Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. A voice vote would be fine.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up my amendment No. 796.

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I will take a few minutes to talk about the current debate of the fiscal year 2016 budget. Isn't it wonderful we have a budget that we have brought to the floor--something we haven't had for I think it has been the last 5 years under Democratic leadership. Naturally, there are differences between both sides, but it is great that we are using this budget process and, hopefully, we will pass this budget and go on from there. The House is going to pass theirs, so I appreciate what they are trying to do over there as well. First and foremost, I wish to thank the chairman of the Budget Committee for all his hard work in putting this product together. He has done great work in producing a budget that I believe most Senators can support, as well as finding a way to navigate some pretty treacherous minefields along the way. Let's look at just some of what Senator Enzi's budget will accomplish. The most striking thing about this budget is it balances in the 10- year window, eventually reaching a $3 billion surplus. This shouldn't be all that surprising, but given our Nation's recent budgetary history, to some, it is. President Obama likes to brag about all of the deficit reduction that has taken place under his administration, yet the President has yet to send a balanced budget to Congress. More often than not, his claims of deficit reduction are measured against an inflation baseline that routinely ignores the fact that almost all of the reduction can be attributed to increased revenues extracted from hard-working American taxpayers with precious little coming in the way of any spending cuts. The Senate Republican budget prepared by the chairman of the Budget Committee would achieve $4.4 trillion more in deficit reduction than President Obama's most recent budget proposal. This is a statement about fiscal policy, with the recognition that now is the time to get our Nation's fiscal house in order. The budget accomplishes its objectives in a number of ways, most notably by providing a path toward reining in our unsustainable entitlement programs. Let's keep in mind that when we are talking about our entitlements--Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security in particular, just to mention a few--we are talking about tens of trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities over the long term. Ever- growing programs have us on a path toward a fiscal crisis that threatens to swallow up our government and take our economy down with it. The Senate Republican budget would allow us to begin to tackle each of these programs' shortfalls, offsetting much of the deficits, and giving policymakers in Congress and the administration more room to work toward lasting solutions to these problems. With each of these three major programs, the budget would help stave off fiscal calamity and give us a real opportunity for long-term reforms. Entitlement reform is one of the great causes of our time. If we are serious about bringing down our deficits and debt and ensuring the solvency of our safety net programs, we cannot continue to kick the proverbial can down the road. I have been disappointed with each of President Obama's budgets, none of which would make a dent in our entitlement programs. This budget before us this week would enable us to begin the process of finding long-term fixes to these programs to ensure Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security still exist in the future for our children and our grandchildren. In addition to putting our government on a more fiscally sustainable path, this budget would support strong economic growth and job creation. Most notably, it contains a reserve fund designed specifically for this purpose, which includes, among other things, lowering the cost of investment, reducing the costs to businesses and individuals from the Internal Revenue Code, creating a competitive financial sector, and improving congressional budgetary scorekeeping. Of course, the budget gives us a path forward on repealing the so- called Affordable Care Act, which continues to be an albatross on our economy and on the well-being of hard-working taxpayers. I don't see how anybody can make out a case that it is not going to take us right into real difficulties, financially. It isn't going to work, either. The budget specifically includes a repeal of Obama's tax on medical devices. There is one for us. They needed $30 billion more, so they stuck in a gross sales tax on sales for all medical device companies. That is an idea I am totally opposed to, and the repeal of ObamaCare's tax on medical devices is something I have been pushing for since the law was first enacted. Sooner or later we are going to win on that because it has to be taken care of. This budget does that. An overwhelming majority of Senators--79, to be exact--voted to repeal this tax the last time we debated a budget in this Chamber. So I should not be the only one who is pleased to see this particular provision included in the budget. The budget also includes provisions specifically to repeal the individual and employer mandates--causes that I have also championed here in the Senate. As I said, Senator Enzi and his fellow members of the committee deserve a lot of credit for the work he and they have done thus far on the budget. I am very pleased to offer my support. I am aware that given the partisan climate we are working in, this budget has some detractors on the other side of the aisle. As I have listened to their arguments against the budget over the past few days, one thing has become pretty clear: My Democratic friends haven't come up with any new arguments in a long time. Rather than constructive proposals to help address our Nation's fiscal difficulties, our friends on the other side of the aisle are content to simply continue pretending that raising taxes is a fix-all elixir for all of our budgetary problems. Indeed, they have continued with the tired, debunked talking points, arguing that every problem will be solved if Republicans will simply allow for modest tax hikes on the so-called rich. How many times have we heard that? Yet even though our debt as a share of our economy is at levels not seen since the years surrounding World War II, it is most often the case that when my friends call for more taxes, often under the guise of closing unspecified ``loopholes,'' they want to immediately spend it, ignoring the pile of debt the current administration has accumulated. We have been through that over and over and it is time for the American people to wake up and realize what they are doing to us. This budget helps us to understand that better. I would wager that few reasonable people, if put on the spot, would seriously argue that the American people are undertaxed. Yet if we hear the arguments coming from the other side, that appears to be their position. Yet we are taxed at the highest percentage of the total budget than we have ever been. So we have heard our colleagues lament the lack of tax hikes in Chairman Enzi's budget, and we have already had some votes on amendments to raise taxes. What we have not heard, however, is a plan that would line up all of my colleagues' spending priorities, which are vast and numerous, with enough tax hikes to cover the cost. Until my friends on the other side of the aisle either produce such a plan or acknowledge that there are not enough palatable tax hikes out there to pay for all the spending they support, no one should take their arguments against the budget seriously. Let's take a look at this chart. By my staff's reckoning, if we look at all the tax hikes my friends on the other side of the aisle put to a vote in the last Congress, including the so-called Buffett rule, taxes on corporate jets, oil and gas, and others, they are on the record for supporting about $69 billion in specific tax hikes that have not yet been enacted into law. Yet the first Democratic amendment to this budget purported to raise taxes by $478 billion. That is $408 billion more than what my friends on the other side have specified in the recent past. Now what does that mean? The Sanders amendment, which we voted on yesterday and almost all Democrats supported, essentially proposed to raise taxes by over $400 billion with unspecified tax policy. Perhaps my Democratic friends would care to tell the American people how they propose to raise that $400 billion in additional revenue, where the tax hikes will come from, and who is going to get hit by them. I will not be holding my breath waiting for an answer. So the Senate Democrats' revenue raisers well is almost completely dry, as we see on this chart: revenue necessary for spending increases, $478 billion; the Buffett rule, $45.151 billion; the oil and gas, $16 billion; tax compliance they say is $4.28 billion. If we look at the whole thing, the total offsets are $69.5 billion. That is a new bill. That is the total offsets they are talking about. It is unbelievable to me. As I said, there are definitely people who want to criticize this budget, but when it comes to taxes and revenues, the critics don't have a leg to stand on. I wish to speak for a few moments about an amendment to the budget I plan to offer this week. My amendment addresses the need for comprehensive tax reform. The budget already includes a deficit-neutral reserve fund for tax reform and administration. My amendment would add more detail to this fund to more fully describe what our tax reform efforts should look like. Specifically, it would make clear that tax reform should be comprehensive and address individual, business, and international provisions of the Tax Code. It would also state that our reform efforts should be aimed at creating a Tax Code that is more efficient, progrowth, fair, and simple. It would put in place other principles for reform as well; namely, permanence, competitiveness, and promoting savings and investment. It would set forth goals to reduce income tax rates while remaining revenue neutral. As most of my colleagues know, I have been advocating for tax reform for some time now. This amendment would set this effort off on the right path. I will have other priorities to discuss when it comes to this budget. I look forward to working with my colleagues to get them adopted. The Senate is doing good work with this budget. It is thankfully working to fulfill its responsibilities. Once again, I wish to thank our distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee for his efforts on the budget. I urge all of my colleagues in the Senate to join me in supporting this product. Medicare SGR Formula Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes to speak about the ongoing efforts in the House of Representatives to address the Medicare sustainable growth rate, or SGR, formula. As we all know, the House is poised to pass legislation that would permanently repeal and replace the SGR with an improved payment system that rewards quality, efficiency, and innovation. This bipartisan exercise represents what Congress is truly capable of when Members decide to set aside their differences and work together. Since SGR first went into effect, Congress has continually acted to prevent its reimbursement cuts from taking place. This has meant numerous and repetitive SGR patches, usually cobbled together at the last minute behind closed doors, much to the tremendous concern of our physicians throughout this country. For years, this cycle has bothered Members of Congress in both parties. That is why over 2 years ago, former Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus and I set out to fix this problem once and for all on the Senate side. People said it was a lost cause and that our efforts were doomed from the beginning. But in late 2013, we introduced our legislation and got it reported out of the Finance Committee on a voice vote. That bill, which was also drafted with the input and support of the leaders on the relevant committees in the House of Representatives, formed the basis for the legislation the House will be voting on this week. They deserve a lot of credit for this. It has taken a lot of work to get to this point, and we are not there yet, but we are getting close. We just need to finish the job. The House bill is important for a number of reasons. Yes, it includes the plan to repeal and replace the broken SGR system. I think everybody around here would like to do that, but there is more to it. The bill also includes a 2-year extension of CHIP, the Child Health Insurance Program that Senator Kennedy and I put through a number of years ago and a temporary extension of key Medicare extenders that need immediate congressional action. This will give the relevant committees time to reform these programs in a responsible manner. It also includes provisions to strengthen Medicare's ability to fight fraud and bolster existing program integrity efforts. Most importantly, the bill includes a downpayment on entitlement reform without any tax hikes. For years, Members of Congress have been pushing for legislative fixes that will help rein in our unsustainable entitlement programs to ensure they will be around for future generations. I personally have been working very hard in this effort. In 2013, I put forward five separate reform proposals to Medicare and Medicaid that were designed to be bipartisan in hopes that I could jump-start the legislation on entitlement reform. I shared those proposals with anyone who would listen and even some, including President Obama, who would not. Today, I am happy to say that two of those ideas--the limitation on the so-called Medigap first-dollar coverage and more robust means testing for Medicare Parts B and D--are included in the House's SGR bill. For years, the idea of bipartisan Medicare reform seemed like a pipedream, particularly since President Obama and allies in Congress demanded that any changes to the program be coupled with significant tax hikes. But here we are, just a few votes away from enacting meaningful Medicare reforms into law. I commend Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader Pelosi for their efforts to reach a bipartisan deal on this legislation. They both deserve a lot of credit, as do those who are voting with them in the House. In addition to the leaders of the relevant committees, their work and their willingness to set aside partisanship for the greater good has been vital to this effort. This has not been easy by any stretch of the imagination. It was also encouraging to hear today that President Obama says he intends to sign the bill. Think about that. Specifically, he said about the SGR legislation: ``I've got my pen ready to sign a good bipartisan bill.'' I commend him for that. It is my understanding that an official statement of administration policy will be forthcoming. This is super. This is something we ought to all applaud and be ready to do. I am not here to say the House bill is perfect; of course, it is not. I am aware that some of my colleagues in the Senate are hesitant to support this package and have made public statements indicating as much. Ultimately, I think anyone who is looking for a reason to vote no on the House bill could probably dig through it and find something to oppose. This is true of any bill of this magnitude, especially in a divided government. Although I do have to say that some of the straw man arguments raised in the past week or so against this legislation have been interesting, to say the least. I know there are Senators who have a vision of what for them would be an ideal solution for SGR, CHIP or any other parts of this legislation. Indeed, I have my own thoughts as to how I would like to improve this bill, but I have been around long enough to know that anyone who waits around for a perfect bill better be prepared to wait for a very long time. We waited long enough for a solution on SGR. It is time to get this done. This is a good bill and it is coming at the right time. The time to act is now. I can't imagine another bipartisan opportunity like this coming around again any time soon, and I have been informed by Members of the House, that this is the last time they are going to increase SGR and take care of it. So we have to take this and get it through. Anyone who thinks we can continue to put this off to wait around for the perfect bill to come together is fooling themselves. Make no mistake, if we don't do this now, we are looking at many more years of last-minute costly SGR patches, and I have been told the House is through. They have done their job, and it may be a long time before you can get another patch, which means we have to do the job here or every physician in this country is going to hate everybody in this Senate. Well, they shouldn't hate everybody; there are some of us who are pushing hard to get this done. Let's get this done. I hope all my colleagues will support the House's SGR package, especially if it is as big a vote as I have been indicating here today. I think it will be a big vote. I think they deserve a lot of credit. It solves some problems we couldn't otherwise solve, and it also makes good changes to some of our entitlement programs that are long overdue. I want to commend Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader Pelosi. I want to commend them for the work they are doing. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to correct the record on the matter of tax expenditures. Many myths have been created and reinforced by my friends on the other side of the aisle on the subject of tax expenditures. In my 4 years as ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, I came to the floor several times to set the record straight. I am afraid I need to do it again today, this time as chairman. Today I will focus on the tax expenditures in the individual income tax. 