Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, in the last Congress, I came to the Senate floor to express my concern about the state of the Senate as an institution, how it had been beset by dysfunction, destructive partisanship, and corrosion of its vital characteristics. Today, I wish to reflect on some of the progress we have made in the first few months of this Congress in restoring this great institution to its essential role in our constitutional system. While significant progress has been made, there still remains much more to be done. Central to properly understanding our responsibilities as Senators is an appreciation of the Senate's role in our system of government. Consider the particularly distinct purposes of the two Houses of Congress. The House of Representatives is the organ of government designed to embody the will of the people. Its small constituencies and short terms allow its Members to be as closely in touch with the voters as possible. With 435 Members, robust participation by every Member in each debate is impossibly cumbersome. Thus, the House's work is defined by majority rule as logically befits a body that represents the popular will. By contrast, the Framers designed the Senate to serve as what they called ``a necessary fence'' against the ``fickleness and passion'' that sometimes drives popular pressure for hasty and ill-considered lawmaking--or, as Edmund Randolph put it, ``the turbulence and follies of democracy.'' Similarly, James Madison described its purpose as ``protect[ing] the people against the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led.'' Through its character and its institutional structure, the Senate not only checks transient and occasionally intemperate impulses but also refines the popular will with wisdom and sound judgment. Perhaps the most important characteristic that guarantees this key function is the Senate's relatively small size, which enables each and every Senator to contribute meaningfully in debate. The primacy of individual Senators' rights has long guided the development of the Senate's rules and traditions, including the right to extend debate, open amendment consideration, and a committee system that gives all Members, from the most seasoned chairman to the newest freshman, a hand in drafting and improving legislation. Moreover, there is the reality that to function efficiently and effectively, the Senate frequently requires temporary modifications to the institution's oftentimes complex and cumbersome rules--agreements that require the unanimous consent of all Senators to take effect. The expansive rights of Senators are a double-edged sword--at once both the great genius of the institution and the source of some of the greatest pitfalls that may befall it. By giving a minority of Senators--sometimes even a minority of one--great sway over the business of the whole body, each one of us is entrusted with enormous powers that can be used to grind the Senate to a halt. These powers can be used to do enormous good when used wisely and judiciously--from forcing a majority to reconsider misguided legislation to extracting important guarantees from the executive branch in exchange for allowing a nomination to go forward. The former Senator from Oklahoma, Dr. Tom Coburn, was a leading exponent of these rights. During his time in the Senate, he was legendary for his use of the rules to stop wasteful spending and limit the expansion of the Federal Government. While we may not always have agreed on particular matters, it is beyond question that his willingness to stand up for what he believed in--even in the face of overwhelming opposition--did enormous good for our Nation. Dr. Coburn's service demonstrates exactly why the Senate allows a minority to hold such a sway over this body. Nevertheless, while the whole Republic has benefited time and again from a Senate minority's judicious exercise of its rights, we know all too well how these rights can be abused. Today, the Senate's procedures have become bywords for mindless obstruction. In the minds of many of our fellow citizens, what drives the exercise of minority rights is not the interests of thoughtful legislating or productive oversight but, rather, reflexive partisanship and political grandstanding. From various quarters, including some within this very body, we often hear calls to eliminate the various rights of the minority. Although these calls may be instinctively appealing, we should decisively reject them. After all, without these minority rights, the Senate would lose its unique character, which has allowed it to serve the Republic so well for so many years. The Senate, stripped of its minority rights, would merely duplicate and needlessly frustrate the work of the House of Representatives. Those of us in the present day should recall that we are not the first in our Nation's history to confront the potential for great dysfunction. In particular, we should recall the example of the late Senator from Montana, Mike Mansfield. Senator Mansfield served as majority leader from 1961 until 1977, holding that position longer than any other Senate leader. These were turbulent times for the Nation and the Senate alike, when the issues of the day could hardly have been more divisive and problematic. Near the beginning of his tenure, when a determined minority stalled President Kennedy's legislative priorities, Senator Mansfield faced great pressure from within his own party to exert the majority's power more assertively. In an act of great courage, Mansfield resisted these calls to bend the Senate's rules. Although tempted by the prospect of important policy and political victories, he instead counseled that the remedy to gridlock ``lies not in the seeking of shortcuts, not in the cracking of nonexistent whips, not in wheeling and dealing, but in an honest facing of the situation and a resolution of it by the Senate itself, by accommodation, by respect for one another, [and] by mutual restraint.'' Senator Mansfield was absolutely right, and his wisdom is perhaps more relevant now than ever. For the Senate to function effectively, Senators of all stripes must practice mutual restraint--Republican and Democrat, conservative and liberal, majority and minority alike. In practice, restraint requires different sacrifices of different Senators, depending on their position. For the majority leadership, it is measured in part by what sort of measures are brought before the Senate for consideration. Do they tend to be divisive and partisan messaging bills, or do they tend to be measures that can gather bipartisan support--those that may offer less prospects of a messaging victory but greater prospects for actually becoming law? Have the measures typically been considered by the committee of jurisdiction, allowing for a thorough vetting and best chance for bipartisan consensus? Restraint is also measured in how the majority conducts its consideration of a particular measure. Is there an open amendment process that allows all Senators to contribute to the Chamber's work and seek means of mutual accommodation, or does the majority leader fill up the so-called amendment tree, thereby freezing legislation in the exact form that he demands? Is the full Senate allowed sufficient time for full and free debate on a measure important enough for consideration on the floor, or does the majority leader move to end debate as soon as it begins? The need for mutual restraint also creates correlative obligations for the minority. From filibusters, to poison-pill amendments, to objections, to routine unanimous consent requests--an often underappreciated but incredibly important tool to chew up this body's valuable time--Senators in the minority have numerous ways in which they can grind this body to a halt and