Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today is the anniversary of a tragedy. Forty-two years ago today, the Supreme Court announced its creation of a right to abortions for virtually any reason at all virtually at any time. The result of that decision is a tragedy for our society, for our culture, and for our precious life lost. Since even before America's founding, the law was on a steady march toward protecting human beings before birth. In the 19th century, medical professionals and civil rights activists led a movement that succeeded in prohibiting abortion in every State except to save the mother's life. America had reached a consensus on the importance of protecting the most vulnerable. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court swept all of that aside, imposing upon the country a permissive abortion regime that the American people to this day have never chosen or accepted. The debate over the morality and legality or policy of abortion begins with one inescapable fact--every abortion kills a living human being. Many have tried mightily to avoid, obscure, distract from, or ignore that fact, but it will not go away. Every abortion kills a living human being. That fact informed President Ronald Reagan when he wrote a moving essay titled ``Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation'' in 1983. He wrote, ``We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life--the unborn--without diminishing the value of all human life.'' The real question, President Reagan said, is not about when human life begins, but about the value of human life. I believe that remains the real question today. Today the United States is one of only seven nations in the world to allow abortion into the sixth month of pregnancy and beyond. That list of nations includes such champions of human rights as China and North Korea. Yet, in 1948, the United States voted in favor of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which recognizes in its preamble the inherent dignity and inalienable rights of ``all members of the human family.'' Article 3 of the declaration states that ``everyone has a right to life.'' Words such as ``universal'' and ``inherent'' and ``all'' are unambiguous and clear. Our embrace of the inherent dignity and worth of all human beings in 1948 stands in jarring contrast to the Supreme Court's decision in Roe just 25 years later, that the life of any human being may be ended before birth. The Supreme Court might have thought in 1973 that it was settling the abortion issue. By 1992, however, the Court conceded that the rules it created in Roe simply did not work and issued revised regulations in a case titled Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The Court said then that the contending sides in the abortion controversy should ``end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution.'' National division on any issue, let alone one so profound as the taking and the value of human life, will not end simply because the Court says so. The division over abortion not only continues, but has remained largely unchanged even after dozens of Supreme Court decisions and four decades of insisting that abortion is a constitutional right. The Supreme Court can render opinions on constitutionality, but it is limited in its ability to forge lasting consensus. That is the provenance of our great deliberative bodies where the people are truly represented. More than 70 percent of Americans believe abortion should be illegal in most or all circumstances. That figure has not changed in 40 years. What has changed is that more Americans today identify themselves as pro-life than pro-choice. Large majorities favor a range of limitations on abortion and last November elected scores of new pro-life Senators at both the State and Federal level. We must not avoid the fundamental question of the value of human life, for no question is more important. Do we still, as we once did, believe that every human being has inherent dignity and worth? Two nights ago, in his State of the Union Address, President Obama spoke about the values that are at stake in the public policy choices we must make. Is there any value more important than life itself? He spoke about expanding opportunities for individuals, but the first opportunity that must be secured is the opportunity for life itself. For many, the right to abortion is a symbol of progress. However, the idea that an act resulting in killing a living human being should be held up as a step forward, as a light to guide our way, strikes me as deeply misguided. We should instead be deepening the conviction that all human beings have inherent dignity and worth. That has been and should remain the foundation of our culture, society, and even our politics. In his 1983 essay, President Reagan wrote that ``we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion.'' Today's tragic anniversary is a reminder of how our Nation's survival depends on respecting the essential dignity and worth of every human individual. Resting in the balance is how we ultimately define who we are as a people and what we strive to be as a nation. This is an important issue. It is not one that should be slighted over. It is an issue that should strike at the heart of every person in this body. It is an issue that we all should stand up to strengthen and fight against in the case of this issue of abortion. I am so grateful that so many people feel the same way, and that more and more people in this country are starting to realize every human life is important and that this society has sometimes gotten off track and not respected the rights of human beings. I think Roe v. Wade led us there, and we should be let out of Roe v. Wade by those who know there is a better way to have the sensitivity that society deserves to have, should have, and I believe will have in the future.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, there is a constitutional point of order that lies against the pending amendment. It was filed and offered by my friend, the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, the senior Senator from Oregon. A constitutional point of order lies against the amendment, numbered 27 because it violates article 1, section 7, clause 1 of the Constitution, commonly referred to as the origination clause. The origination clause states that ``All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives. . . . '' In addition, the pending amendment is not germane to the bill we are debating, and is not expected to pass. I reserve the right to raise this constitutional point of order against amendment No. 27 in the unlikely event that it passes. I will hold off for now on raising this point of order to spare the Senate an unnecessary vote. However, I want to put everybody in the Senate on notice that, in the future, I reserve the right to raise this constitutional point of order regarding any proposal that violates the origination clause. In the Senate, revenue proposals should first be processed in the committee of jurisdiction in the Senate, which is the Senate Finance Committee. I will vote ``no'' on the pending amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the Committee on Finance has adopted rules governing its procedures for the 114th Congress. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying rules for the Senate Committee on Finance be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am grateful for the opportunity to pay tribute to a remarkable woman, a loving wife, and a caring mother-- former Utah Speaker of the House Rebecca ``Becky'' Lockhart. After weeks of battling a rare degenerative disease, Becky quietly passed away on January 17, 2015, with her loving family gathered at her bedside. Becky leaves behind a legacy of leadership and passionate advocacy that will resonate for years to come. It was this same passion and resilience that defined her tenure as Speaker of the Utah House. She was a dedicated public servant who always rose to meet our State's challenges with wisdom and strength. Becky's career was a model of selfless service. Guided by a desire to help others, she studied nursing at Brigham Young University. Before entering public service, Becky worked as a registered nurse for 7 years, during which time she treated thousands of patients and became intimately familiar with health care issues affecting Utah families. Her experience as a nurse would later shape her career as a legislator, and as Speaker of the House, she became a powerful advocate for State- based health care reform. I had the opportunity to discuss these and many other issues with Becky throughout the years. In doing so, I was always impressed with her eloquence, her intelligence, and her commitment to the State of Utah. Becky was first elected to the Utah House of Representatives in 1998, and she quickly distinguished herself as a persuasive collaborator, a passionate legislator, and one of the hardest-working representatives in the legislature. Her colleagues recognized her leadership abilities and elected her Assistant Majority Whip in 2008. Just 2 years later, Becky made history when she became the first women to serve as Speaker of the House in Utah. Through her remarkable career, she trail-blazed a path for generations of women to follow and became known as Utah's ``Iron Lady.'' Utah grew under Becky's leadership. She championed legislation that modernized our State's transportation system, strengthened our infrastructure, and promoted technological advancement. During her last year as Speaker, she spearheaded an ambitious education initiative aimed at putting technology directly into the hands of Utah students. Her leadership spurred a much-needed discussion on ways to improve Utah's education system to equip our students with the resources they need to succeed academically. Many are familiar with Becky's public life, but of even greater importance was her personal life. Before she was House Speaker and even before she became a well-known political figure, Becky was, first and foremost, a wonderful wife and a loving mother. Becky and her husband, Stan, created a strong partnership in politics and in parenthood as they lovingly raised their three children, Hannah, Emily, and Stephen. I know that Stan and his family will miss Becky most of all. During this time of heartrending loss, I pray that they may feel the comforting embrace of God's love and find peace in the memories they share with this remarkable woman. I, too, will miss Becky dearly. May her memory always serve as a model of compassion, selflessness, and dedicated public service.