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. It boils down to three basic points. All points that can be derived from an objective, nonpartisan review of the data from Congress's nonpartisan official tax scorekeeper. I am referring to the Joint Committee on Taxation, of which I am the vicechair. First point: Tax expenditures are not spending, with one exception. That exception is for refundable tax credits. They count as outlays under the Congressional Budget Act. Ironically, refundable tax credits are the policies my friends on the other side are most in favor of expanding. Just look at the slew of Democratic amendments filed to that effect. My Democratic friends erroneously describe most tax expenditures as spending. Yet they seek to expand the minority of tax expenditures which score as spending. Go figure. Second point: The vast bulk of tax expenditures tend to distribute disproportionately to middle and lower Income taxpayers. A cursory examination of the Joint Committee on Taxation's annual tax expenditure pamphlet will lead an unbiased reader inevitably to that conclusion. Third point: The vast bulk of tax expenditures are attributable to widely applicable tax benefits, like the charitable contribution deduction, mortgage interest deduction, and State and local tax deduction. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an analysis of Joint Committee on Taxation data, performed by the Finance Committee staff.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a dedicated public servant for his exemplary service on the Senate Finance Committee. Richard Chovanec will return to U.S. Customs and Border Protection after 3 years of service as a detailee on my staff. During his tenure, Mr. Chovanec was instrumental in crafting the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Reauthorization Act of 2013 that I introduced with former Senator Max Baucus during the 113th Congress. This legislation would codify the important work that U.S. Customs and Border Protection does to facilitate trade, protect intellectual property, and enhance our economic security. I hope Mr. Chovanec's contributions will ultimately lead to successful reauthorization of the agency as we continue to work on this legislation. Mr. Chovanec earned a bachelor's degree from Virginia Tech and a law degree from the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, VA. He later joined U.S. Customs and Border Protection as an attorney-advisor in the Office of International Trade. He concurrently serves as an adjunct professor of law at Georgetown University in Washington, DC. I would like to wish Mr. Chovanec the very best and to thank him for his exemplary service.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I support the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. I believe this is a critical defense acquisition program which will greatly strengthen not only our national security, but that of our closest allies and partners. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program began more than 20 years ago. In an age where emerging technologies are introduced daily and where we have become accustomed to instant gratification, we sometimes grow impatient with how long it takes to achieve war-winning capabilities-- and we should. Yet today, the F-35 stands on the threshold of being used effectively and decisively in operational missions. During its journey, the Joint Strike Fighter Program Office has encountered its fair share of setbacks, and--at times--faulty leadership decisions by those in government as well as those in the private sector. From the Pentagon itself, we heard the accusation of ``acquisition malpractice.'' The senior Senator from Arizona, John McCain, has repeatedly pointed out these shortfalls and missteps. I echo his frustrations. In response to the accusations and grievances about the F-35 program, one could have just thrown one's hands up in frustration. Yet through the renewed determination of the F-35's Joint Strike Program Office under the leadership of Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, what once was the poster child for acquisition reform has reached vital milestones and will soon be used by our combat forces. During his tenure, General Bogdan has demanded and achieved greater performance and accountability among his own staff and his industry partners. He has established and is executing a corrective plan. With that said, there is still much more to do. The problems General Bogdan and the collective F-35 team are overcoming did not occur in an instant, nor will they be fixed in an instant. Accordingly, today, I call on my colleagues to support the F-35 and provide the F-35 Program Office with the backing it needs to achieve critical future milestones. In addition, the Congress must continue to challenge the Department, the F-35 Program Office, and the program's industrial partners to reduce not only each aircraft's initial purchase price, but the cost of using and maintaining this strike fighter in the decades that follow. As history teaches us, upwards of 80 percent of the total ownership costs of a weapon system resides not in the purchase price, but in its use and resulting maintenance. This means the Department must pay critical attention now to the development and execution of a robust F- 35 sustainment strategy to ensure long term costs are reduced. We must also not forget the current purchase price of the F-35 exceeds $110 million per aircraft. It is inevitable that the price of the F-35 will come down as the numbers of aircraft produced goes up. But the quest for price reduction must be central to our current and future efforts if we are to be able to procure the number of aircraft required to properly execute our deterrent strategies and, if necessary, war plans. Indeed, price will have a dramatic effect on the ability of our allies to purchase the F-35. Therefore, I challenge both the Department and our defense contractors to work toward achieving what many experts agree is an obtainable goal: a procurement price of less than $80 million per aircraft, and as close to $60 million per aircraft as possible. If we do this, the current program of record for more than 3,000 aircraft will naturally increase. My personal desire would be to see over 6,000 of these aircraft safeguarding our precious liberties and those of our allies. This is an ambitious objective, but it is based upon achieving what is best for America and its allies. And I believe everyone in the Department of Defense, the F-35 Program Office, and, yes, the employees of our Nation's defense contractors have this as their central goal. Therefore, I am reminded of a story from our history about the industrialist Collis Potter Huntington. He was one of the so-called ``Big Four'' of the western railroads during the late 1800s and built the Central Pacific Railroad as part of the first transcontinental railroad. He also led and developed other interstate lines such as the Southern Pacific Railroad and the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway, known simply as the C&O. As Huntington furthered the C&O's extension through the Virginia peninsula, he opened the pathway for West Virginia's coal industry to reach the coal piers in the harbor of Hampton Roads. Seeing a need for export shipping, he started the Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Company in 1886. Huntington started a long tradition of superb shipbuilding, and he is also credited with giving the shipyard its motto. The motto simply states: ``We will build good ships here. At a profit if we can. At a loss if we must. But always good ships.'' This motto is emblazoned on a plaque and fixed to a granite monument at one of the entrances to the yard. This motto defined the mindset of generations of ship builders at the yard. In 1968, the privately held Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Company merged with another company. Thereafter, the ``Good Ship'' monument was removed due to its misalignment with the ``new'' company's goals. As a testament to the character of the workers who built many of our Nation's great warships, the shipyard almost came to a standstill, leading to the monument's eventual return. The ``Good Ship'' motto is a lesson for us all, but especially for the F-35 Program Office and its industry partners. We should all rally around a ``Good Strike Fighter'' motto. After all, these jets are being built for our men and women in uniform, to protect our rights and liberties as well as those of our allies. The fighting spirit of the United States and her allies can enable the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to emerge from its challenges like the mythical phoenix: reborn, regenerated and renewed. But for this to succeed, we must commit ourselves to excellence--in essence, the ``Good Strike Fighter'' motto. The war fighter, the American people, our allies and partners, and the whole free world are depending on it.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, saving Social Security will require Congress to work in a bipartisan fashion, but most of all it will require Presidential leadership. In 2009, President Obama held a fiscal responsibility summit to talk about the need for entitlement reform. During the summit the President said: What we have done is kicked this can down the road. We are now at the end of the road and are not in a position to kick it any further. We have to signal seriousness in this by making sure some of the hard decisions are made under my watch, not someone else's. I agree with what the President said then, even if he hasn't exactly followed his own advice. It is time to roll up our sleeves and get to work. Every year we delay makes it more difficult to implement gradual reforms to Social Security that will allow us to avoid abrupt changes for future beneficiaries. Delay makes it more difficult for hard- working Americans to gradually adjust their plans and makes it more likely they will be hit with an uncertain blow to benefits or more taxes. My amendment calls for a reserve fund to allow Congress to consider legislation submitted by President Obama to protect current beneficiaries and save Social Security for future generations. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Wyden amendment, which does not seem directed at bipartisan discussion. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, today marks the fifth anniversary of the signing of the so-called Affordable Care Act. Of course, few people are actually celebrating. Five years--that is a long time, more than long enough for us to evaluate the impact of the law to determine if it is working. On that question, I think the answer is clear: The President's health care law is not working--not even close. Most Americans recognize this. They have seen how the law has failed to deliver on the many promises that were made at the time it was passed, and they want a change. I will have more to say on the change in just a few minutes. For now, I would like to take some time to talk about the lessons we have learned over the last 5 years. If we think back to 2009 and early 2010, when ObamaCare was being debated in Congress, we will remember a number of promises that the law would actually reduce the cost of health care in this country. Those were big promises. After all, costs represent the biggest barrier to health care in the United States and are, by almost all accounts, the top concern for health care consumers. We simply cannot adequately reform health care without reducing costs, and on that count alone ObamaCare is a miserable failure. For example, under the law, we have seen premium hikes. Studies have shown the health care law increased costs in the individual insurance market by as much as 50 percent in 2014 alone. This year, we have already seen a 4-percent increase for benchmark plans in the health insurance exchanges. Moreover, a recent report by Avalere Health found premiums in the most popular exchange plans increased by an average of 10 percent in 2015. In addition to these spikes, which some might try to write off as isolated, premiums have increased faster overall under ObamaCare. According to a recent report by the National Bureau of Economic Research, 2014 premiums in the nongroup health insurance market grew by 24.4 percent, on average, compared to what they would have been had the law never been passed. Looking to the future, costs are projected to continue going up. According to the Congressional Budget Office, premiums will increase by about 6 percent per year over the next 10 years. This increase can be attributed to a number of factors, including high demand for expensive medical care, higher provider rates as enrollment increases, uncertainty created by haphazard regulatory changes under ObamaCare, and the failure of the plans to attract enough young and healthy consumers. Of course, none of these increased costs are surprising. Despite the promises made by the President and his allies in Congress that ObamaCare would actually reduce costs, numerous studies and projections indicated that costs would be on the rise after the law was implemented. Indeed, those of us who opposed the law have been noting this almost nonstop for the last 5 years. As we can see, the President's health care law is a failure on its own terms. The law is named the ``Affordable Care Act.'' The promise to reduce the cost of health care is right there in the name, and, by any measure, the law has failed to live up to this promise. Of course, the failure to bring down costs isn't the only problem we have seen with regard to ObamaCare. Another major problem is the lack of security and failed oversight of the online marketplace, which has put consumers' personal information at risk of fraud or theft. It started with a lack of preparation. Two government watchdogs--the GAO and HHS Office of Inspector General--found that healthcare.gov was given a green light to launch, even though it was not adequately secure. It continued with weak security. Shortly after the launch of the exchanges, GAO found security problems in State computer systems that link to the Federal network and warned ``increased and unnecessary risks remain of unauthorized access, disclosure, or modification of information collected and maintained by HealthCare.gov.'' CMS did take action to lower those risks, but even with those changes in place, the HHS OIG--Office of Inspector General--remained concerned about security issues, including the use of encryption technology that did not meet government standards. I was one of the first Members of Congress to note these security problems, and I introduced legislation to address some of them. Sadly, with the Democrats in charge of the Senate, the legislation did not go anywhere, and the results were predictable. In late 2013 and early 2014, cyber security experts warned the healthcare.gov Web site was vulnerable to hacking, and, sure enough, in July of last year, the site was hacked, resulting in the upload of malicious code. These security problems are a prime example of how careless and haphazard the Obama administration has been as it has tried to implement the Affordable Care Act. Sadly, there are even more examples, many of which directly impact the lives and livelihoods of the American people. As this tax session has commenced, we have seen how the health care law--and the administration's poor management of it--has resulted in frustration and delay for hard-working taxpayers. Let's talk about that frustration. According to H&R Block, in the first 6 weeks of this tax-filing season, 52 percent of customers who enrolled in insurance through the State or Federal exchanges had to repay a portion of the advanced premium tax credit they received under ObamaCare. That same report found that individuals, on average, are having to repay about $530, which is decreasing their tax refunds by an average of roughly 17 percent. Now let's talk about delay. On February 20, 2015, the Obama administration announced that due to an error in the health care law, they sent out about 800,000 incorrect tax statements relating to form 1095-A, meaning that hundreds of thousands of Americans may be seeing delays in their tax refunds this year. These are just some of the problems hard-working taxpayers are facing as they try to deal with ObamaCare during this tax season. While the ramifications to taxpayers are significant, the overall impact on America's budget is even greater. The total overall cost of ObamaCare so far has numbered in the tens of billions of dollars, and we are barely through the first phases of implementation. In numerous areas, taxpayers have been left on the hook for funds that were doled out for ObamaCare to States, corporations, and contractors with little or no accountability. Unfortunately, a significant portion of that money resulted in no benefit whatsoever to the taxpayers. Last week, the Finance Committee held a hearing on the anniversary of ObamaCare, where I noted five specific misuses of taxpayer funds that have resulted from ObamaCare. In just these five areas, roughly $5.7 billion went to projects that added absolutely no value. Those examples of wasteful spending bear repeating. No. 1, failed State exchanges. According to CRS--the bipartisan Congressional Research Service--$1.3 billion in taxpayer funds have been spent on State exchanges that failed and were never operational. No. 2, consumer-oriented and operated plans or co-ops. CMS has loaned $2.4 billion to 24 co-ops, one of which failed before it enrolled anyone. When all is said and done, nearly half of this money will be lost due to defaults or artificially low interest rates, and CMS has no plans to recoup any of these funds, meaning a total cost to taxpayers of around $1 billion. No. 3, healthcare.gov Web site. The failures of the Federal insurance marketplace are well documented. Despite fixes that eventually came to the Web site, the total cost of the failed enrollment system surpassed $2 billion. No. 4, Serco. This contractor was awarded $1.2 billion to manage paper applications during the first enrollment period