derail a measure. Senators on both sides of the aisle--myself included--have relied on these means before. Their use can be quite legitimate when employed judiciously and motivated by serious policy disagreement; however, when employed indiscriminately for the purpose of frustrating the operation of the Senate for partisan gain, the use of such tactics is deeply improper. The appropriateness of the minority's behavior hinges in large part on the actions of the majority. With the power to decide the Senate's business, including what the Senate considers as well as how it considers it, the majority's behavior rightfully shapes the minority's response. Majority restraint invites minority restraint, begetting productive legislating, whereas majority overreach invites minority intransigence, causing only dysfunction. The Senate's dysfunction over the past few years resulted from exactly that--repeated instances of overreach by the majority in direct contradiction to the restraint counseled by Senator Mansfield. This overreach occurred along a wide variety of fronts, many of which my colleagues and I spoke out against in great detail. In the last Congress, many bills that received floor consideration had completely bypassed the committee process. In fact, each of the past four Congresses set a new record for the use of this extraordinary procedure. The unfortunate but predictable result was the waste of the Senate's valuable floor time on partisan messaging bills that no one seriously expected to become law. Instead of allowing an open amendment process, the previous majority used the procedural maneuver known as filling the tree to deny Senators the right to offer an amendment. By refusing to allow amendments out of a desire to prevent a vote on commonsense bipartisan ideas, such as building the Keystone XL Pipeline and rolling back bureaucratic red tape, the previous majority invited minority opposition to the underlying measures, killing important bipartisan legislation such as the energy efficiency bill and the sportsman's bill. In the last Congress, almost a year went by during which the majority allowed votes on only 11 minority amendments. During that period, all 45 Senators in the minority together got fewer votes on amendments than, for example, one House Democrat, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee. In fact, the Congressional Research Service confirms that the previous majority leader used his position to block the consideration of amendments more than twice as often as the previous six majority leaders combined. The previous majority also frequently moved to end debate on a measure at the very same time it was brought up for consideration, employing this tactic far more often than previous majorities. Its effect is not to end debate on legislation but to prevent it all together. Whenever those of us then in the minority resisted this demand that we end debate as soon as we began consideration, the majority wrongfully labeled it a ``filibuster.'' Worst of all, the majority used this supposedly unprecedented level of obstruction to take the drastic step of abolishing extended debate all together on most nominations using the so-called nuclear option. With the new leadership of the Senate under the senior Senator from Kentucky, we have made enormous progress toward restoring this sense of mutual restraint. Consider the sort of legislation the current majority leader has brought up for floor consideration so far this Congress: the bipartisan Hoeven-Manchin bill to authorize the Keystone XL Pipeline; the permanent solution for Medicare's Sustainable Growth Rate and reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which passed 92 to 8; and the Cornyn-Klobuchar bill to fight the scourge of modern-day slavery known as human trafficking. These are not Republican messaging bills. The majority leader has admirably avoided the temptation to fill our agenda with partisan bills just to score cheap political points. Instead, we have focused on bills that command broad bipartisan support. Moreover, consider the bills that the majority leader has indicated are next up for floor consideration: the Corker-Menendez Iran nuclear agreement legislation that passed the Foreign Relations Committee with unexpected and impressive unanimity; the bipartisan Alexander-Murray rewrite of No Child Left Behind; and our bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act, which passed out of the Finance Committee last night with the support of 13 Republicans and 7 Democrats. By identifying these priorities, the majority leader has indicated that his focus on bipartisan committee-vetted legislation is not a fleeting illusion but a long-term commitment to responsible leadership. The way in which the majority leader has conducted our consideration of these bills also demonstrates this commitment to restraint. We have seen committee consideration of legislation restored as the norm. We have also seen a renewed commitment to an open amendment process. In January, for example, the Senate voted on more amendments in 1 week than in all of last year. By my count, we have voted on 114 individual amendments in less than 4 months, the majority of which were offered by the minority. Many of these were tough votes, but the need to govern responsibly far outweighed any political cost. Instead of cutting off debate before it even begins, we have moved at a deliberate pace to allow the amendment process to flourish, tempering our own desire to move legislation faster in order to legislate according to the best traditions of this body. This is not to say that the past 4 months have been perfect. There have been times when the sailing has been a bit rocky. While the current minority has repeatedly displayed admirable cooperation--the sort of mutual restraint that Senator Mansfield wisely lauded so many years ago--there have been times when some of my colleagues have fallen prey to the temptation of partisan obstruction. In particular, I was extremely disappointed by the logjam that developed over the Hyde amendment and impeded progress on the bipartisan human trafficking bill. The gridlock over what should have been an uncontroversial provision indicated a troubling willingness on the part of some to derail our efforts to legislate responsibly and instead resort to tired and discredited war-on-women rhetoric to win cheap political votes. I was so encouraged by this week's resolution of that impasse. The willingness on the part of leaders on both sides of the aisle to break the gridlock reflected the best of the Senate's great tradition of statesmanship. I want to extend my sincere thanks and respect to the senior Senators from Washington, Minnesota, and Texas, Senators Murray, Klobuchar and Cornyn, as well as everyone else who helped craft the compromise. By putting partisanship aside, they have not only benefitted the victims of human trafficking; they have also helped reinvigorate the ethos of accommodation and mutual restraint that is at the heart of this institution. We should all look to this example as a model of leadership worthy of the world's greatest deliberative body. It is incumbent on all of us to get the Senate back to work for the American people. By returning to the spirit of comity that served this body so well for so long, we have already made real and meaningful progress. I urge all of my colleagues to continue in this noble pursuit. It is undoubtedly worth the cost. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I thank both of my colleagues who have spoken this morning, Senators McConnell and Cornyn. Trade Promotion Authority