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 to discuss the critical need for cyber security legislation. Computers control nearly everything we use in our daily lives. They control our cars, our phones, our water supply, our power grid, our financial services, our retail networks, our food production and in many respects our military capabilities. Fortunately, our adversaries have not yet succeeded in inflicting major physical damage on our Nation's interdependent critical infrastructure. That is not to say however they are not vulnerable to persistent threats in cyber space. Look no further than in the ``2014 U.S. State of Cybercrime Survey.'' That is a study prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers, the U.S. Secret Service, Carnegie Mellon University, and CSO magazine. Of the more than 500 U.S. executives and security experts surveyed, 77 percent of businesses detected an attempted security breach in the previous 12 months, and 34 percent of these businesses said the number of security incidents detected increased over the previous year, with an average number of 135 incidents per organization. The report makes many key observations, but let me emphasize a key finding that resonated with me. One thing is very clear: Most organizations' cyber security programs do not rival the persistence, tactical skills, and technological prowess of today's cyber adversaries. Cyber thieves proved their determination just last week when Russian hackers amassed over 1 billion Internet user names and passwords, the largest known collection of Internet credentials. In the years following the September 11, 2001, attacks, the U.S. Director of National Intelligence consistently ranked terrorism as our No. 1 threat, but that started to change a few years ago. In 2012 then- FBI Director Robert Mueller predicted that ``in the not too distant future, we anticipate that the cyber threat will pose the number one threat to our country.'' He was right. In 2013 and 2014 the intelligence community's Worldwide Threat Assessment lists cyber as the top threat to our Nation. Terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and unauthorized leaks of classified information remain grave threats to our country, but cyber is now our No. 1 threat. Yet it is hard to believe no major cyber security legislation has been enacted since 2002, when Congress passed the Federal Information Security Management Act--or FISMA--and the Cybersecurity Research and Development Act. Of course, there have been provisions relevant to cyber security enacted in subsequent laws but nothing as significant or comprehensive as the laws passed 12 years ago. As we begin a new Congress, let me articulate a few guiding principles that should be included in any cyber security legislation. First, we must acknowledge the need for the government and the private sector to cooperate in order to fend off cyber attacks, but today businesses are reluctant to share critical information out of fear of legal repercussions. Congress must provide proper incentives, such as liability protection, to encourage the private sector to share cyber threat information with our government. Next, any cyber security legislation must strike the right balance between protecting our Nation's computer infrastructure and protecting individual privacy rights. Thus, information sharing between businesses and the government must be tailored to the recipient's actual security responsibilities. Moreover, any legislation should avoid overly broad language that could clash with privacy protections. Furthermore, a voluntary, nonregulatory approach is most likely to yield consensus legislation. The role of DHS and other government agencies should be to provide advice and resources to improve our Nation's cyber security posture, not to pile on additional burdensome regulations. Finally, and perhaps most important, we must build a strong cyber security workforce in the public and the private sectors. Enacting cyber security legislation will mean very little if there are no trained professionals prepared to tackle our Nation's cyber security challenges. In order to build the enduring capabilities capable of protecting our cyber infrastructure, we must encourage young people to pursue high- tech careers and attract highly skilled workers from around the world. Beyond the civilian realm, the cyber threats we face present critical new challenges to our national security. Arguably, we have not yet faced a similarly novel catalyst for policy formulation and change since the development of our nuclear deterrence strategy more than 60 years ago. As we face this new world of cyber threats, the fundamental question remains the same: What is the most efficient and effective means to defend our country, the United States, while remaining true to the Constitution at the same time. Answering that question should be the cornerstone of the President's cyber security strategy. I was encouraged to hear the President say during his visit to the National Cybersecurity Communications Integration Center earlier this week that ``cyber threats are an urgent and growing danger.'' I certainly share that assessment of the dire nature of this very real threat to our national security. While I applaud the White House for its plans to host a conference on cyber security and consumer protection next month, the nature of the cyber security threat demands a comprehensive strategy to protect our Nation. Much work remains to be done on this front, especially from the standpoint of the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security. The urgency of this task was amplified when the Congressional Research Service concluded just this month that ``the overarching defense strategy for securing cyberspace is vague and evolving.'' As we face these threats, we must act decisively to ensure that bureaucratic barriers do not hinder the development of an effective strategy to counter threats from cyber space. As it stands, there is not a single agency primarily responsible for cyber defense. The Department of Homeland Security is charged with protecting civilian networks and working with the private sector. The FBI and Secret Service are responsible for investigating cyber crime, and the Department of Defense is responsible for defending its own systems and partnering to protect the defense industrial base. Critically, the Defense Department is only tasked with supporting DHS when the cyber attack is directed at our homeland. Yet these differences of responsibility can operate as artificial barriers to the efficient and effective cyber defense system. Indeed, the lack of a single organization with direct responsibility runs counter to the basic leadership principle of unity of command. It bears remembering that these boundaries only exist for our agencies, not the hackers which seek to exploit the limitless terrain of cyber space. In a world in which the lines between cyber crime and cyber warfare are increasingly blurred, we need to ensure that all of our defensive cyber capabilities are brought to bear against the wide variety of threats facing our infrastructure, private and public, civilian and military. Nevertheless, the need for a primary agency of responsibility does not necessarily mean the Department of Defense should be that agency, even despite its remarkable capabilities. Such a course would raise both legal and practical concerns. Beginning with the legal issue, as the Supreme Court has stated, there is a ``traditional and strong resistance of Americans to any military intrusion into civilian affairs.'' The use of the military to enforce the law, with respect to domestic hackers or to virtually patrol on private networks is problematic because of the provisions of 18 U.S.C. section 1835. In addition, the Defense Department's organization to defend against cyber attacks might not be the most efficient. Currently, U.S. Cyber Command, which is responsible for the training and equipping of our cyber warriors, is also entrusted with the Department's operational activities in cyber space. Such a construct makes sense. Yet unlike a unified combatant command, Cyber Command is a subunified command under U.S. Strategic Command. Though this configuration has been considered and agreed to by the Senate Armed Services Committee, I am still not convinced of its value. Therefore, I also hope the President addresses how our military forces can best be aligned to facilitate the most efficient and effective cyber defense possible. But returning to the larger question, if concentrating our efforts entirely in the hands of the Defense Department is not advisable, what are we to do? One possible solution has been presented by Richard Clarke, the noted former member of the National Security Council, in his book, ``Cyber War.'' To be clear, I am not endorsing Mr. Clarke's proposal. We surely do not need another government bureaucracy, but I do believe it is an important concept to be discussed during future debates on cyber security. Specifically, Mr. Clarke argues for a civilian cyber defense administration which would be responsible for protecting ``the dot-gov domain and critical infrastructure during an attack.'' As well as assigning those Federal law enforcement agencies personnel responsible for cyber crime to this centralized cyber defense administration, it would only be logical to ask if such an agency could provide other cyber defense functions. Accordingly, addressing proposals such as this as part of answering the question as to what is the most effective organization we can employ for cyber security should be a focal point of the President's address. But we should not just place these questions at the President's door. The Senate itself must consider modifying the way it considers cyber security legislation and issues. Currently, there are at least five separate Senate committees which are responsible for various aspects of cyber security. Therefore, we, too, have a unity-of-effort issue, and the Senate should consider means to concentrate this body's expertise on this critical matter. In conclusion, there are a myriad of questions which our government must address before we are able to state we have the most effective, efficient, and constitutional cyber security defense possible. I hope the President fully utilizes the opportunity presented to him in his State of the Union Address to answer these important questions-- and if he doesn't, we have to. So we better solve these problems. I presume the President will speak intelligently on these issues and hopefully in a way that will unify the country, unify the Congress, and get us all working in the same way. We can't afford to let this drag any longer. This is one of the most important sets of issues we have in our country. It may be one of the most important issues or sets of issues in the world at large. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to thank my distinguished colleague for leading this fight. He has been leading it for years now. It is such a no-brainer. It is amazing to me that we have to go through this again. I thank him for yielding to me, and I would like to associate myself with the many persuasive arguments that have been made here by my colleagues--both Democratic and Republican--urging the speedy passage of this legislation. To me, the decision to approve this pipeline is an obvious one for a host of reasons: It will support more than 42,000 good-paying jobs. I didn't quite get what the assistant minority leader was saying today on how few jobs it will create. It actually will support more than 42,000 good-paying jobs during its construction phase. It will contribute more than $3.4 billion to our gross domestic product. It will aid in the goal of North American energy independence. As the State Department's environmental impact statement found, building the Keystone XL Pipeline will actually be better for the environment than not building it. The energy resources the Canadians produce will reach the market regardless of whether this pipeline is built, and Keystone XL is by far the safest, cleanest, and most efficient means of doing so. What are the arguments against it other than phony environmental arguments? That was the State Department, controlled by them. As a commonsense, bipartisan jobs and infrastructure measure, this bill is exactly the sort of legislation the Senate should be considering as its first order of business in this new Congress, but it should not have to be. The story here is about more than a single pipeline, no matter how many jobs its construction will create, no matter how important it is for our energy independence, and no matter how environmentally sound it is. This is a story about a regulatory process that is clearly broken. This is a story about special interests manipulating the bureaucracy to muck up a process that should be very simple and uncontroversial. This is a story about just one of many examples of tragically missed opportunities to create good-paying jobs and provide relief for household budgets across the country. The application for approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline was first filed in September of 2008--more than 6 years ago. U.S. Senators have served more than a full term during that time. Children born after the application was filed are now in first grade. The notion that any infrastructure project should be held up for such a long period is disturbing not just to me but I think to anybody who carefully looks at this, but the delay of Keystone XL is even worse. Given the strong and well-documented economic and environmental case for the pipeline, Keystone is the sort of project that should have been quickly and easily approved for construction. But for some committed environmentalists inside and outside the Obama administration, common sense and balanced consideration of the facts no longer matter. Instead, to them, this simple pipeline has become a political symbol, regardless of what the science tells us. They have directed their ample energies at throwing up every procedural roadblock imaginable to the approval of the pipeline. As a result, this project has endured delay after delay. Over the past few years, the American people have rightly developed the impression that Washington is broken. There can be no better example of the consequence of this dysfunction than the Keystone XL Pipeline sitting in bureaucratic purgatory. When a project such as this--which is good for jobs, good for families, and good for families' budgets--gets bogged down in the Obama administration's redtape, it is absolutely the responsibility of Congress to act. Unfortunately, for years the Senate became a place where good ideas such as approving Keystone XL came to die, where control of the calendar and the amendment process prevented the consideration of so many good, bipartisan issues and ideas. Not only was the administrative process broken, but the Senate was also paralyzed and unable to step in and fix it. By taking up this important bill as our first matter of consideration in the new Congress, we are taking steps to restore the Senate to the great legislative body it is meant to be, the place where Senators work across the aisle to meet the needs of the American people. By coming together to propose a commonsense solution to get back on track this project which has become such a symbol of what is wrong with Washington, my friends from North Dakota and West Virginia are demonstrating exactly the sort of thoughtful, inclusive, and bipartisan leadership the American people have been demanding as they watched this greatest deliberative body in the world become the laughingstock of the world because we haven't gotten very much done. We haven't gotten very much done because of the way it has been run over the last number of years. It is my sincere hope that we move quickly and desperately and deliberately to approve this measure and that we soon begin considering serious regulatory reform to prevent the sorts of abuses we have seen bedevil the Keystone XL project. The American people deserve an efficient and effective regulatory process that works for them. It is time for the Senate to deliver. Having said these few words, I wish to personally thank my distinguished colleagues from North Dakota and my colleagues from West Virginia for the leadership they have provided on this issue. Senator Hoeven is a former Governor. He knows what he is talking about. He is one of the most reasonable, decent, and honorable people in this body. He has shown a great willingness to work with both sides. He has continued to fight for this even though it has been uphill for more than 6 years. He has continued to fight for it because it is right. It is the right thing to do, and it is in our best interest to do it and to do it now. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues, both Democratic and Republican, to urge the swift passage of a bill in the Senate that would create jobs, strengthen our economy, and put more money in Americans' pocketbooks--the bipartisan Hoeven-Manchin bill to authorize the Keystone XL Pipeline. I will talk about that for a few minutes, and then I might have some remarks about what the assistant minority leader has said. I wish to address the Keystone Pipeline project and why it is important, but first I will focus on how the Keystone debate reflects on the state of the Senate and on good governance more broadly. 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 the Senate. My colleague from Florida, Senator Rubio, recently commented that the America public no longer has confidence that the Federal Government works anymore. He is right, and the American people are justified in their skepticism. He is right. This project is a perfect example of why. A debate over the merits of and drawbacks to the pipeline--a debate that centers upon sound science and agreed-upon ground rules--is long overdue. Such a debate represents the best traditions of the Senate--a meeting of minds where respect and tolerance shape the contours of debate. Such a debate is particularly valuable because a commonsense regulatory process is integral to a sound economy and the rule of law. Time and again, President Obama has suggested that an issue such as this is too important to get bogged down in politics and that we should trust in the integrity of the regulatory process. To this I have two replies. First, 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 investment and involvement is even more important. In this case, we have sought to legislate according to the best traditions of this body, reaching across the aisle and taking all voices into account. Second, curtailing debate on this issue has only had the result of turning the construction of what should be a commonsense infrastructure project into an abstraction, a political symbol that has little to do with the actual proposal under consideration. Without discussion of facts and evidence in this Chamber--all of which I believe counsel in favor of approving the project--the opposition has been able to obfuscate the facts and avoid having to defend their position. The Senate is a place where we can best accomplish good policymaking, not political grandstanding, especially on an issue of such importance as the Keystone Pipeline. I was encouraged by yesterday's colloquy on the resolution to allow the Keystone Pipeline to move forward because it represents a return to the way we should talk about serious issues; that is, through actual debate. But that colloquy and the work we are doing today has been met with further resistance from the White House. Even before we consider any number of amendments from both sides of the aisle, the President has already threatened to veto our legislation calling for pipeline construction to move forward. This is an unfortunate way for any President to begin work with a new Congress. Our country and North American energy security will greatly benefit from this project. It improves efficiency and energy infrastructure. It takes pressure off of moving oil by rail. It will 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 will support roughly 42,000 jobs during the construction phase alone. It will provide refineries with up to 830,000 barrels a day of North American oil. The Keystone Pipeline is an environmentally sound way to transport this oil. In fact, the State Department's extensive environmental impact statement concluded that building the pipeline would actually be better for the environment than not. We have to be clear: The oil is going to go to market no matter what--by truck or rail, if not by pipeline. Building this pipeline takes this oil off of the tracks, off of the roads, and transports it in a way that is safer, more efficient, more environmentally sound, and better for creating good-paying American jobs. At the end of the day, the Keystone Pipeline and so many other bureaucratic failures demonstrate that the regulatory process is broken. It should not take years and years navigating the Federal bureaucracy only to have the Federal Government decide not to make a decision. In this new Congress we are focused on helping to create jobs and getting our economy back on the right track, which is why regulatory reform will be a key part of our agenda over the next 2 years. I hope the President will change his mind and join us not only in approving this important project but also in preventing similar abuses from occurring in the future. affordable care act Mr. President, having said that, I wish to make a few remarks about what the distinguished assistant minority leader had to say this morning about the Affordable Care Act. I have a great deal of admiration for him and his abilities, especially to articulate matters. I have to disagree with him on this issue, because after all of this hoopla, after all of the problems, after all of the costs, after all of the rising costs, after all of the many problems with the Affordable Care Act, we are still going to have about 30 million people who don't have insurance. Think about it. That is why we passed the Affordable Care Act--or why the Democrats passed the Affordable Care Act--was to take care of those people. We have a great many people covered, but there is still going to be almost the same amount of people without health insurance that existed before. A number of the provisions he finds so good about the health care bill, we would have included in a health care bill ourselves. Yes, there were needed changes, such as this business of putting children on the parents' policy until age 26 and some of the other provisions the distinguished Senator spoke to. I have a great deal of admiration for the distinguished Senator from Illinois. He is a very bright guy. He is one of the most articulate Senators in this body. Having said that, I was a little disappointed in some of the statements he made. Just this week Harvard University--these are professors who are pretty well paid--yes, it is an expensive jurisdiction, I know, because I have some family there. The fact is that at Harvard these professors are upset because their costs are going up, which they will have to pay out of their own pockets. My goodness gracious. If they think they are being hurt, with their high salaries--and most of it is covered by their insurance from Harvard--can we imagine how the average person is going to feel. They are going to have a rough time because they have held off on a lot of the Affordable Care Act--I should say ``Affordable Care Act''--they held off on this until after the election that just occurred, knowing the costs are going to continue to escalate and rise in ways that we can't even take care of them. If we don't do something about it now, it is going to be a doggone mess in this country that nobody--nobody--not my friends on the other side who voted for it or Republicans or anybody else can truly contemplate. All I can say is that it is a mess. Most people are admitting it is a mess, except those who want to take us down this social path toward having the government control every aspect of our lives in health care. To be honest, I could talk all day on this issue, but we are on the Keystone Pipeline. I have to say, as somebody who helped put through some of the most important health care bills in history, ranging from the orphan drug bill to the Children's Health Insurance Program, many pharmaceutical bills and others as well, I have always been willing to sit down and try and work these