Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I will make one more statement. There is enough evidence of criminal conduct there--I am not accusing her but, on the other hand, she was the authority there.

Mr. HATCH. We should not be voting on this at this time.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to the senior Senator from Michigan, Carl Levin. I have known Carl for many years and am grateful for his friendship. Throughout his career, Carl has always put the needs of Michigan and this nation above his own.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to recognize a dear friend, Senator Tom Harkin. Senator Harkin will be retiring at the end of the month, but his influence will be felt long after he leaves this Chamber. I speak for all of my colleagues when I say he will be sorely missed. I consider myself lucky to have worked with Tom, and even luckier to call him a friend. Tom has devoted his life to public service. Like any good statesman, Tom is humble about his achievements. Humility is a trait so often lacking in accomplished men, but Tom is an exception. The allure and glamor of Beltway life never held sway over Tom, and his years spent in the Nation's capital have only shown that he is an Iowa man through and through. The only thing that runs deeper than Tom's Iowa roots is the corn that grows there. Tom still lives in the very same house in the very same town where he was born--Cumming, IA, population: 383--a far cry from this bustling metropolis. His family still keeps a farm in Cumming, and I am sure he looks forward to spending many peaceful days there in his retirement. Tom grew up in a family of modest means. His father was a coal miner and his mother a Slovenian immigrant who passed away when Tom was just 10 years old. From an early age, Tom developed his signature work ethic by taking various odd jobs on farms, at construction sites, and even in a bottling plant. Tom's service to our Nation began long before he came to Congress. He attended Iowa State University on a Navy ROTC scholarship and served as an active-duty Navy pilot for 5 years after graduation. Even after his full-time military service, he continued to serve as a pilot in the Naval Reserve. Tom is a man who always has and always will put our country first. Even though he and I often disagreed on matters of policy, I always knew that Tom had the best interests of our Nation and those of his constituents in mind. Tom and I first became good friends when I joined him in sponsoring the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1989. At the time, Tom was a first-term Senator approaching reelection, and to support the ADA was politically risky. But true to form, Tom bucked political expediency to champion a law that the late Senator Ted Kennedy would describe as the ``emancipation proclamation'' for those with disabilities. Although the ADA faced serious opposition, passing this legislation was personal for Tom, whose brother, Frank, grew up deaf, and whose nephew was quadriplegic. In the lives of these loved ones, Tom saw how lack of opportunities for persons with disabilities could make their lives all the more challenging. My friendship with Tom was forged in the battles we fought to move the ADA through both chambers of Congress. I will never forget the day the Senate passed the bill in 1989. After the vote, Tom and I left the floor and walked into the anteroom, where there were hundreds of persons with disabilities in wheelchairs, on crutches, and with various other disabilities waiting to receive us. Overcome with emotion, both of us broke down and cried. It was a moment I will never forget. I am not exaggerating when I say that Tom's work on this hallmark legislation will have resounding effects for generations to come. Because of the ADA, millions of Americans with disabilities can now pursue the American Dream. Throughout his Senate career, Tom has always been there to help those who could not help themselves. His work has affected the lives of millions. Senator Harkin deserves not only our recognition, but also our gratitude. I want to wish him, his wife Ruth, and their family all the best.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I was a cosponsor of this amendment to the highway bill in the Finance Committee and understand the importance of equalizing the tax rate between LNG and propane and diesel fuel. Unfortunately, we cannot add this amendment that I support to this time-sensitive legislation. Senator Burr and Senator Bennet, I hope to find an opportunity to include this important provision regarding LNG and propane in legislation next year. This inequitable treatment of LNG and propane deserves a better fate than what exists under current law. I especially want to thank Senator Burr for his tireless efforts on this issue.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today to honor my good friend Senator Saxby Chambliss on the occasion of his retirement. For 20 years, he has served his fellow Georgians in Congress with honor and distinction. He will be sorely missed. A preacher's son, Saxby was born in Warrenton, NC. He graduated from the University of Georgia and the University of Tennessee College of Law. As a lawyer in south Georgia, he built a successful law practice representing the farmers that are the lifeblood of his state. He put his expertise on farm issues to good use here in Congress and became a key player in negotiations for each of the farm bills considered during his tenure. And just 2 years after he was elected to the Senate, he assumed the chairmanship of the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, the fastest any new Senator has risen to chair a standing committee since 1947. Saxby and I served together for many years on the Select Committee on Intelligence, where I came to appreciate his wisdom, his sound judgment, and his unyielding commitment to keeping this nation safe. He has been an enormously effective vice chairman over the past 4 years. And even as his tenure here draws to a close, he has once again demonstrated his superb leadership in setting the record straight on the Intelligence Committee's investigation of the CIA's detention and interrogation program. Above all else, Saxby is a proud husband, father of two, and grandfather of six. I know that his lovely wife Julianne and the rest of his family are eager to spend more time together in the coming years. Mr. President, Saxby and the entire Chambliss family should know that his colleagues, his fellow Georgians, and his fellow Americans are truly grateful for Saxby's service and his family's sacrifices. I wish them all the best. Tom Coburn Madam President, I also pay tribute to my friend Tom Coburn as he prepares to leave the Senate. For 10 years, Tom has served the people of Oklahoma as their junior Senator. He is a man of principle and fierce determination. He has shown himself willing time and again to stand up to special interests and to fight for what he believes in. He will be missed. Senator Coburn was born in Casper, Wyoming, in 1948 and was raised in Muskogee, OK. His father Orin was a prominent optician and the founder of Coburn Optical Industries. Tom attended college at Oklahoma State University, where he graduated with a degree in accounting. From 1970 to 1978 he was a manufacturing manager at his family's company. After a bout with cancer, Tom returned to school to become a physician, graduating in 1983 from the University of Oklahoma Medical School. Following his residency, Tom moved back to Muskogee to practice family medicine and obstetrics. He has personally delivered more than 4,000 babies. Senator Coburn began his career in public service in 1994, when he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Oklahoma. He served in the House for 6 years, then went back to Muskogee to resume his medical practice. Three years later, in 2004, Tom was elected to the U.S. Senate to fill the seat being vacated by retiring Senator Don Nickles. Here in the Senate he has served with distinction on a number of important committees, including the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, of which he is the Ranking Member. Since first arriving in Congress, Senator Coburn has been a strong proponent of fiscal restraint. His efforts to fight deficit spending, pork barrel projects, and earmarks earned him the nickname ``Dr. No.'' I have always thought this nickname was a compliment to Tom. It shows he is willing to stand up against powerful interests in defense of his principles, and that he takes seriously the problems of unnecessary spending and long-term debt. Passing a balanced budget amendment has been a priority of mine for many years, and I have been glad to count Tom as a strong ally in that effort. I have also been fortunate to work with Senator Coburn on a number of other issues during his time in the Senate. Earlier this year, Tom and I, along with Senator Richard Burr, introduced the Patient CARE Act, a market-based alternative to Obamacare. Tom and I have also worked together to fight waste and corruption at the Department of Health and Human Services and to reinvigorate the States' roles in meeting transportation, safety, and other needs. Madam President, Senator Coburn is an honorable and steadfast man. He has served his country well. I wish him, his wife Carolyn, and their family the very best. Mike Johanns Madam President, as well I honor my colleague and friend Mike Johanns. For many years, Senator Johanns has worked tirelessly for the people of Nebraska, first at the local level, then at the state level as Governor, and most recently as senior Senator from Nebraska. Mike is a kind and thoughtful man, and I have been grateful to serve with him these past 6 years. Senator Johanns was born and raised in Osage, IA, where he grew up working on his family's farm. After high school, he attended Saint Mary's University of Minnesota and Creighton University School of Law. Following law school Mike clerked on the Nebraska Supreme Court and then practiced law in Lincoln, NE, where he was a founding partner at the firm Nelson, Johanns, Morris, Holdeman, and Titus. In 1983, Senator Johanns was elected to the Lancaster County Board. Five years later he won election to the Lincoln City Council, and then, 3 years after that, became Mayor of Lincoln. Mike followed his success in local politics with success in state politics. In 1998, he won his first term as Governor of Nebraska, and was reelected by a landslide 4 years later. Senator Johanns entered national politics in 2004 when President George W. Bush asked him to serve as Secretary of Agriculture. Four years later he won election to the U.S. Senate from Nebraska, where he has served with distinction ever since. When he retires later this month, Senator Johanns will have spent more than 25 years as a public servant. I commend him for his service to the state of Nebraska and to the people of this Nation. Although his tenure in the Senate was brief, Senator Johanns wasted no time. His previous experience as Secretary of Agriculture proved indispensable as a member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture. To this committee, he brought an expertise on farming issues unrivaled by other freshman senators. He also served actively on the Banking Committee and was a member of the Senate's Gang of Eight during budget negotiations in 2011. Throughout his service, Senator Johanns always had the best interests of the Nation at heart. Madam President, Senator Johanns is a good man who has served his country well. His retirement is well deserved. I wish him, his wife Stephanie, and their children the best going forward. Jay Rockefeller Madam President, in addition I pay tribute to my friend and colleague Jay Rockefeller, who will soon retire from the Senate. I have known Jay for many years. He is a man of principle who has dedicated his life to serving