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes this morning to talk once again about Congress's role in advancing our Nation's trade policy. While I know trade policy can be a very contentious topic here in Congress, there are two simple facts that are beyond dispute: No. 1, more than 96 percent of the world's consumers live outside of the United States, and No. 2, in order to be competitive, American businesses need to be able to sell more American-made products and services to those overseas customers. In order to do that, we need to tear down barriers to American exports. At the same time, we should lay down enforceable rules for our trading partners so that we can be sure American workers and job creators are competing on a level playing field. In order to accomplish these goals and to advance our Nation's interests in the global marketplace, Congress and the administration need to work together. Most people acknowledge this reality. Yet, there are differing views as to what mechanisms should be in place to facilitate cooperation between these two branches of government. In the end, there is only one legislative tool with a proven track record, and that is trade promotion authority, otherwise known as TPA. For decades--going back as far as FDR--TPA has been a cornerstone of U.S. trade policy. TPA is a compact between the Senate, the House, and the administration. Under this compact, the administration agrees to pursue objectives specified by Congress and to consult with Congress as it negotiates trade agreements. In turn, both the House and the Senate agree to allow for expedited consideration of trade agreements without amendments. For a number of reasons, this compact is essential for conclusion and passage of strong trade agreements. Put simply, without TPA, our trading partners will not put their best offers on the table because they will have no guarantee that the agreement they reach will be the one Congress actually votes on in the end. The most recent version of TPA expired 8 years ago. While trade negotiations have continued since that time, without TPA in place, our negotiators have effectively been negotiating with one arm tied behind their backs. We need to renew TPA sooner rather than later in order to give these negotiators the tools they need to reach the best deals possible. The stakes are very high. Currently, the United States is in the midst of negotiating some of the most ambitious trade agreements in our Nation's history--most notably, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP. If we want those negotiations to succeed--and I would hope that for the good of our country most of us do want them to succeed--we need to renew TPA. Last week, I was joined by my colleague Senator Wyden and Chairman Ryan of the House Ways and Means Committee in introducing the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015. This legislation would renew TPA and promote the advancement of 21st-century trade policies. Later today--in just a little while, in fact--the Senate Finance Committee will be marking up this bill, as well as other important pieces of trade legislation. It has taken a long time to get here. As you may recall, I, along with the two former chairmen, Senator Baucus and Congressman Camp, introduced a bill to renew TPA early last year. That bill had bipartisan support in Congress and was broadly endorsed by the business community. It also had the support of officials in the Obama administration. When Republicans took control of the Senate this year and I became the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I made renewing TPA my top trade priority for this Congress and set out to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. This legislation we will be marking up today is the result of that hard work, and I am grateful to my colleagues for working with me to get us this far. Of course, the effort to renew TPA really began a long time before we introduced our bill last year. Indeed, the discussion and debate over a new and improved TPA began even before the last iteration expired in 2007. We have been talking about this for a long time. Now is the time to act. Over the past few weeks, as we have been preparing to move our legislation forward, some people--including some of my colleagues--have expressed concerns about TPA and trade agreements in general. So I wish to take a few minutes this morning to address some of the specific issues that have been raised. Constitutional and sovereignty concerns. Some have argued that TPA cedes too much power to the administration and undermines Congress's constitutional authority to make laws. I know the people have heard the President claiming that TPP--the Trans-Pacific Partnership--will be ``the most progressive trade agreement in history,'' and they have heard him brag about the labor and environmental standards the administration is shooting for with the agreement. The question inevitably becomes, will President Obama try to use this or other trade agreements to try to advance unilateral changes in U.S. law and policy? Even though we all know that no trade agreement can go into force without Congress's approval, given this administration's track record on executive overreach, people are right to be concerned about these issues. Fortunately, our TPA bill addresses these uncertainties. Rather than ceding authority to the executive branch, our bill empowers Congress at every step, from trade negotiations to final approval of the agreement itself. Our bill makes clear what objectives a trade agreement must reach in order to be approved by Congress. In fact, the bill contains the clearest articulation of trade priorities in our Nation's history. It includes nearly 150 ambitious, high-standard negotiating objectives, including strong rules for intellectual property rights and agricultural trade, as well as protections for U.S. investment. In addition to setting negotiating objectives, our legislation constrains the administration in a number of ways. For example, it ensures that implementing bills for trade agreements will include--and I am quoting the text of the bill--``only such provisions as are strictly necessary or appropriate to implement'' trade agreements. Additionally, it makes clear that any commitments made by the administration that are not disclosed to Congress before an implementing bill is introduced are not to be considered part of the relevant agreement and will have no force of law. Our legislation clarifies that trade agreements must be concluded within the TPA timeframe and that any substantial modifications or additions made after that time will not be eligible for approval under TPA procedures. So while I understand and even sympathize with those who might be suspicious of this administration and its tendency to push the boundaries of its constitutional authority, our TPA bill speaks to these exact concerns. Furthermore, for those who might be worried that trade agreements could we used to harm U.S. sovereignty, our bill addresses those issues as well. First, the bill makes clear that any provision of a trade agreement that is inconsistent with Federal or State law will have no effect. Second, it states specifically that Federal and State laws will prevail in the event of a conflict with the trade agreement. Third, it affirms that no trade agreement can prevent Congress or the States from changing their laws in the future. Fourth, it confirms that the administration cannot unilaterally change U.S. law. As you can see, far from abdicating Congress's power from U.S. trade policy, our TPA bill enhances the role of Congress when it comes to trade agreements. Immigration. In addition to general concerns about constitutional powers and U.S. sovereignty, I have heard some express specific concerns that President Obama can use the Trans-Pacific Partnership to enact changes to our immigration laws and that TPA will somehow empower him to do so. These concerns are unfounded