matters out. I have to say that my dear colleague from Illinois, having chosen one Senator's comments about every word, doesn't represent everybody on this side. Any Senator is entitled to their viewpoint and opinion, but a lot of us believe there is a great deal of work that has to be done if we are going to have health care truly improve in this country and work the way it should work. I could go on and on, but I just wanted to make a few of those comments. Even with the so-called 8 million they claim have health care--I don't know that that is true. They have problems in every step of this program, and the reason is because it is a poorly written program that was forced through in ways that didn't allow the real process in the Senate to work. Whenever we have a bill that is that high off the floor, passed by only one side-- in both Houses by only one side--we know it is a lousy bill. There is nothing that costs as much as this bill is going to cost. I would challenge my friends on the other side--especially my friend from Illinois--to acknowledge that we need to work together to solve these problems because they are not going to go away. That bill is one of the lousiest pieces of legislation I have seen in the whole time I have been here, and that is why it was only supported in a totally partisan way. I have talked long enough on this. I don't want to take more time away from the Keystone Pipeline because that also is extremely important. Right now we are down to 50 bucks a barrel or even below, but that isn't going to last a long time. The fact that we have oil now, that we are discovering oil now--something that wasn't allowed in years past--the fact that we are working to have this country be totally oil independent is terrific, and the Keystone Pipeline will help us in that regard. It is hard for me to understand why my friends on the other side or at least some of them--and maybe the President, who has issued a veto threat which I found profoundly disappointing-- continue to argue the way they do. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to address the state of the Senate and how to restore its greatness. Yesterday, I was sworn in as the President pro tempore. Although there have been some notable exceptions throughout history, the modern practice of the Senate has been to elect as the President pro tempore the most senior Member of the majority party. As one noted historian of the Senate has generously written, ``election of a senator to the office of president pro tempore has always been considered one of the highest honors offered to a senator by the Senate as a body.'' I am greatly honored to have been selected for this position, but I am keenly aware of the great responsibilities that come with it. The President pro tempore of the Senate is one of only three legislative offices established by the U.S. Constitution, and in recent decades it has been occupied by true giants of the Senate. Their names, which include Vandenberg, Russell, Byrd, Stevens, Inouye, and Leahy, resonate as some of the greatest legislators ever to serve in this body. Beyond the President pro tempore's formal responsibilities in presiding over the Senate and helping ensure the continuity of government, this office represents a unique opportunity to assist the majority leader in guiding the Senate as it addresses the critical issues facing our Nation. In that sense, the President pro tempore serves as an elder statesman, sharing accumulated knowledge and lessons learned through long experience. I consider it fortuitous that the beginning of my service as President pro tempore coincides with the start of a new year. For many, the new year is a time for reflecting upon the past and reviewing commitments for the future. I believe we as Senators should use this opportunity for some much needed introspection about the state of this institution. The Senate has long been heralded as the world's greatest deliberative body. With so many critical challenges facing our Nation today, there has never been a more important time for the Senate to live up to its storied legacy and to fulfill its responsibilities to the American people. Central to properly understanding our responsibilities as Senators is to appreciate the Senate's role in our system of government. This means understanding both the Senate's purposes and its unique place at the center of our constitutional structure. It is important for us to consider these issues. James Madison famously called the Senate the great anchor of the government. He described its purpose as twofold: ``first to protect the people against their rulers; secondly to protect the people against the transient impressions on to which they themselves might be led.'' The Senate accomplishes the first goal--protecting the people against their rulers--by playing a crucial role in the appointment and removal of both judges and executive branch officers. The President's power to appoint is tempered by the requirement that his appointees receive the Senate's advice and consent. Additionally, the Senate possesses the power to remove from office any official that has engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors. The President's power to enter into treaties is also critically checked by the requirement that the Senate provide its advice and consent to a treaty before ratification. As such, the President does not have unfettered power to fill up executive offices, pack the courts or make agreements with foreign nations. He cannot staff agencies with corrupt, incompetent or ideologically extreme cronies unless the Senate allows him to do so. He cannot conclude treaties that will harm American interests unless the Senate gives its assent. In selecting life-tenured judges to apply the Constitution and laws of the land, the President cannot act unless the Senate confirms his nominee. In all of these settings, the Senate serves as a crucial check against executive abuse. The Senate accomplishes the second of Madison's goals--protecting against temporary shifts in popular opinion--through its character and its institutional structure. In contrast to the large, transient House, the Senate is small, more stable, and therefore, it has the opportunity to be more thoughtful. Four hundred thirty-five Members inhabit the House, and only 100 fill this Chamber. The entire House stands for election every 2 years. Naturally, reelection is constantly on Representatives' minds. Senators, by contrast, have 6-year terms and only one-third go before the voters each election. Even with the pressures of modern campaigns, these divergent characteristics produce fundamentally different institutions. But the Framers designed the Senate to do much more than merely check transient and occasionally intemperate impulses. They created the Senate to refine the public's will and to give more wisdom and stability to the government. The Framers chose the Senate's relatively small size to enable more thorough debate and to provide individual Members greater opportunity to improve legislative proposals. Longer, staggered terms would give Members greater flexibility to resist initially popular yet ultimately unwise legislation. They would also guard against temporary majorities. A fluke election may produce significant majorities for one party that 2 years later disappears. This can lead to wild swings in the law as each new majority seeks to enact a vastly different agenda during its brief period of power. Overlapping terms help to avert this danger. Finally, statewide constituencies require Senators to appeal to a broader set of interests--including the concerns of the State governments themselves--than do narrow, more homogenous House districts. To these constitutional characteristics, the Senate has added a number of traditions--some formal and others informal--that have enhanced its deliberative character. These include the right to extended debate, an open amendment process, and a committee system that gives all Members--from the most seasoned chairmen to the newest freshmen--a hand in drafting and improving legislation. The late Senator Byrd liked to say that ``as long as the Senate retains the power to amend and the power of unlimited debate, the liberties of the people will remain secure.'' The Senate protects liberty by giving each Senator an active role in the legislative process. This multiplies the checks against bad laws and expands the universe of individuals working to make good laws better. It erects what Madison called a necessary fence against hasty and unwise government action. It enables each Senator to bring his or her own wisdom and considered judgment to bear on pressing national issues. When the Senate functions properly, it is a truly deliberative body in which all Senators work to identify the common good and the best means to achieve that common good. The Federalist describes the common good as the permanent and aggregate interests of the community. This is to be distinguished from the individual good, which may vary from person to person and which may not result in the Nation's benefit. Much like the Senate is designed to protect against transient shifts in public opinion, it is also designed to enable Senators to pursue the common good. Senators are able to prioritize achieving the correct results over doing what is politically convenient. The best answers do not always immediately present themselves nor are they always easily explained. Longer terms give Senators more time to investigate, to analyze, to reconsider, and to recalibrate, and so do robust debate and an open amendment process. These are critical elements of our deliberative pursuit of the common good. Another crucial component of our pursuit of common good is prudence. Aristotle called prudence the legislative science because it concerns the best means of achieving the most good in practice. Prudence restrains us from seeking immediate and complete vindication of a single abstract principle. Instead, it counsels us to work within our existing circumstances to vindicate the enduring principles upon which our liberty depends. While we should remain true to our principles, we must also recognize that we operate in an imperfect world where we do not control all of the levers of power. We cannot simply charge forward blind to present realities. To do so is to jeopardize our hopes for achieving any meaningful success, because in the messy world of politics, adopting an all-or-nothing strategy usually produces only the latter--nothing. Politics is the art of the possible. Ideology is important, and rhetoric is captivating. But at the end of the day, when the campaign is over, the American people sent us here to govern. We are here to protect their liberties and to protect and improve their lives. When we grandstand or hold out for impossible demands, we do nothing but a disservice. The Framers gave us staggered, extended terms so that we could use our independent judgment to get things done. We should try to get to it. An astute commentator observed that the Senate stands at the crossroads of our constitutional system. It shares power with the other branches of the Federal Government. It ensures temperance in the legislative branch. It must consent or not consent to the President's treaties and appointments, and it plays a critical role in appointments to the Supreme Court. But it also--and this is unique among the branches of the Federal Government--embodies the interests of federalism and State power at the national level. The Framers created the Senate to be much more than a simple legislative body. The Senate is uniquely positioned to mediate both among the Federal branches of government and between the Federal and State governments. As such, the Senate truly embodies the role described by one wise commentator as the sober guardian of the Republic. Our responsibilities as Senators follow directly from the Senate's constitutional role. As the people's representatives and as envoys of our individual States' interests, we are accountable to our States and to our Nation. We do not serve any one party or principle, or any particular ideology or faction. We may align ourselves into certain groups--Republican and Democrat, conservative and liberal--for purposes of