Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this new law will also give children and youth already in foster care new protections by making sure children get the services they need in the setting best suited for them. It creates robust standards for foster care providers operating group homes, congregate care, and residential treatment facilities. It will require these types of facilities to be equipped to meet children's needs and provide services that help address the trauma they have faced so they can return to live with family or be placed with a caring foster family as soon as possible. It will also promote a model where children are placed in these types of facilities only when they need specific services that cannot be provided in another setting. Too often, children who can and should be living in families end up in group care simply because it is what is available, not because it is the best place for the child. This law helps tip the scales toward placing more children in family settings where children do best. This new law amounts to the most significant changes to our child welfare system in decades, and it simply would not have been possible without the hard work, dedication, perseverance, education, and technical assistance of so many advocates and experts across the Nation. Today, we would like to acknowledge several such individuals, including: Akin Abioye, MaryLee Allen, Schylar Baber, Lauren Behsudi, William Bell, Mary Bissell, Celeste Bodner, Laura Boyd, Christine Calpin, JooYeun Chang, Hope Cooper, Kristi Craig, Nicole Dobbins, Kay Farley, Ruth Friedman, Ami Gadhia, Rob Geen, Elizabeth Rigby Gibson, Christen Glickman, Lexie Gruber, Jesse Hahnel, Ron Haskins, Megan Hauck, Anne Heiligenstein, Jeremy Kohomban, Joe Kroll, Sherry Lachman, Zachary Laris, Brooke Lehmann, Jaia Lent, Rricha Mathur, Melanie Nathanson, Barbara Pryor, Lindsay Punzenberger, Rebecca Robuck, Jennifer Rodriguez, David Sanders, John Sciamanna, Stefanie Sprow, Becky Weichhand, Nancy Young, and Megan Zuckerman.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today with my good friend Senator Wyden, to acknowledge a major accomplishment of this body and to thank those who were instrumental in helping us achieve it. Last month, after years of work and decades of effort by many groups across the country, Congress passed and the President signed into law the Family First Prevention Services Act. This effort is an example of bipartisanship at its best, and we are proud to have stood with members on the other side of the Capitol in seeing this through to the finish. In particular, we acknowledge Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady, Ranking Member Richard Neal, former Ranking Member Sander Levin, Speaker Paul Ryan, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and Congressmen Vernon Buchanan, Adrian Smith, and Danny Davis for their work to make sure more families stay safely together--not to mention the many other Members of the House who also supported this effort. In this Chamber, we particularly extend our gratitude for the leadership of Senators Charles Grassley and Michael Bennet and to the many others who supported this work since Senate legislative efforts first began on this issue in 2013.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, 1 week ago today I stood here and urged my colleagues on both the left and the right to lay aside their differences and work together to prevent future tragedies like that in Parkland, FL. It has been nearly 3 weeks since the murder of 17 students and staff at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. While time will continue to march on, our resolve to do something about school violence must grow only stronger. Over the past 3 weeks my colleagues have put forth a number of legislative proposals. Some are recycled versions of earlier proposals, while others propose creative new ideas. Some enjoy broad bipartisan support, while others have not been widely embraced. We have seen much discussion and debate but little legislative progress. To break the impasse, we must unite on the issues where we agree. Let today be the day that we come together to take a meaningful step toward legislation that has the potential to prevent school gun violence, save lives, and restore the sense of peace and security that all children should enjoy when they walk through the doors of their respective schools. Today I come together with my partners on both sides of the aisle to introduce the Students, Teachers, and Officers Preventing School Violence Act, or STOP School Violence Act. As I outlined on the Senate floor last week, the bill will make Department of Justice grants available to fund four initiatives. Last week I outlined those four initiatives, and today I would like to describe them in even greater detail. First, the bill will provide grants to be used for evidence-based training to prevent student violence against others and self, including training for local law enforcement officers, school personnel, and students. One kind of training this bill would fund could prevent many incidents of school violence. Over the last 25 years, research has revealed that in 7 out of 10 acts of gun violence, a friend or someone else was told that an act of violence would be committed before it happened. In one study, it was reported that in four out of five school shootings, the attacker had told people of his plans ahead of time. We must ensure that everyone in the school ecosystem is educated to recognize the signs of a potential threat and likewise--students, teachers, and administrators--take action and follow up when they see warning signs. By building a culture in which students and teachers understand the importance of reporting possible threats of violence, this bill will save lives and help keep our communities safe. Second, the bill will fund evidence-based technology and equipment to improve school security and prevent school violence. After the shooting at Columbine High School nearly 19 years ago, I authored legislation that made Department of Justice grant funds available for metal detectors, locks, lighting, and other deterrent measures. The Secure Our Schools Program, which ran from 2002 through 2011, was the only Federal school safety program that exclusively provided direct funding for the purchase and implementation of security technologies to improve school safety. The legislation I am introducing today will reauthorize and build on that program to provide funding for proven school security infrastructure improvements consistent with schools' individualized needs and industry best practices. While we certainly don't need to turn our schools into fortresses, we must do more to protect our children from harm. Third, the bill will provide funding for the development and operation of evidence-based school threat assessment and crisis intervention teams, which may include evidence-based training for school officials in responding to mental health crises. These multidisciplinary teams--based on existing staff of school personnel, administrators, law enforcement, and mental health professionals--can implement proven, evidence-based approaches like the Virginia Student Threat Assessment Guidelines. These guidelines, which have been documented to be effective in field tests and controlled studies, provide schools with a safe, structured, and efficient way to respond to student threats of violence. Used at thousands of schools across the country, these are the types of proactive, preventive solutions that should be available for all schools. Fourth, the bill will authorize funding for continued coordination with local law enforcement. These four initiatives do not operate in isolation but together are a comprehensive approach to improving school security and reducing student violence. Training students and teachers to identify and report warning signs is critical to stopping acts of school violence before they happen. As we saw in Parkland, having folks identify warning signs is not enough. There must be a process for acting on this information when it is brought to the attention of school administrators or law enforcement officials. The school threat assessment and crisis intervention teams that could be funded through this bill will ensure that schools have an effective procedure for evaluating and responding to potential threats of school violence. Unfortunately, no amount of prevention will ever be able to stop every act of school violence before it happens. For those hopefully rare instances where we cannot intervene ahead of time, this bill ensures that funding is available to assist schools with commonsense security infrastructure improvements to harden schools and make it more difficult for attackers to succeed. Through each step of this process, local law enforcement has an important role to play in partnering with school personnel to prevent and respond to incidents of school violence. States are already taking the lead in these areas to ensure that our schools are safe and secure. Last week I highlighted the Safe Utah smartphone app, a statewide service that provides real-time crisis intervention to youth through texting and a confidential tip program. Since the app was unveiled in 2016, 86 planned school attacks have been stopped. Utah and other States across the country are rolling out proven solutions that prevent and reduce student violence. We must respect the leading role of the States in this space, and we must do what we can to ensure that proven, evidence-based solutions are available to protect all students nationwide. The STOP School Violence Act will complement and magnify those efforts at the State and local level. With a requirement that States and localities contribute to the cost of these programs, my bill will authorize $75 million in fiscal year 2018 and $100 million each year for the following 10 years. In total, that is more than $1 billion to secure our schools