for at least two reasons. First, immigration is completely irrelevant to the objectives of the TPP agreement and administration officials have been clear and unequivocal that no immigration provisions are under negotiation. Just last week, USTR Michael Froman testified before the Senate Committee on Finance and said: I can assure you that we are not negotiating anything in TPP that would require any modifications of the U.S. immigration laws or system, any changes to our existing visa system. And, in fact, TPP will explicitly state that it will not require changes in any party's immigration laws or procedures. Second, even if people don't trust this administration, particularly when it comes to immigration, the provisions of our TPA bill, the ones I just got through talking about, provide greater congressional oversight and authority over trade agreements and prevent this or any future administration from misleading Congress about what is included in any trade agreement. In other words, if anyone is worried that despite their clear statements to the contrary, the administration will use TPP to advance its immigration agenda, they should support our TPA bill. Transparency. Another concern I have heard from people both in and out of government is that trade agreements currently under discussion have been negotiated behind closed doors and that by renewing TPA, Congress would be enabling this type of secrecy. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the opposite is true. Our TPA bill goes further than any previous version of TPA to promote transparency both for Members of Congress and the American people. Under our legislation, any Member of Congress who wants access to the negotiating text will get it, and at any time during the negotiations, Members of Congress will be able to request and receive a briefing from USTR on the status of negotiations. In addition, the bill will require the administration to publicly release the full text of an agreement at least 60 days before they sign it, giving the American people full access and knowledge of all trade agreements before they are signed and well before they are submitted to Congress for their approval. In short, any Member of Congress who is concerned about a lack of transparency in trade negotiations should be a cosponsor of the Hatch- Wyden-Ryan TPA bill. Currency. The last concern I will talk about today deals with currency manipulation. Specifically, I have heard from colleagues that our TPA bill should include stronger, enforceable standards to prevent our trading partners from engaging in currency manipulation. Now, make no mistake, I think currency manipulation is a serious issue. Like my colleagues, I am worried the currency policies of a number of countries, including some of our trade partners, continue to have negative consequences on U.S. businesses and workers. I believe Congress should carefully consider ways to address this issue. That is why, for the first time, our TPA bill includes a negotiating objective intended to address currency manipulation. While I understand some of my colleagues would like that provision to be stronger, this is a very complex issue. Many have expressed valid concerns that by requiring our trade agreements to contain enforceable currency provisions we would be inviting a number of unintended consequences, including challenges to U.S. monetary policy. In addition, most have acknowledged that such provisions would effectively derail the TPP negotiations, harming our farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, and others who so desperately need access to these markets. It is not just me saying this. Yesterday, I received a letter from Treasury Secretary Lew expressing these very concerns about the possibility of including enhanced currency provisions in TPA. On top of that, 10 former Treasury Secretaries, from both Republican and Democratic administrations, sent a letter to congressional leaders that made similar arguments. As you can see, there is more than ample reason to doubt the wisdom of inserting stronger currency provisions into TPA. I think it is fair, given Secretary Lew's very clear statements, to assume that President Obama would not sign a TPA bill that included such provisions, and I think it is more than fair to say that even if he would sign such a bill, it would be devastating to our ongoing trade negotiations; thereby, threatening growth and jobs right here at home. That being the case, I hope my colleagues pursuing this route will reconsider their positions. Once again, we are going to mark up our TPA bill later today. I am excited and pleased for this opportunity. I think we will get a strong bipartisan vote to report the bill and send it to the floor. We have crafted a very good bill, one that I think Members of both parties can support. I know some Members have anxieties and concerns about these issues. We have put the bill together with those types of concerns in mind and, as I think I have demonstrated today, anyone who is truly supportive of trade and of opening foreign markets to U.S. goods and services and wants to create more good jobs right here at home should support our bill. Since the day we introduced our legislation, letters and statements of support have been pouring in. I will mention just a few. We have had statements from administration officials, including the President himself, and to say support from the business community has been overwhelming would be a gross understatement. We have letters from virtually every industry--farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, tech companies, health care companies, and I could literally go on and on, but I will not, at least not right now. Instead, today, I will just mention two of the many letters of support we have received from businesses and job creators. I have a letter from the Trade Benefits America Coalition signed by hundreds of companies and major trade associations expressing their strong support for the Hatch-Wyden-Ryan TPA bill. I have another letter signed by nearly 300 State and local chambers of commerce, farm bureaus, and manufacturing associations, all expressing their support for the swift renewal of TPA. Leaders from a number of leading conservative organizations have expressed support as well, including the Conservative Reform Network, the Cato Institute, Americans for Tax Reform, American Enterprise Institute, American Action Forum, Tea Party Express, 60 Plus, American Commitment, American Conservative Union, Americans for Job Security, Center for Individual Freedom, Citizens for Limited Taxation, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Conservative Reform Network, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, Crossroads GPS, Digital Liberty, Ending Spending, Frontiers of Freedom, Georgia Center Right Coalition, Institute for Liberty, Minnesota Center Right Coalition, National Taxpayers Union, R Street, Rio Grande Foundation, Taxpayer Foundation Alliance, and the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy. That is a long list and by no means contains everybody who is for this bill, and it is growing every day. As you can see, TPA is supported across the ideological spectrum. I suppose this is the best way I can put it: Senator Ted Cruz coauthored an op-ed with Senator Ryan in support of our bill in today's Wall Street Journal. If both Ted Cruz and Barack Obama support our legislation, it is probably safe to say we are onto something. I appreciate all the support we have received thus far for our TPA bill. It has been gratifying to see, and I look forward to talking more with colleagues about these issues in the coming week. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time during quorum calls before the votes this morning be equally divided.