organization and cooperation, but we are Senators first. Other labels are secondary. Civility and statesmanship must be our constant ideals. Madison once instructed that ``the Senate is to consist in its proceeding with more coolness, with more system, and with more wisdom, than the popular branch.'' A key purpose of this body is to calm the passions that arise from the heat of political discourse. As such, we must always be courteous in our communications one with another, both formal and informal, on the floor and off, face-to- face or on a video screen. When we disagree we need to do so with dignity and respect, acknowledging the sincere motives and passions of even our most firm adversaries. Statesmanship connotes public spiritedness and a willingness to compromise in pursuit of broader goals. Petulance and unilateralism accomplish nothing in this body. Any Senator who would choose the glow of the camera over the prospect for meaningful achievement seriously misunderstands their role as a Senator. Next on the list of practices Senators must follow are prudence and considered judgment. I have already spoken about prudence. It is a habit of mind that focuses on present realities and achievable goals-- not pie-in-the-sky pipedreams. Prudent lawmakers make experience--not theory--their guide, and they recognize that success in a republic requires harmonizing competing values. Considered judgment is closely tied to prudence. Prudence is not rash. It requires deliberation and thoughtful analysis. Our constituents sent us here because they trusted our judgment and favored the general outlines we presented in our campaigns. Now that we are here, it is time to put our plans into action. We do this by studying problems, investigating proposals, and carefully choosing solutions that best cohere with our principles. Exercising judgment is an individual matter. Colleagues and opinion leaders may guide our deliberations, but the ultimate choice of policy is one which we each must make on our own. The final two obligations I wish to highlight are our responsibilities: first, to seek the common good through earnest deliberation, and second, to achieve consensus to the extent possible. As I explained, the Framers designed the Senate so that Members would be able to seek the common good encumbered by few political constraints. Because we stand for election only every 6 years, we are less susceptible to swings in public opinion. We have the independence to value long-term impact over short-term politics. And because we are a small body--relatively speaking--all Members are able to participate fully in the legislative process and to add their voice of praise, warning or suggestion to each proposal that we consider. We deliberate not to score points or to craft sound bites but because we believe that in the contest of opposing views, the best answers will win out. I mentioned consensus. Although much of our day-to-day operations are conducted by unanimous consent, obviously we do not do everything around here by consensus. We are 100 fiercely independent legislators. Even at the end of a lengthy debate with numerous opportunities for amendment, we may remain sharply divided about a bill's wisdom or the objective it seeks to achieve. But that does not mean consensus should not be our goal. We should take counsel from past legislative victories which show that broad victories produce lasting reform, whereas narrow partisan power plays tend to yield only rancor and repeated attempts to repeal. For 38 years I have had the extraordinary privilege of serving in the Senate. During that time, I have witnessed it at its best and, more recently, at its worst. My experience throughout the last four decades has confirmed to me the wisdom of the first Adlai Stevenson, then Vice President, who in his 1897 farewell address captured the essence of the Senate: In this Chamber alone are preserved without restraint two essentials of wise legislations and good government: the right of amendment and of debate. Great evils often result from hasty legislation; rarely from the delay which follows full discussion and deliberation. In recent years these foundations of the Senate's unique character-- meaningful debate and an open amendment process--have come under sustained assault by those who have prioritized scoring political points over preserving the Senate's essential role in our system of self-government. Rather than simply bemoan this recent institutional damage, we have a duty to use this new Congress to restore the Senate. By returning to regular order and committee work, promoting robust debate, and enabling a deliberative amendment process, we can make the Senate work again-- both Democrats and Republicans. First, robust debate. Senators' ability to engage in meaningful, substantive debate is at the core of the Senate's identity. Through robust discussions and inclusive deliberation, Senators examine all sides of an issue. We air opposing views and ensure that in haste we do not make worse the problems we are trying to solve. When individual Senators have the right to debate a matter fully, it engenders confidence that the final legislation produced represents the best possible bill upon which the Senate can agree. Many pieces of legislation that seemed imperfect passed this way and have gone on to benefit the Nation greatly. For over 200 years, the Senate has provided each Member broad prerogative to debate and discuss the critical issues of the day. In the early years of the Republic, visitors flocked to the Senate gallery to hear Senators such as Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, and John C. Calhoun, just to mention three, to hear them expound upon matters of national concern. It was in this body that some of our Nation's most important debates over taxation, slavery, expansion, and foreign affairs took place. For many years, free-flowing debate was so intertwined with the identity of the Senate that no effective cloture mechanism to cut off debate even existed until well into the 20th century. While the need to end debate in certain circumstances is clear, we have strayed too far from this important deliberative tradition. In particular, the practice of filing for cloture at the very same time a bill is brought up for consideration has proliferated to a disturbing degree. When a full and robust debate has occurred, invoking cloture is often appropriate. But we must not abuse this power by reflexively seeking to cut off debate before it even begins. Let us return to a system where all Senators have a say in what the Senate does and are able to express their views without getting cut off. The second Senate hallmark we must restore is an open amendment process. The reason for an open amendment process is to improve legislation. No single Member can foresee all contingencies that may arise or identify all of the potential pitfalls. There is a reason there are 100 Senators, not just 1. More eyes mean more mistakes caught and more opportunities for improvement. An open amendment process also facilities consensus. One amendment may resolve a particular Senator's concern, allowing him to support what he or she once opposed. Another may make a bill politically palatable to Senators who support the bill in principle but not in its current form. Amendments may also achieve buy-in as Senators who successfully amend a bill find themselves more committed to final passage. When Senators retain the ability to amend legislation, such input can establish a wide and lasting base of support that crosses partisan and ideological lines. Indeed, an open and honest amendment process has frequently enabled diverse coalitions to find important areas of agreement. I even found that the former Senator from Massachusetts, the late Ted Kennedy, the famed liberal lion of the Senate, a man I came to Washington to battle, could be a productive partner. In the process, he became one of my closest friends, even if we widely disagreed on a lot of things. I miss him personally. We were able to do things that would not have been done had it not been for the work we did together. Unfortunately, over the past several years, the Senate's traditionally open amendment process has come under increasing attack. For the sake of shielding electorally vulnerable Senators from tough votes, we have emasculated one of this institution's critical characteristics. It is time to stop manipulating Senate rules to prevent amendments. It is time to stop blocking amendments for fear of tough votes. It is time to return to healthier ways of doing things, where we work together to improve legislation rather than doing all we can to keep Members out of the process. The third hallmark we must restore is a vigorous and productive committee system. Although perhaps not as moribund as our amendment process, the role our committees play in drafting and refining bills has indeed suffered in recent years. For centuries Senate committees have served as the primary forum for critical deliberation and amendments in this body. Bills introduced in the Senate are referred to the relevant committees where Members have the opportunity to consider, debate, and amend the bill at length. Committees are the workhorses of the Senate or at least should be. On the floor we can do only one thing at a time. But any number of committees and subcommittees may operate simultaneously, allowing Senators to work out language and make compromises on multiple bills at the same time. Committees also perform a crucial investigative function. They hold hearings, call witnesses, and solicit expert opinions on a wide variety of issues, enabling Members to expand their understanding and to better fine-tune individual bills. Lately, however, we have witnessed a disturbing trend of bypassing the committee process altogether by bringing bills directly to the floor for votes. This practice undermines committee work and frustrates Members who diligently seek to move their legislative priorities through the committee. It also deprives bills of the benefits of committee review, which include more search and consideration of language, opportunities for comment by outside experts, and the ability to address support for amendments without tying up precious floor time. A healthy committee process is essential to a well-functioning Senate. This body is not a fiefdom. We do not convene merely to give our assent to immutable messaging bills. We are supposed to work together to write, amend, and pass important legislation. When Senators bring up for consideration bills they have written without input from other Members, manipulate Senate procedure to prevent floor amendment on those bills, and then simultaneously file cloture to cut off debate, they act as autocrats rather than agents of democracy. Let's return this body to one that operates by consensus, not dictate. Let's return the committee process to its proper place in our legislative landscape, as the first line of review rather than an utter irrelevancy. Let's restore the Senate to its proper role in our constitutional system by restoring the traditions that have made this body so great: robust debate, an open amendment process, an active, meaningful committee process. Equipped with these tools, the Senate historically never shied away from taking on what everyone agreed were the toughest issues of the day. Yes, we had to take tough votes. Yes, we could not rush legislation through as fast as we sometimes would have liked. Yes, we sometimes felt deep disappointment when proposals we championed fell short. But while the Senate's rules can be frustrating and politically cumbersome, they are what allowed the Senate to serve the country so well for so very long. Restoring the Senate in this manner will not be easy. After years of bitter partisan tension, we cannot expect a complete change to come overnight. But by reestablishing our historic aims and reinstituting our designing modes of operation, including robust debate, an open amendment process, and regular order through committee work, the Senate can once more be about the peoples' business and observe the title of the world's greatest deliberative body.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Would the Senator yield for a comment?