the citizens of West Virginia. He is a serious legislator and an honorable man. I will miss him. Senator Rockefeller is a member of a prominent and distinguished American family. He is the great-grandson of John D. Rockefeller, the founder of Standard Oil. Jay was born in New York City and attended school at Phillips Exeter Academy and Harvard College, from which he earned an A.B. After college Jay worked for the Peace Corps and the Department of Far Eastern Affairs. He then went to work for the Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA) program, during which time he moved to West Virginia. Senator Rockefeller began his political career in 1966, when he was elected to the West Virginia House of Delegates. Two years he later became the West Virginia Secretary of State. After a brief stint as President of West Virginia Wesleyan College, Jay returned to public service in 1976, when he was elected Governor of West Virginia. Following two successful terms as Governor, he won election to the U.S. Senate in 1984, where he has served ever since. Senator Rockefeller has held a number of important positions in the Senate, including Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, where I was privileged to serve with him. This is a crucially important committee that deals with some of the weightiest issues that come before Congress. Jay led the committee with equanimity and respect. His work helped keep our country safe. Senator Rockefeller has also been an active legislator. I was honored to work with him on the creation of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, which has made health insurance available to millions of children. Other issues Jay and I have worked on together over the years include tax reform, stem cell research, and protecting the American flag. He and I did not always see eye to eye, but I always knew he did what he thought was right. Mr. President, I am grateful to have been able to serve alongside Senator Rockefeller these past 30 years. He's a man of deep conviction, and a man utterly devoted to the people of his home state of West Virginia. I wish the very best for him, his wife Sharon, and their family as they enter the next chapter of their lives. Mark Pryor Madam President, I also honor my friend Mark Pryor. For 12 years Senator Pryor has served the people of Arkansas in this body. He is independent, open-minded, and hard-working. He will be missed. Senator Pryor comes from a distinguished Arkansas political family. His father, David Pryor, was Governor of and later Senator from Arkansas. Mark was born in Fayetteville, AR, and attended college at the University of Arkansas. He received a law degree from the University of Arkansas School of Law and then spent several years in private practice. In 1991, Senator Pryor was elected to the Arkansas House of Representatives. Eight years later he was elected Attorney General of Arkansas. In 2002, Mark won election to the U.S. Senate from Arkansas, winning the same seat his father once held. In the Senate, Mark has distinguished himself through his independence and his willingness to reach across party lines. Although Mark and I have not always agreed, I have always known he has acted in what he firmly believes are the best interests of his State. Senator Pryor has served on a number of important committees during his time in the Senate, including the Appropriations Committee, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. I have been fortunate to work with him on a number of important pieces of legislation, on topics ranging from medical care to homeland security to victim restitution. He has been a strong partner in these efforts, and I have been grateful to have him as an ally. Senator Pryor is a decent and thoughtful man. He has served his State honorably. I wish him and his family the very best. John Walsh Madam President, finally I pay tribute to Senator John Walsh. I have known John for only a brief time, but I know that he is a good man who has served his country well. Senator Walsh began his service to our country long before he came to the Senate. He joined the Montana National Guard right after high school-the start of an impressive military career. John served 8 years as an enlisted U.S. Army soldier before he was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in 1987. As an officer, he distinguished himself and quickly rose through the ranks. Senator Walsh led the 163rd Infantry Battalion in Iraq, commanding more than 700 Army National Guard soldiers in combat. He later received the Bronze Star and the Combat Infantryman's badge for his service. In 2008, Governor Brian Schweitzer appointed John the Adjutant General of Montana's National Guard. As Adjutant General, John oversaw the command of thousands of troops. These soldiers and their families looked to him for leadership and strength, and he always delivered. Senator Walsh moved from military service to public office when he became Montana's Lieutenant Governor in 2013. Governor Steve Bullock appointed John to fill former Senator Max Baucus's seat in February 2014, making John the first Iraq War veteran to serve as a Senator. Though his time here in the Senate was brief, Senator Walsh was an active member of the Committee on Rules and Administration; the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry; and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. He always treated me and our other colleagues with the utmost kindness and respect. Senator Walsh is a good man who has dedicated his life to serving our country and keeping us safe. I wish him, his wife Janet, and their children the very best.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I wish to take a few minutes to speak about the nomination of Carolyn Colvin to be the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. In recent weeks a number of disturbing facts have come to light about Ms. Colvin and her tenure as the Acting Social Security Commissioner. These revelations, coupled with the fact that there is an ongoing investigation of the conduct of people in her immediate office, raise serious questions about whether she is qualified to serve in this position. Let me make one thing clear. My doubts about Ms. Colvin's nomination have nothing to do with partisanship. I, along with 20 of my colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee, voted to report her nomination out of the committee in September. At that time I believed she had the necessary qualifications for the job and saw no reason to oppose her nomination. I have to say I liked her personally, but as I said, since that time, new facts have come to light that are extremely disconcerting. Just days before Ms. Colvin appeared before the Finance Committee, we became aware of allegations concerning potential waste and mismanagement at the SSA, as well as allegations regarding the possible coverup of that waste and mismanagement. Several sources, including the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and individual whistleblowers reported that SSA had, over a 6-year period, burned through $300 million in a failed attempt to develop and implement the Disability Case Processing System or DCPS. These sources derived their information from a report issued in June by a private contractor commissioned by SSA. This report was subsequently provided to Congress by SSA whistleblowers. According to the report, mismanagement and poor planning at the SSA stalled the development of the DCPS. This, in turn, resulted in the substantial waste of taxpayer dollars. Once again, the amount was, I am informed, roughly $300 million. These allegations were just breaking when Ms. Colvin appeared before the Finance Committee, but I did mention them during the hearing. Needless to say, as we have learned more details about the failure surrounding the DCPS, the picture has only gotten even cloudier. At a minimum, these allegations call into question the quality of SSA's overall management and the leadership skills of those managing the agency. It certainly calls into question their commitment to preventing waste and preserving SSA's already scarce resources. Sadly, it gets worse. On July 23, 2014, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform sent a letter to Ms. Colvin that raised even more issues about the failures of SSA, partially under Ms. Colvin's leadership as Acting Commissioner, including possible actions by agency officials designed to intentionally mislead Congress and the IG's office about the deficiencies and the development of the DCPS. Indeed, the allegation is that Congress may have been intentionally misled so as to facilitate approval of Ms. Colvin's nomination to be the next Social Security Administration Commissioner. Subsequently, on November 18, 2014, a press release from the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security indicated that the ``results of a criminal investigation regarding the implementation of DCPS is still pending.'' In addition, whistleblowers have informed the Senate Finance Committee that the ongoing IG investigation has centered on high-level officials at the SSA, including members of Ms. Colvin's immediate office, and that alleged criminal conduct may extend to irregularities in the award of contracts for the DCPS project. This is a serious problem. I do not know how the Senate can with good conscience vote to confirm anyone with this type of ongoing investigation going on around their immediate office. It may very well turn out that Ms. Colvin did nothing wrong, but we need to know for sure. This is a very important position. That is why I, along with all of the Republican members of the Senate Finance Committee, sent a letter to Ms. Colvin last week asking for more details about the DCPS and her office's conduct. She has since responded claiming that she is not responsible for any mismanagement of the DCPS project and that she committed no criminal conduct. As I said, that may very well be the case. I hope it is. But the specter of an ongoing investigation still hangs over her nomination; therefore, I do not believe the Senate should proceed toward confirming her until this matter is resolved. I want to be fair to her, but this is an important problem that needs to be resolved. I want to make one thing clear: This is about more than just mismanagement of funds or bureaucratic incompetence; this is about an ongoing investigation of people in Ms. Colvin's direct office for contract issues and allegations that they purposefully misled Congress in order to move her nomination through. Once again, this is not partisan. I supported Ms. Colvin's nomination in committee and continue to believe she has the right credentials and experience for this important job. Of course, if these allegations prove to be true, my assessment of her qualifications will most certainly change. Put simply, with this investigation--which may very well have a criminal element to it--still ongoing, I cannot support moving forward on Carolyn Colvin's nomination. I hope this matter can be resolved quickly and cleanly, but until such time, I plan to vote against confirming her as the next Social Security Commissioner unless we resolve these matters beforehand. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I applaud the passage of the Newborn Screening Saves Lives Reauthorization Act. Across the United States, newborns are screened routinely for certain genetic, metabolic, hormonal and functional disorders. Most of these birth defects have no immediate visible effects on a baby but, unless detected and treated early, they can cause serious physical problems, developmental disability and, in some cases, death. Fortunately, most infants are given a clean bill of health when tested. In cases where newborns are found to have metabolic disorders or hearing impairment, early diagnosis and proper treatment are crucial in making the difference between healthy development and lifelong infirmity. Newborn screening has been saving lives for more than 50 years, but programs vary from State to State. To address disparity among States' newborn screening capabilities, Congress passed the original Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2008, P.L. 110-204, legislation I sponsored with Senator Chris Dodd. The law established national newborn screening guidelines and helped facilitate comprehensive newborn screening in every State in America and the District of Columbia. Before passage, some States offered as few as only four of the recommended tests, and only 11 States and D.C. required the recommended screening for all disorders. Today, 42 States and D.C. require screening for at least 29 of the 31 treatable core conditions, and both parents and physicians are more aware of the availability and necessity of newborn screening. To maintain the important work of newborn screening programs, I am a proud sponsor of the Newborn Screening Saves Lives Reauthorization Act of 2013. This legislation will allow States to continue improving their programs to help medical providers promptly diagnose and treat conditions which could result otherwise in irreversible brain damage, permanent disability, or death. I very much appreciate and commend the hard work of my colleagues and their staffs here in the Congress, the administration, and the public health community to ensure that this program will continue to help States provide critical, timely, and lifesaving newborn screening for our youngest Americans.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as the Appropriations Committees prepare to release the product of their negotiations on a spending bill this afternoon, I rise today to discuss the troubling development that has made their work all the more challenging: President Obama's immigration Executive order. By circumventing Congress, the President has dispensed with the duly-enacted law of the land in a unilateral attempt to alter the legal status of millions of immigrants. Unfortunately, this issue of Executive overreach is not a new one. Over the past year, I have come to the Senate floor repeatedly to lay out my objections to President Obama's lawlessness--from the release of Guantanamo detainees to ObamaCare, from his purported recess appointments to Benghazi. Today I come to discuss this latest astonishing instance in the area of immigration. Immigration is a complex and divisive issue, and Americans hold a wide variety of views on the matter. But one thing that should not be controversial is the President's duty to place fidelity to the Constitution over partisan politics. The Constitution vests lawmaking authority with Congress, not the President. And the Framers specifically sought to end centuries of abuses by the English monarchs, who claimed the power to dispense with the laws of the land, by requiring the President to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. The Constitution does not suggest or invite the President to enforce the law; it obligates him to do so. The President and his executive branch, of course, exercise prosecutorial discretion--the discretion to choose not to prosecute certain cases. But that power stems from considerations of fairness and equity in particular cases. Instead of requiring individualized determinations in specific cases, the President's latest Executive order claims the power to sweep up millions of people based on only a few broad, widely shared criteria. The President is also within his rights not to prosecute when there are not sufficient resources to do so, but the Obama administration has never explained how the Executive order would save money. In fact, the administration's own policy advisers have acknowledged that a work permitting program will be expensive and will take away resources from law enforcement. While no one disagrees that capturing and removing violent criminals should be our highest immigration priority, President Obama has gone much further and made current immigration law essentially a dead letter for millions of illegal immigrants. President Obama cannot credibly claim that he is attempting to execute immigration law faithfully when ICE agents were forced to release 68,000 potentially deportable aliens last year alone, when the administration took disciplinary action against ICE officers for making lawful arrests, and when the President of the National ICE Council felt compelled to testify before Congress that although ``most Americans assume that ICE agents and officers are empowered by the government to enforce the law . . . nothing could be further from the truth.'' Moreover, despite the administration's claim to the contrary, President Obama's action is not comparable to the Executive actions taken by President Reagan or even President George H.W. Bush. Even the Washington Post's editorial board found that claim by the White House to be ``indefensible.'' Presidents Reagan and Bush simply implemented the enforcement priorities established in laws that Congress actually passed. By contrast President Obama has sought to change the law before Congress has acted, so he cannot rely on Congress's authority to enforce the policy he prefers. Here President Obama has acted directly in the face of congressional opposition, and we should call his Executive order what it is: an attempt to bypass the constitutionally ordained legislative process and rewrite the law unilaterally. We are all sometimes disappointed and even angry about the outcomes of the legislative process. I have certainly felt that way many times over the course of my 38 years here. But the right response is to redouble our efforts to get it right, not to try to subvert our constitutional system. The President should heed his own wisdom from as recently as last fall when he said that by broadening immigration enforcement carve-outs ``then essentially I would be ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to defend legally. So that is not an option. . . . What I've said is there is a path to get this done, and that's through Congress.'' Even beyond the legal and constitutional problems with the Executive order, the President's approach is also bad policy. His Executive order greatly undercuts the chances for lasting immigration reform because it undermines our confidence that the President will live with any compromises we agree to forge through the legislative process. The Executive order is even bad for those who are currently here illegally--those who are supposed to benefit from it. Instead of temporary half measures, they need the certainty that only legislation can provide. Last month, in an election in which President Obama insisted that all of his policies were on the ballot, the American people delivered the President a decisive rebuke. Many of us from Congress took the right message from the election--that it is time for us to come together to find areas of agreement and to govern like adults. Apparently President Obama missed that message. To announce this Executive order after the defeat at the polls displays shocking arrogance. Given how the White House and its allies in the media keep raising the specter of a shutdown or impeachment, it is clear the President is attempting to goad Congress into a fight rather than work with us in the difficult job of actually legislating. Unlike President Obama, I am committed to making real progress toward implementing lasting immigration reform. I supported the Senate's comprehensive immigration bill last year. Even though the bill was far from perfect, I voted for it because I believe in working together to get something done on this vitally important issue. As I have long argued, the way to get real immigration reform back on track is not for the President to insist on his ``my way or the highway'' approach, either by trying to enact his preferred policy unilaterally or even for him to demand an all-or-nothing comprehensive bill. Instead we should consider individual immigration reform measures that can win broad support and help rebuild trust in our country. Only by doing so will we clear a path forward for other more far-reaching reforms. Take the area of high-skilled immigration. We face a high-skilled worker shortage that has become a national crisis. In April for the second year in a row the Federal Government reached its current H-1B visa quota for workers just 5 days after accepting applications. Employers submitted 172,500 petitions for just 85,000 available visas, so American companies were unable to hire nearly 90,000 high-skilled workers essential to help grow their domestic businesses, develop innovative technologies at home rather than abroad, and compete internationally. Keep in mind most of these folks we have educated in our colleges and universities. They could be of great help to us. I have been trying to get H-1B expansion through here for a number of months. I think we will get it through honorably. In response to this crisis I worked with my friends Senators Klobuchar, Rubio, and Coons to introduce the bipartisan immigration innovation or the I-Squared Act. Our bill provides a thoughtful, lasting legislative framework that would increase the number of H-1B visas, based on annual market demand, to attract the highly skilled workers and innovators our economy so desperately needs. Unilateralism is not the way forward on immigration. If the President is serious about enacting meaningful immigration reform, he can choose to take the first essential step. Even in the current partisan climate there is a widespread consensus and real opportunity for bipartisan, bicameral reform for our outdated visa system for economically essential high-skilled immigrants. The concrete legislative victory where there is already considerable consensus would help build trust and good will among those who disagree sharply over other areas of immigration policy and would mark a critical first step along the path to broader reform. For the life of me I cannot understand why the President doesn't accept this hand we are extending to him, knowing that we educate these people, get them their college degrees, their master's degrees, their doctoral degrees, their Ph.D.s, and then we push them out of the country when they want to stay and help us in the continually evolving and impressive high-tech world. It is mind-boggling to me that we do this. Canada even advertises in California and in the States south of the Canadian border: Come to Canada. You are welcome here. I commend Canada for having the brains and guts and ability and the political instincts to attract these very highly educated--educated in the United States-- people, to help them in their high-tech world, in their engineering world, in their mathematical world, in their science world. Of course we can name a whole host of other areas where they are now helping Canadians when they were educated here, wanted to stay here, wanted to be part of America, and we could not provide a means whereby these people could help us and at the same time an intelligent means that people in our society could accept. That is the not the only action we could take. Naturally we should work together as Democrats and Republicans to do real immigration reform. We have 11 million or more people here who aren't going to go back to their countries. Many of them have never been in their countries, such as the children who were born here and young children who were brought here and never knew anything about their parents' former country. We have to solve these problems, and we don't do it by unilateral actions by a President who basically doesn't seem to give a darn, except for his own unilateral approach to things. That is not what the Presidency should be. There are three branches of government. They are coequal. The President should enforce laws that are enacted only by Congress. The Supreme Court should interpret laws that are enacted by Congress if there are reasons for doing so. In this case we have a President who basically is ignoring the law, just acting on his own, as though Congress doesn't mean a thing, even though it means everything in these areas. I counsel the President to change these ways and work with us. I think there will be more people willing to work with him should he do so, and we can solve these problems--we can solve them--not in some stupid, unilateral way that is going to create more problems than it solves but in a way the American people will accept. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have only heard two of the comments of the majority leader--one for the distinguished Senator from Michigan and one for the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. I have to say that both of those Senators deserve a lot of commendation for the service they have given to the Senate. They are both friends of mine. Carl Levin Senator Levin has been a terrific, solid performer for the Democrats in the U.S. Senate, and he is an honest--totally honest--decent, honorable man. Jay Rockefeller Senator Rockefeller is on the Finance Committee with me. He is one of the senior people on that committee and certainly one of the people I have enjoyed working with. We worked a number of years ago on the CHIP bill, the SCHIP bill, and he was of inestimable help there. I have to say he has been a wonderful member of the very important Finance Committee. I will miss both of these brethren and wish them the very, very best in their lives as they go through the remaining years of their lives, and hopefully they and their families will have a wonderful, wonderful time together.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I wish to spend a few minutes today to discuss the ongoing saga of the 2014 tax extenders package. Getting this legislation passed through the Senate has been quite an ordeal from the outset. As my colleagues will recall, the Finance Committee reported its tax extenders package in April and a few weeks later progress stalled on the Senate floor when the Senate majority leadership refused to allow votes on any amendments. After that time--which was in mid-May--the tax extenders sat somewhat in limbo, although both sides acknowledged the desire to get something passed during the lameduck session, if not before. The Finance Committee extenders package, if my colleagues remember, extended 55 expired or expiring tax provisions for 2 years without making any of them permanent. The House took a different approach which was to make certain important tax provisions, such as the R&D tax credit, for example, permanent, bringing more certainty to American businesses, families, and individuals. Over the past several weeks, negotiations have been ongoing in the hopes of producing a bill that combined the Senate Finance Committee's package with the approach taken by the House. I am generally hesitant to publicly comment about what happens behind closed doors in negotiations; but, on the other hand, much of what happened next has already been printed in the media. That being the case, I don't feel too awkward discussing the recent turn of events that has brought us to where we are now with the tax extenders. Last week, before the Thanksgiving holiday, the Speaker's office and the Senate majority leader's office were very close to reaching a deal on a tax extenders package--one that would have included all of the provisions from the EXPIRE Act, which is the Senate Finance Committee- reported tax extenders bill, as well as a number of permanent tax extender provisions. This emerging deal would have been a reasonable compromise between Republicans and Democrats and between the House and Senate approaches to this matter. It was not the legislation I would have written, but as a compromise taking place in a Congress that is, for the time being, still divided, it was likely the best both parties could hope for. As I said, we were on the cusp of a deal last week, and then something strange happened. On Tuesday, the White House caught wind of the potential deal--even though the terms had not yet been finalized-- and issued a veto threat. How often does that happen? How often does the President issue a veto threat on potential deals still under negotiation? How often do we find that extraordinary threat ratified by people who are involved in the negotiations? As I said, this was not a Republican wish list being negotiated. House Republicans were willing to make a number of tough concessions in order to get a deal across the finish line. For example, the deal would have made permanent the American opportunity tax credit--a provision that first came into law in the Democrats' partisan 2009 stimulus bill and has been a high priority item for Democrats. It would have also made the State and local sales tax deduction--which is a high priority for a number of congressional Democrats--permanent. And it would have rolled over the tax extenders that expired during 2013--including many that most Republicans do not support--for another 2 years. These were major concessions and, to its credit, the House was willing to make them in the interests of a bipartisan agreement. More importantly, the deal was supported by the Senate majority leader who, the last time I checked, was a Democrat. Yet the deal wasn't good enough for the President and for the more liberal Members of the Senate, or should I say the Senate Democratic Caucus. Apparently they weren't willing to take yes for an answer. Instead of compromising even a little bit, President Obama issued his veto threat and has been rallying Democratic Senators against the proposed deal, or at least that is what I have been told. As a result, it appears unlikely that a deal on the tax extenders package will be reached in this Congress. Instead, the most likely scenario appears to be that the Congress will pass a 1-year referendum of tax extenders that have already expired. Short of not passing anything at all, this is surely the worst of all possible worlds. Rather than the certainty that would come with making some of the more prominent individual tax extenders permanent, families, individuals, and businesses will have to once again put long- term plans on hold in hopes that Congress can get its act together the next time around. This is bad news for middle-class families. This is bad news for individuals. This is bad news for job creators. And this is bad news for those of us hoping the government will improve the way it does business any time in the near future. We all know the makeup of the next Congress will be different than it is now. I don't mean to be too presumptuous, but I think it is safe to say the President and his liberal allies are unlikely to get a better tax deal in the next Congress than the one the Senate Democratic leadership had been negotiating up until the last week. I commend the Senate Democratic leadership for its work on that matter. I commend the House leadership and congratulate them for doing the same thing. Do any of my Democratic colleagues who came out against the proposed deal really think their prospects are likely to improve next year? I have to ask because, quite frankly, this recent turn of events is mind- boggling to me. In the end, I think the only conclusion that makes sense is that this line of attack--the President's veto threat--and liberal opposition to the potential extenders deal is more about politics than about policy. It is about the President's strategy of following an electoral rebuke of his policies by tacking even further to the left. And it is about congressional Democrats' efforts to pander to their liberal base at the expense of good government. I hope I am wrong about this, but as I said, there is not another logical explanation that I have heard. I hope the White House and its Senate allies will prove me wrong and come to the table with an offer that reflects a genuine compromise with the House. I think the events of this past week have demonstrated divisions in the Democratic Party, and that those divisions are causing real problems. Once again, we had the Senate majority leader in the room and ready to make a deal, only to be undercut by the President and his liberal allies in the Senate. I find that very unfortunate. I commend the Democratic majority leader for trying. Of course, at the end of the day, I suppose none of us should be surprised at what has happened. After all, President Obama is not particularly known for being business friendly or placing his focus on job creation, which is sorely needed in this country. Whether it is crippling environmental regulations--which we are now seeing come to the forefront in dramatic terms--or whether it is labor policy or health care, the President has demonstrated that he is all too willing to put his political ideology above the needs of our economy. Make no mistake, the proposed tax extenders deal--the one the President scuttled with his veto threat--was all about job creation. It would have made the research and development tax credit, small business expensing, and other provisions permanent, giving certainty to the business community, paving the way for more investment, and paving the way for more jobs in our society. The President's latest gambit on the tax extenders is just a series in a long line of instances where politics has trumped job creation. Still, as one who has been willing to work with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I can't help but be disappointed. But make no mistake, things are about to change around here and we will have an opportunity to right this ship. I just hope we will have a lot of Democrats who are willing to help us. We need to focus on an agenda that will actually grow our economy. We need to focus on an agenda that will actually create jobs. And we need to focus on an agenda that will empower the American people. That is going to be the focus of this new Congress. Once again, the President and his allies here in the Senate missed a big opportunity to address some of their party's priorities with the tax extenders legislation. It is difficult to imagine that they will have another bite at the same apple in the next Congress. Absent a deal, we are now left with only one option: a 1-year extension that will likely be passed by the House this week. Once again, a 1-year extension is not a great deal for families, individuals, and businesses, but it is far better than letting these provisions lapse entirely. Indeed, if we do nothing, we run into a series of problems, including a delayed filing season, which means millions of delayed refunds for Americans who count on them. In addition, doing nothing would essentially amount to a tax hike on millions of people and businesses. Consequently, I plan to vote in favor of the 1-year extension, unless, of course, my colleagues on the other side finally come to their senses and allow a better deal to be had. I don't understand this kind of leadership in this country. I don't understand why the President does some of these things. I don't understand why the left just can't take an offering to them that was much better than what we are going to get. The majority leader knew it. Republicans have been tough on the majority leader. I have been here for years. I care for him. I think it is a tough group of people to manage, just as they are on our side as well. It is a tough job. Frankly, I think the deal he worked out should have been followed. It would have given the President much of what he wanted initially, anyway. It would have brought us together one more time, and it would have been a wonderful thing. It would have made the end of the year--the work we are doing--much more satisfying and acceptable. It would have been a good prelude to next year of our working together--something that this body needs really badly. I want to commend the distinguished majority leader, Senator Reid, for the work he tried to do. I want to congratulate him. I want to congratulate the Speaker of the House for being willing to work on this. I think it is unfortunate we are at this point in these negotiations, where we are going to have a 1-year extension. It is not going to be anywhere near where we had negotiated with the majority leader and had negotiated with the House. There are parts of the negotiated bill that I wish I could have changed. But, we had come a long way. I want to pay tribute to the distinguished chairman of our committee. I don't think he had much confidence at first that we would put our original extenders bill through the committee. At least he didn't express it to me. I said: Let's do it, and we did. Even with the parts that I wish weren't in there and the parts he wished weren't in there, it was a classic bipartisan compromise by two sides who feel very, very deeply about all these issues--each and every one of them. I think the work that Senator Reid, the distinguished majority leader, and the Speaker had done was not only a step in the right direction but it would have been something most all of us would have been quite pleased with. I commend them for their work. I am disappointed with where we are. I hope we can solve these problems in the future. I will be working as hard as I can to bring about bipartisan efforts in that regard. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I wish to take a moment to pay tribute to my former chief of staff, Michael Kennedy. In my 38 years as a Senator, I have seen many talented staffers come and go, but few have left such a lasting impression as Michael. He is someone for whom I have a deep appreciation and much respect. That is why it was so difficult for me when I learned Michael would be leaving my office to pursue an opportunity in the private sector. I had come to rely so much on his counsel, his leadership, and his savvy. It was very difficult and hard to let him go. I know I speak for everyone on my staff when I say Michael will be sorely missed. Before Michael came to my office, he was living in Salt Lake City and working at Utah State University as the vice president for Federal and State relations. Under his leadership, that university developed its first professional program, secured critical line-item funding, enhanced its footprint and resource portfolio, and became a key player in facilitating the merger of two Utah schools. Michael was also the point man for all matters related to Capitol Hill and the Utah State legislature. His reputation for hard work and integrity helped him craft strong relationships throughout the State. He knew the landscape, customs, and culture of Utah better than almost anyone. His experience and his reputation proved invaluable to me. I know these tributes sound like eulogies with the way we talk about people as if they had already passed on. Considering how hard Michael worked, I am surprised this isn't his eulogy. His energy and work ethic always amazed me, as did his sense of style. Perhaps the only thing sharper than Michael's mind was his wardrobe. Few people can pull off a navy suit with pink lining and silver cufflinks, but Michael did so with ease. Of course, you might not know Michael was such a sharply dressed staffer because his boss usually stole the fashion spotlight, and after Washingtonian magazine named me the best-dressed man in Congress, I can only hope that some of my style rubbed off on him. However, if people knew how little I paid for my clothing, I think they might want to take back that honor. Michael took a pay cut when he joined my staff nearly 4 years ago, and he always joked that his next job would be as an unpaid summer intern. I like to think Michael's financial sacrifice was emblematic of his desire to serve the State of Utah and improve this great country through the Senate. His willingness to serve was most evident in the way he always put the needs of constituents and staff above his own. Michael's dedication to my staff was only surpassed by his dedication to his family, and I truly believe he owes his success to the constant support of his wife Natalie--an absolutely beautiful woman whom I have been blessed to know. Natalie and her family have been friends of mine since she was young. Natalie grew up as a friend of my children, so naturally I felt protective and wanted the best for her. When she announced her engagement to Michael, Elaine and I were delighted. Still, I was surprised that someone as impressive as Natalie would agree to Michael's engagement proposal. I guess to his long list of talents and accomplishments, we could add marrying out of his league. I was very grateful that Natalie knew very well the rigors and intensity of serving on a Senate staff, having worked previously with Senator Bob Bennett. Not only was she an invaluable support to Michael, she was also there to help me in any way she could. She was wonderful. While Michael was serving as my chief of staff, Natalie gave birth to their daughter Emily--or as I like to call her ``Sweet Pea.'' Shortly after her birth, Michael's family gathered in my Capitol office and gave Sweet Pea a father's blessing, as is the tradition in our faith. It was a sacred experience for Elaine and me to join Michael and Natalie and both their families for that special occasion. Michael's family wasn't the only one to grow in the time he was with me. During those few years, we had 12 new babies and 4 spouses added to the families of our staff. Whenever there was a birth or marriage, Michael went out of his way to make sure they were taken care of. He fostered an atmosphere of camaraderie, friendship, and family friendliness that was critical for my office's ability to serve the people of Utah. People always knew he was genuinely concerned for them and their needs as they tried to adjust to the wonderful changes of a growing family. Nevertheless, I know there were plenty of times when Michael would rather have been with Natalie than with me. One particular instance comes to mind. During the end of the 112th Congress, Michael and I rang in the new year together during an extended voting session. Michael bought a bottle of blue Powerade from the downstairs vending machine here at the Capitol, and we counted down the seconds on my Senate clock. I knew he wanted to be with his family, but I was grateful for his sacrifice in staying with me. This intense dedication was the norm for Michael Kennedy. Every night that I left the Senate, Michael would be there to wish me a safe drive home and continue his work for me late into the night. Whenever I traveled, he was always by my side and ready to help. Together we spent a lot of time on the road, visiting each of Utah's 29 counties. We drove from meeting to meeting across beautiful western landscapes and had many memorable conversations. Though road trips can often be long and tedious, Michael's sharp intellect and good humor made him one of the greatest traveling companions I have ever had. I have been extremely fortunate when it comes to my staff. I have had the privilege of serving with some of the most gifted and devoted people our Nation has to offer. Each of them has brought something unique and important to their service, but I have to say that even among the select fraternity of talented Senate staffers, Michael Kennedy belongs in an elite class. I have no doubt Michael will enjoy enormous success in his new position. Success has been the defining characteristic of every endeavor he has undertaken. I have had many chiefs of staff over my 38 years in the Senate, but none has ever been better than Michael. While the selfish part of me wishes he could have stayed in the Senate just a bit longer, I have to say that I wish Michael, Natalie, and darling Sweet Pea the very best going forward. I don't say these things haphazardly. This young man is truly one of the finest people I have known in all of my experience in the Senate of the United States. He was dedicated, he was consecrated to his work, and he did everything he possibly could to help my staff and me do a better job in the Senate. Michael is a true friend, and he will always be somebody whose friendship I revere. As I said, his wife is a wonderful friend as well, and Sweet Pea--I call her ``Pea'' now--is one of the cutest, most darling young girls that I have ever seen. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today to emphasize the importance of keeping our technology industry in the forefront of our global economy. America has made extraordinary strides in innovation. For decades we have been the world's leader in developing new technologies and advancing the Internet age, but we are not the only nation in this hunt. Across the globe, and particularly in China and other parts of Asia, our international competitors are working furiously to catch up. If the United States is to enjoy continued success in the technology arena, the policymakers must ensure that we have a legal and regulatory landscape that will enable our innovators to thrive. As chairman of the Senate Republican High-Tech Task Force, I have been working with colleagues and stakeholders to develop an innovation agenda for the coming Congress. Today I would like to highlight several bipartisan initiatives that we should prioritize early next year to help ensure the continued success of our high-tech economy. First, Congress must act to protect America's innovation and inventiveness. An essential part of fostering innovation is protecting legitimate intellectual property rights. In particular, we must enact legislation to combat abusive patent litigation. Patent trolls--which are often shell companies that do not make or sell anything--are crippling innovation and growth across all sectors of our economy. It is estimated that abuse of patent litigation costs our economy over $60 billion every year. With so much on the line, how can we afford not to act? Yet the current Senate did exactly that and ignored the very real opportunity we had, to follow the House of Representatives and pass bipartisan legislation that would be supported by the White House. Why would anyone walk away from the opportunity to enact pro- innovation policies that would do so much good for our economy? It is no secret that trial lawyers and others told the current majority leader not to bring patent troll reform up for a vote. We all know when the trial lawyers say ``jump,'' the only answer for some of my Democratic colleagues is ``how high.'' While I am disappointed the Senate failed to act during this Congress, I intend to help ensure we pass legislation next year. Fortunately, combating patent trolls is a priority for incoming Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte. I look forward to working with them and others who are committed to making long overdue reforms to our patent laws--including mandatory fee shifting, heightened pleading and discovery standards, demand letter reforms, and a mechanism to enable recovery of fees against shell companies or those who are behind them. In addition, we must improve the quality of patents issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Low-quality patents are essential to a patent troll's business model. I am optimistic we can reach agreement on how best to improve our patent process. We also need a high-functioning and well-funded USPTO. A fully funded patent office would, at the very least, mean more and better trained patent examiners, more complete libraries of prior art, and greater access to modern information technologies to address the Agency's growing needs. All of these improvements would lead to higher quality patents that are granted more quickly. The good news is we can make these changes at no cost to taxpayers since the USPTO is a fee- generating