and train our students, teachers, and law enforcement. Many of my colleagues have called for reforms and restrictions related to firearms--something this bill does not address. Those are important discussions, and I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on these and other issues. In the meantime, we need to work with what we have, and what we have in the STOP School Violence Act is good, commonsense legislation that can save hundreds of lives. I will not pretend that my bill is a catch-all solution to the problem of school violence. It is not, but it is a start. Indeed, this bipartisan proposal is the catalyst to a critical conversation that will take place in the weeks and months to come. For far too long, we have allowed politics to get in the way of real reform. For far too long, we have been holed up in our partisan foxholes, ducking the difficult issues of the day in hopes that the problem of school violence would solve itself. For far too long, we have clung to our rhetorical weapons, but now is the time to lay those weapons aside. Now is the time to reconcile our differences for the good of our Nation and for the good of our children. As I said last week, now is not the time for argument but for action. Rather than letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, I implore my friends on both sides of the aisle to come together for the safety of our children. Rather than resorting to recycled talking points, I ask my colleagues to heed minority leader Schumer's call to ``pass real legislation that makes a difference.'' I thought that was a good statement. Mr. President, I wish to emphasize the singularity of the opportunity we have in front of us. My bill represents a respite from the anger and acrimony that far too often pervade our politics. It is a symbol of the great good we can accomplish when we come together in common cause. Already, dozens of my colleagues from both the left and the right have signed on to support this bill. The STOP Act is just the start we need to prevent violence in our schools, so let's come together to get this done, and I hope we can.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, 1 week ago today I stood here and urged my colleagues on both the left and the right to lay aside their differences and work together to prevent future tragedies like that in Parkland, FL. It has been nearly 3 weeks since the murder of 17 students and staff at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. While time will continue to march on, our resolve to do something about school violence must grow only stronger. Over the past 3 weeks my colleagues have put forth a number of legislative proposals. Some are recycled versions of earlier proposals, while others propose creative new ideas. Some enjoy broad bipartisan support, while others have not been widely embraced. We have seen much discussion and debate but little legislative progress. To break the impasse, we must unite on the issues where we agree. Let today be the day that we come together to take a meaningful step toward legislation that has the potential to prevent school gun violence, save lives, and restore the sense of peace and security that all children should enjoy when they walk through the doors of their respective schools. Today I come together with my partners on both sides of the aisle to introduce the Students, Teachers, and Officers Preventing School Violence Act, or STOP School Violence Act. As I outlined on the Senate floor last week, the bill will make Department of Justice grants available to fund four initiatives. Last week I outlined those four initiatives, and today I would like to describe them in even greater detail. First, the bill will provide grants to be used for evidence-based training to prevent student violence against others and self, including training for local law enforcement officers, school personnel, and students. One kind of training this bill would fund could prevent many incidents of school violence. Over the last 25 years, research has revealed that in 7 out of 10 acts of gun violence, a friend or someone else was told that an act of violence would be committed before it happened. In one study, it was reported that in four out of five school shootings, the attacker had told people of his plans ahead of time. We must ensure that everyone in the school ecosystem is educated to recognize the signs of a potential threat and likewise--students, teachers, and administrators--take action and follow up when they see warning signs. By building a culture in which students and teachers understand the importance of reporting possible threats of violence, this bill will save lives and help keep our communities safe. Second, the bill will fund evidence-based technology and equipment to improve school security and prevent school violence. After the shooting at Columbine High School nearly 19 years ago, I authored legislation that made Department of Justice grant funds available for metal detectors, locks, lighting, and other deterrent measures. The Secure Our Schools Program, which ran from 2002 through 2011, was the only Federal school safety program that exclusively provided direct funding for the purchase and implementation of security technologies to improve school safety. The legislation I am introducing today will reauthorize and build on that program to provide funding for proven school security infrastructure improvements consistent with schools' individualized needs and industry best practices. While we certainly don't need to turn our schools into fortresses, we must do more to protect our children from harm. Third, the bill will provide funding for the development and operation of evidence-based school threat assessment and crisis intervention teams, which may include evidence-based training for school officials in responding to mental health crises. These multidisciplinary teams--based on existing staff of school personnel, administrators, law enforcement, and mental health professionals--can implement proven, evidence-based approaches like the Virginia Student Threat Assessment Guidelines. These guidelines, which have been documented to be effective in field tests and controlled studies, provide schools with a safe, structured, and efficient way to respond to student threats of violence. Used at thousands of schools across the country, these are the types of proactive, preventive solutions that should be available for all schools. Fourth, the bill will authorize funding for continued coordination with local law enforcement. These four initiatives do not operate in isolation but together are a comprehensive approach to improving school security and reducing student violence. Training students and teachers to identify and report warning signs is critical to stopping acts of school violence before they happen. As we saw in Parkland, having folks identify warning signs is not enough. There must be a process for acting on this information when it is brought to the attention of school administrators or law enforcement officials. The school threat assessment and crisis intervention teams that could be funded through this bill will ensure that schools have an effective procedure for evaluating and responding to potential threats of school violence. Unfortunately, no amount of prevention will ever be able to stop every act of school violence before it happens. For those hopefully rare instances where we cannot intervene ahead of time, this bill ensures that funding is available to assist schools with commonsense security infrastructure improvements to harden schools and make it more difficult for attackers to succeed. Through each step of this process, local law enforcement has an important role to play in partnering with school personnel to prevent and respond to incidents of school violence. States are already taking the lead in these areas to ensure that our schools are safe and secure. Last week I highlighted the Safe Utah smartphone app, a statewide service that provides real-time crisis intervention to youth through texting and a confidential tip program. Since the app was unveiled in 2016, 86 planned school attacks have been stopped. Utah and other States across the country are rolling out proven solutions that prevent and reduce student violence. We must respect the leading role of the States in this space, and we must do what we can to ensure that proven, evidence-based solutions are available to protect all students nationwide. The STOP School Violence Act will complement and magnify those efforts at the State and local level. With a requirement that States and localities contribute to the cost of these programs, my bill will authorize $75 million in fiscal year 2018 and $100 million each year for the following 10 years. In total, that is more than $1 billion to secure our schools and train our students, teachers, and law enforcement. Many of my colleagues have called for reforms and restrictions related to firearms--something this bill does not address. Those are important discussions, and I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on these and other issues. In the meantime, we need to work with what we have, and what we have in the STOP School Violence Act is good, commonsense legislation that can save hundreds of lives. I will not pretend that my bill is a catch-all solution to the problem of school violence. It is not, but it is a start. Indeed, this bipartisan proposal is the catalyst to a critical conversation that will take place in the weeks and months to come. For far too long, we have allowed politics to get in the way of real reform. For far too long, we have been holed up in our partisan foxholes, ducking the difficult issues of the day in hopes that the problem of school violence would solve itself. For far too long, we have clung to our rhetorical weapons, but now is the time to lay those weapons aside. Now is the time to reconcile our differences for the good of our Nation and for the good of our children. As I said last week, now is not the time for argument but for action. Rather than letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, I implore my friends on both sides of the aisle to come together for the safety of our children. Rather than resorting to recycled talking points, I ask my colleagues to heed minority leader Schumer's call to ``pass real legislation that makes a difference.'' I thought that was a good statement. Mr. President, I wish to emphasize the singularity of the opportunity we have in front of us. My bill represents a respite from the anger and acrimony that far too often pervade our politics. It is a symbol of the great good we can accomplish when we come together in common cause. Already, dozens of my colleagues from both the left and the right have signed on to support this bill. The STOP Act is just the start we need to prevent violence in our schools, so let's come together to get this done, and I hope we can.