Mr. HATCH. I thank my dear friend from Missouri for being so kind and thoughtful to me and the Senate. I appreciate our friendship and the leadership he provides in this body.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, one of my friends in this body is the distinguished minority leader, Harry Reid. Harry and I have been friends for a long time. He has served here for a long time. He served well in many respects. He certainly was a tough majority leader. He is a tough guy. Recently he suffered some very severe injuries. He is mending. These injuries seem to be injuries he can handle, although very strong, tough injuries. I wish him the best, that he may be able to recuperate well, come back again to this deliberative body, and play the role he needs to play for the minority in this illustrious body. Harry and I believe many things together, especially in the religious area. He is a fine man. His wife Landra is a very fine woman. I am glad to see that her health has improved. She is a terrific person. Both of them are terrific people in their own right. I pray that the Lord will heal Harry and make it easier for him to come back as soon as he can. Being a tough guy, he will be back here pretty soon. I wish him the best. It is no secret that Elaine and I have been praying for him. Hopefully, those prayers will be efficacious. I have great respect for my colleagues on the other side as well as my own colleagues on this side. These are good people. There are very few Senators--not more than 2--in my 38 years in the Senate that I thought might not have much redeeming value. Everybody else has played significant roles in this body, sometimes that I hotly contested and differed with, but nevertheless very good people over all these years. Harry Reid is one of the nicest people one will ever meet off the Senate floor. He is all right on the Senate floor too. All I can say is that I wish him well. I am praying for his recovery. I want him to succeed in every way. He is from our neighboring State. Nevada is very important to us. We like both Senators from Nevada. Senator Heller is one of the finest Senators here. They work well in Nevada's interests together. I hope everything goes well with Senator Reid and his wife Landra and his lovely family. They are good family people. I wanted to make those comments on the floor because of the high esteem in which I hold Harry. Yes, we disagree on a lot of issues, sometimes pretty strongly we disagree, but great Senators can do that. They can get over it quickly too. I hope the remarks I made earlier in the day on this deliberative body will be taken up by everybody in the Senate to realize this is the greatest deliberative body in the world. We need to make sure it remains such. That means tough votes. It means tough amendments. It means long days here sometimes, but it also means an ability to have a rapport with my friends, not only on this side but the other side as well and for them to have a rapport not only with their side but with our side. Let's hope we can build something and let's hope we can bring our two sides together and work in the best interests of the country and get some things done that are sorely in need and do things that both Democrats and Republicans can say: We did it together. Yes, there were tough times. Yes, we differed from time to time. But we did it together, and we did it in the best interest of the country. I hope both leaders will be able to work together in this manner and that all of us will do our work in the best interest of this country. I do not think we necessarily have to forget politics, but we ought to sublimate them sometimes to the point where they do not interfere with getting very important work done. I wish Harry Reid the best. As I said, he is in my prayers.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that I rise to convey to my colleagues news of the tragic death of Sylvia Rickard--one of the Nation's top breast cancer advocates--a woman so full of life and joy, so deeply immersed in the science of her passion, that it is impossible to imagine this sad, sad occurrence. Sylvia was truly an amazing person who touched many lives. I first met Sylvia when she visited my office so many years ago to educate me on the need for more breast cancer research, for better breast cancer screening, and for better patient navigation. Sylvia, herself a two- time survivor of breast cancer, and later of ocular melanoma, made sure that my staff and I, and indeed all of the Utah and Idaho delegations, regardless of party, were kept apprised of the latest developments in breast cancer research. She patiently walked us through the science behind the research--a science she made it her business to know in great detail. Sylvia was such a good advocate because she had fought this dread disease, and won. Not once, but twice. Moreover, Sylvia, and her husband Rick, became friends to all--to me, my staff, and to my former staff--here in Washington, and in our beloved State of Utah. She always had a smile and a hug for everyone. Sylvia made it her business not just to talk the talk, but also to walk the walk. She was a past president of the Women's State Legislative Council in Utah, a bipartisan group of women who meet to discuss issues of importance to Utah and the Nation. She also was the founder of the Utah Breast Cancer Network, and the president of the Hispanic Health Care Task Force in Utah. Sylvia became involved in building awareness at the local level, as well as the national level. Indeed, she was very proud to have been selected to be an advisor to the National Institutes of Health--a remarkable recognition of her top- ranked talent. She was involved at all levels in advocating for better biomedical research, better support for that research, and for a nonpartisan, commonsense approach to a disease that is now expected to affect one in eight women over their lifetimes. I recall the twinkle in Sylvia's eye when top experts at the Huntsman Cancer Center in Salt Lake City sought her knowledge about eye cancer, after she was treated successfully. She had found a surgeon in another State who could treat her without the certain loss of her eye, and she helped to connect the physicians so they could learn from each other. It was a great loss to Utah when Rick Rickard built Sylvia the house of their dreams for retirement in Boise, ID this past fall. But we were all happy they had achieved their dream. I heard she was absolutely delighted to cook in her new kitchen. I am so pleased she at least got to spend a few months in their new home, one they had worked for so hard over so many years finally to achieve. So our hearts go out to the Rickard and Garcia families, to Sylvia and Rick's two sons, Richard, Jr. and David, and to the many millions of others whose lives have been made better by the significant achievements of my friend, Sylvia Rickard.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. If the Senator is prepared to yield back his time, I will yield back ours.

Mr. HATCH. I yield back our time.