of the health care law. Of course, very few of the applications received were on paper, and Serco employees had little to do. One former employee felt ashamed after leaving the company and reached out to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, saying: I feel guilty for working there as long as I did. It was like I was stealing money from people. No. 5, marketplace navigators. The administration has spent over $120 million on the Navigator Program for the 2014 and 2015 open enrollment periods. With enrollment in the exchanges surpassing 11 million individuals, the efficacy of the Navigator Program has yet to be determined. The overall value of the Navigator Program is, at best, inconclusive, and, at worst, it represents more wasted taxpayer dollars. These are just five examples of the misguided, poorly defined, and improperly managed aspects of the health care law. There are, of course, many others. Finally, there are the unilateral changes the administration has made to delay, extend or modify elements of the Affordable Care Act without action or even input from Congress. I have been on the floor a number of times to talk about the overreach on the part of the administration when it comes to implementing ObamaCare, so I will not go into excruciating detail today. We all know those abuses have taken place. It is no secret. Without statutory authority, the administration twice delayed the employer mandate. They created a transition period out of thin air so the President could pretend that his promise that ``if you like your health care plan, you can keep it'' was not a lie. There have been numerous other exemptions and special enrollment periods created to help the administration avoid negative fallout from patients and the business community--and it wasn't true that ``if you like your health care plan, you can keep it.'' All told, the Obama administration has made literally dozens of unilateral changes to the health care law, apparently recognizing that, as drafted, the law is as problematic as its critics have said. I could go on, but I think I have sufficiently made some of the points that need to be made. The so-called Affordable Care Act is, by any objective measure, a dismal failure. While its proponents continue to cherry-pick favorable data points in order to fool the American people into thinking the law works, the majority of us know the truth: It is time for a change. It is no secret that I support a complete repeal of the President's health care law, but a simple repeal isn't good enough. We need to replace ObamaCare with health care reforms that will actually work. That is why I have joined my colleagues Senator Burr and Chairman Upton of the House Energy and Commerce Committee in unveiling the Patient CARE Act, a legislative proposal that will actually reduce the costs of health care in this country, while giving people more rights to choose what kind of health care for which they want to pay money. Our proposal is a serious, workable solution to the problems caused by the Affordable Care Act. It is out there for everyone to see. I, once again, encourage all of my colleagues to look it over and provide us with your thoughts and input on our ideas. We would be interested in hearing from you. If those ideas can be improved, we are certainly interested in improving them. Once again, the 5-year anniversary of the Affordable Care Act is hardly cause for celebration, but it should be a time for all of us-- particularly those who supported the law at the outset--to reflect on the last 5 years and decide how we want to move forward when it comes to the Nation's health care system. I hope our colleagues will think about that. This bill was passed through both bodies on a totally partisan vote, with 100 percent of the Democrats voting in each body. I think I have made a pretty compelling case for why the current law isn't working and why we need to go in a different direction. I hope eventually my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will reach this same conclusion so we can work together to come up with a health care system and health care set of laws that will work, do good for the American people, and give us some element of respectability in the Congress that I think the Congress needs at this particular time. I yield the floor. 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

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today, we are continuing our consideration of the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. I should note from the outset this is a bill that essentially every Senator--every single one of us--supports. How could we not? Right now in this country there are thousands of human beings living as slaves--stolen from their homes, stripped of their God-given rights, and robbed of their human dignity. A disproportionate number of these victims are women and children, often forced into sex slavery. These are crimes that shock the conscience, and every single one of us should do everything in our power to stop this scourge and help make the victims whole again. The legislation we are currently considering makes important steps toward achieving those goals. It treats children trapped in these horrible circumstances for what they are--victims, not criminals. It imposes stiff penalties on traffickers, exactly the sort their despicable crimes merit. It establishes an effective means of restitution for the victims, helping them to begin to rebuild their lives in the wake of enormous suffering. I applaud the majority leader for his commitment to getting this bill passed. It is exactly the sort of legislation the Senate should be considering. While this may seem an obvious point, it is worth spelling out why this is true. The majority leader's traditional right to be recognized first gives him control over what sort of legislation we consider. There is always a temptation to bring up partisan bills, so-called messaging bills. These bills are not designed to actually pass; after all, we all know we need 60 votes for cloture and 67 votes to override a veto. Instead, the goal of these messaging bills are to make a political point for the next election or even just for the next news cycle. In the last Congress, the Democratic leadership called up these sort of messaging votes week after week. They repeatedly moved to bring up highly partisan bills that they refused to let us attempt to amend, with full knowledge that many of us would therefore have to vote against them and in most cases have to make them get at least 60 votes. In last fall's election, the American people showed just how fed up they were with partisanship and gridlock by voting in a new Republican majority that promised a return to productive legislating through regular order. The majority leader's commitment to passing this human trafficking bill demonstrates how those of us in the new majority are trying our hardest to keep our promise to get the Senate back to work for the American people. This is not about partisan messaging votes doomed for failure. This is about getting a bill with broad bipartisan support passed into law that makes meaningful progress in our fight against the evils of human trafficking. Scoring political points for our party is rightfully taking a backseat for producing important results for our country. Nevertheless, our majority can only do so much on its own. Simply put, it is hard to get much done in the Senate without bipartisan cooperation. So for all the restraint the majority has shown by bringing up bills such as this one that enjoy broad bipartisan support, we need at least some measure of restraint from the minority. By restraint, I do not mean to call for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to give up all their principles and simply give in to everything the majority wants. Instead, I mean the minority cannot demand getting their way on every single issue, that they should be willing to work through the open amendment process to reach an accommodation. Unfortunately, we find ourselves at an impasse with the minority claiming we somehow ambushed them with supposedly controversial language that they now are demanding we remove. My colleagues and I have come to the floor repeatedly over the past few days to illustrate just how ridiculous that claim is--how the language that is in the bill has been in there every step of the way since its introduction and how the Democrats had voted for it over and over again over the nearly 40 years it has been settled law. Beyond all of the rhetoric, the pivotal moment in this debate came when the majority leader came to the floor and offered an up-or-down vote to strip out the language in question. This offer should have settled this controversy once and for all. It represented the majority leader extending his hand across the aisle in hopes of cooperation, but the minority leader objected, demanding a guarantee the provision would be removed. Well, that is not the way it works around here. That moment revealed what this logjam is really about. This is about the minority leadership resorting to the same ``my way or the highway'' tactics they abused when they were in the majority, tactics that have no place in a body built on compromise. This is about trying to stir up a fake controversy to fit a discredited war-on-women narrative. Above all else, this is about scoring political points and trying to embarrass the majority by undermining our efforts to govern responsibly. This behavior is itself embarrassing and unworthy of this great institution in which we all serve, but it comes at a price. It comes at a price for the victims of human trafficking whose suffering we are all committed to alleviate. It comes at a price for those men, women, and children living in silence, fear, hopelessness, and unspeakable anguish. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not bad people--far from it. They are men and women of great character who want to do the right thing for their constituents and for the Nation. I have enormous respect for each and every one of them, but in this latest maneuver, I feel many of them have gotten so caught up in partisan rhetoric-- something that is so easy to do in Washington--that they have staked out an unjustifiable position that is prolonging the suffering of trafficking victims. Let's be honest about it. The Hyde amendment has been in many bills that we all voted for time after time after time. However, NARAL, the National Abortion Rights Action League, and Planned Parenthood have tried to make this into an issue that it should never have been made into. Unfortunately, we don't have any courage on the other side of the aisle except for a few Senators who are willing to vote with us. We don't have any real courage to take on these people. My gosh. I mean there comes a time--keep in mind, how do Republicans give in on this when this has been such an established law of our country? I ask my colleagues to take a step back from the heat of the debate to think about this language that has been in the bill from the very beginning, that they have voted for in so many other contexts, that has been the settled law of the land for nearly 40 years, that they have rejected an up-or-down vote to remove, and that they have demanded be removed as a condition for passing this important legislation. Is picking this fight really worth it? Is scoring points against Republicans really worth the costs of victims of human trafficking? Is trying to undermine our efforts to govern worth sacrificing the opportunity to help these men, women, and children in need? The choice is clear. I applaud my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who are pushing to end this stalemate, especially my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are willing to sacrifice temporary political gain to do the right thing for these victims we all want to help. I plead with those who have yet to join our efforts to move this bill forward to realize the suffering they are prolonging and to change their approach at the earliest possible opportunity. Geospatial Data Reform Act Mr. President, in addition to urging the passage of the bill under consideration to fight human trafficking, I want to highlight another important bipartisan bill I have introduced and urge its speedy consideration. It is exactly the sort of productive legislating in which I believe the Senate should be engaged. I rise in strong support of the Geospatial Data Reform Act, a bipartisan bill that will save taxpayers money while improving public safety, bolstering public development and preserving our natural resources through wider accessibility to geospatial data. I am grateful for Senator Warner's collaboration on this bill. Without his partnership this legislation would not have been possible, and I wish to thank him for his support over the past several months. Together we have worked tirelessly to craft bipartisan legislation that streamlines the way Federal agencies collect, manage, and distribute geospatial data to better serve the American people. Whether we realize it or not, geospatial data is ubiquitous in our everyday lives. Geospatial data is the information that identifies the geographic locations and characteristics of natural or constructed features and objects. To make this abstract concept more tangible, consider that every time we turn to the GPS on our phones we rely on geospatial data to find our destination. Geospatial data is an invaluable information resource, and we are just beginning to tap its full potential. Every year, private businesses and government agencies are finding new and innovative ways to use this information to better deliver services to the public and to improve overall quality of life. FEMA's use of geospatial data during Hurricane Sandy is testament to the merits of this information resource. The tragedy of Hurricane Sandy is still fresh in our memories. In 2012, this late autumn storm ravaged our eastern seaboard, battering buildings, toppling homes, and demolishing power lines, leaving behind a wake of destruction and shattered lives. Sandy was the deadliest hurricane to reach our shores since Katrina in 2005. In addition to the human toll, Sandy extracted a heavy financial cost, with estimated damages exceeding well over $50 billion. By using geospatial data, our government was better equipped to respond to this catastrophe. As victims rummaged through the rubble and wreckage of their broken homes, FEMA set to work analyzing geospatial datasets to identify over 40,000 homes damaged by the storm. This information allowed the Agency to pinpoint the most devastated neighborhoods and dispatch emergency personnel to those areas more quickly and efficiently. The use of geospatial data in response to this tragedy played an integral role in coordinating emergency response and helping families repair their damaged lives. The way FEMA used geospatial data to aid victims of Hurricane Sandy is just one powerful example of the positive impacts geospatial data has on our lives. But there are many more. The CDC also uses geospatial data to track disease outbreaks, informing decisions that ultimately save lives, the Department of Education uses geospatial data to analyze test scores from schools across the country to make plans for improvement, and the National Park Service uses geospatial data for resource management and to conserve our Nation's natural treasures. There is almost no end to the sundry uses and benefits of geospatial data, but as the Federal Government invests billions of dollars every year in the collection and storage of geospatial data, there is a serious problem of interagency duplication. This duplication stems from a glaring lack of coordination between agencies on efforts to collect this information. In short, agencies are spending inordinate sums in taxpayer dollars to collect the same geospatial data other agencies may have already collected. These duplicative efforts are a monumental and inexcusable waste of taxpayer money. Although the executive branch has been working for decades to reduce duplication and standardize the process for collecting and storing geospatial information, it has received little help from Congress. The legislation Senator Warner and I have introduced provides the executive branch the resources and direction it needs to reduce duplication and engender cooperation among agencies to ensure the efficient collection and dissemination of geospatial data across all levels of government. To save the taxpayers money, our bill requires Federal agencies to implement international consensus standards for geospatial data and assist in eliminating duplication. The Geospatial Reform Act also codifies the implementation of the national spatial data infrastructure and provides agencies with a clear definition for geospatial data and metadata. In addition, this bill standardizes the collection process by requiring agencies to comply with the Federal Geospatial Data Committee's standards for the development, sharing, and use of geospatial information. Finally, our bill ensures accountability, transparency, and public access to nondefense-related Federal investments in geospatial data. Already, States, counties, municipalities, and the private sector are discovering dynamic ways to use and share geospatial data with one another. Collaboration in this sphere is leading the way for new and improved services that were previously impossible to deliver. These entities outside of the Federal Government are finding new ways to coordinate investments and implement common standards. We need to do the same on the national level. We need proper Federal management for these data assets, and we need a national strategy for their many uses. Our legislation provides the foundation for both. In a political environment clouded by polarization, this bill is a ray of hope. It is an opportunity for us to work together in a bipartisan fashion to pass commonsense legislation that is based on transparency and good governance. I urge all of my colleagues to support the American taxpayer by supporting this bill. It is the right thing to do. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues, and I appreciated the wonderful remarks of the senior Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Thune. He is working very hard on that committee and really making a difference, as I think most people on the committee are trying to do. But he makes a difference, and I truly appreciated his remarks today. I am pleased to join my colleagues on the floor to talk about the importance of Trade Promotion Authority, or TPA, to the health of our Nation's economy. At the beginning of this Congress, I, along with many of my colleagues, stated publicly that trade was one of the few areas where the new Republican Congress would be able to find common ground with President Obama. I still believe that is the case. I chatted with him just last week--one of the few conversations I have had with him since he has been President--and I was very appreciative. He would like to get this done, and he is right. The Obama administration is currently negotiating some of the most ambitious trade agreements in our Nation's history. The first is the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, an Asia-Pacific trade agreement being negotiated between the United States and 11 other countries. On the other side of the world, the United States is negotiating a bilateral trade agreement with 28 countries of the European Union; that is called T-TIP. Together, these two trade agreements have the potential to greatly expand access to U.S. trade with other countries, allowing our job creators to sell more American-made goods and services. They are in demand. We just have to get in the game. This helps us create and support more high-paying export-related jobs at home. Of these two agreements, the TPP negotiations, or the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, are further advanced. According to administration officials, the agreement could be concluded over the next few months. That is good news. Now, I wish talk about the bad news. Without renewal of effective TPA procedures, the administration will simply not be able to conclude a strong TPP agreement. Why is TPA, or trade promotion authority, so important? TPA is a compact between the Senate, the House, and the administration. Under this compact, the administration agrees to pursue specified objectives and consult with Congress as it negotiates trade agreements. Both the House and the Senate agree to allow for expedited consideration of trade agreements without amendments. This is essential for the 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 guarantees the agreement they sign will be the same one Congress will vote on in the end. The distinguished Senator from South Dakota made that very clear. They don't want to agree with our Trade Representative and then have countless amendments in the House and the Senate that could change the whole agreement they had agreed to. That is why trade promotion authority became such an important part of our international relations. As former Deputy USTR Miriam Sapiro said in a recent speech: Neither our Asian nor our European partners want to get into the real give-and-take that's necessary to reach a final agreement until they are sure that the president has the authority that he needs to conclude the deal. Absent that, they are content to wait. In other words, if we want good trade agreements, we must have strong TPA procedures in place, and we need to be clear on one other point: The specifics of those procedures matter. They matter a great deal. This is bipartisanship at its best. Our goal should not be to pass just any TPA bill. Our goal should be to pass the strongest bill possible. That is the only way to ensure we get the best possible deal out of our trade negotiations, which is, in the end, the purpose of TPA. We have used the same basic TPA structure for every major trade agreement over the last four decades and, quite frankly, the results speak for themselves. As my colleagues have so eloquently stated today, we do not need new, untested changes to establish TPA procedures that can hamper the process and make it harder for both our negotiators to reach a good deal and for Congress to be able to vote on agreement up or down. 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. I set out to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to craft the best possible bill. We already had a good framework in place--the bill I introduced last year with former Chairman Baucus and Chairman Camp, which had broad support in Congress, in the administration, and in the business community. My goal has been to see if we could improve upon that product in order to broaden support for TPA. I am certainly willing to do that, but I have made it clear throughout this process that I cannot agree to any bill that would dilute the effectiveness of TPA as a tool to negotiate and enact strong trade agreements. Recently, I had the opportunity to talk personally with President Obama about TPA, as I mentioned. I think he understands the importance of getting a strong TPA bill through Congress. That is why I am willing to work with him to make the advancement of our Nation's trade agenda a higher priority. I am hoping the President will do his part to help persuade the Members of his party to support an effective TPA bill. He says he will, and I believe him. Make no mistake. Our competitors are not sitting on their laurels when it comes to trade. There are literally hundreds of trade agreements under negotiation throughout the world, and the United States is party to only a few. This hurts our exporters badly. This bill is really necessary. We need to do better. We need to do everything we can to ensure that the United States is not only a participant in international trade but a leader. The only way we can do that is by passing a strong TPA bill. I stand ready and willing to work with the White House and my colleagues in the Senate to get an effective TPA bill introduced out of committee and onto the Senate floor as soon as possible. We cannot afford to miss this opportunity. This is a grand opportunity for us. It is bipartisan down the line, and I think it would be a great accomplishment for the Congress of the United States to get this done. But, more importantly, it would be a great accomplishment for the President and this administration to have this done. It would give him the tools to do a lot of the things that need to be done. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, today we will again resume consideration of the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. This is an important bill to me. I have been working on it for many years. Without a doubt, this legislation is incredibly important. Right now in this country there are thousands of human beings--mainly young people--living as slaves. Women and children are stolen from their homes, stripped of their God-given rights, and robbed of their human dignity. These individuals live among us. They live in our neighborhoods and in our suburbs, our biggest cities and our smallest towns. They live in a world of silence, fear, hopelessness, and unspeakable suffering. The State Department estimates that up to 17,500 individuals are trafficked to the United States every year. The majority of these are women and children. Some of them are forced into a life of unpaid servitude, many others into sex work. Worldwide, the International Labor Organization estimates that 4.5 million people are currently enslaved through sex trafficking. These numbers are staggering, but they only illustrate the scope of the problem. The suffering of each individual victim should not be lost in a sea of statistics. For victims of human trafficking, the surreal horror of their lives bears testimony to the gravity of the crime. A number of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have worked tirelessly to update our legal framework for fighting this scourge. I wish to commend them for their efforts, especially the senior Senator from Texas, the senior Senator from Minnesota, and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Their efforts represent exactly the sort of work that should be the mission of this body: working across the aisle to produce workable solutions to the most pressing problems facing our Nation. The majority leader also merits praise for his decision to take up this bill and his unwavering support for it. Far too often, his predecessor focused the Senate's time and efforts on taking partisan messaging votes and abusing the rules to score political points. By prioritizing the consideration of important bipartisan legislation such as this--and by restoring this body's traditions of fulsome debate, an open amendment process, and regular order through the committee system--our new majority is putting the Senate back to work for the American people. While the sailing has not always been totally smooth-- it rarely is--the progress we have seen in restoring this institution to its proper role as a productive legislative body is both real and meaningful. Given the progress we have made thus far, the logjam that is currently impeding our progress on this important legislation is extremely disappointing. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have claimed that we somehow supposedly snuck a controversial abortion provision into an otherwise uncontroversial bill. This claim is unequivocally ridiculous. First, the language in question was by no means snuck into the bill. It was in the bill when it was introduced at the beginning of this Congress. It was in the bill when those of us on the Judiciary Committee took part in an extensive markup of the bill. It was in the bill when it passed unanimously out of committee. It was in the bill when we undertook its consideration here on the floor. In fact, there were Democratic cosponsors of this bill. Moreover, not only was this language in the bill from the beginning, but it has also been the law of the land for nearly four decades. Democrats in this body have supported countless other bills with similar language, including even ObamaCare. Abortion is obviously a divisive and sensitive issue. While I am strongly pro-life, I recognize that many of my friends passionately disagree with me on this issue. As Members of this institution, it is incumbent upon us to respect the sincere beliefs of our colleagues with whom we disagree and to work toward responsible governing arrangements. The Hyde amendment represents such a sensible and appropriate arrangement. It is predicated on the commonsense notion that while we may vigorously disagree on whether life should be protected before birth, we can broadly agree that taxpayer money should not be used-- should not be used--to fund a procedure that many Americans--in fact a majority, according to a number of polls--consider to be murder. The responsible way for each of us to approach this bill, regardless of our view on abortion, is to embrace this long-standing, commonsense compromise on abortion funding and focus on passing the underlying measure--a bill that is so critical to our efforts to fight human trafficking and help alleviate the suffering of victims. To hold up the passage of this bill to pick a fight over the Hyde amendment represents an unambiguous dereliction of Senators' individual duties to responsibly legislate. Unfortunately, that is exactly what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have done. They are now threatening a filibuster unless we agree to their extreme pro-abortion position on this issue. There ought to be six of them who will stand up and vote with us and get this bill passed. In response, the majority leader offered an eminently reasonable compromise--an up-or-down vote on an amendment to strip out the language to which they are suddenly objecting. But the minority leader objected, demanding a guarantee that the provision be removed. By doing so, the minority leader is once again resorting to outrageous ``my way or the highway'' tactics that are the antithesis of how the Senate should work. It is a move out of the same playbook that he used to give us a calendar full of messaging votes last year meant to produce political theater rather than meaningful legislation. This ploy plainly demonstrates the desire of the minority leadership to muck up the majority's efforts to exercise reliable leadership, no matter the cost to the victims of human trafficking. By resorting to this sort of obstruction, they have demonstrated how desperately they want to derail our efforts to legislate responsibly and instead resort to their tired and discredited war-on-women rhetoric to win cheap political points. Let me repeat a point I have repeatedly made about this impasse-- words that the minority leader has tried to manipulate to support his shameful gambit. For all of my colleagues who are tempted by this irresponsible strategy: It would be pathetic to hold up this bill. This bill is absolutely critical to our families and our children. I cannot believe the Senate has become so political that my colleagues would raise this issue--this tangential, long-settled issue at this time--after the same transparently clear language passed unanimously out of the Judiciary Committee. For my colleagues to hold up this bill in an effort to impose their extreme policy, to overturn the law of the land that has long enjoyed bipartisan support, to pick a false fight over abortion, or to try to embarrass the majority is itself embarrassing. I urge my colleagues in the minority in the strongest possible terms to reconsider their position and allow the Senate, once again, to do the people's business. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to speak again on the impending exhaustion of reserves in the disability insurance program or the disability insurance trust fund. As we know, disability insurance, or DI, is an important program administered by Social Security Administration, or SSA. The impending exhaustion of the DI trust fund threatens disabled American workers with benefit cuts, under current law, toward the end of calendar year 2016. Once again, I am committed to working with anyone to ensure that those cuts do not occur. Unfortunately, the administration and SSA have yet to show they are committed to addressing this problem. As chair of the Senate Finance Committee, I will continue speaking on the floor about the imminent challenge that we face with the DI trust fund and about solutions. I will continue to reach out to shareholders and to anyone who is interested in bipartisan discussions aimed at achieving solutions. And I will be acting to at least begin to chip away at the financial challenges facing the DI program, which I have been warning people about for years--that it is going to go broke unless we do something to improve them. I do believe we should act at least to begin to chip away at the financial challenges the DI program is facing, while examining ways we can help improve and modernize the Social Security system itself. I once again call on my friends on the other side of the aisle and in the administration to join me in this effort. I wish to take a moment to note that some recent proposals to reform Social Security that have been put forward by some of my friends on the other side of the aisle are, simply put, irresponsible. We have seen proposals recently to raise taxes in the Social Security Program, usually to increase net progressivity in an already progressive structure and then spend most of the revenue on benefit expansion without adequately considering the fact that even under their proposal we have gaping long-run holes in Social Security's finances. Raising taxes and increasing some benefits now, while still leaving an unsustainable financial structure in place, would be fundamentally unfair to younger generations of workers who will have to eventually pay even more taxes, suffer from benefit cuts or, more likely, both. The so-called progressive reform plans that tax more and promise more benefits, even though the promises are unsustainable, are surely poll- tested with demographic groups who probably do not scoff at promises of more benefits and higher taxes on the so-called rich. Those plans may help in fundraising for numerous groups who try to benefit from the politics of fear surrounding the Social Security system. But those plans do nothing for younger generations of workers, aside from sending them a clear message that they are on their own. Again, this is irresponsible. More generally, some believe that we could solve all or most of the financial challenges facing the DI program and Social Security, in general, through higher taxes. To investigate whether that is the case, I made several requests of the Congressional Budget Office regarding this strategy. Recent analysis performed in response to those requests shows how difficult this approach can be. Most proposals to reform Social Security by raising payroll taxes would result in massive tax increases, particularly on the middle class--on middle-class Americans--which would negatively impact job growth and harm middle-income families. That is hardly what our economy needs. For example, according to CBO, if you wanted to generate long-term balance between inflows and outflows for the DI program--using a DI payroll tax increase alone--you would have to increase the tax rate by 39 percent, which would hit low-, middle-, and upper-income earners alike, and it would hit hard. If you wanted to generate long-term balance for Social Security, generally, including DI and retirement, and try to do it by eliminating the maximum on earnings subject to the payroll tax and resulting benefits, according to CBO, a worker earning $150,000 a year would pay about 26 percent more in payroll taxes. A worker earning $200,000 a year would pay about 68 percent more, and a worker earning $250,000 a year would pay 109 percent more. Now, it may be that raising taxes by 26 percent to more than 100 