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I enjoyed listening to the minority whip, and I don't believe the President is as heartless as he is indicating, but the President does want the American laws to be observed. There are ways of getting that done, and I think he is doing some of that to see that it is done. I happen to empathize very much with Senator Durbin from Illinois and have long been a supporter of the Dreamers. (The remarks of Mr. Hatch pertaining to the introduction of S. 2495 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII and the order of March 1, the confirmation vote on the Doughty nomination occur following the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to S. 2155, with all other provisions of the previous order in effect.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today marks nearly 2 weeks since the murder of 17 students and staff in Parkland, FL. May today also mark the moment that we resolved to do something about school violence. May it mark the moment that left and right determined to lay aside their differences and work together to prevent future tragedies. To keep our children safe from harm, there is no panacea, no one legislative solution, and it disheartens me when I hear talk about what can't be done. It is time to focus on what can be done. Fortunately, solutions on the State level--including in my home State of Utah--can help show us the way forward. Working in the realm of the possible, Utah State legislators have come together to forge bipartisan solutions to stop school violence. When I was in Salt Lake last week, I learned firsthand about the Safe Utah smartphone app. The Safe Utah crisis text and tip line is a statewide service that provides real-time crisis intervention to use through texting and a confidential tip program. Licensed clinicians from the University Neuropsychiatric Institute at the University of Utah Health respond to all incoming chats, texts, and calls 24/7 by providing supporting or crisis counseling, suicide prevention, and referral services. The Safe Utah Program--developed with funding from the Utah State Legislature in collaboration with the University Neuropsychiatric Institute, the Utah State Office of Education, the Utah Office of the Attorney General, and the Utah Anti-Bullying Coalition--is a testament to what can be done when mental health, education, and law enforcement agencies work together to prevent student violence. Not only is the app innovative, it works. Since the app was unveiled in 2016, 86 planned school attacks have been stopped. Think about that, 86 school attacks stopped in a relatively small State. That number translates to dozens of lives saved and hundreds of heartbreaks spared. For thousands of families across the State, this simple app made a world of difference. Imagine the potential if these kinds of technologies were available to students across the country. We could quickly get help for those who need it and, in the process, save countless lives. That is why, later this week, I will introduce the Students, Teachers, and Officers Preventing School Violence Act, or the STOP School Violence Act. My bill makes Department of Justice grants available to States to fund programs designed to reduce school violence. To that end, the STOP School Violence Act will fund four initiatives. First, it will provide grant funding for evidence-based training to prevent student violence against others and self, including training for local law enforcement officers, school personnel, and students. This is not just active shooter training but training designed to give students and teachers the knowledge to recognize and properly respond to warning signals or signals to stop school violence before it occurs. Second, the bill will fund evidence-based technology and equipment to improve security and prevent school violence. This includes the development and operation of anonymous reporting systems like the Safe Utah app, as well as improvements to school security infrastructure to deter and respond to threats of school violence, and, when prevention efforts fall short--as they unfortunately will in some cases--locks on classroom doors, reinforced entryways, and other commonsense security infrastructure improvements will help. Third, the bill will provide funding for the development and operation of evidence-based school threat assessment and crisis intervention teams, which may include evidence-based training for school officials in responding to mental health crises. Again, school personnel need the tools to assess and respond to threats before they materialize, including those threats that originate from individuals struggling with mental health issues. Finally, the bill will provide funding for continued coordination with local law enforcement. Law enforcement alone cannot prevent school violence--just as no amount of prevention training, security infrastructure improvements, or mental health resources would be able to singularly prevent tragedies like that in Parkland, but law enforcement, and in particular those officers who already staff schools, have an important role to play in any comprehensive solution to prevent school violence. Now, some of you may point out something my bill will not address, and that is guns. On this issue, many reforms have been proposed over the last 12 days--some old and some new. I believe we can find common ground here, too, such as that outlined in the bipartisan Fix NICS Act, which ensures that our background check system is operating as designed. A background check is only as good as the records in the database. The FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System is currently incomplete because many Federal agencies and States have not provided all records that establish someone as prohibited from owning a firearm under current law, especially those related to mental health adjudications and involuntary commitment orders. The bipartisan Fix NICS Act will ensure more of those records make it into the database by holding Federal agencies accountable for uploading relevant records and incentivizing States to upload all relevant information. Including these missing records will help ensure more accurate and complete background checks, thereby keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of felons, fugitives, drug addicts, persons with serious mental illness, and other prohibited persons. I will be the first to admit there is no single, perfect solution-- not the STOP School Violence Act and not the Fix NICS Act, but both of these bills can help save lives. Remember the 86 planned school attacks since the Save Utah app was unveiled and remember the 26 lives that might have been spared if the domestic violence offense of the shooter in Sutherland Springs, TX, had been properly entered into the FBI background check database. Now is not the time for argument but for action. Rather than letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, I implore my friends on both sides of the aisle to come together for the safety of our children. Rather than resorting to recycled talking points, I ask my colleagues to heed Minority Leader Schumer's call to ``pass real legislation that makes a difference.'' Rather than retreating to our partisan foxholes, I call on Republicans and Democrats alike to surrender their rhetorical weapons. For the good of the Nation, and the good of our children, all of us must look beyond the horizon of our political differences to find common ground. Is this legislation enough to solve the problem of school violence? No. Quite frankly, it is not enough, but it is a start, and it is a start upon which we can all agree. We will not solve the problem of school violence overnight, but with incremental efforts--such as the legislation I have proposed--we can make a lasting difference and even save thousands of lives. So let's not delay any further. We owe it to our children, and to all of those affected by gun violence, to take decisive action in those areas where we do agree. This is important stuff. We can't just throw in the sponge and act like we have this problem solved when we still have work to do. So I hope we will take heed to what I have just suggested--I think it can be very helpful to us--and we follow the suggestions I have made here today. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, today we begin our immigration debate in earnest. Senator McConnell has kept his promise to bring an immigration vehicle to the floor. This week, we will be taking a series of votes on DACA, border security, and other related subjects. I wish to take a few minutes now to outline where I am on these issues and where I see this week's debate heading. I have made very clear that I believe we need a legislative fix for DACA. We cannot continue to keep people in our country and grant them work authorization by Executive fiat. DACA recipients deserve certainty. So, too, do other immigrants who enter our country legally and have done their best to follow the rules. We also need better border security and interior enforcement. Thirty years ago, we granted amnesty to nearly 3 million illegal immigrants, and the result over the next two decades was a surge in illegal immigration. We need to prevent that from happening again. I think it is fair and equitable to give DACA recipients a pathway to lawful status because they came to our country through no fault of their own, but I also believe we need to pair DACA legislation with strict border security and interior enforcement measures so we don't find ourselves right back here again in another 20 or 30 years or even sooner. I also think legal immigration needs to be a part of the discussion; in particular, high-skilled immigration. I have spoken several times on the Senate floor about how high-skilled immigration is merit-based immigration. It is immigration targeted at the best, the brightest, and the most highly educated. It is immigration targeted at individuals who have the skills employers need. I believe we can find a path forward on our current immigration controversies, and I am committed to doing everything I can to bring both sides together. But I also want to be clear right here at the outset: High-skilled or merit-based immigration needs to be part of the discussion, especially if we start talking about reforms to family- based immigration. Getting to 60 votes is going to take a lot of negotiation. I know that as well as anyone. I have passed more bills into law than any other Member of Congress alive today. I know how this process works. So I say to my colleagues, as you think about how to advance your priorities this week, keep in mind the priorities I have outlined recently. Take a look at my I-Squared bill and the amendments I will be filing. These are indications of what I am hoping to accomplish. I believe we can get something across the finish line. I really do. I think we can have a bill we can all be proud of, but in order for that to happen, we have to be reasonable. We have to consider a broad range of views. It can't just be ``my way or the highway.'' We need a bill that can also pass the House and then be signed into law by the President. I am ready to roll up my sleeves and get to work, and I am ready to work with my colleagues to find areas of compromise and to accommodate competing priorities. I have made my priorities clear. Let's work together to get something done. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in strong support of the bipartisan Budget Act which will hopefully pass later today. This bill, as the name implies, is the result of rigorous, bipartisan, and bicameral negotiations. I am pleased to have played a part in this endeavor, and I am gratified to note that in addition to keeping the government open and providing much needed resources for our troops, the bill before us addresses a number of longstanding priorities of the Senate Finance Committee, including many that I have personally been working toward for years now. Indeed, this legislation, once passed and signed into law, will be the combination of years of work put in by members of the Finance Committee on both sides of the aisle. I want to take some time to say a few words about some of the bipartisan victories that will be achieved through this legislation. I should warn my colleagues that this will take a few minutes because there are quite a few provisions to discuss. For starters, let's talk about healthcare. Among the more prominent victories in this bill is an extension of the Children's Health Insurance Program for an additional 4 years. As we all know, last month Congress passed a historic 6-year CHIP extension, which was eventually signed into law. The bill before us would add another 4 years on top of that 6-year provision, providing a total extension of 10 years--10 years. That is remarkable. I have a long history with the CHIP program. I was the original author of the program, and I have always been an outspoken champion of it. We have had some back-and-forth here in the Senate about CHIP in recent months, and some of it has gotten pretty fierce. However, today the Senate will pass legislation--bipartisan legislation--to provide unprecedented security and certainty for the families who depend on CHIP and the State governments that need more predictability to map out their own expenditures. I am sure my friend, former Senator Kennedy, is up there watching. I am very happy he came on this bill in the early stages and helped to put it through. In addition to the CHIP extension, the budget bill includes a bipartisan Finance Committee bill entitled the ``Creating High-Quality Results and Outcomes Necessary to Improve Chronic Care Act of 2017''--a fairly long title. Senator Wyden, the Finance Committee's ranking member, and I have been working for years on this legislation, which, once enacted, will improve health outcomes for Medicare beneficiaries living with chronic conditions. It will also help bring down Medicare costs and streamline care coordination services. We have been working with our colleagues, stakeholders, and advocates for quite some time. We moved the bill through the committee last year, and the Senate actually passed it once already without a single vote in opposition. This legislation will finally get the CHRONIC Care Act to the President's desk. I thank Senator Wyden for the time and effort he has put into this action. I also thank our other colleagues on the Finance Committee, particularly Senators Isakson and Warner, who joined us on a working group to develop this important legislation and move it forward. This bill, as promised, will relieve a great deal of suffering for Medicare beneficiaries and will do so in a fiscally responsible manner. The budget bill also contains a package of bipartisan provisions that have come to be known as Medicare and health extenders. These provisions are high priorities for a number of our Members throughout the Senate, and I am very pleased we were able to include them in the final package of the spending bill. While these are all important, I would like to highlight that there are a few provisions we were able to permanently resolve and not just extend. One such provision will repeal a flawed limit on the amount Medicare would pay for outpatient physical and other therapy that threatened access for some of the most vulnerable patients. I worked with other Members in both Chambers to find a lasting solution to this decades-old problem, again demonstrating that Congress can tackle hard problems and not just kick the can down the road. In addition to the Medicare extenders, the bipartisan funding bill also includes some key reforms to the underlying Medicare Programs. These include expanding access to in-home treatments for patients with Medicare Part B and improved means-testing for the premiums paid by high-income earners under Medicare Parts B and D, all of which will help improve the overall fiscal outlook for Medicare. Furthermore, the bill repeals the Independent Payment Advisory Board that was created under the so-called Affordable Care Act. This, too, is a step that has garnered bipartisan support, as it should, showing that many Democrats have joined Republicans in recognizing just how ill- advised the creation of this panel really was. The bill addresses a number of other healthcare priorities as well, including continued funding for various public health programs, some delays for burdensome Medicaid reductions that have been on the horizon, and it provides relief to Puerto Rico's healthcare challenges faced after the hurricane devastation by increasing Medicaid funding. I would also like to say, in any big package, there are a lot of policies in here that give me concern. Some of the offsets, particularly related to Medicare Part D that my Democratic colleagues insisted be in this package, are very troubling to me, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to address this moving forward. In addition to these healthcare priorities, the funding bill extends a number of important tax provisions in order to help families, individuals, and small businesses throughout the country. We made progress on producing and passing tax extenders legislation with the passage of the PATH Act in 2015. Still, many more important items remain to be handled, and we have worked to address Member priorities to extend certain provisions. The provisions included in the spending bill all expire at the end of 2016. This legislation will extend them through this year. Finally, the bill takes some major steps forward in the area of human services, which is also under the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. In addition to continuing funding for important child and family services programs, the bill includes the Family First Prevention Services Act, another bill originally introduced by Senator Wyden and myself to strengthen families and reduce inappropriate foster care placements. This legislation will help keep more children safely with their families instead of placing them in foster care. Under this bill, States will be able to fund effective services that have been shown to prevent children from entering foster care. It will also encourage States to place children with foster families instead of in group homes, and it will reduce the bureaucracy faced by relatives who seek to take in children rather than have them end up in foster care. Also included in the spending bill is the Social Impact Partnership Act, a bill I introduced along with Senator Bennet, which will support innovative public-private partnerships to address critical social and public health challenges. As a result of this bill, States will identify key social challenges they want to address, state the results they hope to achieve, and the Federal Government will pay for a rigorous, independent evaluation to verify that they achieved the outcome. As you can see, we have been very busy in the Finance Committee for the past few years. Obviously, we have seen success in some of the more high-profile items, like tax reform late last year, as well as long- term highway funding and renewing trade promotion authority in 2015, but our work has gone far beyond these efforts. Thankfully, with passage of this spending bill, many more of the committee's efforts-- virtually all of them bipartisan--will come to fruition. I thank the Senate leaders from both parties who have worked with us to include all of these important provisions. I thank my colleagues on the Finance Committee--both Republicans and Democrats--who have put in so much time over the years on all of these efforts and congratulate them all for the success we look forward to seeing this week. Of course, we do still have to pass the bill. Therefore, I urge all of my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, to vote in favor of this bipartisan legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, is it proper to speak as in morning business?