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

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to a loving father, a visionary leader, a committed public servant, and a cherished friend--former Utah Governor Norman ``Norm'' Howard Bangerter. As Utah's 13th Governor, Norm established himself as one of the strongest leaders to ever hold public office in our State. Norm's roots were deeply entrenched in the west side of the Salt Lake Valley, and he often referred to himself as a ``humble farmer and carpenter'' who learned the value of hard work from a young age. His parents, William and Isabelle Bangerter, instilled in their 11 children a strong moral compass and a desire to help others--virtues he carried with him throughout his life. Norm first entered politics in 1974 when he ran for the Utah House of Representatives. He gained a surprise victory, which put him on a path of strong representation and leadership for his constituents. Norm served 10 years as a State representative, including 4 years as the speaker of the house. During Norm's first term as Governor, Utah faced formidable challenges. Never one to shrink from duty, Norm confronted these challenges head-on, exhibiting the exceptional judgment and foresight that would distinguish him as our State's chief executive. In making these difficult decisions, Governor Bangerter always sought to do what was right over what was politically expedient. He laid a strong framework for his governance, which included ``the three e's''-- education, economic development, and efficiency in government. Later in his tenure, he added a fourth ``e''--the environment. After Governor Bangerter won reelection in 1988, the difficult decisions of his first term began to bear fruit. Utah had raised its profile as a fiscally well-managed State, and the success of the Governor's economic development projects encouraged several prominent companies to relocate or expand in Utah. The Bangerter administration cut budgets, created jobs, expanded the economy, and provided a foundation for fiscal responsibility that still exists today. Although public service was important to Norm, his family was always paramount. In 1953, he married Colleen Monson, who was his loyal friend and constant companion through nearly 58 years of marriage until she passed away in 2011. Together they raised 7 children and were grandparents to 30 grandchildren and 31 great-grandchildren. In 2012, Norm married Judy Schiffman, who was a dear friend and support to Norm and his family. His daily life was always spent with family by his side. Family time was sacred and essential to Norm, and he firmly believed that family was the most important component of life. Norm not only served willingly in the public arena, he also served diligently in his church, assuming several important leadership positions in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He served for 18 years as a bishop and as a stake president, and later presided with his wife, Colleen, over the Johannesburg, South Africa Mission from 1996 to 1999. After his missionary service, Norm spent many hours each week volunteering in the LDS Church's Jordan River Temple. His life was an example of compassion and service, modeled after our Savior, Jesus Christ. Throughout my years of public service, I have had the privilege of knowing, working with, and learning from Governor Norm Bangerter. We spoke often, and I could always count on him to share with me his no- nonsense wisdom and his passionate advice. Our conversations were always spirited, and they played an indispensable role in my own public service. He fought for what he believed in with great determination and fervor, and he was never afraid to express his opinions. I appreciated our conversations more than he probably knew, and I will miss his sage advice and loyal friendship. Elaine and I will greatly miss our dear friend, Governor Norm Bangerter. The impact he made on Utah cannot be overstated. He led during difficult times and was a steadfast anchor for our State. He was also a noble servant of our Heavenly Father, and a strong, loving husband, father, and grandfather to his cherished family. He left an indelible impression on me and on all those who had the privilege of knowing him.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this bill is far from perfect, but we cannot let perfect be the enemy of the good on this bipartisan compromise that passed the House with almost 400 votes. The House leadership has made it clear to us, they will not pass another package, and I don't blame them. Time is of the essence. The therapy caps provision may not be the best policy, but it is in place to ensure there is a governor on unnecessary utilization and spending in the Medicare Program. Congress should use the next 2 years to find a solution to this problem and work to pay for that solution, and I intend to do that. But to have that on this bill would be a catastrophe at the end of what has been a really, really very, very tough-fought bill all the way through. The pending amendment, No. 1119, offered by Senator Cardin would violate the Senate pay-go rule and increase the on-budget deficit over the 10-year period of fiscal years 2015 to 2024. Therefore, I raise a point of order against this measure pursuant to section 201(a) of S. Con. Res. 21, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.

Mr. HATCH. I yield back the time.

Mr. HATCH. I move to waive all applicable sections of the Budget Act, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we will soon be voting on final passage of H.R. 2, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015. As I mentioned earlier, this bill represents more than 2 years of hard work on both sides of the Capitol. And, it represents a real step forward for bipartisan health care policy. I am proud to have been one of the authors of this legislation and I look forward to what I believe we will see--the bill pass with bipartisan support. I want to commend everyone who worked on this legislation. I particularly want to thank Senator Max Baucus who worked with me from the beginning on this effort here in the Senate. In addition, I would like to thank the current ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senator Wyden for all his work. I also want to thank our colleagues on the House Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means Committees who also worked very hard in crafting this SGR fix. As with any major legislative effort, there are a number of staffers--both current and former--who also deserve our thanks. From my own Finance Committee staff, I want to thank Dan Todd, Kristin Welsh, Erin Dempsey, Katie Simeon, Kim Brandt, and Becky Shipp for all of their hard work. I also want to thank my senior team--Jay Khosla, Chris Campbell, and Mark Prater. On the Democratic side of the committee, I want to thank Karen Fisher, David Schwartz, Matt Kazan, Juan Machado, Scott Levy, and Colin Goldfinch. I also want to commend the efforts of Scott Raab and Monica Popp from the Senate Republican leadership offices. In addition, from the House side, I specifically want to thank Charlotte Ivancic and Wendell Primus. We have also gotten quite a bit of help from CBO in this effort. For that, I want to thank Lori Housman, Tom Bradley, and Holly Harvey. CMS also provided vital technical assistance as we put this legislation together. For that, I'd like to thank Jennifer Druckman, Ira Burney, and Anne Scott. And, of course, we couldn't have done without the help of the Legislative Counsels' offices, particularly John Goetcheus, Kelly Malone, Ruth Ernst, and Phil Lynch on the Senate side and Jessica Shapiro and Jessica Cross over in the House. I wish to once again urge my colleagues to support this bill. It is a monumental achievement. It is legislation that has been long in the offing. I wish to thank everybody on both sides for the cooperation we have had. I just want to personally express my gratitude for being able to pass this bill.