percent on those earners is something that my friends on the other side of the aisle are comfortable with--under the notion of taxing the so- called rich. I would note, of course, that while a family headed by someone earning $150,000 a year may be comfortable in many areas of the country, it appears that the ever-changing definition of rich is descending lower and lower into the middle class, as my friends on the other side have lectured more and more over recent years about inequality. Even if you were to eliminate the taxable minimum entirely but still provide corresponding benefits to upper earners in accordance with current law, only around 45 percent of Social Security's long-run financial challenges would be addressed. You would still need to hike taxes more, cut benefits, or both, to fully address the program's long- term fiscal problems. Because upper earners will pay more taxes but also receive corresponding benefits, since Social Security was designed to have such a correspondence, the policy of increasing the taxable maximum ends up giving higher replacement rates to upper earners. That hardly seems to be a workable solution--since it doesn't solve the financial problem, and it doesn't solve the inequality problem that is so bothersome to my friends on the other side. Perhaps just for the sake of argument, we should consider eliminating the taxable minimum, thereby raising taxes substantially on upper earners, and not giving them any corresponding benefits for those increased tax payments. Of course, such a policy is bothersome to some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, since it breaks the connection in Social Security between what people put in and what they get out. Some would say that this would convert Social Security into another welfare program focused on redistribution and away from a program focused more on self-financed retirement security and protection against income losses from disability. So, instead, maybe we should consider eliminating the taxable maximum and give some small benefit return in exchange. Well, in such a case, according to CBO, you would still not be able to solve the financial challenges facing Social Security. Using scheduled benefits and replacement rates ``would increase noticeably only for people in the highest quintile of lifetime household earnings.'' I don't think that result would be desirable to the tax- the-rich coalition. Let me continue by noting some recent remarks on the Senate floor from the junior Senator from Vermont and the ranking member of the Budget Committee, who promises to put forward what he suggests is a courageous way to confront Social Security's financial challenges. Of course, he has not put forward any legislation or plan in this Congress. So if we want to talk specifics, we have to look at his previous plan, which he released in the 113th Congress. Under that plan, the current taxable maximum is preserved, as are current payroll tax rates. The new twist is that his plan imposes current payroll tax rates on earnings above $250,000 a year, which, evidently, is where the distinction between the so-called rich and everyone else lies, in their opinion. That $250,000 threshold is not--let me repeat--is not indexed to inflation. Earnings subject to the tax above $250,000 a year would not be included in earnings used to compute benefits, which is to say that under this plan a worker would pay Social Security taxes on earnings above $250,000 a year, with no corresponding increase in Social Security benefits. Again, this would move the system away from a self-financed insurance program toward what some would call welfare and redistribution. Since the new $250,000 threshold is not indexed, eventually more and more earnings will become subject to increased Social Security taxes without getting anything in terms of benefits and return. In around 20 years, middle-class earners who today have just surpassed the taxable maximum will be pushed into the earnings category where they lose the connection between Social Security taxes and corresponding benefits. At that time, an indexed income equivalent of what is around $120,000 a year today will be deemed to be rich, with earnings above that amount worthy of being taxed more for Social Security but not worthy of receiving any additional Social Security benefits. So what does the Senator's scheme that, once again, was put forward in the last Congress, accomplish? Admittedly, it does extend the solvency of Social Security by around 28 years or so, but it still does not make the system financially sustainable in the long run, leaving an assured financial shortfall and attendant need for yet more taxes or benefits cuts, and leaving it to younger generations or workers to figure it out. More than likely it will, in many respects, sever the connection between what people pay in to Social Security and what they can expect to get out of this program in terms of benefits. Once again, this represents a fundamental shift in Social Security policy, one that some may support but few are now willing to openly defend. I look forward to debating, discussing, and voting on any plan that any of my friends on the other side of the aisle put forward to tackle Social Security's financial challenges, including any new plan the junior Senator from Vermont wants to put forward, particularly if it resembles the plan he introduced last Congress. Indeed, I would be anxious to see how many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to go on record in support of yet more tax increases and a fundamental shift in the nature of the Social Security Program. In the meantime, we still have the pending depletion of reserves in the DI trust fund, which is something we will have to address before the end of calendar year 2016. From my perspective, the sooner we tackle this challenge the better, but it is hard to act when we have an administration that refuses to engage in discussion and seems to want to make this a partisan issue by putting forward a plan to reallocate payroll taxes from one trust fund to another without any further discussion or debate. What I continue to hear from the administration and many of its allies in Congress are stale talking points, many of which are wrong or distorted, and a ``take it or leave it'' approach to deliberating over the reallocation scheme devised unilaterally by this administration. The only thing this administration appears willing to discuss when it comes to Social Security is its own kick-the-can strategy coupled with additional administrative funds for the SSA, either funded with yet more Federal debt or by crowding out spending on other discretionary programs. Meanwhile, I am comforted by many in the disability advocacy community who are at least willing to have conversations about how we can work to improve Social Security's programs while also paying attention to its financial challenges. There are several groups currently hard at work analyzing options and having debate and discussion about what we could look at for program improvements and fiscal responsibility. There is certainly more we can do to improve the DI system and help make it work better for beneficiaries. There is certainly more we can do to improve Social Security's retirement side to help make it work better for modern family situations. There is certainly more we can do on the program integrity side, including some of the President's proposals and more. There is certainly more we can do to protect against frivolous decisionmaking by administrative law judges in the DI program--and there is plenty of that which is costing us arms and legs. There is certainly more we can do to reduce fraud in the DI program, which literally robs resources from those truly in need. Sadly, the Obama administration's approach to DI and Social Security in general has thus far been largely to remain silent, even in the face of the impending DI trust fund exhaustion. The only major structural change the administration briefly considered was adoption of the chained CPI in governmentwide price indexation coupled with benefit enhancements for vulnerable populations. However, the President has since withdrawn even that modest proposal and has publicly stated he would not even discuss the idea unless he was assured of getting yet another tax hike for the general fund to go along with it. As I have said before, it is premature to kick the can down the road again by agreeing on some payroll tax reallocation between the two trust funds in Social Security as a temporary patch of convenience and a patch that was unilaterally constructed by this administration. Yes, there have been reallocations among many trust funds in the past, under many varying circumstances, and, yes, many of them have had bipartisan support, but we have known about this coming shortfall for roughly 20 years. In other words, Congress has had roughly 20 years to come up with solutions to help put the DI program and perhaps Social Security in general on a path to long-term financial sustainability, and Congress has failed. We are now being asked by the current administration to double down on that failed approach--to do another reallocation of push the problem further down the road and hope that in the interim Congress will not fail again. President Obama, in other policy areas, has argued that if decades show a policy is not working, then ``it's time for a new approach.'' Sadly, that sentiment does not seem to apply when he is talking about Social Security. As I have said before, it seems we have two paths to choose from; one is the path I prefer, involving examination and discussion of what we can do to enhance the DI program and its finances and what we can agree upon; the other is to engage in divisive political rhetoric and demagogue the issue even further, which is irresponsible, in my view, and not what disabled American workers and all workers insured by the DI program should tolerate. I repeat my previous call to my colleagues in the Senate: To anyone from either party who wishes to engage in a constructive dialogue about how to fix and improve the DI program and Social Security in general, my door is open. In the meantime, I plan to take whatever steps I can as the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction to help preserve these programs for beneficiaries in the near and long term. We can't keep going down this way of always demanding more taxes and more spending to solve problems we could have solved a long time ago. We are going to have to get serious about this, and I intend to see that we do. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we live in a country of unparalleled opportunity. The blessings of liberty are the birthright of every American, and the Framers ordained our Constitution to protect these rights. To deny any person these basic freedoms would seem almost unthinkable today. So the fact that even as I speak there are thousands of individuals living as slaves in our very own country is even more unthinkable. But it is undeniably true. In this country, right now, there are thousands of human beings living as slaves, men, women, and children, stolen from their homes, stripped of their God-given rights, and robbed of their human dignity. These individuals live among us. They live in our neighborhoods and our suburbs, our biggest cities and our smallest towns. They live in a world of silence, fear, hopelessness, and unspeakable suffering. These individuals of whom I speak are the victims of human trafficking, a heinous and abominable crime that we should call by its real name: modern-day slavery. The State Department estimates that up to 17,500 individuals are trafficked to the United States every year. The majority of these are women and children. Some of them are forced into a life of unpaid servitude, many others into sex work. Worldwide, the International Labor Organization estimates that 4.5 million people are currently enslaved through sex trafficking. These numbers are staggering, but they illustrate the scope of the problem. The suffering of each individual victim should not be lost in a sea of statistics. For victims of human trafficking, the surreal horror of their lives bears testimony to the gravity of the crime. Consider the case of Holly Smith. When Holly was just 14 years old, she met a man at a local shopping mall in New Jersey. With all the innocence of youth, Holly confided in this man all the fears and anxieties of her adolescence, telling him how nervous she was to begin high school. Holly could never have guessed that the man she had just met--the man she had just trusted with her deepest feelings--was a human trafficker trained to emotionally manipulate young girls to lure them into prostitution. This man promised Holly a life of glamor and excitement if she agreed to run away with him. Holly took the bait. She ran away with the man who would later abuse her and intimidate her into prostitution. She was one of the many victims of child sex trafficking. Holly eventually escaped this nightmare and even had the courage to tell her story at a Judiciary Committee hearing on human trafficking last month, but many are not so lucky. We must do more to help victims such as Holly. We must do more to combat the evils of human trafficking. As a legislative body, we made significant progress in the year 2000 when we passed the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. This legislation took critical steps in providing greater protection to victims and levying heavier penalties against traffickers. We have since reauthorized that legislation on four occasions. In each instance, I have been passionately committed in the fight against human trafficking. My staff has also been equally devoted to this issue, and I was especially proud when President Bush asked my former Judiciary counsel, Grace Chung Becker, to head the very first human trafficking unit within the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. It is only fitting that the Justice Department established this unit as a subset of its Civil Rights Division and not its Criminal Division. Human trafficking is more than a mere crime; it is a fundamental violation of human rights. It is not my intention to minimize the significance of the legislation we have passed thus far, but we still have so much work to do. We have recognized that human trafficking is a serious problem; now we need a serious solution. I am grateful for Senator Klobuchar's initiative in addressing that problem. Her Stop Exploitation Through Trafficking Act properly identifies children lured into prostitution as victims, not criminals. By encouraging States to adopt safe harbor laws, we are better equipped to help victims receive the care and treatment they deserve. Senator Cornyn's Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act also aids these victims by establishing a special fund that will provide them more of the resources they need to repair their shattered lives. Senator Cornyn's bill also imposes severe penalties on traffickers, including heavier fines that the Justice Department will direct toward victim compensation. I strongly support both of these bills, and I am grateful for my colleagues' enormous efforts in building a coalition to combat this scourge. Human trafficking is a complex problem, and solving it requires a multi-front approach. It is a problem of both supply and demand. In addition to passing this legislation to address the problem of supply, we must also address the problem of demand. The prevalence of human trafficking is a moral stain on our country, and we can never eradicate this evil if we are only addressing part of the problem. Through stricter enforcement of obscenity laws, we can decrease demand for sex trafficking. There is an undeniable link between illegal adult obscenity and sex trafficking, and I have long been an outspoken voice on this issue. Laura Lederer, former Senior Advisor on Trafficking in Persons at the State Department, observed that there are ``numerous links between sex trafficking and pornography'' and that pornography is even ``used in sex trafficking and the sex industry to train women and children what to do.'' In 2011, I led 41 other Senators in sending a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder calling for greater enforcement of Federal obscenity laws. In his response, even he agreed that hard-core pornography is associated with sex trafficking. This type of obscenity not only harms individuals, families, and entire communities, but also normalizes sexual harm to children. How long will we let this culture of perversion persist? How long will we ignore the pressing problem of adult obscenity at the expense of the innocent women and children who are too often the victims of this vice? Enough is enough. Ignoring the problem of adult obscenity is ignoring the problem of human trafficking, and ignorance will not free the innocent women and children trapped in the clutches of modern-day slavery. The First Amendment does not protect adult obscenity, so the Federal Government is acting well within its power to impose greater enforcement. I firmly believe a consistent commitment to enforcing these laws will have a significant impact in reducing the prevalence of sex trafficking. I want to conclude by discussing this body's handling of this important bill. In my 39 years as a Member of this body, I have seen the Senate at some of its best moments and at some of its worst moments. Last year I came to the floor repeatedly to warn of how my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--who were then in the majority--had abused the legislative process for partisan political gain. Since the beginning of the 114th Congress this January, we have made remarkable progress in restoring the Senate as an institution. By restoring this body's traditions of fulsome debate, an open amendment process, and regular order through the committee system, our new majority is putting the Senate back to work for the American people. While the sailing has not always been totally smooth--it rarely is in my experience--the progress we have seen in restoring this institution to its proper role as a productive legislative body is real and meaningful. Given this headway, I have been extremely disappointed to see a logjam develop and impede our progress on this vital piece of bipartisan legislation, something that should pass this body 100 to 0. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have threatened a filibuster, claiming that we somehow ambushed them with a controversial abortion rider. That claim is absolutely ridiculous. The language they are suddenly so upset about has been in the bill the entire time, as those of us on the Judiciary Committee can attest. My colleagues had no complaints about this language when the bill passed out of the committee; in fact, it passed unanimously. Moreover, not only was this language in the bill from the beginning, but it has also been the law of the land for nearly four decades. Democrats in this body have supported countless other bills-- including even ObamaCare--with similar language, knowing that such provisions are important to many people on both sides of the aisle. This policy represents a sensible and appropriate compromise in an issue area characterized by conflicting and deeply held views. As such, the notion that this provision should provoke my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to grind the legislative process to a halt boggles the mind. It makes us wonder what in the world is going on here. Even the most charitable interpretation of this move suggests that the minority is once again resorting to outrageous my-way-or-the- highway tactics to impose an extreme pro-abortion policy. More disturbingly, this ploy plainly demonstrates the minority leadership's desire to pick a political fight over abortion and to muck up the majority's efforts to exercise reliable leadership. By resorting to this sort of obstruction, they have demonstrated just how desperately they want to derail our efforts to legislate responsibly and instead resort to their tired and discredited war-on-women rhetoric to win cheap political points. I am unabashedly pro-life, and I have no qualms whatsoever about debating that issue. If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are so desperate to debate that issue and push an extreme plan to overturn the longstanding compromise--that is the law of the land--let us debate such a measure at an appropriate time, but not on this bill. To hold this important human trafficking bill hostage is a deplorable approach. The minority leader earlier came to the floor and tried to manipulate my words to support his shameful gambit. For all of my colleagues who are tempted by this irresponsible strategy, let me repeat my previous point. It would be pathetic to hold up this bill. This bill is absolutely critical to families and our children. I cannot believe the Senate has become so political that my colleagues would raise this issue--this tangential, long-settled issue--at this time--after the same transparently clear language passed unanimously out of the Judiciary Committee. For my colleagues to hold up this bill in an effort to seek to impose their extreme policy, to overturn the law of the land that has long enjoyed bipartisan support, to pick a false fight over abortion, or to try to embarrass the majority is itself embarrassing. They ought to be ashamed. I urge my colleagues in the minority, in the strongest possible terms, to reconsider their position and allow the Senate once again to do the people's business. Look, all of us are fed up with the delays and the problems of not legislating the way we should in the Senate. All of us are fed up with some of the tactics that have been used, but to use them on a bill such as this? Come on. This is a bill that will make a real difference, and there should not be one Senator in this body voting against it, and they certainly shouldn't vote against it because there is language in there that is the law of the land today. Yes, many Democrats don't like it. But I don't like them holding up one of the most important bills for children and families and women just so they can make a cheap political point on abortion. I care a great deal for my colleagues on the other side. They have special concerns just as we have special concerns. They have special challenges just as we have special challenges. But this is one we ought all to agree on. Get it out of the Senate, get it going, and start doing more to stop human trafficking in our society today. This is something we ought to all quit playing games with. Just pass it, and get it through the Senate and the House. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I will speak for a few seconds on what the distinguished Senator from Texas said. It would be absolutely pathetic if this bill were stopped--a bill this important that means so much to our families and to our children-- because of the long-term language that has been, as I say, for 39 years--I can't believe this Senate has become so political that we would raise that issue at this time on this bill that almost everybody with any brains at all would be for. I would be ashamed of myself. And then not be willing to bring up an amendment if they don't like the language, go through the regular order, and act like the Senate and act like Senators--it is pathetic. What have we come to around here that we are so doggone partisan that we can't even pass a bill to protect children? I think it is pathetic, is all I can say. Ukraine Madam President, in my nearly 40 years of public service, I have become very concerned with the state of our national security. From the firestorm of terrorism that has swept Syria and Iraq, to the looming specter of a nuclear Iran, our Nation faces yet another potential catastrophe in Ukraine, where Russian separatists and soldiers continue their drive to consume as much of that nation as President Putin desires. It is particularly vexing that each of these catastrophes could have been prevented or at least greatly mitigated had the instigators of these events believed that the United States intended to use its national power to deter and, if necessary, repulse those seeking to use aggression against our national interests. As I mentioned before, Ukraine is the latest example. Almost 1 year ago Russian forces seized and then annexed the Crimean peninsula. Ever since then, Russian separatists and Russian forces have snapped up large parts of eastern Ukraine. Until last year, the areas controlled by Russian separatists and Russian forces could be loosely grouped into two areas along the Russian border--specifically, a northern area around the city of Luhansk and a southern area around the city of Donetsk. In between these two Russian-controlled areas lies the town called Debaltseve, which is a vital transportation hub. By seizing this strategic town, Russia can transport troops and supplies more easily between the Russian-controlled areas in the north and the South. However, after weeks of fighting in and around Debaltseve, a ceasefire called Minsk II was brokered. Unfortunately, as many realists warned, Minsk II was not worth the paper it was written on. Predictably, 72 hours after the ceasefire was signed, Russian forces violated the protocol and Ukrainian soldiers retreated from the town under heavy fire. Adding insult to injury, President Putin was quoted by the New York Times, after the fall of Debaltseve, saying: Life is life. It just goes on. No need to dwell on it. What is the response of the United States to this aggression? Well, until today the only concrete action, as reported by ABC News, is that the administration has decided to send fewer than 10 soldiers to western Ukraine to provide combat medical training to Ukrainian forces. This would not be so laughable if I did not believe the Ukrainians will require far greater medical assistance if Russian aggression continues unabated. But now that Russian-backed forces have solidified their control over whole swathes of eastern Ukraine, what comes next? Will Mr. Putin be appeased and go home? I very much doubt it. Recent reports indicate that both sides have moved some heavy weapons away from the battlefield; nevertheless, I believe this could just be a lull in the storm. As I mentioned earlier, Russian forces have annexed Crimea, which is a peninsula between the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov. To supply their forces in Crimea, Russians must fly over or cross a narrow strip of water between the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov called the Kerch Strait. But if Russians controlled the land between Crimea and the Russian border, they could ship those supplies more efficiently and at lower cost. This stretch of land, of course, is Ukrainian sovereign territory. Therefore, it is very possible that the Russians will move to conquer this region to establish a land corridor between Russia and Crimea. Many military experts believe this is Russia's objective since Russian-backed separatists have intensified their military activities around the port city of Mariupol. The New York Times reports that the city ``is a bustling port in a strategic location on the Sea of Azov, near the Russian border.'' Mariupol is the only major obstacle to the Russians realizing a long- held goal of opening a land route between Russia and Crimea and taking complete control of the Sea of Azov and its rich industrial infrastructure. In addition, the highly regarded Institute for the Study of War has noted that a village approximately 8 miles from Mariupol has ``become the most actively contested area'' in the region. So what has been our response to this aggression? How is this administration preserving what is arguably one of the greatest American national security accomplishments in the past 100 years--ensuring a safe, secure and democratic Europe? Well, to be honest, not much. Before the events of the past 12 months, this administration's Pollyanna policy toward Russia was defined by the so-called reset. It was my impression this policy was designed to convince the Russians we were not a threat and therefore we should work together for the common good. Unfortunately, the Russians exploited the former and did not give a darn about the latter. Then, as the situation in Crimea and eastern Ukraine continued to grow more dire, we instituted a series of economic sanctions--first against Russian officials, then later against banks and businesses associated with Putin's cronies. These economic sanctions have grown against a number of key Russian energy, banking, and defense firms. To be fair, today the administration announced a modest increase in the number of individuals to which economic sanctions will be directed against. However, one would be hard-pressed to call these sanctions robust. Individuals' assets were frozen and companies find it harder to raise capital, but they are hardly enough to make Mr. Putin think twice before proceeding to use force against his next objective. What about our diplomatic efforts? As the Congressional Research Service has stated, ``The administration has appeared to leave the leading role in negotiating such a [peace] settlement [regarding Ukraine] to France and Germany.'' What about U.S. military aid? According to the Congressional Research Service, the United States has allocated $120 million in security assistance so far. Today our government announced a modest increase in aid. Of the aid previously announced, funds were used for body armor, helmets, vehicles, night and thermal vision devices, heavy engineering equipment, advanced radios, patrol boats, rations, tents, countermortar radars, uniforms, and first aid equipment and supplies. Glaringly absent from this list are the pieces of equipment that could tilt the balance of power and change Mr. Putin's calculations. Specifically, where are the intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, heavy weapons and logistics assets? What is the administration's response? Just this week Brian McKeon, the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy stated--more than 1 year after the Russian invasion of Crimea--that the Obama administration is ``still working in the interagency group on reviewing a number of options including lethal defensive weapons, but I can't give you a timetable on when we might have a decision on additional assistance.'' That is pathetic. By any measure that is pathetic. I am flabbergasted not only by Mr. McKeon's comment but the thought that the administration believes anyone would see that as a legitimate answer. In other areas, what about the deployment of more U.S. military units to Europe to reassure our allies? While the United States has deployed some troops to the region, that is not enough to convince Moscow this administration is determined to give a resolute response to further Russian aggression. Specifically, the initial deployment of U.S. land forces were in company-size units. A company-size unit has less than 150 soldiers, an insufficient force to amount to an effective deterrent. Then the administration announced that a single armored brigade--which consists of less than 100 tanks--would be deployed on a rotational basis. Once again, this is a relatively small force to deter what historically has been one of the great land armies. Deterrence comes through strength. The world has changed since the fall of the Berlin Wall, but it appears this has been lost on President Putin. Indeed, it appears President Obama believes the world has changed more than it has. Regardless, the United States must take more forceful and dynamic actions. Otherwise, our policy of appeasement could result in more than just the loss of eastern Ukraine. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss one of the most critical national security challenges facing the Senate: specifically, how we should craft an authorization for the use of military force against the terrorist organization known as the Islamic State. I have spoken before on the floor about what I believe the outline of an authorization should contain. Now that the President has released his proposal--and with Secretary Kerry, Secretary Carter, and General Dempsey slated to testify tomorrow on behalf of this proposal--I feel compelled to address this topic in greater detail. Before delving into the specifics of the administration's proposed authorization, we should consider how this institution has grappled with these vital questions throughout our Nation's history. Dating back to 1798, Congress has on several occasions enacted legislation short of a formal declaration of war authorizing the use of military force by the President. In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, Congress authorized U.S. naval action against both state and non-state actors who attacked U.S. commercial vessels. More recent authorizations formally passed by the Congress include those intended to protect the Middle East, Taiwan, and Southeast Asia from communist aggression in the 1950s and 1960s. And since the end of the Cold War, we have passed authorizations concerning Lebanon, the September 11 attacks, and Iraq-- all in 1991 and in 2002. I voted for those latter four authorizations here in this Chamber. Each case was unique, but in every case the White House did not send the Congress ``take it or leave it'' language. Rather, the Senate and the House fashioned text that represented a negotiated outcome with the White House and within Congress. For example, Presidents Eisenhower and George H.W. Bush worked closely with Congress to obtain strong authorizations for the use of military force, despite Democrats controlling both Chambers. President George W. Bush twice did the same with a Democrat-led Senate. This approach yielded concrete benefits--a more thoughtful debate and strategy around our use of force, greater unity in supporting our military, and congressional willingness to fulfill our constitutional responsibilities. Historically, the Senate has fulfilled its role as a place of intelligent, informed debate in moving authorizations for use of military force. We must do so again as we consider this authorization to combat the Islamic State. Thirteen years ago, as the Senate began to deliberate over an authorization to rid Iraq of its violent dictator, I said: We all must leave our political party affiliations at the door when it comes to our national security and supporting our troops in the field. It is time for Congress to come together, to hold a public debate, and to craft the right authorization to defeat the Islamic State. Turning to the proposed authorization before us today, I agree with the legal interpretation offered by the Obama administration that the executive branch has the power to conduct operations against the Islamic State under article II of the Constitution and the existing authorizations from 2001 and 2002. Unfortunately, the administration has undermined the credibility of its own proposal by continuously changing its position as to how the 2001 and 2002 authorizations should be employed. Therefore, in order to settle any legal questions about the power to use force against the Islamic State--and to demonstrate America's resolve in this fight against terror--I firmly believe that a new authorization should be enacted. Accordingly, the senior Senator from Oklahoma and I discussed in this Chamber last month three principles that we believe should be included in a new authorization for the use of military force against the Islamic State. First, the authorization must clearly articulate that the executive branch is authorized to use force--employed in accordance with the law of war--against the Islamic State. Second, the authorization must be flexible enough to be used against the Islamic State as it appears today but also in whatever form the Islamic State transforms into in the future. This flexibility must include the authority to use force against organizations that associate with or support the Islamic State. Finally, and most