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I wish to honor the life of Jon Huntsman, Sr., a committed public servant, a visionary entrepreneur, and perhaps the greatest philanthropist Utah has ever known. Jon passed away peacefully last Friday afternoon with his friends and family gathered by his bedside. Elaine and I will miss him dearly, as will thousands in Utah and across the Nation. From humble beginnings, Jon rose to the highest echelons of industry and power. But along life's journey, he never lost sight of what matters most. Indeed, no matter what success Jon experienced, no matter what wealth he attained or honors he achieved, he always maintained an everyman ethos that endeared him to friends and business associates alike. Jon's hallmark humility was born of a childhood spent in poverty. Growing up in modest circumstances, Jon resolved to escape the financial hardships of his youth and find success as a businessman. In time, he made a tremendous fortune as the chairman and CEO of the Huntsman group of companies, which includes Huntsman Chemical Corp. Rather than sit on his wealth, Jon gave liberally to all, donating more than $1 billion over the course of his lifetime to build and sustain hundreds of charities, the most prominent of which was the Huntsman Cancer Institute--a premiere research facility dedicated to eradicating cancer in all its forms. With a donation of $450 million, Jon and his wife, Karen, founded the institute in 1995. Today, it remains among the most respected medical research facilities in the world. For Jon, the battle against cancer was personal; he himself was a four-time cancer survivor, and his own mother passed away from the disease. With the sheer amount of resources he has devoted to cancer research, Jon has done more than perhaps anyone alive to help us find a cure. Of course, fighting cancer was not Jon's only cause. He also donated hundreds of millions of dollars to strengthen schools, feed the hungry, and protect women and children from abuse. For Jon, material success was never an end in itself but a means to enrich the lives of others. Richly was he given, and richly did he give to all who stood in need. He was magnanimous to the very end and will long be remembered for his selflessness towards his fellow man. Jon was also actively involved in public life, serving as an Associate Administrator of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and later as a White House Staff Secretary. In all things, he embodied the concept of a life well-lived. Outside of his professional pursuits, Jon had a robust and meaningful personal life. He married his high school sweetheart, Karen, not long after graduating from the Wharton School of Business, and together they raised nine children. The Huntsman family has grown immensely over the years, and today includes 56 grandchildren and 26 great-grandchildren. Jon was also an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- day Saints and served diligently in leadership positions as a regional representative, stake president, and president of the Washington, D.C. South Mission. On a personal note, I feel a great love for Jon and the entire Huntsman family. More than an accomplished businessman and philanthropist, he was a trusted confidante and a dear friend whom I will miss greatly. With his passing, Utah has lost a lion. This week, my prayers are with the Huntsman family.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would also like to take a couple of minutes to discuss a bill that I will be introducing with Senators Coons, Graham, and Whitehouse called the Clarify Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act, or the CLOUD Act. It is a tremendously important bill that will help to solve the problems that have arisen in recent years with cross-border law enforcement requests. The rise of email and cloud computing has put our data privacy laws on a collision course with the privacy laws of other countries. Information in emails or in the cloud can be stored on servers virtually anywhere in the world. This means that when law enforcement seeks access to such information, the information may be located in another country. This state of affairs causes problems both for law enforcement and for email and cloud computing providers. It causes problems for law enforcement because warrants traditionally stop at the water's edge and because laws in other countries may prohibit disclosure to foreign law enforcement, and it causes problems for email and cloud computing providers because they find themselves caught between orders by U.S. law enforcement to disclose data in other countries and laws in those other countries that may forbid such disclosure. The question of whether warrants issued to U.S.-based providers may require providers to disclose data stored in other countries is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court in the United States v. Microsoft case. Oral argument in the case will be heard later this month. No matter how the Court rules, however, problems will remain. Either law enforcement will lack the ability to obtain in a timely manner email and documents in the cloud that are stored overseas or providers will find themselves caught between conflicting domestic and foreign laws. The CLOUD Act creates a clear, workable framework to resolve these problems. The bill has four key components. First, it authorizes the United States to enter into bilateral data- sharing agreements with qualifying countries under which the United States agrees to lift its bar on disclosure to law enforcement in a qualifying country if that country similarly agrees to lift any bar it has on disclosure to U.S. law enforcement. The CLOUD Act sets forth stringent requirements for such agreements in order to ensure privacy and data security. In particular, it provides that any requests by foreign law enforcement to U.S. providers under such an agreement cannot target or request information on U.S. persons. Second, the CLOUD Act clarifies that a warrant served on a U.S. provider may reach data stored overseas provided the data is within the provider's possession, custody, or control. This will enable U.S. law enforcement investigating crimes to obtain information stored overseas without having to resort to cumbersome diplomatic channels. Third, the CLOUD Act gives email and cloud computing providers the ability to challenge a warrant issued for data stored overseas if complying with the warrant would cause the provider to violate the laws of a foreign country. The court hearing such a challenge determines whether, in the interests of international comity, the warrant should be modified or quashed. Finally, the CLOUD Act authorizes providers to disclose to a foreign government the fact that the provider has received a warrant for information stored in that country, provided the foreign government has entered into a bilateral data-sharing agreement, as previously described. This will enable the foreign government to assess compliance with the terms of the agreement and intervene diplomatically if it believes the request is inappropriate. The CLOUD Act has broad support in both the tech community and among law enforcement. It bridges the divide that sometimes we see between these two groups. The bill is an outgrowth of my International Communications Privacy Act, or ICPA, coupled with the United States-United Kingdom bilateral agreement framework that many of my colleagues are familiar with. Indeed, the United States-United Kingdom bilateral agreement framework outlined in the CLOUD Act is intended as a model for future agreements between the United States and other countries that are committed to privacy, human rights, and international law enforcement cooperation. Expeditiously implementing similar agreements with the European Union and other allies is critical to protecting consumers around the world and facilitating legitimate law enforcement investigations. I am pleased to be introducing this very important landmark legislation with my friends from Delaware, South Carolina, and Rhode Island, and intend to push hard to see it enacted in the very near future. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of Andrei Iancu to be Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. USPTO is critically important. It is a critically important agency that stands at the crossroads of innovation, technology, and property rights. It is tasked with ensuring that our laws properly compensate ingenuity and invention, while at the same time stopping bad actors who seek to game the system. Intellectual property has been a focus of mine throughout my entire Senate service. Early in my tenure, I authored the Hatch-Waxman Act, which made possible the rise of the modern generic drug industry. More recently, I played a key role in the America Invents Act, which rebalanced our patent system to ensure high-quality patents and reduce abusive litigation. Just last Congress, I authored the Defend Trade Secrets Act, a landmark piece of legislation that created a federal private cause of action to prevent trade secret theft and other nefarious activity. I have also led the charge against patent trolling--the practice of buying up patents solely for the purpose of bringing lawsuits--and argued forcefully that forum shopping in patent cases must not be allowed. I was gratified to see the Supreme Court last year strike a blow against abusive forum shopping in its TC Heartland decision. In my remaining months here in this body, I intend to continue ahead full-bore on intellectual property reform. Digital music licensing, royalties for visual artists, and online filtering are just a few of my intellectual property priorities for this year. Given my focus on intellectual property, I take a keen interest in the Patent and Trademark Office and in the individual selected to run the office. I have to say that I couldn't be more pleased by President Trump's nomination of Andrei Iancu to be the next USPTO Director. Andrei has an extensive background in patent litigation. He is a partner at Irell & Manella, one of the Nation's leading intellectual property law firms. For 6 years, he was the firm's managing partner. Andrei has represented clients across the spectrum, from tech companies to drug manufacturers to aerospace firms. He understands all sides of patent law because he has litigated all sides. In an area fraught with allegiances to particular industries or groups, Andrei can bring a neutral, unbiased perspective because he has already had to approach issues from so many different angles. Andrei has been named a leader in intellectual property and patent law by Chambers USA every year for the last 11 years. He has been named attorney of the year by California Lawyer and lawyer of the year by the Los Angeles Business Journal. His bona fides are top notch. I have full confidence that Andrei will make an outstanding USPTO Director. Subject-matter eligibility, PTAB reform, and continued controversies over forum shopping are just a handful of the issues that will soon be coming across his desk. There will also be questions about fee setting, fee diversion, and IT modernization. As I move forward on my intellectual property priorities this year, I look forward to working with Andrei and his future colleagues at USPTO to make our patent and trademark system the best it can possibly be. We owe it to the American people to ensure that our intellectual property laws keep pace with our rapidly changing world. That has always been one of my chief focuses here in this body, and it will continue to be so throughout the rest of my term.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, there is a lot of debate about immigration right now. We all know that we need to do something about DACA. I know that as well as anyone. I have been working on a solution for the Dreamer population for a very long time, and we are going to find a solution. We also need to do something about border security and interior enforcement so we don't end up back in the same place 20 years from now. But we can walk and chew gum at the same time, and I think talking about merit-based immigration is a good thing. It is an important principle. As we do so, we need to remember that we already have merit-based programs built into our existing immigration laws. The problem is those programs aren't working the way they are supposed to. They are not properly aligned with employer needs, and in their current set-up, there is too much room for waste and abuse. My I-Squared bill will fix both of those problems. It will help ensure we have the talent in our country that we need to succeed. It will also help equip the next generation of Americans to meet the demands of our increasingly tech-driven economy. I-Squared will also help put an end to the troubling abuses we have seen in the H-1B program and ensure that the program is used as it was intended--to supplement, not replace, American labor. I repeat what I said at the outset: High-skilled immigration is merit-based immigration. It is immigration targeted at the best, the brightest, and the most highly educated. As we debate how to improve our immigration system, let us keep in mind that we already have merit-based programs in our existing laws. Thinking outside the box is important, but it is also important not to overlook what is right here in front of us. My I-Squared bill will help ensure that we have a high-skilled immigration system that works, that meets employer needs, that keeps America competitive, and that prepares the next generation of Americans to succeed. It is commonsense legislation; It is balanced legislation; and I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the pressing need to reform our high-skilled immigration system. This is an issue I've championed for a number of years and one that becomes only more urgent with each passing season. It is also an issue that I believe ties in directly with the recent discussions we have been having about merit-based immigration. As I said on the floor last week, high-skilled immigration is merit-based immigration. It is immigration targeted at the best, the brightest, and the most highly educated. It is immigration targeted at individuals who have the skills employers need. If we want to have a discussion about individuals who will add value to our economy, who will bring critical skills to the table, and who will help keep our country competitive, high-skilled immigration is what we should be talking about. For years, we have had a system for bringing high-skilled workers from other countries to the United States to fill jobs for which there is a shortage of American labor. This system does not replace American jobs. Rather, it supplements our workforce with talent from other countries in industries where there are simply not enough qualified American workers to meet demand. But the system is badly out of date. To begin with, it caps the number of high-skilled worker visas--also called H-1B visas--that employers can obtain each year at a number that is far below demand. This year, just like last year and the year before, USCIS reached the annual cap on H-1B visas within the first week that visa petitions could be submitted. In fact, during that single week, USCIS received over twice as many visa petitions as there were available visas. Our laws also lack a straightforward path for companies to hire American-educated students from other countries on a permanent basis after graduation. We educate some of the world's best and brightest here in America and then send them back home because they can't get permanent work in the United States. That makes no sense. In fact, it is just plain stupid. There is also a significant backlog for skilled professionals and advanced degree holders who want to come to the United States on green cards. These are the very individuals we should be encouraging to come to our country--individuals who have the technical skills our science and technology companies need and who will earn good salaries and contribute meaningfully to our economy--and yet we respire them to wait years and years to obtain a green card. Again, you want to talk about merit-based immigration? These are the folks we should be welcoming to our country with enthusiasm. Instead, we throw up barrier after barrier until many simply give up. At the same time, a handful of companies have found ways to game the H-1B system to displace American employees with lower paid foreign workers. We have all seen the news stories: American workers told they are being replaced with foreign personnel and that if they want to receive a severance package or a positive employer reference, they better train their replacements. These stories disgust me as they should disgust all Americans. Under no circumstances should an employer be able to use a program that was designed to mitigate workforce shortages to put hardworking Americans out of a job. That was never the intent of the H-1B program, and it must not be allowed to continue. There are also other problems with the H-1B program that we need to fix. Too often, large employers crowd out small businesses by submitting far more visa petitions than they actually need. This practice can lead to wasted visas and puts small employers at a significant disadvantage in the H-1B lottery. Another problem concerns H-1B workers who wish to transition to green card status. Because of the significant backlog in employment-based green cards, high-skilled workers who wish to come to the United States on a permanent basis often start out on H-1B visas, and because of quirks in our immigration laws, these workers must stay with their original sponsoring employers until green cards become available, which may take 10 years or longer. During this time, the employee may be forced to accept below-market wages or suboptimal working conditions just to stay in the green card queue. If the employee were to take a higher paying, or better, job at another company, the employee would lose his or her place in the green card line. This creates a power imbalance between H-1B workers and employers that leads to a whole host of issues. So there are a number of problems we need to address with our high- skilled immigration system. That's why today I am introducing my Immigration Innovation Act, or I-Squared, to bring our high-skilled immigration system into the 21st century. This critical legislation contains reforms that will end abuse, provide a clearer path for individuals educated in the United States to stay in the United States, and enable employers more easily to hire the talent they need. I would like to thank my good friend from Arizona, Senator Flake, for cosponsoring I-Squared. Senator Flake and I have worked together for a long time on this issue, and I am grateful for his leadership. Many of my colleagues are