Mr. HATCH. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am going to personally thank the distinguished Senators from North Carolina and Pennsylvania for their work on the act. It is a very important bill. I want to give them credit for doing such a good job. The Senate will soon vote on a 1-year tax extenders package that, if enacted, will retroactively extend tax provisions that expire at the end of 2014. It is quite literally the best we can do. At this point it is something we must do. We are actually disappointed that 1-year package that was sent over to the House was basically rejected by the President. We would have preferred to have had that package. On the other hand, this is reckoning time at the end of the year. I might add in his epic speech, Prime Minister Winston Churchill stated, ``Never in the field of human conflict has so much been owed by so many to so few.'' In the case of the legislation before us, it could be said: Never in the history of tax legislation have so many voted for so little and been so disappointed. In fact, today, for the first time in 20 years, we will ensure that the new Congress will start with all of the regular so-called tax extenders already expired at the end of the first session, as the distinguished Senator from Oregon has explained. That is a dubious distinction that was entirely avoidable in our view. The problem of course is the President and some of his allies in the Senate pulled the plug on a bipartisan negotiation that would have produced a more satisfying result. As we all know, the Speaker of the House and the Senate majority leader were, just a few weeks ago, on the verge of reaching a deal that both sides could reasonably support. President Obama caught wind of the emerging deal which had yet to be finalized and promptly issued a veto threat. That threat was then ratified by many in this Chamber, including some at the negotiating table. For those who wish we were voting on a better extenders package, they should know who to blame--President Obama and his supporters in the Senate. At this late hour, passing a 1-year extension is the only option left for us. I plan to support the bill before us, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I should also note this bill includes, as we have said, the ABLE Act--a great piece of legislation that our colleagues, Senators Casey and Burr, have worked on for years right up to this point. I want to applaud them for their work on behalf of families affected by disabilities. I take a great interest in that myself, so I am very pleased to see these two leaders getting this bill finally through. I am pleased we are coming to the end of this session; hopefully in the next year, we can all work together to do an even better job than we have done this year. How much time do we have remaining?

Mr. HATCH. How much time does the other side have?

Mr. HATCH. The Senate will soon vote on a one-year tax extenders package that, if enacted, will retroactively extend tax provisions that expired at the end of 2013. It is, quite literally, the least we can do, and at this point, it is something we must do. The remarkable thing about this tax extenders bill is that no one seems to be happy with it. I don't know a single Member of Congress that is pleased that we're going to pass a simple, one-year extension of expiring provisions. But, sadly, that's where we are. Of course, it didn't have to be this way. There was a time in the not-too-distant past when we were working on a package that would not only extend most of the expired provisions for a longer period time, but also make a number of important provisions permanent, thus eliminating much of the year-to-year roller coaster that individuals, families, and businesses have to go through when planning for their taxes. There was bipartisan agreement on such an approach. And, in fact, at one point it appeared that a deal--a bipartisan, bicameral deal--was on the immediate horizon. But, as we all know now, that deal came crashing down after the President and some of his more liberal allies here in the Senate decided they were unwilling to compromise. I came to the floor to talk about this debacle a couple weeks back, but some of the points bear repeating. Just before Thanksgiving, the Senate majority leader and the Speaker of the House were very close to reaching a deal on the tax extenders, one that would have included all of the provisions of the Senate Finance Committee's extenders package--the EXPIRE Act--while also making a number of tax extenders permanent. The emerging deal was a reasonable compromise. It would have been something both Republicans and Democrats could support, and I have little doubt that it would have passed easily through both Chambers. It wasn't perfect. There were certainly parts of it that I, personally, could have lived without and provisions that most Republicans that I know didn't really support. But, as a compromise between two negotiating positions, it was a very good deal, and, as I said, I believe it would have passed easily through both the House and Senate. Unfortunately, the deal was not good enough for President Obama, who was apparently less willing than the Senate majority leader to compromise on the extenders package. Before the negotiations were even completed and a deal was even reached, the President issued a veto threat. That's right, the President issued a veto threat on a deal still under negotiation. That's how eager he was to put the kibosh on a compromise. That was unfortunate. What was even more unfortunate, however, was that parties to the negotiations decided to ratify this threat and pull the plug on the deal being negotiated by the leaders of the two Chambers. The President's excuse for issuing his veto threat on the emerging deal was that it did too much to help the business community and not enough to help individuals and families. For those of us who have been working on tax issues and have been asking the President to engage on these matters, this statement from the White House was more than just a little bit strange. After all, while Republicans have for years been strongly advocating for comprehensive tax reform, encompassing both the individual and business tax systems, the President has only expressed a willingness to engage in tax reform on the business side. Indeed, he has more or less refused to even talk about tax reform for individuals and families, unless, of course, such reform amounted to a massive tax increase. In other words, he threatened to veto a tax extenders package that, in his eyes, only helped businesses and not individuals, while at the same time, maintaining a vision for tax reform that did just what he said he opposed--helping businesses and not individuals. The mental gymnastics at play here are dizzying, and you would be forgiven for being confused by the White House's attempt to be on both sides of this issue. I am definitely confused by the President's statements. I am even more confused as to why some of my colleagues here in the Senate opted to go along with it. It is no secret that things are going to change around here in the next Congress. I can't imagine that any of my colleagues really think they are going to get a better deal on the tax extenders than the one that was being negotiated by the current Senate majority leader. But, as is too often the case around here, simple and obvious logic can easily be cast aside when there is a political point to be made. That's what I think is going on here. Pure politics. Sadly, as is also too often the case around here, the American people are the ones who are going to suffer. Rather than a longer tax extenders deal with some permanency in some key provisions, the American people will be left with a 1-year, retroactive extension. Rather than being able to plan for the future, individuals, families, and businesses will instead have to wait around and hope that Congress can do better the next time around. Don't get me wrong, I plan to support the 1-year extension, as I have said before, but, we could have done better. And, it's unfortunate that, once again, politics and an unwillingness to compromise stopped a good deal--one that would have satisfied the majority of both parties-- from being made. In his epic speech on the Battle of Britain, Prime Minister Winston Churchill stated: ``Never in the field of human conflict has so much been owed by so many to so few.'' In the case of the legislation before us, it could be said: Never in the history of tax legislation have so many voted for so little and been so disappointed. In fact, today, for the first time in 20 years, a new Congress will start with all the regular so-called tax extenders already expired at the beginning of the first session. That is a dubious distinction that was entirely avoidable. I have been pretty hard on the President for his actions on this matter. But, it is not just him. There are many in this Chamber who supported and went right along with him, and, as a result, the package we will be voting on is not nearly as good as it could have been. But, in the end, we don't have much choice on this matter. Passing the 1- year extension is the only option left to us at this late hour. So, I plan to support the bill before us, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Finally, I just want to say I am very pleased that an extremely important bill will accompany the extenders package. I'm talking about the Achieving a Better Life Experience Act of 2014, or the ABLE Act. The ABLE Act makes permanent changes to the tax code that will provide critical assistance to families saving private funds for the support of individuals with disabilities. These funds may be used to maintain health, independence, quality of life, and pay for all manner of disability-related expenses. The funds may be used throughout the disabled person's life, an important feature for parents that worry about providing for children with lifelong challenges. The funds will supplement, but not supplant, benefits provided through private insurance, Medicaid, Social Security, and employment. I especially want to thank my friends and colleagues, Senator Casey and Senator Burr, who for several years have done the heavy lifting necessary to make this law a reality. For decades to come disabled Americans will owe these two Senators and their fine staffs an enormous debt of gratitude. I yield the floor without losing any time.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I certainly appreciate all the remarks the Senator from Oklahoma has said. He is one of the great Senators of all time, as far as I am concerned. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to give this statement, which shouldn't be much more than 15 minutes.