importantly, the authorization must not impose any artificial and unnecessary limitations, such as those based on time, geography, and type of force, which could interfere with our strategic objective of defeating the Islamic State. Unfortunately, the President's draft authorization does not fully adhere to these principles. First, the President's proposal ``does not authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces in enduring offensive ground operations.'' Obviously, this is an unwise artificial limitation on what type of forces we can employ. But the President's proposed operative text offers little to define what this restriction entails. Therefore, my initial reaction, one that is widely shared, is: What does this restriction mean? To be fair, the President's introductory letter that accompanied his draft does provide some insight into the administration's interpretation of this phrase. Specifically, the President argues that the authorization would provide him with the power to conduct rescue operations, to provide advice and assistance to partner forces, and to deploy the use of Special Forces in missions against the Islamic State's leadership, intelligence collection, and targeting missions. But in laying out his vision, the President's proposal also tells our enemies what he is not prepared to do. Knowing these limitations would provide the Islamic State with a critical advantage: The terrorists would exploit this information in crafting their strategies. Why would we telegraph our strategy to our enemies? The President's proposed legal limitations will also limit our ability to adjust our strategy as needed based on the military situation on the ground. For example, when our counterterrorism strategy in Iraq faltered during the mid 2000s, we changed it and we adopted a new counterinsurgency strategy commonly called the surge. As we all know, the surge was a great success. Therefore, ensuring any authorization has the flexibility to allow our forces to change and adapt their strategies and tactics is essential. Imposing the President's proposed artificial and unnecessary, yet legally binding, restrictions on our forces would be a colossal mistake. Indeed, General Jack Keane, who devised the principles of the surge, recently testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee about his own proposal as to how to conduct operations against the Islamic State. In his testimony, the general did advocate using Special Forces in a similar manner to what the President discussed in his letter accompanying his proposal. But the general went further. He stated that the United States and our coalition partners should position combat brigades in Kuwait if our current operation ``stalls or is defeated.'' Obviously, the use of combat brigades would be prohibited under the President's proposal. Therefore, if the President's limited operations are not successful and additional ground forces are required, adopting the President's proposal would create significant uncertainty. This raises the question: Would Congress need to debate and pass yet another authorization before those units could be used in combat? On its face, this would be completely impractical and hardly in our national security interest. Another area in which the President's proposal does not provide sufficient flexibility is its 3-year time limitation. Simply put, if we advertise when the authorization expires at an arbitrary date and time, will our enemies not hunker down and wait for that date? Secretary of State John Kerry stated in his previous testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the administration does not believe a new authorization should include a geographic limitation. To its credit, the President's proposal does not. Specifically, the Secretary argued: ``In our view, it would be a mistake to advertise to ISIL that there are safe havens for them outside of Iraq and Syria.'' Undoubtedly, the Secretary was concerned about creating artificial limitations that could negatively affect our ability to conduct necessary military operations. He is right. But his concern should extend to the other artificial restrictions that appear in this proposal. How else can we read the prohibition of ``enduring offensive ground combat operations'' and a 3-year time limitation? In conclusion, we can do better. Our forces must have the flexibility to use, or the ability to threaten to use, whatever tools and strategies are necessary to defeat the Islamic State. When America enters into a fight, we should enter to win. And we should not just do this in a halfhearted, stupid way. So I hope the White House will reconsider some of the things that they have advocated and that they have set forth and get this thing done right so that if we are going to enter into warfare, we ought to know what we are doing and ought to have the tools and the legal legalities to be able to do it well.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to a hall of fame golfer, a remarkable husband, and a loyal friend--Billy Casper. Last month, Billy passed away peacefully at the age of 83. I know I speak for all who knew him when I say he will be sorely missed. Billy Casper was a champion both in golf and in life. Between 1956 and 1975, he won 51 tournaments on the PGA tour, including the U.S. Open in 1959 and again in 1966. In 1970, he defeated Gene Litler to capture the Masters in what was the tournament's last 18-hole playoff. During his long and illustrious career, he claimed many titles, including five Vardon Trophies for the low-scoring average that year. He was also a member of eight U.S. Ryder Cup teams and still holds the record for the most Ryder Cup points earned by a U.S. team member. He was inducted into the World Golf Hall of Fame in 1978. Later in his career, Billy captured nine senior PGA tour wins between 1982 and 1989. I am proud that one of these victories came in Jeremy Ranch, UT--the State Billy adopted as his home. Billy first came to Utah in 1959 to play in the Utah Open. During that week, he and his wife Shirley fell in love with Utah and eventually relocated permanently. He was an active member of the Utah golfing community and was inducted into the Utah Sports Hall of Fame in 2013. Since his passing, several professional golfers have offered tributes in honor of Billy's memory. Jack Nicklaus, widely considered the greatest golfer of all time, said the following about Billy: Billy Casper was one of the greatest family men--be it inside the game of golf or out--I have had the fortunate blessing to meet. He had such a wonderful balance to his life. Golf was never the most important thing in Billy's life--family was. There was always much more to Billy Casper than golf . . . It was not even a year ago, someone asked Billy how he wanted to be remembered, and he said, ``I want to be remembered for how I loved my fellow man.'' Mike Reid, a fellow PGA Tour competitor and Utahn, said the following about Billy: ``He taught by example, that while we strive for excellence in golf, success should never come at the cost of the relationships we hold dear.'' To Billy and his wife Shirley, family was always the first priority. They are the proud parents of 11 children, 6 of whom are adopted, and they now have over 70 grandchildren and many great-grandchildren. When his sons were old enough Billy would have them caddie for him on tour so that he could spend that special time with them. He gave freely of himself and spent countless hours in the service of others, both in golf and in church callings. Billy Casper was one of the very best in his chosen profession, but at the same time, he never let the trappings of the world overshadow what was most important to him--his friends, his faith, and his family. I am profoundly grateful that Elaine and I were able to call Billy and Shirley friends. I will miss Billy Casper dearly, as will all who knew him. May his memory remind us all of the importance of kindness, charity, love, and optimism.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to address today's vote to override President Obama's veto of the bipartisan Hoeven-Manchin bill to authorize the Keystone XL Pipeline. Our economy and North America's energy security would greatly benefit from building this pipeline. It would increase our GDP by approximately $3.4 billion annually. The State Department, which has provided clear- headed analysis of the benefits of this project, has found that Keystone would support roughly 42,000 jobs during the construction phase alone. It would provide refineries with up to 830,000 barrels a day of North American oil. Moreover, the Keystone XL Pipeline would be an environmentally sound way to transport this oil. The State Department's extensive environmental impact statement concluded that building the pipeline would actually be better for the environment than not building it. We have to be clear here. This oil is going to go to market no matter what. Building Keystone would take oil off the tracks and off the roads, transporting it in a way that is safer, more efficient, more environmentally sound, and better for creating good-paying American jobs. In his veto message, President Obama suggested that an issue such as this is somehow too important to be left to the legislative process and that we should trust in the integrity of the regulatory process. This is exactly the sort of debate we should be having in the Senate. This is the body that is supposed to debate the important issues of the day. When a project as important as this is stalled without meaningful justification for so long, our involvement is even more important. In our consideration of this bill, we legislated according to the best traditions of this body, including robust debate, an open amendment process, and regular order. After years of mismanagement, our consideration of this bill showed how the Senate is back at work on behalf of the American people under our new leadership. While I certainly hope we will find another means of approving the Keystone XL Pipeline, I am naturally disappointed that we came just a few votes short of overriding the President's veto and enacting this bill into law. Furthermore, I can certainly understand why many Americans will view this occasion as yet another example of how Washington is broken. In many respects, I share this same frustration. Nevertheless, we cannot allow ourselves to slouch toward pessimism and disillusionment about every institution. Indeed, I think my fellow colleagues on both sides of the aisle merit praise for their responsible handling of this bill. Instead, we should shine a light on where exactly the problem is and offer real solutions to make Washington work on behalf of the American people. At the end of the day, the Keystone XL Pipeline and so many other bureaucratic failures just demonstrate that our regulatory bureaucracy is broken. After all, this project is now in its sixth year of limbo, waiting for a single permit to be issued. This debate has gone on longer than an entire term of a U.S. Senator. It should not take years and years of navigating the Federal bureaucracy only to have the government decide not to make a decision. This new Congress is focused on helping to create jobs and getting our economy back on the right track, which is why regulatory reform must be a key part of our agenda over the next 2 years. We must strive not only to approve this particularly important project but also to prevent similar abuses from occurring in the future. Perhaps the two most troublesome features of the modern administrative state are, first, the size of the regulatory burden on the economy and, second, the lack of accountability in the regulatory bureaucracy. Both problems have been illustrated by the Keystone XL project, but they manifest themselves across the board throughout the regulatory process. The growing Federal regulatory burden has been a concern for decades, but the problem is now worse than ever. Both the number of regulations and their combined cost have exploded in recent years. The American people are now bound by more than 1 million individual restrictions in the Federal Register, with a total cost of around $1.86 trillion each year. To put that in perspective, that is about 11 percent of our total GDP, it amounts to about $15,000 per household, and it totals over $300 billion more than annual individual and corporate taxes combined. In short, our regulatory burden is enormous. Even as we resist President Obama's mad dash to add new rules, our Nation simply cannot afford to ignore the crushing burden of existing regulations. They weigh down our efforts to boost economic growth and make it impossible to get our country back on track. Every President, from Jimmy Carter to Barack Obama, has embraced the notion that outdated, unsuccessful or otherwise ineffective regulations should be repealed. Nevertheless, the cumulative regulatory burden continues to expand year after year. To address this growing problem, I will be partnering with Congressman Jason Smith to sponsor the Senate version of the SCRUB Act--Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome. This legislation creates a bipartisan commission to examine the entire administrative corpus in search of regulations that are obsolete, outdated, ineffective, overlapping, duplicative or unjustified. Its goal is to achieve a 15-percent cost reduction in our Nation's total regulatory burden. The Commission can recommend either immediate repeal or incremental reform through a flexible procedure that puts the agencies and stakeholders in the driver's seat. The SCRUB Act transforms a longstanding bipartisan commitment to retrospective regulatory review from mere rhetoric into meaningful reality. It would result in lower prices, higher wages, and more job opportunities for hard-working Americans. All the while, such commonsense regulatory review poses no risk to our health, our safety or our environment. It is the kind of legislation that can earn support from both sides of the aisle and for which there is a realistic path to having it enacted into law. A second critical flaw in the current administrative state is a fundamental lack of accountability in how the Federal Government makes and enforces regulations. Far too often the agencies and interest groups manipulate the rules and stack the decks against innovators, entrepreneurs, and ordinary citizens. Thankfully, there are a number of potential avenues for meaningful reform, but the one area that has thus far escaped much legislative attention is the role the Federal judiciary plays in the regulatory process. Given the broad authorities Congress has ceded to administrative agencies, the courts often stand as the only truth independent check on increasingly out-of-control regulators. But recent abuses by the political branches have created serious challenges for effective and appropriate judicial review on the regulatory process. By writing vague laws, Congress has created extraordinary flexible grants of authority that are both unwise and constitutionally troublesome. Judicial deference to agency interpretations of the law has magnified this power to an extreme degree. Although originally intended as a means of curtailing judicial activism, Chevron deference and its associated doctrines have resulted in a gross misallocation of lawmaking authority. Such doctrines have consigned courts to be rubberstamps, rather than effective checks on administrative overreach. The threat of toothless judicial oversight of increasingly problematic regulatory action was only heightened when President Obama and his allies packed the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals with compliant judges even less inclined to engage in meaningful administrative review, and Congress's creation of broadly available private rights of action to challenge administrative decisions and regulatory activities has opened another avenue for abuse of the courts. While these provisions provide important opportunities for regulated parties to defend their liberties, too often they have allowed groups with no concrete stake in the process to use the courts as a means to drive their own ideological agendas. Worse yet, inconsistent efforts by the judiciary to define the constitutional limits on standing have inadvertently created a perverse environment where businesses with real skin in the game are often shut out of court, while special interest groups with no meaningful injury in fact are allowed to litigate. Restoring the constitutionally proper judicial role is vital to returning accountability to the regulatory process. In reviewing agency actions, courts should hear only real cases and controversies, where litigants have concrete interests at stake. But when they do, they should state firmly what the law is and not simply ratify what the regulatory agencies argue that the law should be. Legislation to ensure meaningful reform on each front and thereby bringing the administrative state more in line with the Constitution will be one of my top priorities in this Congress. It is disappointing that we could not override the President's veto of this important legislation. The failure to authorize Keystone demonstrates how broken our regulatory process is. I hope we can use this occasion of bipartisan consensus to move forward in ways that can fix our out-of-control bureaucracy and get Washington back to work for the American people. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a tremendously important case that was heard this morning in the Supreme Court. The case is King v. Burwell, and it involves the administration of ObamaCare. I was privileged to attend the argument. The King case is important for a number of reasons. It is important because it involves a fundamental component of ObamaCare, and it is important because of its significant implications for the rule of law. From the early days of the Republic, a core component of our constitutional character has been the idea that the government is a government of laws and not of men. That means our leaders are constrained by the words of the laws in our statutes and in our Constitution. Government officials must follow the law even when their personal preferences would lead them in a different direction. The current administration, however, is engaged in a sustained assault on the rule of law. I have spoken many times on the Senate floor about the President's disturbing disregard for the separation of powers and other limits on his authority. His offenses run the gamut of releasing Guantanamo detainees without first notifying Congress, to claiming that congressional inaction somehow clothes him with legislative-like authority to suspend immigration laws, to arrogating to himself the power to determine when Congress is in session. President Obama's actions in the King case are of a piece with the other Executive overreaches. First some background. ObamaCare requires every person in America to buy health insurance. This is the so-called individual mandate the Supreme Court controversially upheld 3 years ago. Most Americans receive health insurance through their employer, which pays a large part of the premium, but not all do. Many must purchase insurance on their own. And to ensure that such individuals are able to comply with the individual mandate, ObamaCare directs States to create health care exchanges--government-operated Web sites where consumers can go to compare and choose insurance plans. ObamaCare also provides subsidies for individuals who purchase insurance through these State- run exchanges. Remember that most people receive health insurance through their employer and that their employer pays part of the premium. Individuals who purchase insurance on their own through exchanges, however, don't receive this employer subsidy, so they themselves must contribute more toward the premium. ObamaCare provides subsidies to these individuals to help offset the cost of insurance. With that background, let me turn now to the legal issue in King. As I have described, ObamaCare directs States to establish health care exchanges. To be precise, the law says that ``each State shall, not later than January 1, 2014, establish an [exchange]'' that meets certain conditions set forth in the law. But there is a wrinkle: The Constitution does not permit the Federal Government to order States to do things. This is called the anticommandeering principle and is well established in Supreme Court case law. What the Federal Government can do, however, is incentivize States to act, and that is precisely what Congress attempted to do with ObamaCare. Here is how the incentive works. Another provision of ObamaCare--the one at the heart of King--conditions the aforementioned subsidies on an individual's enrollment in a State-run exchange. According to this provision, a subscriber is eligible for a subsidy for each month she is covered by a plan that she ``enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State.'' The text of this provision could not be more clear. If an individual enrolls in a plan through an exchange established by the State, she gets a subsidy; if she enrolls in any other plan, no subsidy. The incentive for States to act also could not be more clear. If a State fails to establish an exchange, its citizens lose out on millions of dollars. ObamaCare's proponents quite reasonably thought this would lead States to set up exchanges and would thus accomplish the same result--the creation of State-run exchanges--that Congress could not achieve through a direct command. In fact, I actually heard arguments by administration people that if they put enough pressure on the States, the States would do this. Congress also recognized, however, that some States might not take the deal; thus, it provided a backstop. In yet another provision of ObamaCare, Congress instructed that if a State does not set up an exchange by the January 2014 deadline, the Department of Health and Human Services shall ``establish and operate such Exchange within the State.'' Crucially, however, Congress did not similarly provide that subsidies would be available to subscribers enrolling through a federally established exchange, and the reason is obvious: If subsidies were available under both State and Federal exchanges, States would not have any incentive to create their own exchanges because the subsidies would come either way. Fewer States would create exchanges, meaning the Federal Government would have to step in and create more exchanges of its own. The restriction of subsidies to State-established exchanges was thus a key element of ObamaCare's entire cooperative federalism scheme. Without this restriction, the end result would have been a federally run health care market--a result unacceptable to several key ObamaCare supporters whose votes were essential to passage of the bill. Now we come to President Obama's act of overreach. Notwithstanding the unmistakably clear text of the statute, which limits subsidies to plans purchased through State-established exchanges, and notwithstanding that this limitation was absolutely fundamental to accomplishing Congress's purpose of incentivizing States to establish exchanges, the President decided he would also offer subsidies for plans purchased through federally established exchanges. President Obama's open defiance of clear statutory text and utter disregard for the balance Congress struck is an affront to the separation of powers and to the rule of law. The President and his enablers argue that subsidies for federally enrolled plans are necessary to accomplish ObamaCare's overall purpose of reducing costs and improving health care access. Without subsidies to individuals in the 34 States without State-run exchanges, the President argues that residents of those States will be hit with higher costs and unaffordable health care. The law must be rewritten, he says, to avoid the consequences the law itself imposes. Laying aside the fact that the Constitution gives Congress, not the President, the power to amend laws, the President's argument is completely circuitous. The reason 34 States could afford not to establish exchanges is because the President said he was going to pay subsidies regardless of whether a State establishes an exchange. Why would a State go to the trouble and expense of creating an exchange if the end result is the same? The President also grasps at exceedingly thin straws. Because the backstop provision instructs that if a State does not establish an exchange, HHS shall step in and establish such exchange itself, the President says this means Federal exchanges are State exchanges. Right is left and up is down. But let's return to the real provision in dispute in King, the one that defines eligibility for subsidies. This provision says, again, that an individual is eligible for each month that she is covered by a plan that she ``enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State.'' An exchange established by the Federal Government is by definition not an exchange established by the State, regardless of whether the Federal exchange is a backstop or not. It gets even worse for the President because the provision additionally specifies that the State exchange must have been established ``under section 1311 of the [statute].'' That section sets forth the requirements for creating State-run exchanges. Nowhere does it mention Federal exchanges. Rather, the conditions for creation of Federal exchanges appear in a different section--section 1321. Under no plausible reading of the text does a State exchange established under section 1311 mean a Federal exchange established under section 1321. Advocates of the President's position would have us believe that statutes are infinitely malleable--up can mean down, right can mean left, established by a State can mean not established by a State. What matters to them is advancing some vague notion of statutory purpose that coheres with the President's leftwing agenda, regardless of what the statute actually says. Those of us on the other side, however, insist that text matters, words matter. What the statute says is what matters, because at the end of the day the words in our statutes and in our Constitution are what bind our leaders and what prevent them from doing whatever they want. The administration's actions in King have undermined the rule of law and contravened important constitutional checks on the President's authority. As has increasingly become the case under President Obama, it is now up to the Supreme Court to rein in the President's overreach and to reaffirm the fundamental obligation of all government officials to follow the law. I surely hope the Court will do so.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to a truly iconic Utah leader, a remarkable woman, and Salt Lake City's first and only female mayor, Ms. Deedee Corradini. Sadly, Mayor Corradini lost her short but valiant battle with lung cancer this week. She was a fighter until the end--just as she was in her career and in all aspects of her life. Deedee was a true trailblazer in every sense. She served as Salt Lake City's mayor for 10 years during a time of significant growth and change. During her tenure, she was instrumental in finalizing the city's bid to host the 2002 Winter Olympics. She aggressively courted economic development and managed transportation infrastructure to ensure that Salt Lake City was prepared to take the world stage. Always energetic, Mayor Corradini was full of ideas and determination, and she always knew how to get things done. After her mayoral service, she worked for a time in academia and real estate, but perhaps her greatest personal achievement was her vigorous advocacy of women's ski jumping. She served for 10 years as the president of Women's Ski Jumping USA, where she lobbied tirelessly for the inclusion of women's ski jumping in the Winter Olympic Games. She was able to see her vision realized at the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics as women ski jumpers dazzled the world in this arena for the first time. Prior to the Sochi games, she demonstrated her enthusiasm and determination to make this dream come true for women athletes stating: We've already won. Every single one of the women's ski jumpers, they've already won. . .Our battle to get the women into ski jumping became much more than ski jumping. It really became a women's rights issue and a human rights issue, because we were really fighting for all women in all sports and hopefully all aspects of life. Deedee helped mentor many women and was an example of hard work, determination, and a will to succeed. Not only did she succeed in her professional pursuits; she was also a loving wife, daughter, sister, and mother. Mr. President, Elaine and I send our deepest condolences to Deedee's family and friends, and we pray for their peace and comfort at this difficult time. Her influence and legacy will be felt for generations to come. Utah was privileged to develop and grow under her leadership.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the National Labor Relations Board representation case procedures rule, which is set to go into effect April 14. This rule unfairly expedites union elections and squelches individual self-determination, democratic decisionmaking, and freedom of expression. It is also a blatant attempt to circumvent Congress's legitimate constitutional role in how--if at all--to reform the National Labor Relations Act. It is a clear case of regulatory overreach, and it is an abuse of power. The National Labor Relations Act seeks to create equity--or a ``level playing field,'' so to speak--in labor relations. Now, I believe the NLRA is far from perfect. In fact, I have introduced multiple pieces of legislation over the years to amend the NLRA. Nevertheless, any reform must be openly debated and enacted by Congress, not decided unilaterally by an unaccountable bureaucracy. I am concerned because this National Labor Relations Board case representation rule clearly favors the unions. I am not anti-union. I oppose this rule because I am a champion for both workers and businesses, for employee groups and the employer community. This rule hurts both. I oppose this rule not because I am against a worker's right to join a union but because this rule is detrimental to both employers and employees. The NLRA guarantees the right to engage in union activities. It also ensures the right to refrain from such activities. This rule dramatically shortens the period of time that exists between a union filing an election petition and the actual election. Shortening this time period undermines an employer's ability to hold a lawful exchange with its employees on whether to select union representation. It also deprives workers of their right to receive key information from all sides, as the NLRB currently provides--a system that allows for a full and robust debate between unions, employees, and employers. Moreover, there is simply no need for the rule. Both businesses and workers deserve a process that is free of unnecessary delays. Nearly 95 percent of all elections take place within 2 months after a petition has been filed, and the unions have won more than two-thirds of these elections during that time. No one can claim that this process is fraught with unnecessary delays. Unions favor this rule because it rigs the system by allowing them to campaign without the employer's knowledge. While some argue that employers are free to talk to their employees about unionization at any time, employers are unable to rebut a union's argument if they are unaware the arguments are even being made. This rule leaves employers with insufficient time to respond to a union's arguments--and they know that. That is what is wrong with this legislation. Once again, this hurts both the worker and the employer. While my main objection to this rule is that it precludes workers and employers from necessary and protected information sharing, I also oppose the rule because it is likely to throw many elections into chaos and confusion. Under this rule, voter eligibility would be deferred to postelection procedures. Employees would be asked to vote on joining a union without knowing which employees will ultimately make up the bargaining unit. Simply put, unions are trying to win representation elections without defining whom they are representing. Furthermore, there are serious due process concerns surrounding the initial hearing and Statement of Position requirements. It is particularly burdensome to small employers to collect the required information following the filing of the petition in this drastically shortened timeframe. Lastly, we cannot ignore that with this rule the NLRB is invading employees' privacy and exposing them to potential identity theft by mandating that employers turn over employees' personal telephone numbers and email addresses to the unions. That is outrageous. The rule tramples on workers' individual liberties by allowing unions to unfairly obtain an employee's private information. The NLRB should be a neutral arbiter--an impartial overseer of the process--working to enforce the law, and to stop violations, and to intervene in attempts to sway benefit from one side or the other. It should not be an advocate for organized labor. Rather than approaching the situation from the neutral perspective, this rule makes a value judgment that favors unions based on false assumptions. The NLRB should properly be safeguarding labor relations processes. I urge us all to support workers' personal liberties by providing them ample opportunity to make up their own minds. I urge all of my colleagues to support employers in preserving due process while cultivating constructive dialogue between businesses and workers. I thank Senators Alexander and Enzi for leading this action under the Congressional Review Act. I am proud to stand with the majority of my Senate colleagues today in preventing the NLRB's abuse of regulatory power by supporting this resolution of disapproval. I am well aware of these types of tactics by the union movement. I am one of the few people in this body who was really raised in the union movement, who actually learned a skilled trade, who actually worked as a union member for 10 years in the building and construction trade unions as a metal lather. I have to tell my colleagues that some of these people in the NLRB and others have been trying to get quickie elections through for a long time, and of course, the purpose of it is to slant everything in their favor, when they win a majority of the NLRB votes anyway. No, they just want to win all of them without giving the employees the necessary information to be able to make wise decisions as to whether to join a union, and then they cloud it up by making it almost impossible to know which part of the union or which methodology they are going to go into. We have stopped quickie elections for years. We have had good Democrats and good Republicans vote against quickie elections. It is not fair to slant the system totally against employers, which is what this bill will do. Frankly, it is time we quit pulling these dirty tricks. It really never ceases to amaze me. When Republicans appoint--and they are in the majority--people to the NLRB, as a general rule, they try to make things more fair. They try to look at both sides and be fair. When Democrats do it--when Democratic Presidents do it--they try to pull tricks such as this that really are unworthy of the type of considerations that really are involved in these union elections. I don't mind unions winning, but they ought to win fair and square. They shouldn't win because they stacked the deck against the businesses. There are enough rules to give unions advantages in union elections as it is. But to have quickie elections so that the owner of the business or the owners of the business don't have a chance to answer the questions that come up or even speak to their employees is just wrong. I am opposed to it, and I hope everybody in this Senate is opposed to it as well. Mr. President, I yield the floor.