familiar will I-Squared. I have introduced previous versions in the last two Congresses. The version I am introducing today, however, has a number of important changes. In many ways, it is a different bill. Allow me to highlight some of the changes. Like previous versions, my updated I-Squared bill raises the annual H-1B cap to better meet market demand. In fact, it ties the cap to market demand so that the cap increases and decreases as demand increases and decreases. It also enables H-1B workers to change jobs without losing their H-1B status and allows foreign students attending American universities to declare an intent to stay in the United States following graduation so they can more easily secure full-time employment. Lastly, the bill authorizes the recapture of unused green cards from previous years and eliminates per-country green card caps, which unfairly discriminate against individuals from countries with larger numbers of applicants. Here is what is new to I-Squared this Congress. First, and most importantly, the bill creates an express prohibition on hiring an H-1B worker with the purpose and intent to replace an American worker. That was never the intent of the H-1B program and must not be allowed to happen. Second, the bill creates an express prohibition on conditioning an employee's pay or severance on training an H-1B replacement. Third, the bill raises the level-1 wage employers must pay to prevent employers from using H-1B workers to undercut labor costs. Fourth, the bill updates the 1998 law that exempts H-1B employers from certain recruitment and non-displacement requirements if the employer pays its H-1B employees a high enough salary. Specifically, the bill raises the salary threshold to match inflation and eliminates the exemption altogether for particularly heavy users of H-1Bs. Fifth, the bill imposes penalties on employers who file more H-1B petitions than they need to prevent large, cash-rich employers from freezing out small businesses. All of these provisions will work to tamp down on the abuses we have seen in the H-1B system. My updated I-Squared bill will also end the problem of H-1B workers who are on the path to a green card from being locked into their current jobs by enabling such workers to change jobs earlier in the process without losing their places in the green card line, and it creates a new, streamlined green card process for high-skilled workers who wish to come to the United States on a permanent basis to obtain conditional residency without having to use the cumbersome H-1B system. Many of the problems with our current H-1B program stem from the fact that workers seeking temporary employment and workers seeking long-term employment are funneled into the same system. My updated I-Squared bill will help separate these two employment streams in ways that will benefit both employers and employees. Finally, my updated I-Squared bill will provide nearly $1 billion in new funding for STEM education and worker training programs without raising a single cent in taxes. It does this by increasing fees for H- 1B petitions and green cards and directing the new funding to State block grants for STEM training. In many ways, this last piece is the most important provision of I- Squared. The STEM disciplines--science, technology, engineering, and math--are going to be critical to our country's success in the coming decades. Increased funding for STEM education and worker training programs will help ensure that we have the workforce we need to succeed in the global economy. It will help produce more graduates with the computer science and engineering skills high-tech employers require. It will enable workers displaced by globalization and the changing economy to acquire new, in-demand skills so they can restart their careers, and if we're successful, increased STEM funding may even reduce the demand for H-1B and other skilled visas in the first place because it will better align our workforce with employer needs. I-Squared is supported by a broad coalition of tech commies, trade associations, and other job creators. I ask unanimous consent at this time to be printed in the Record a number of letters in support of the bill, including letters from the Information Technology Industry Council and the Semiconductor Industry Association. Other key stakeholders who will be issuing statements of support include Microsoft, Facebook, the Internet Association, and the Software Alliance.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, there is a lot of debate about immigration right now. We all know that we need to do something about DACA. I know that as well as anyone. I have been working on a solution for the Dreamer population for a very long time, and we are going to find a solution. We also need to do something about border security and interior enforcement so we don't end up back in the same place 20 years from now. But we can walk and chew gum at the same time, and I think talking about merit-based immigration is a good thing. It is an important principle. As we do so, we need to remember that we already have merit-based programs built into our existing immigration laws. The problem is those programs aren't working the way they are supposed to. They are not properly aligned with employer needs, and in their current set-up, there is too much room for waste and abuse. My I-Squared bill will fix both of those problems. It will help ensure we have the talent in our country that we need to succeed. It will also help equip the next generation of Americans to meet the demands of our increasingly tech-driven economy. I-Squared will also help put an end to the troubling abuses we have seen in the H-1B program and ensure that the program is used as it was intended--to supplement, not replace, American labor. I repeat what I said at the outset: High-skilled immigration is merit-based immigration. It is immigration targeted at the best, the brightest, and the most highly educated. As we debate how to improve our immigration system, let us keep in mind that we already have merit-based programs in our existing laws. Thinking outside the box is important, but it is also important not to overlook what is right here in front of us. My I-Squared bill will help ensure that we have a high-skilled immigration system that works, that meets employer needs, that keeps America competitive, and that prepares the next generation of Americans to succeed. It is commonsense legislation; It is balanced legislation; and I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the pressing need to reform our high-skilled immigration system. This is an issue I've championed for a number of years and one that becomes only more urgent with each passing season. It is also an issue that I believe ties in directly with the recent discussions we have been having about merit-based immigration. As I said on the floor last week, high-skilled immigration is merit-based immigration. It is immigration targeted at the best, the brightest, and the most highly educated. It is immigration targeted at individuals who have the skills employers need. If we want to have a discussion about individuals who will add value to our economy, who will bring critical skills to the table, and who will help keep our country competitive, high-skilled immigration is what we should be talking about. For years, we have had a system for bringing high-skilled workers from other countries to the United States to fill jobs for which there is a shortage of American labor. This system does not replace American jobs. Rather, it supplements our workforce with talent from other countries in industries where there are simply not enough qualified American workers to meet demand. But the system is badly out of date. To begin with, it caps the number of high-skilled worker visas--also called H-1B visas--that employers can obtain each year at a number that is far below demand. This year, just like last year and the year before, USCIS reached the annual cap on H-1B visas within the first week that visa petitions could be submitted. In fact, during that single week, USCIS received over twice as many visa petitions as there were available visas. Our laws also lack a straightforward path for companies to hire American-educated students from other countries on a permanent basis after graduation. We educate some of the world's best and brightest here in America and then send them back home because they can't get permanent work in the United States. That makes no sense. In fact, it is just plain stupid. There is also a significant backlog for skilled professionals and advanced degree holders who want to come to the United States on green cards. These are the very individuals we should be encouraging to come to our country--individuals who have the technical skills our science and technology companies need and who will earn good salaries and contribute meaningfully to our economy--and yet we respire them to wait years and years to obtain a green card. Again, you want to talk about merit-based immigration? These are the folks we should be welcoming to our country with enthusiasm. Instead, we throw up barrier after barrier until many simply give up. At the same time, a handful of companies have found ways to game the H-1B system to displace American employees with lower paid foreign workers. We have all seen the news stories: American workers told they are being replaced with foreign personnel and that if they want to receive a severance package or a positive employer reference, they better train their replacements. These stories disgust me as they should disgust all Americans. Under no circumstances should an employer be able to use a program that was designed to mitigate workforce shortages to put hardworking Americans out of a job. That was never the intent of the H-1B program, and it must not be allowed to continue. There are also other problems with the H-1B program that we need to fix. Too often, large employers