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the pending amendment, No. 1115, offered by Senator Bennet, would violate the Senate pay-go rule and increase the on-budget deficit over the 10-year period of fiscal years 2015 to 2024. Therefore, I raise a point of order against this measure pursuant to section 201(a) of S. Con. Res. 21, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as has been mentioned repeatedly regarding the 10-day CMS hold, this 10-day CMS hold period will expire tonight. Doctors who serve our seniors will be facing a 21-percent cut. Senator Murray's bill costs $21.1 billion over 10 years, and it is not offset. Therefore, the pending amendment, No. 1117, offered by Senator Murray, would violate the Senate pay-go rule and increase the on-budget deficit over the 10-year period of fiscal years 2015 to 2024. Therefore, I raise a point of order against this measure pursuant to section 201(a) of S. Con. Res. 21, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I want to mention what Speaker Boehner said about this bill we are about to look into--the CHIP bill and the SGR, the physicians' payment bill. Speaker Boehner said: Unless the Senate passes the House-passed ``doc fix'' bill, significant cuts to physicians' payments will begin tomorrow. The House legislation passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, and we do not plan to act again, so we urge the Senate to approve the House-passed bill without delay. He summed it up pretty well. The fact is this has been a long ordeal that a lot of us have worked on for a long time, a lot of people on Capitol Hill. If we can pass this bill tonight, it will be a major accomplishment and we can go back to the child health insurance bill. I remember standing here on the floor with Ted Kennedy on the other side passing a bill that brought a lot of angst to a lot of people but which has helped millions of children who were deprived of good health care. So this is a very important bill and I hope we don't foul it up. I don't think we will. Madam President, I stand today in support of H.R. 2, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015. If enacted, this legislation would repeal and replace the Medicare sustainable growth rate, or SGR. That is the formula called the sustainable growth rate. It will extend the CHIP program for an additional 2 years--a program that has worked very well--and will put in place much needed reforms to the Medicare Program--something that hasn't happened in a long time. This bill represents more than 2 years of hard work on both sides of the Capitol. It passed overwhelmingly in the House of Representatives with 392 votes. I expect it will also get broad bipartisan support here in the Senate. It certainly has to. We have all grown tired of the seemingly endless cycle of passing temporary SGR patches year after year after year. It is not a new problem. It is one we have been dealing with for a long time. A little over 2 years ago, a group of leaders from both the House and the Senate set out to fix this problem once and for all. As I mentioned yesterday, I was part of this group, as was former chairman of the Committee on Finance, Max Baucus. Together Senator Baucus and I worked with the leaders on the relevant House committees to craft legislation that would repeal and replace the SGR with an improved payment system that rewards quality, efficiency, and innovation. That legislation, which we reported out of the Committee on Finance by voice vote in late 2013, formed the basis of the legislation before us today. I want to compliment the House for the great work they have done on this bill. I have to give a lot of credit to them. It is my hope we will act quickly to pass this bipartisan, bicameral legislation and send it to the President's desk as soon as possible. This legislation demonstrates what Congress is truly capable of when Members work together. We all talk about the need for more bipartisanship in Washington. This bill can be a template for how things should work around here. It also represents a step forward in the effort to reform our Nation's entitlement programs. As I mentioned, to go along with the permanent SGR fix, the bill includes a meaningful downpayment on Medicare reform. These reforms include a limitation on so-called Medigap first-dollar coverage, more robust means testing for Medicare Parts B and D, and program integrity provisions that will strengthen Medicare's ability to fight fraud. Clearly, these reforms by themselves won't fix all of Medicare's fiscal problems. Indeed, much more work needs to be done. But like many of my colleagues, I have been pushing for entitlement reform for years. During all that time I have seen politics and fear get in the way of progress. With this bill we have a chance to, at the very least, take a meaningful step forward--a bipartisan step, no less--in the effort to secure the safety net for future generations. Any Senator who, like me, supports entitlement reforms will welcome the changes we have made in this bill. I am not here to say the bill is perfect. It is certainly not. But as the saying goes, we should not make the perfect the enemy of the good. This is a good bill. Once again, it passed in the House with a huge bipartisan majority and it is supported by groups across the health care spectrum. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of groups supporting this legislation at the conclusion of my remarks. As it stands right now, in less than 12 hours doctors all over the country will face a 21-percent cut in Medicare reimbursements. In other words, we are out of time. We need to pass this legislation and we need to do it now. In fact, it is encouraging to see that even Members on the other side of the aisle support this good policy now, and I am proud of them for doing so. Let's get this done. I hope all of my colleagues will join me in supporting H.R. 2. I repeat what Speaker Boehner said today: Unless the Senate passes the House-passed ``doc fix'' bill, significant cuts to physicians' payments will begin tomorrow. The House legislation passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, and we do not plan to act again, so we urge the Senate to approve the House-passed bill without delay.