFRA would place freedom from discrimination over freedom of religion by a wide margin. The attack on religious freedom today is not only misinformed about religion freedom in America and how laws such as RFRA protect that freedom, it is not only misguided in presenting religious freedom rather than discrimination as the real problem and RFRA as the culprit, but it is also misleading in broadly painting religious people as mean- spirited bigots. That is wrong. That is just plain wrong. It is also unfortunate because many Americans believe in both equality and religious freedom and could be allies in seeking to maximize both. I voted for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act last Congress after working with Senators on both sides of the aisle to strengthen its provisions protecting religious freedom. Earlier this year, the Utah State Legislature passed and Governor Gary Herbert signed a law prohibiting discrimination in employment and housing while also protecting religious freedom. How did we go from religious freedom being a fundamental and inalienable right to religious freedom laws being attacked as un- American? How did we go from religious freedom being an essential human right that undergirds our Nation's very existence to activists calling laws that protect religious freedom dangerous and even contemptuous? Those attacking laws that protect religious freedom would deny any legal protections for anyone to exercise religion in any way today because a few people might someday attempt to exercise their religion in a way that the courts would likely reject. This is a misinformed, misguided, and misleading campaign that will only damage religious freedom and demonize many who would work toward maximizing both equality and freedom for all Americans. I was the prime sponsor in the Senate of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. I went to Senator Kennedy. He was a friend, and we joined on many pieces of legislation that were in the best interests of everybody in America. At first, he said: I am not joining on that bill. Then I kept talking to him about it and how important it was. Finally, he said: Yes, I am going to be a prime cosponsor on that bill. There are many other prime cosponsors on that bill. When that bill was signed on the South Lawn of the White House by President Clinton, one of the most proud people on Earth on that signing day happened to be Ted Kennedy, who knew that he had done right, who knew that it was right to protect the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. And I know it is right. That is one reason we fought so hard for it, and it passed 97 to 3, if I recall it correctly--almost unanimously--and unanimously in the House, as far as I know. It is time for us to wake up and realize that religious freedom is under attack in this country. It is under attack because people don't understand the Constitution and people don't give a darn about the Constitution. It is under attack because some groups think they can get ahead by attacking religious freedom. Frankly, we ought to decry that, and we all need to stand up for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which upholds the first basic law of freedom in our Bill of Rights. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am grateful that we have the distinguished Senator from Georgia in the Senate. I really enjoyed his remarks here this evening. He laid out a program that we ought to follow. I am very proud to have the Senator here, and I am proud to serve with him. We wish him the very, very best in every way. I think he will enjoy this body in spite of all the vagaries and varieties of it. But he is a great addition to this body, and we are very appreciative that he is here with us.

Mr. HATCH

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