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as we wind down the final days of the 113th Congress, it is a good time both to reflect on the past and to look toward the future. I have been very moved as I listened to the farewell speeches of our departing Senators, and I wish I had time to pay tribute to each one of them. They have all been wonderful colleagues, and I enjoyed working with and getting to know every one of them. I wish them all the very best in all their future endeavors. They will most certainly be missed. In terms of the future there are a number of challenges before us. We have an economy that despite recent upticks is still struggling. We have a national debt that despite recent reductions in the deficit is headed toward astronomical levels, and we have a pending crisis with our entitlement programs that threatens to swallow up our government and take our economy down with it. I believe we can fix these problems, but it is not going to be easy. Tax Reform Today I would like to take a few minutes to talk about a particularly important effort that I believe will help address some of these fundamental changes and challenges. I am talking about tax reform. Over the last few years I have spoken numerous times on the floor and elsewhere about the need to fix our broken Tax Code. I would understand if there are some who tire of hearing me talk about tax reform, but that doesn't mean I am going to stop any time soon. Tax reform is no longer optional but essential. If we are going to get our economy moving again, we need a Tax Code that will stop standing in the way. Make no mistake. Promoting job creation and economic growth is the first and most important step we need to take in order to address our Nation's most pressing problems. This is no secret to anyone in this Chamber. I don't believe I have been blessed with unique insight into these matters. We all know what we have to do and that, in and of itself, is pretty remarkable. Indeed, with all the partisanship and division we have seen over the past few years, there is bipartisan agreement on the need to reform our tax system. There are disagreements on the details that cannot at this time be overlooked, but on the basic question surrounding the need for reform, people in both parties have reached the same answer: Reform is necessary, and it needs to happen sooner rather than later. My hope is that today I can say a few words that will help to set the stage for our reform efforts in the near future. Last week I released a report drafted by my staff on the Senate Finance Committee entitled ``Comprehensive Tax Reform for 2015 and Beyond.'' This report--I have been calling it a book because it is 340 pages long--outlines the major issues policymakers would have to confront as we undertake tax reform. It describes where we are with our current Tax Code, where we have been, and most importantly, it gives some direction as to where we should go with our reform efforts in the future. I hope all of our colleagues will take time to read through it. I need to be clear. This is not a tax reform plan. It is a discussion of ideas and principles that I hope will be the first step in a renewed bipartisan effort to reform our Nation's Tax Code in the very near future. More than anything, I hope my colleagues will view this book as an invitation to work together in this most important endeavor. As I outlined in the book, tax reform, in my view, should be undertaken with a set of simple principles in mind. The most important principles are the three set out by President Reagan the last time Congress was able to pass a major tax overhaul, nearly three decades ago. President Reagan's first principle, and in my view the most important, is economic growth. Tax reform should significantly reduce many of the economic distortions that are present under the current income tax system and promote growth in our economy. It should eliminate the anticompetitive nature of the current tax system, such as the high U.S. corporate tax rate, which stifles job growth. High marginal tax rates are present up and down the income scale and they act as disincentives for work, entrepreneurship, and investment. These growth deterrents--which are embedded nearly everywhere in our Tax Code--should be eliminated. President Reagan's second principle was fairness. The income tax base, which has become riddled with exclusions, exemptions, deductions, and credits, should be as broad as possible. Tax reform should reduce the number of tax expenditures, thereby broadening the tax base while simultaneously lowering tax rates. A broader tax base coupled with significantly lower tax rates is the basis of what would be a much fairer tax system. The final principle outlined by President Reagan was simplicity. Our Tax Code has grown to almost four million words. Today, approximately 59 percent of American households use paid preparers to do their individual income taxes and another 30 percent use tax software to assist them. Taxpayers and businesses spend over $168 billion annually. That is larger than the size of the entire economy of New Zealand, and an amount that would employ more than three million workers full time at an hourly wage of $25. A simpler Tax Code would greatly reduce these compliance costs, resulting in greater efficiency and compliance by American taxpayers. Let's unleash resources from being devoted to figuring out or gaming our broken Tax Code and make the resources available for job creation. The three principles from President Reagan would be vital to our tax reform efforts. But, as I said, it has been nearly 30 years since Congress tried to put President Reagan's principles into action. Much has changed in that time. In order to address the needs of today, additional principles are necessary. One of those principles is permanence. The Tax Code needs certainty. The Joint Committee on Taxation lists almost 100 tax provisions that will expire between 2013 and 2023. Individuals and businesses need to be able to rely on provisions in the tax law for planning purposes. The lack of certainty in our tax laws hinders job creation and stifles economic growth. We need a tax system that no longer threatens to change from year to year. Another important principle is competitiveness. The combination of a high corporate tax rate, worldwide taxation, and the temporary nature of some tax incentives make U.S. companies less competitive when compared to their foreign counterparts. In addition, U.S. multinationals are discouraged from repatriating foreign earnings because of the U.S. corporate tax that applies at the time of repatriation--a corporate rate that is the highest in our industrialized world. Tax reform should reduce the high tax rates on businesses and also achieve neutrality through a competitive international tax system, thereby placing worldwide American companies on a level playing field with their foreign competitors when conducting business in other countries. The result would be more worldwide American companies establishing or retaining their corporate headquarters in the United States, more exports to global markets, and retention and investment of money in the United States rather than abroad. Promoting savings and investment is another important principle. Many aspects of the U.S. income tax system discourage savings and investments by individuals, thereby hindering long-term growth. Tax reform should result in a tax system that actually encourages people to save and invest. Last, but certainly not least, there is the principle of revenue neutrality. I know this will be a sticking point for some, though, for the life of me I can't see why. If we are scouring the Tax Code looking for ways to squeeze more revenue to fuel government spending, we are not reforming the Tax Code, we are raising taxes. It is as simple as that. Tax reform should not be used as an excuse to raise taxes on the American people or on U.S. businesses. Any effort to use tax reform as a revenue-raising exercise is a needless distraction. Anyone who believes that the American people are currently undertaxed should look at historical trends. According to the Congressional Budget Office, Federal revenues are set to exceed historical averages as early as next year and will remain that way. We can talk about shoring up deficits and paying for spending, but we should not be looking to the Tax Code as a resource for additional revenue. If you count up these principles--including those established by President Reagan, and the ones added since--there are seven in total. In my view, these seven principles should serve as guideposts for our tax reform efforts. Any idea or proposal we consider should link back and be relevant to at least one of these principles. The best ideas and proposals should probably link back to all of them. As I said, the book we released last week outlines these principles and also provides a wealth of background information about our Tax Code and the need for reform. I view it as a first major step in a tax reform effort that I hope will get underway early next year. In the coming weeks and months, I plan to reveal additional steps. I plan to involve many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, particularly those who will be joining me on the Senate Finance Committee. My hope is that as this conversation continues, a path toward real bipartisan tax reform will begin to take shape. Of course, it will take more than just talk and discussion. It will take hard work, commitment, and, of course, compromise. I said it many times before, and I will say it again today: I am willing to work with anyone, Republican or Democrat, to reform our Nation's Tax Code, and I look forward to continuing this effort in the 114th Congress, and, if necessary, beyond. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. No, Mr. President; reserving the right to object. I spoke at length on the floor about my opposition to confirming Ms. Colvin at this time. While I do not doubt Ms. Colvin's qualifications for this position, there is a cloud hanging over her nomination, and I do not believe the Senate should move forward with her confirmation until that cloud is removed. Since Ms. Colvin's nomination was reported out of the Finance Committee, several sources, including the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and individual whistleblowers have reported that the Social Security Administration, over a 6-year period, burned through $300 million in a failed attempt to develop and implement the Disability Case Processing System or DCPS. Some of this happened on Ms. Colvin's watch as she has served as Acting Commissioner of the SSA. Sadly, it gets worse. We also heard allegations from multiple sources that SSA officials intentionally misled the agency's inspector general, as well as Congress, about the deficiencies in the development of the DCPS in order to facilitate Ms. Colvin's confirmation in the Senate. These are serious allegations, and an investigation--one that may very well conclude a criminal element--is ongoing. Once again, Ms. Colvin currently serves as the Acting Commissioner of SSA. This investigation includes people working in her immediate office. Put simply, the Senate should not move forward on her nomination until this matter is resolved. I intend to work with our two colleagues from Maryland to see if we can resolve this issue. It may very well be that Ms. Colvin has done nothing wrong. I voted for her out of committee. I certainly hope she has done nothing wrong. I hope that is the case. But we should at least be sure before we move her nomination forward; therefore, I have to object at this time. I believe my colleague Senator Isakson may have some comments on this matter as well. I will surely try to work with my colleagues and see if we can expedite this if there is no problem. I have nothing against Ms. Colvin at all. In fact, I interviewed her in my office. I quite enjoyed meeting with her. We will see what we can do to move this forward, but as of right now I have to object.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I voted for this fine woman coming out of the committee, but there since have arisen all kinds of problems concerning perhaps criminal problems at the Social Security----