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to talk once again about the ongoing effort to replace the Medicare sustainable growth rate, or SGR, formula. As we know, SGR has been a problem pretty much since its inception. Members of both parties have grown tired of passing temporary SGR patches that have been cobbled together at the last minute behind closed doors. This constant, seemingly unending, cycle has only grown more tiresome as the years have gone by. That is why a little over 2 years ago a group of leaders from both the House and the Senate set out to fix this problem once and for all. I was part of this effort. I was joined on the Senate side by former Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus. Together, Senator Baucus and I worked with the leaders of the House Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means Committees to craft legislation that would repeal and replace SGR with an improved payment system that rewards quality, efficiency, and innovation. While many critics deemed our efforts a lost cause, we introduced our bill in late 2013 and got it reported out of the Finance Committee on a voice vote. That same legislation formed the basis of the SGR bill that passed overwhelmingly in the House with 392 votes at the end of March. Now the bill is before the Senate. It is my hope that we will act quickly to pass this bipartisan, bicameral legislation and send it to the President's desk as soon as possible. This SGR bill is historic for a number of reasons. First of all, it demonstrates what Congress is truly capable of when Members work together. While that type of cooperation used to be commonplace around here, it has in recent years been in short supply. The bill also represents a step forward in the effort to reform our Nation's entitlement programs. The bill contains bipartisan reforms to the Medicare program, and it is not limited to fixing the broken SGR system. To go along with the permanent SGR fix, the bill includes a meaningful downpayment on Medicare reform without any accompanying tax hikes. These reforms include a limitation on so-called Medigap first- dollar coverage, more robust means testing for Medicare Parts B and D, and program integrity provisions that will strengthen Medicare's ability to fight fraud. I am aware that these are not transformative reforms and that much more work will be necessary to put Medicare--not to mention our other entitlement programs--on a more sustainable trajectory. However, any Senators who, like me, have been clamoring for entitlement reform should welcome these changes. After all, for years the idea of bipartisan Medicare reform seemed, at best, farfetched. President Obama and his allies here in Congress have stated repeatedly that, before they would consider changes to our safety net programs, Republicans would have to agree to massive tax hikes. But here we are, just one Senate vote away from enacting meaningful and bipartisan Medicare reforms into law. Of course, as I said last month before the House vote, this bill is not perfect. Anyone who is determined to vote no could likely dig through the bill and find a reason to do so. I have my own thoughts as to how I would like to improve the bill. But, let's be honest. While I have only been in the Senate for 38 years or so, I don't remember voting on many perfect bills, particularly not on a subject matter this complex and under a divided government. So, while I understand the impulse of some who may want to hold out for a better, more ideal solution to the SGR problem, I think it would be a grave mistake to pass up this bipartisan opportunity we have before us now. As I see it, we have two options. We can hold out for a better bill, one that satisfies every demand and subject ourselves to many more years of the last-minute, time-consuming SGR patches that are loathed by everyone in Congress and everyone in the health care industry or we can pass the bipartisan, bicameral bill we have before us now, fixing the SGR problem once and for all and setting the stage for future entitlement reform. It should be pretty clear where I stand. This is a good bill, and it is coming at the right time. I want to once again commend the leaders in the House from both parties who worked so hard to reach a deal on this legislation and to pass it with such an overwhelming consensus. I know it was not easy. It is now up to us here in the Senate. Let's get this done. I hope all of my colleagues will join me in supporting the SGR bill. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to join Americans of Thai descent across this country and millions of people in Thailand--the United States' oldest ally in Asia--in celebrating on April 2 the 60th birthday anniversary of Her Royal Highness Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn. Fondly called by Thais as ``Princess Angel'', she is known for her life-long dedication to the cause of humanitarianism, education and human development, especially for the disadvantaged and marginalized, in Thailand and beyond. I am sure my colleagues in this Chamber will join me in paying tribute to her remarkable contributions. Following closely in her parents' footsteps, Her Royal Highness has traveled with their Majesties throughout Thailand listening to their subjects' problems and responding with royal development projects. When not engaged in her official duties, she was pursuing her studies, attaining a Ph.D. in Development Education and a master's degree in History. Since 1980, she has launched her own development projects. At first, Her Royal Highness focused on assisting disadvantaged and malnourished children. Aside from providing immediate aid, she also promoted integrated farming as a means to increase overall resilience and sustainable sources of nutrition. Public health has been a lifelong concern. The Princess is the President of the Thai Red Cross Society and Chairperson of the Prince Mahidol Foundation, which bestows globally recognized awards for achievements in public health and medicine. She soon expanded her charity projects to encompass education, working to increase access for children so as to improve their opportunities in life. Her approach and philosophy in this endeavor are deeply rooted in human rights and self-sufficiency. Specifically, Her Royal Highness has said: ``Those at the margins of society have rights to a good standard of living. Access to education is a fundamental human right. Education provides opportunities to learn and live sufficiently. Knowledge can be valued resources to help others or the community.'' In fact, Her Royal Highness has supported more than 100 projects aimed at improving lives, raising the status of women, helping the disabled, and protecting the environment and wildlife. Many of these have won the support and funding of agencies such as UNESCO, FAO, WHO and Johns Hopkins University. The scholarships she grants to students are helping to nurture and create new generations of talented Thais dedicated to public service. As someone who is tech savvy and up-to-date on information technology, the Princess promotes Thailand's traditional culture and arts among the younger generation. Through her selfless dedication and hard work for the benefit of humanity, she has earned love and respect from the Thai people and those beyond Thailand, including the United States. Therefore, I wish to join them in celebrating this auspicious occasion of Her Royal Highness Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn's 60th birthday anniversary and wishing her happiness, good health and longevity.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1029 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, no one believes in tax policy that has the effect of shipping jobs overseas. My amendment, which is cosponsored by Senator Wyden--a true bipartisan amendment--goes right to the heart of what amendment No. 523 of my friend from Michigan and amendment No. 817 of my friend from Illinois claimed to be doing. Tax policy leaders of all ideological stripes agree on a key point. The U.S. corporate tax rate is the highest among our trading partners and is making American firms less competitive, thereby hurting American workers. My amendment would put in place a deficit-neutral reserve fund to bring the corporate rate down and to prevent the bleeding of U.S. jobs. Vote for it to preserve and grow U.S. jobs. I yield back.