crowd out small businesses by submitting far more visa petitions than they actually need. This practice can lead to wasted visas and puts small employers at a significant disadvantage in the H-1B lottery. Another problem concerns H-1B workers who wish to transition to green card status. Because of the significant backlog in employment-based green cards, high-skilled workers who wish to come to the United States on a permanent basis often start out on H-1B visas, and because of quirks in our immigration laws, these workers must stay with their original sponsoring employers until green cards become available, which may take 10 years or longer. During this time, the employee may be forced to accept below-market wages or suboptimal working conditions just to stay in the green card queue. If the employee were to take a higher paying, or better, job at another company, the employee would lose his or her place in the green card line. This creates a power imbalance between H-1B workers and employers that leads to a whole host of issues. So there are a number of problems we need to address with our high- skilled immigration system. That's why today I am introducing my Immigration Innovation Act, or I-Squared, to bring our high-skilled immigration system into the 21st century. This critical legislation contains reforms that will end abuse, provide a clearer path for individuals educated in the United States to stay in the United States, and enable employers more easily to hire the talent they need. I would like to thank my good friend from Arizona, Senator Flake, for cosponsoring I-Squared. Senator Flake and I have worked together for a long time on this issue, and I am grateful for his leadership. Many of my colleagues are familiar will I-Squared. I have introduced previous versions in the last two Congresses. The version I am introducing today, however, has a number of important changes. In many ways, it is a different bill. Allow me to highlight some of the changes. Like previous versions, my updated I-Squared bill raises the annual H-1B cap to better meet market demand. In fact, it ties the cap to market demand so that the cap increases and decreases as demand increases and decreases. It also enables H-1B workers to change jobs without losing their H-1B status and allows foreign students attending American universities to declare an intent to stay in the United States following graduation so they can more easily secure full-time employment. Lastly, the bill authorizes the recapture of unused green cards from previous years and eliminates per-country green card caps, which unfairly discriminate against individuals from countries with larger numbers of applicants. Here is what is new to I-Squared this Congress. First, and most importantly, the bill creates an express prohibition on hiring an H-1B worker with the purpose and intent to replace an American worker. That was never the intent of the H-1B program and must not be allowed to happen. Second, the bill creates an express prohibition on conditioning an employee's pay or severance on training an H-1B replacement. Third, the bill raises the level-1 wage employers must pay to prevent employers from using H-1B workers to undercut labor costs. Fourth, the bill updates the 1998 law that exempts H-1B employers from certain recruitment and non-displacement requirements if the employer pays its H-1B employees a high enough salary. Specifically, the bill raises the salary threshold to match inflation and eliminates the exemption altogether for particularly heavy users of H-1Bs. Fifth, the bill imposes penalties on employers who file more H-1B petitions than they need to prevent large, cash-rich employers from freezing out small businesses. All of these provisions will work to tamp down on the abuses we have seen in the H-1B system. My updated I-Squared bill will also end the problem of H-1B workers who are on the path to a green card from being locked into their current jobs by enabling such workers to change jobs earlier in the process without losing their places in the green card line, and it creates a new, streamlined green card process for high-skilled workers who wish to come to the United States on a permanent basis to obtain conditional residency without having to use the cumbersome H-1B system. Many of the problems with our current H-1B program stem from the fact that workers seeking temporary employment and workers seeking long-term employment are funneled into the same system. My updated I-Squared bill will help separate these two employment streams in ways that will benefit both employers and employees. Finally, my updated I-Squared bill will provide nearly $1 billion in new funding for STEM education and worker training programs without raising a single cent in taxes. It does this by increasing fees for H- 1B petitions and green cards and directing the new funding to State block grants for STEM training. In many ways, this last piece is the most important provision of I- Squared. The STEM disciplines--science, technology, engineering, and math--are going to be critical to our country's success in the coming decades. Increased funding for STEM education and worker training programs will help ensure that we have the workforce we need to succeed in the global economy. It will help produce more graduates with the computer science and engineering skills high-tech employers require. It will enable workers displaced by globalization and the changing economy to acquire new, in-demand skills so they can restart their careers, and if we're successful, increased STEM funding may even reduce the demand for H-1B and other skilled visas in the first place because it will better align our workforce with employer needs. I-Squared is supported by a broad coalition of tech commies, trade associations, and other job creators. I ask unanimous consent at this time to be printed in the Record a number of letters in support of the bill, including letters from the Information Technology Industry Council and the Semiconductor Industry Association. Other key stakeholders who will be issuing statements of support include Microsoft, Facebook, the Internet Association, and the Software Alliance.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Now, Mr. President, turning to another subject, I would like to speak for a few minutes on Sam Brownback's recent confirmation as Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom. I've known Governor Brownback for many years, and I am confident he will serve our Nation well in advancing and defending religious freedom across the world. Throughout my Senate service, it has been my privilege to defend religious freedom. In 1990, for example, I served as one of the principal authors of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, a crucially important piece of legislation that prohibits the government from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion unless doing so is necessary to further a compelling government interest. The bill passed the Senate 97 to 3 and passed the House without recorded opposition. This remarkable, broad support demonstrated that religious liberty is a rare issue that unites Americans of all stripes. That unity of purpose extends to our commitment to protect this fundamental right abroad. In 1948, the Unites States was one of the original signers of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which proclaims that every person has the right to freedom of religion. Fifty years later, Congress unanimously passed the International Religious Freedom Act. I was proud to support this act, which declares religious freedom to be a universal human right, a pillar of our Nation, and a fundamental freedom. The law established the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom and created the position of Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom, the position to which Governor Brownback was just confirmed. As evidenced by his work here in the Senate, Governor Brownback truly understands the need for leaders who will stand up for religious liberty and ensure that all people--no matter where they live--are able to worship how, where, or what they may. During his 14 years in this body, Governor Brownback was involved in a wide range of issues related to religious freedom. Governor Brownback knows firsthand how crucial the Commission is in keeping our Nation and world leaders informed about the status of religious freedom throughout the world. It seems unfathomable in this day and age, but thousands and even hundreds of thousands of our brothers and sisters throughout the world are being imprisoned, tortured, and even executed for their personal convictions. In recent remarks, Secretary of State Tillerson discussed the prevalence of religious persecution and intolerance. He noted that almost 80 percent of the global population lives with restrictions on their freedom of religion. As a nation, we must act to protect this most fundamental, inalienable right for all people. At his recent confirmation hearing, Governor Brownback pledged to ``stand for liberty and stand with the persecuted [and] to promote respect for religious freedom by all governments and peoples.'' I believe he will fulfill this pledge, and I thank him for his willingness to serve our country as Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Anna Bonelli, a detailee on the Senate Committee on Finance, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the Congress.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank my good friend, Senator Coons, for co-sponsoring the Music Modernization Act and for his engagement on this critically important subject. Like Senator Coons, I want this bill to achieve broad support so that it can move forward in a consensus manner. To that end, I intend to work with broadcasters to address their concerns as the bill moves from introduction to markup and look forward to a productive, successful dialogue on these issues.