Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Well, I appreciate that. My colleague has always been very fair and gracious to me. I feel the same way toward him. I understand his deep feelings about this matter. I respect and appreciate them as well. But I am not talking about necessarily negotiating with China directly, other than what we can do. I am talking about dealing with nations that literally are feeling the same way we do, and gradually multiplying our effectiveness by working together--not just sending a message but getting the whole world to start saying: Yes, the United States is right; yes, this group of nations is right. And we can do that even outside of the international organizations that currently exist. But I would like my colleague to look at that amendment and see--I think he will see some real good in it. I think it will get us farther down the pathway of doing what he knows needs to be done, and I know needs to be done, without necessarily causing a major trade war. So I just bring that up to my colleague for that purpose, respecting him and what he is trying to do. I think this plural lateral approach I am talking about goes far beyond the IMF and some of the other worldwide organizations; it means really doing effective diplomatic work to bring worldwide pressure to get people to live within certain monetary constraints. I thank my colleague for yielding.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I have enjoyed the remarks of my distinguished friend from New York. As we begin the debate today on the important issue of exchange rate misalignment, although it is an important debate, I seriously question its timing. Let's step back for a moment. At the end of last month, the Senate approved legislation renewing and expanding trade adjustment assistance. We need to be clear about what this program is--a big government spending program of dubious value but one that is important to President Obama's union allies. Not surprisingly, given the heft labor unions wield in the liberal political coalition, this spending program is President Obama's top trade priority, so much so that he was even willing to abandon our allies in Colombia, Panama, and South Korea unless he secured this additional spending. To get more government spending for big labor, the President was willing to hold up the three free-trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea that everyone knows will grow this economy and create jobs. I was happy to chat with the Trade Representative a few minutes ago, and he told me he was going to send those three trade agreements up today, and they should be here between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. I am really happy about that because it is way beyond time to get them here. Americans need to remember this episode when they hear the President talk about his commitment to job creation. Put aside all the talk, and it is clear where the rubber hits the road. The President will prioritize government spending over private sector job growth. Still, because of the President's insistence on this spending program, the TAA bill is likely to pass the House and become law. So here is my question: Given that we just debated a trade bill that we knew would likely become law, why was this currency bill not considered in that context? I can only conclude either that the administration opposes the currency bill and therefore asked that it not become part of TAA or that the consideration of this bill is merely a political exercise with little expectation that it ever will become law. With millions of Americans out of work and the economy stagnant, the people of Utah and all American citizens deserve more than political grandstanding. Regarding the substance of the issue, the manipulation of currency values by major trading partners in order to gain unfair trade advantage represents a genuine threat to U.S. jobs and to rebalancing of the global financial and economic system. For many years and continuing into the present, that threat is a reality. There is virtually unanimous agreement among international analysts that there exists large-scale, prolonged, one-way intervention in exchange markets by some of our important trading partners in order to limit or preclude currency appreciation, primarily in China but also in some of the other economies as well. There also seems to be little question that China manipulates its currency in order to subsidize its exports. The bill before us seeks to address exchange rate misalignment specifically and global imbalances generally by sharpening the tools available to counter currency manipulation by a trading partner. Of course, any additional tools we can construct must be carefully crafted to align with all of our international trade agreements and global rules of trade. The issue of China's currency has been with us for far too many years. The issue of China's currency has been with us for far too many years. We have repeated discussions about how to address lack of appreciation of China's currency, followed by diplomatic bilateral discussions assurances of moves from China to allow appreciation some modest subsequent appreciation while the political heat is on, and little change thereafter once the heat subsides. This approach does not seem to be working. We have had large and persistent bilateral trade deficits with China, and those deficits continue. We have relied on China's massive excess savings to finance our growing debt, and we have worsened that reliance given the debt- fueled spending spree of the current President. China's dollar- denominated reserve holdings, which have grown for many years, have ballooned from around $1.9 trillion when President Obama took office to over $3 