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished Senator from Oregon be given 30 seconds.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, yesterday, I corrected the record on the matter of tax expenditures. That statement focused on individual income tax expenditures. According to 2014 Congressional Budget Office data, the individual income tax accounts for 47.1 percent of federal revenue. By contrast, the corporate income tax accounts for 11.9 percent of federal revenue. Today I am going to discuss corporate tax expenditures. The Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress's nonpartisan official tax scorekeeper, provides scoring and analysis of corporate tax expenditures. What are corporate tax expenditures? In a general sense, they are departures from a regular income tax. A regular income tax records income and provides deductions for expenses related to producing income to arrive at net income. Tax benefits in the form of exclusions, deductions, and credits not connected to the generation of business income are generally treated as corporate tax expenditures. As the tax-writing committee hearings have shown, our business tax system is overloaded with subsidies and other complex special provisions. Those deviations from basic measures of net income can result in economic inefficiencies, slow growth, and an economy that produces fewer jobs than it otherwise would. From a revenue-neutral standpoint, the flip side of that narrower, less-efficient tax base is a higher than optimal tax rate. It is a matter of broad-based consensus of senior tax policymakers from the left to the right that there is a ``two-fer'' in broadening the tax base and lowering the rate. This applies to both corporate businesses and noncorporate businesses. To the extent Congress delays translating the bipartisan goal of a broader business base and lower rates into concrete policy, the dangers of further inversion transactions and foreign takeovers looms on the economic horizon. My friends on the left side of the political spectrum should be the most concerned. Why? The reason is the local economies most vulnerable to inversions and foreign takeovers of U.S.-based businesses are in business sectors that dominate in the high cost-of- living, high-tax so-called ``Blue States.'' I am referring to the high- tech, pharmaceutical, and other cutting-edge intellectual property producing business sectors. Those business sectors tend to be based in high-cost, high-tax blue States. My friends on the other side should be very sensitive to threats to their local economies. For that reason, I continue to be stunned to see many of most liberal friends on the other side take positions on this budget resolution that are at odds with the goal of tax reform. Cherry-picking corporate tax expenditures to use for new spending, if it were to become viable policy, would starve the resources for tax reform. If my friends on the other side were to prevail on this strategy, you could forget about the bipartisan goal of broadening the business tax base and lowering tax rates. Their policy positions, if enacted, would leave tax policymakers with no resources to engage in reform. In fact, a broader U.S. tax base with rates that are already too high would make U.S.-based businesses less competitive. The tax baggage of being a U.S.-based business would grow, further tipping the balance toward foreign control by inversions and takeovers. The debate on corporate tax expenditures isn't about the merits of those policies. That debate on the merits of corporate tax expenditures could, should, and will be joined in legislating tax reform. That is a bipartisan goal for a bipartisan policy result that is necessary to build a stronger American economy. Amendment No. 1063

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, it is with both sadness and appreciation that I recognize Dr. Margaret Hamburg as she leaves her post as Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration. Dr. Hamburg has been a wonderful colleague and partner during her tenure at FDA. She has a collaborative and effective leadership style that has truly improved the health, safety, and quality of life here in our country. Over the nearly 6 years she has spent as Commissioner, Dr. Hamburg has worked tirelessly to ensure that Americans remain healthy and safe for years to come. Dr. Hamburg has presided over significant milestones, strengthening the agency's commitment to science and advancing biomedical innovation. The personalized medicine initiative prioritized under her leadership has led to more targeted, effective treatments for cancer patients, in addition to diagnostic tests that are faster and more accurate--crucial factors in tailoring optimal treatment for each particular patient. Dr. Hamburg also worked with me and several of my colleagues in launching expedited review of ``breakthrough therapies'' to accelerate help for patients with serious or life-threatening illnesses. Thanks to her efforts, the United States is more competitive and better positioned to accommodate the astounding pace of medical innovation as we move forward in the 21st century. In the area of food safety, Dr. Hamburg's leadership helped to build a more modern food protection system that will prevent foodborne illness and improve the safety of the food Americans consume for years to come. She has also worked with Congress in creating important steps to ensure product safety, implementing new standards that will protect the American people from the dangers of counterfeit, stolen, contaminated, or otherwise harmful drugs. These are just a few highlights from Dr. Hamburg's tenure. Dr. Hamburg has rendered our country a tremendous service, and I know that she will continue to have success in all of her future endeavors. I wish her the best of luck.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we all know Medicare is on an unsustainable course. Independent actuaries at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services--CMS--estimate that, over the next 75 years, the program has $35 trillion--that is with a T--in unfunded obligations. CBO says that, without reforms, Medicare's hospital insurance trust fund will be insolvent early in the decade following 2025. And according to the Medicare trustees themselves, the hospital insurance trust fund could be insolvent as early as 2021. At that time Medicare will no longer be able to pay out full benefits to seniors. We need to reform Medicare in order to save Medicare. We have a moral obligation to put Medicare on a sustainable path. It is crucial we ensure its solvency into the decade if we want to keep the promise we have made to those at or near retirement. That is where we are, and that is about all I am going to say about it.