agency. Now, there are some who argue here that patent troll legislation is not necessary in light of the Supreme Court's decisions in the Octane Fitness and Highmark cases. Ms. Charlene Morrow and Mr. Brian Lahti, however, writing in the BNA's Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal confirm that ``nothing in these cases addresses the proposed reforms to make the real parties in interest who are managing patent assertion entities responsible for fees and costs.'' This is something I worked on for quite a few months. As these experienced practitioners acknowledge such legislation is essential to address fee-collection concerns faced by defendants in present patent litigation. One of the legislative approaches Ms. Morrow and Mr. Lahti proposed is to make bonding more readily available at an early stage of litigation. I could not agree more. We must ensure that those who defend against abusive patent litigation and are awarded fees will actually get paid. Even when a patent troll structured as a shell company has no assets, there are other parties with an interest in the litigation. These parties are often intentionally beyond the jurisdiction of the courts. They stand to benefit if their plaintiff shell company forces a settlement and are protected from any liability if they lose. It is a win-win situation for them and a lose-lose situation for America's innovators. Since we cannot force parties outside of a court's jurisdiction to join in a case, we must incentivize those interested parties to do the right thing. That is the whole purpose behind my recovery-of-award provision. Under this provision, those who are deemed interested parties may either voluntarily submit to the court's jurisdiction and become liable for any unsatisfied fees awarded in the case or they may opt out by renouncing any meaningful interest in the litigation. If interested parties stand aside and do nothing, the original plaintiff must post a bond to ensure that any shifted fees are paid. Bottom line: Without such bonding measures, all defendants have is a toothless joinder provision that can be easily circumvented by bad actors with no intention of paying the court-awarded fees for their abusive lawsuits. I have said this before but it bears repeating. Fee shifting without such a recovery provision is like writing a check on an empty account. You are purporting to convey something that isn't there. Only fee shifting coupled with this recovery provision will stop patent trolls from litigating-and-dashing. The House has already demonstrated that Members from both sides of the aisle can come together to craft and pass commonsense legislation to combat abusive patent lawsuits. President Obama supports such efforts. It is past time the Senate does its part. We ought to get rid of this phony attitude of obeisance to the personal injury lawyers and trial lawyers in this country. I am determined to make such patent reform a priority early next year and to make sure we send the President a bill that he can sign into law for the good of all American innovation. In addition to patent troll legislation, there is strong bipartisan, bicameral support for creating a harmonized, uniform Federal standard for protecting trade secrets. Here in the Senate, Senator Chris Coons and I introduced the Defend Trade Secret Act on April 29, 2014. In the House of Representatives, Representative George Holding introduced the Trade Secrets Protection Act on July 29, 2014. Through our collective efforts we have shed light on an often overlooked form of intellectual property. Trade secrets, such as customer lists, formulas, and manufacturing processes are an essential form of intellectual property. Yet trade secrets are the only form of U.S. intellectual property where misuse does not provide its owner with a Federal private right of action. Currently trade secret owners must rely on State courts or Federal prosecutors to protect their rights. The multi-State procedural and jurisdictional issues that arise in such cases are costly and complicated, and the Department of Justice lacks the resources to prosecute many such cases. These systemic issues put companies at a great disadvantage, since the victims of trade secret theft need to recover information quickly before it crosses State lines or leaves the country. Unfortunately, in today's global information age, there are endless examples of how easy and rewarding it can be to steal trade secrets. While the maximum penalty for trade secrets theft is 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine, few of these thefts actually result in Federal prosecutions. While $250,000 may sound like a steep penalty, most stolen trade secrets amount to tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars in lost profits and sales. Even when thefts are prosecuted, victim companies rarely recover the full extent of their losses. We have made some progress in moving forward trade secret legislation. Earlier this year, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism held a hearing on the importance of creating a private right of action for trade secret theft. The House Judiciary Committee reported its bill--by voice vote--on September 17. Although we did not get the bill across the finish line this Congress, we are well positioned to move the trade secret legislation early next year. It is past time to enable U.S. companies to protect their trade secrets in Federal court. Another bipartisan initiative ready for congressional action relates to our privacy laws. I speak about the need to update the Electronic Communications Privacy Act or ECPA to require a warrant for all email content within the United States and to safeguard data stored abroad from improper government access. Enacted in 1986, ECPA prohibits communication service providers from intercepting or disclosing email, telephone conversations or data stored electronically, unless such disclosure is authorized. Virtually everyone agrees that Americans should enjoy the same privacy protections in their online communications that they do in their offline communications. But Congress has not adequately updated the law since its enactment, and technological developments have resulted in disparate treatment. As currently written, ECPA requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant for emails that are less than 6 months old but only a subpoena to access older electronic communications. Think about your own email account. You may have hundreds of emails that you have received over many years. Additionally, ECPA has allowed law enforcement to access emails that have been opened with just a subpoena, even though a search warrant would be required for a printout of the same communication sitting on your desk. Those conflicting standards should cause great concern to everyone who values personal privacy. Now to make matters more complicated, ECPA is silent on the privacy standard for accessing data stored abroad. Storing digital information around the world, a practice that did not exist when ECPA became law, is now routine. Moreover, the Federal Government has taken advantage of this statutory silence to apply its own standard, requiring access to data abroad if the company storing it has a presence in the United States. For that reason alone, Congress should amend the law. That is why, together with Senators Chris Coons and Dean Heller, I introduced the Law Enforcement Access to Data Stored Abroad Act. The LEADS Act would require a warrant when the government demands customer communications from third-party service providers. Such a warrant would only apply to data stored in the United States, unless the data is owned by a U.S. corporation, citizen or lawful permanent resident. To provide additional protections, the bill requires courts to modify or vacate such warrants if they would require the service provider to violate the laws of a foreign country. The practice of extending warrants extraterritorially presents unique challenges for a number of industries which increasingly face a conflict between American law and the laws of the countries where the electronic data is stored. Additionally, if the United States expects to extend its warrants extraterritorially, we should not be surprised if other countries, including China and Russia, seek to do the same for the emails of Americans and others stored in this country. Congress must ensure that law enforcement has the tools to execute search warrants where necessary so long as officials comply with the laws of the foreign country where the electronic data is stored. The LEADS Act also provides needed improvements to the mutual legal assistance treaty process, which are formal agreements for sharing evidence between the United States and foreign countries in international investigations. Currently, the MLAT process is slow and unreliable, sometimes taking several months to access data held by foreign jurisdictions. The Department of Justice not only needs additional funds to hire more people to handle MLAT requests, but reforms to the underlying program are needed to improve transparency and efficiency. The legislation recognizes, through a sense of Congress, that data providers should not be subject to data localization requirements. Such requirements are incompatible with the borderless nature of the Internet----

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to finish my remarks.

Mr. HATCH. Such requirements are incompatible with the borderless nature of the Internet. They are an impediment to online innovation and they are unnecessary to meet the needs of law enforcement. It is time to act to update our electronic communications privacy laws. Finally, there is widespread consensus and real opportunity for bipartisan bicameral reform of our outdated visa system for economically essential high-skilled immigrants. For too long our country has been unable to meet the ever-increasing demand for workers trained in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics or STEM fields. As a result, some of our Nation's top technology markets are in desperate need for qualified STEM workers. We face a high-skilled worker shortage that has become a national crisis. In April, for the second year in a row, the Federal Government reached its current H-1B quota just 5 days after it began accepting applications. Employers submitted 172,500 petitions for just 85,000 available visas, meaning American companies were unable to hire nearly 90,000 high-skilled workers essential to help grow their domestic businesses, develop innovative technologies at home rather than abroad, and compete internationally. This is one of the principal reasons why I, together with Senators Amy Klobuchar, Marco Rubio, and Chris Coons, introduced the bipartisan Immigration Innovation or I-Squared Act. To date the legislation has 26 bipartisan cosponsors. Among other things, the I-Squared Act provides a thoughtful, lasting legislative framework that would increase the number of H-1 visas based on annual market demand to attract highly skilled workers and innovators. The bill also reforms fees on H-1B visas and employment-based green cards for funding a grant-based State program to promote STEM education and worker retraining. The I-Squared Act addresses the immediate short-term needs to provide American employees with greater access to high-skilled workers, while also addressing long-term needs to invest in America's STEM education. I am confident this two-step approach will enable our country to thrive and help us compete in today's global economy. No doubt, a concrete legislative victory, when there is already considerable consensus, would help build trust and good will among those who disagree sharply over other areas of immigration policy. It would mark a critical first step along the path to broader reform. I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues in introducing I- Squared early next year. As Senators can see, there is a lot we can agree on and much we can and must accomplish. Looking ahead to the next Congress, I intend to do everything in my power to enact protechnology, pro-innovation policies that will ensure the continued success of our high-tech economy. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to Mark Prater, deputy staff director and chief tax counsel for the minority staff of the Senate Finance Committee. Later this week, the Tax Foundation will award Mark their Exemplar of Excellence in Public Service Award for his many years of service on the Finance Committee. He will be only the second congressional staffer to be honored by the Tax Foundation in their 77-year history. And, I can say without any reservation that no staffer is more worthy of such an honor. After several years in private law practice in his native Oregon, Mark came to work for the Finance Committee in January 1990. At that time, Mark thought he would stay for just 2 years and return home. Fortunately for all of us, Mark has been on the Finance Committee staff for nearly 25 years now. Over these years, he has served with great distinction and has come to be one of the most trusted and respected staffers on Capitol Hill. Indeed, it seems that everyone in Washington knows Mark Prater and seeks him out for advice on tax policy. Perhaps most importantly, Mark is a kind person who treats everyone with respect. Honestly, he would be the last person to seek out this type of honor, usually opting to share credit for his successes with those he works with. Mark has worked for a number of prominent chairmen and ranking members on the Finance Committee, including Bob Packwood, William Roth, and Chuck Grassley. But, while he is always worked for Republican Members, Senators on both sides of the aisle have come to rely on Mark's experience and expertise. This was never more evident than in 2011 when Mark was tapped to serve as the staff director for the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction. For the past 4 years, I have had the privilege of having Mark on my Finance Committee staff and I have been a direct beneficiary of his knowledge and understanding of not only the Tax Code but of how things can and should work in the Senate. You see, Mark is one of the few staffers who have been around long enough to remember a time when things used to get done around here. In fact, Tax Notes recently published the results of their survey about congressional tax staffers in which Mark was named the best dealmaker and the top Republican tax staffer. I have no doubt that, in the future, his work will be instrumental to helping restore the traditions and productivity of this Chamber. I want to congratulate Mark for this tremendous honor from the Tax Foundation, along with his wonderful family--his wife Lori and his son James--who should enjoy this honor along with him. Selfishly, I hope that Mark has many more years of honorable service here in the United States Senate.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I yield back time on our side.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, thank you for the opportunity today to pay tribute to a timeless feature of Utah's beautiful geography: Canyonlands National Park. This week, citizens of Utah and friends around the United States join together in celebration of the 50th anniversary of the establishment of Canyonlands National Park. As one of the ``Mighty Five'' national parks in Utah, the Canyonlands celebrate a landmark anniversary, and are a source of great pride for Utahns and the outdoors community nationwide. Canyonlands National Park is located in the southeast of our State where the otherworldly cliffs, recesses, and red rock attract climbing, mountain biking, and rafting enthusiasts from across the globe. Anyone who walks down Main Street in Moab can hear languages from German to Japanese to English, as well as accents from all over America. People plan and save for years to visit Utah to behold the invulnerable landscapes of the Canyonlands. As one stands on the edge of a 1,000- foot cliff, while seeing hundreds of miles in all directions, nature somehow puts life in perspective. This perspective gained should not be underestimated. There is a story in common between those who visit the park and the land they experience. It is a story told in rock layers that echo ancient seas, coastal mud flats, braided streambeds, and wind-blown dunes hundreds of feet thick. It is the story of time and change, to which all of God's creation is subject. Clues to this past lie preserved in stone, along the walls of deep gorges where great rivers once roared. The three main regions of Canyonlands: the Island in the Sky, Needles, and the Maze, were once an environment quite different and more luscious. In what is now desert, shallow seas once ebbed and flowed. In many ways the story of Canyonlands is a story of transformation, and this is something to which we can all relate. We are reminded of the hunter-gatherer peoples who once flourished in Canyonlands by the Native American rock art, in the ``Great Gallery'' region, that dates back as early as 2000 BC. When I consider those painted figures together with the mosaic of colors, shapes, and pinnacles of Canyonlands, I, like many others, recall the enduring relationship between man and nature. It is this continuing legacy that we call our attention to today. We owe a debt of gratitude to the people, both elected officials and citizens, who possessed the foresight to recognize the value of Canyonlands and created the park 50 years ago. These efforts did not come without controversy and today much controversy remains. The area around the park holds diverse importance to the local community and a variety of stakeholders. Many spend their free time exploring over 2,500 miles of roads around the park in four-wheel drive vehicles while others find a special peace in the solitude of the Canyonlands desert. These interests may seem in conflict, but the vast lands of Utah amply accommodate the equally vast spectrum of pursuits. For several years now, the Utah congressional delegation has been developing a public lands bill that will bring certainty and balance to the areas around Canyonlands and other landscapes in Utah. The land surrounding the national park would be protected with designations to ensure that our grandchildren can stand on the same red rock cliffs to look at the glorious sunsets that our pioneer ancestors saw and view vistas people from around the world come to see today. The bill will benefit our children by exchanging State lands in areas that do not produce revenues, with Federal lands that can be developed responsibly. The revenues derived, as a result of the thoughtful development enabled by these exchanges, will benefit school children in Utah. Only Congress can make these changes to the way our public lands are managed. At a time of congressional dysfunction, this is one area of positive happenings. What better way to celebrate the anniversary of Canyonlands National Park than by bringing certainty to a region that has been denied stability for one-half century? I am proud to be a part of this ongoing process to protect the land surrounding Canyonlands National Park.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, more than 40 years ago, in New York Times v. Sullivan, Justice William Brennan described ``a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.'' The measure now before the Senate shows that this commitment is in serious jeopardy. Next week marks the 227th anniversary of the drafting of the U.S. Constitution. Those who participated in that process agreed that individual liberty requires limits on government power, but they differed on how explicit and extensive those limits should be. Many thought the simple act of delegating enumerated powers to the Federal Government and reserving the rest to the States would be enough. Others were more skeptical of government power and insisted that the Constitution needed a bill of rights. Those skeptics, however, were not skeptical enough. The measure before us today, S.J. Res. 19, would allow the government to control and even prohibit what Americans say and do in the political process. Yesterday a member of the majority leadership said this measure is ``narrowly tailored.'' It is possible to believe that only if you have never read S.J. Res. 19 and know nothing about either the Supreme Court's precedents or past proposals of this kind. This is not the first attempt at empowering the government to suppress political speech, but it is the most extreme. Four elements of this proposal are particularly troubling. First, its purpose is to advance what it calls ``political equality.'' None of the constitutional amendments previously proposed to control political speech has made such a claim. The irony is astounding. At the very time in our history when technology is naturally leveling the political playing field, this proposal would give the power to define political equality to government. If simply suggesting that the government should have the power to enforce its own version of political equality is not enough to oppose this proposal, then our liberties are in even greater danger than I thought. In addition to its stated purpose, this proposal is also troubling because of the power it would give to government. Past proposals of this kind were very specific about what government could or should regulate. One measure, for example, covered expenditures made ``to expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate for Federal office.'' More recently, proposed amendments covered expenditures made ``in support of, or opposition to, a candidate.'' The proposal before us today, however, says that government may regulate ``the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.'' That is all it says. It would allow government to control the raising and spending of money by anyone doing anything at any time to influence elections. No proposal of this kind has ever been drafted more broadly. The same Democratic Senator who yesterday claimed this proposal is narrowly tailored referred to big-money campaign donors, high rollers, and for-profit corporations with unlimited budgets. I urge not only my colleagues but everyone listening to this debate to read S.J. Res. 19. Just read it. My liberal friends may want to paint certain billionaires or for-profit corporations as the big bad wolf, but this proposal goes far beyond that. It would allow government to regulate the raising and spending of money not only by billionaires or corporations but by what it simply labels ``others.'' That means everyone everywhere. It means individuals as well as groups, rich as well as poor, for-profits, nonprofits. Under this proposal, government could control them all. It takes no imagination whatsoever to realize that virtually everything can influence elections. Voter registration drives, get-out- the-vote efforts, nonpartisan voter information, discussion about issues, town meetings--all of these activities and many more influence elections. Once again, I urge everyone to read the proposal before us. It would give government the power to regulate anything done by anyone at any time to influence elections. The third troubling element of this proposal is that it would suppress the First Amendment freedom of speech for individual citizens but protect the First Amendment freedom of the press for Big Media. Supporters of this amendment want to manipulate and control how individual citizens influence elections but are perfectly happy with how Big Media influences elections. This proposal would allow government to prohibit nonprofit organizations from raising or spending a single dollar to influence elections but leaves multibillion-dollar media corporations free to influence elections as much as they choose. That set of priorities represents a twisted sense of political equality that I cannot believe most Americans share. Finally, this proposal would allow government to distinguish between what it calls natural persons and ``corporations or other artificial entities created by law.'' Unlike other provisions of the Bill of Rights, such as the Fourth or Fifth Amendment, the First Amendment does not use the word ``person;'' it simply protects the freedom of speech-- a freedom that obviously can be exercised not only individually but also collectively. Yesterday a Democratic Senator dismissed the notion that corporations can be treated as persons under the law because corporations never get married, raise kids, or care for sick relatives. Is he kidding? A corporation cannot care for sick relatives, but it certainly can speak, and that is what this debate is all about. As the Supreme Court observed more than a century ago, corporations are ``merely associations of individuals.'' Perhaps I need to remind my colleagues that the first section of the first title of the United States Code is the Dictionary Act. It defines the word ``person'' to include ``corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals.'' Many of what this proposal labels ``artificial entities''--such as nonprofit organizations, associations, or societies--exist to magnify the voices of individuals. The Supreme Court case that sparked this debate, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, was brought not by a for-profit corporation but by a nonprofit organization. S.J. Res. 19 would allow government not only to regulate but to prohibit the raising or spending of money by these nonprofits, associations, and societies to influence elections. They could be banned from speaking on behalf of what my Democratic colleagues like to refer to as ordinary, average Americans. Suppressing the speech of organizations that speak for individuals would leave millions of those Americans with no voice at all. We should eliminate rather than create barriers to participation in the political process. We should encourage rather than discourage activities by our fellow citizens to influence the election of their leaders. We should prohibit rather than empower government to control how Americans participate in the political process. We should, to return to Justice Brennan's words, strengthen rather than dismantle our national commitment to uninhibited, robust, and wide-open debate on public issues. Making S.J. Res. 19 part of the Constitution would instead make that debate inhibited, weak, and closed. As the Supreme Court has recognized, the First Amendment is premised on a mistrust of government power. Neither the nature of government power nor its impact on individual liberty has changed. S.J. Res. 19, therefore, proves three things. It proves that the government's temptation to control what Americans say and do in the political process is as strong as ever. It proves that the majority believes it can retain power only by suppressing the liberties of our fellow Americans. It proves that the profound national consensus Justice Brennan described may no longer exist. Another irony is that the majority in what we often call the world's greatest deliberative body is trying to stifle the free speech of citizens with whom they disagree. This is nothing more than election- year misdirection, an attempt to distract attention from the majority's complete failure to address the real problems facing our Nation. We should heed the advice of our late colleague from Massachusetts, my friend Senator Ted Kennedy. We were often called ``the odd couple'' because we worked so well together but came from disparate or different political areas. In March 1997 this body was debating another proposed constitutional amendment to control political speech. That measure, I want my colleagues to know, was more narrowly drawn than the one before us today. It was limited to expenditures supporting or opposing candidates and did not exempt Big Media. Yet Senator Kennedy rose to oppose it and said: In the entire history of the Constitution, we have never amended the Bill of Rights, and now is no time to start. It would be wrong to carve an exception in the First Amendment. Campaign finance reform is a serious problem, but it does not require that we twist the meaning of the Constitution. That was said by Senator Kennedy, and he was right. The Senate voted 38 to 61 against that proposal. And Senator Kennedy's words apply with even more force today, there is no question about it. The real purpose of S.J. Res. 19 is exactly what America's Founders ratified the First Amendment to prevent. Supporters of this radical proposal apparently believe that freedom itself is the problem. That view is contrary to the most fundamental principles of this Republic and incompatible with a free society. Freedom is not the problem; it is the solution. I am really amazed that my colleagues on the other side would attempt to pull this stunt at this time in our country's history, when almost anybody who looks at it knows it is done just for publicity and political reasons. At the same time, what an awful amendment it is. It makes one wonder if people in the Congress today are really as serious about our country as they were back at the beginning of this country. Those people didn't have nearly the knowledge from books of learning and capacities we have today, but for some reason they were inspired. They were well educated. They were strong people. They knew what was right, they stood up for what was right, and they did it in very carefully selected words, which would be surely diminished by what the Democrats are trying to do here today. I sometimes wonder, is politics more important than the Constitution? They know they are not going to pass this resolution. We are not going to let them pass it. It is crazy. It is wrong. It is out of whack. It is against almost everything the Founding Fathers stood for. It is against Supreme Court precedent. It basically would limit the rights of far too many people. I know my colleagues are going to ultimately vote this down. This will never get 67 votes and never should. It never should have seen the light of day and never should have seen a minute on the floor of this august body. It diminishes this body, that this type of amendment is being brought to the floor of the Senate.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on three nominees to positions on the Social Security Advisory Board. Two of these nominees--Alan Cohen and Lanhee Chen--are well suited for these positions, and that being the case I totally support their nominations. However, I plan to vote against the remaining nominee, Dr. Henry Aaron, whom the President ultimately intends to serve as chairman of the board. I wish to take a few minutes today to explain why I have reached this decision. Over the past decade or so, Dr. Aaron has spent most of his time and efforts focusing on health care issues and advocacy. Indeed, the vast majority of writings he offered in support of his nomination dealt with health care, not Social Security. When the Finance Committee considered his nomination, I specifically asked Dr. Aaron if he had performed any Social Security analysis over the past decade. He could not produce anything substantive along these lines. There is nothing wrong with focusing one's energies on health care instead of analyzing Social Security policy. However, given the specific focus of the Social Security Advisory Board, I am concerned about the extent to which Dr. Aaron has considered Social Security issues and analytical advances in the field over the past decade or more. It appears to me that Dr. Aaron's interests and skill set make him better suited for a position in the health care arena rather than advising on the current state of Social Security. Dr. Aaron has written about Social Security more extensively in the past, but his conclusions were predominantly normative. His most recent Social Security writings too often imply that anyone disagreeing with his conclusions is dead wrong and likely has adverse motives. In fact, this is a trend that pervades all of Dr. Aaron's writings. Far too often, in addition to reaching conclusions and making recommendations, Dr. Aaron finds it necessary to condemn potential critics, usually along partisan lines. Of course, I am not one to vote against a nominee simply because I disagree with their policy prescriptions or their analytical techniques. I generally believe in giving reasonable deference to the President on nominations, particularly those involving positions designed to provide advice to the President and his administration. The Social Security Advisory Board, however, is set up to provide bipartisan advice on Social Security issues to Congress and the Social Security Commissioner, as well as the President. Given all of the challenges facing Social Security, this type of advice is crucial. The board chair must be able to work toward gathering bipartisan consensus and avoid turning the Social Security Advisory Board into another platform for political division and partisan rhetoric. Therefore, it is necessary to consider Dr. Aaron's nomination from the perspective of bipartisanship. As I said, a nominee for board chair must demonstrate an ability to promote and garner bipartisan consensus. Unfortunately, the evidence does not convince me that Dr. Aaron would be able to set aside his partisan views and manage the board in a bipartisan fashion that aims at consensus in both analysis and conclusions. Throughout much of his writings, Dr. Aaron has, far more often than not, opted for partisanship over sound policy. This not only makes me question his ability to be bipartisan, it also leads me to question his judgment on policy issues. For example, he has recently advocated that the President disregard the Constitution and ignore the statutory limit on Federal debt. He has praised the President for ignoring the law by unilaterally deciding not to enforce provisions of the Affordable Care Act, identifying the administration's failure to enforce the law written by Congress and signed by the President himself as an act that, to quote Dr. Aaron, ``adroitly performs political jiu jitsu on ObamaCare opponents.'' He has written that the Independent Payment Advisory Board--the IPAB--an agency with virtually unchecked power to ration Medicare spending, should be given even broader authority. He has scolded States that have, fully within their rights, decided against expanding Medicaid as part of the Affordable Care Act rollout. Dr. Aaron used particularly vitriolic words to describe State officials who opted not to expand Medicaid, saying: ``Officials in many states have adopted a stance reminiscent of massive resistance, the South's futile effort to block implementation of the Supreme Court's decision banning school segregation.'' When I asked Dr. Aaron a question at his confirmation hearing about the caustic nature of some of his comments, he alluded to writings for newspapers and op-eds as avenues in which inclusion of politically charged rhetoric is the ``coin of the realm.'' That may very well be the case, but that doesn't mean there is a place for it on the Social Security Advisory Board. I have serious concern about Dr. Aaron's ability to keep such rhetoric in check as he chairs the board that is by statute intended to exhibit impartiality. Once again, our Social Security system faces a number of fiscal and structural changes and challenges. If we are going to address these challenges, we need serious discussions that will lead to serious solutions, not more partisanship. Dr. Aaron has not convinced me that he is the one to help lead these types of discussions. For these reasons I intend to vote against this confirmation. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.