trillion, according to some recent estimates--a 50-percent increase. But currency misalignment by China is not the only source of global financial and economic imbalances. If the President looked in the mirror, he would see his own responsibility for global economic uncertainty. Our budget deficits have far exceeded $1 trillion for the past 3 fiscal years. For 2011, the deficit is expected to be around $1.3 trillion, which is an unsustainable 8.5 percent of GDP and the third-largest deficit in the past 65 years, exceeded only by the deficits in 2009 and 2010. Deficits of this magnitude have not been seen since the years surrounding World War II, when virtually the entire economy was being directed by the Federal government. Given our budget deficits and the China currency issue, the important question is: What is being done? Let's look at what is being done with a bit of recent history for context. Back in 2008, then-candidate Obama wrote the following to textile organizations: The massive current account surpluses accumulated by China are directly related to its manipulation of its currency's value. The result is not good for the United States, not good for the global economy, and likely to create problems in China itself. He went went on to promise that, if elected, he would use all diplomatic means at his disposal to induce China to change its foreign exchange policies. He promised to beef up U.S. enforcement efforts against unfair trade practices. Also, back in 2009, during the Treasury Secretary's confirmation hearing before the Senate Finance Committee, now-Secretary Geithner stated that: President Obama--backed by the conclusions of a broad range of economists--believes that China is manipulating its currency. Those are strong words. Yet once in office, the President and Secretary Geithner failed to follow up on those words with action. The Administration promised to usher in an era of change but failed to change the way the U.S. deals with the China currency issue. The Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 requires that the Treasury Secretary report on exchange rate policies of major U.S. trading partners. Under the act, Treasury must consider whether countries manipulate exchange rates for purposes of preventing balance of payments adjustments or gaining unfair trade advantage. The evidence clearly seems to show that China's currency policies amount to manipulation leading to an unfair advantage in international trade. Candidate Obama agreed during his campaign. Treasury Secretary Geithner agreed during his confirmation testimony. Yet, as Treasury Secretary and as President, the two have refused to act. Secretary Geithner has issued five foreign exchange reports, but has refused to label China as a country that manipulates its exchange rate for the purpose of gaining unfair competitive advantage in international trade. Let me repeat that, despite many bold claims about using all the tools at their disposal to counteract China's trade policies, the administration refuses to designate China's policies as being consistent with currency manipulation for trade advantage. The question that I and most of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle have is: Why? Clearly, the administration must recognize the consequences of China's manipulation for American workers and manufacturers and for the stability of the global financial and economic system. Why, then, is the administration protecting China by refusing to designate it as a currency manipulator? Under the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act, once a country is so designated, there are no draconian actions required. The immediate repercussions are merely stepped-up monitoring and greater vigilance in dialogue. Those don't seem to be things that would lead to currency or trade wars. So, why doesn't the administration act? After all, American jobs are at stake. American workers can compete with any workers in the world, but our workers should not have to compete against foreign firms that receive massive subsidies. If the President is as intent on focusing on job creation in America as his campaigning suggests, then why has he refused to take such a simple step as designating known, existing currency manipulation? There is a severe mismatch here between political rhetoric and action. My fear is that the administration's overreliance on overseas funding--in particular from China--to finance their exploding deficits is preventing the President and his officers from acting on behalf of the competitive, but struggling, American workforce. It is well past time for the administration to recognize the negative consequences of China's manipulation for American workers and manufacturers, and for global stability. Even though there has been only tepid support, even on the Democratic side of the aisle, for the President's much touted jobs plan, there is bipartisan agreement that Congress needs to take significant actions to address the massive jobs deficit this Nation is facing. We face a national crisis in having unemployment persisting at over 9 percent, with elevated numbers of the unemployed suffering from long-term bouts of joblessness and with many American workers having become so discouraged that they have simply dropped out of the labor force. According to statements by the majority leader of the Senate, a focus on jobs is precisely why we are considering the bill before us. According to one of those statements, the majority leader is reported as having said that ``I don't think there's anything more important for a jobs measure than China trade.'' I am starting to think my friends on the other side of the aisle are like the gang that couldn't shoot straight. The majority leader thinks that addressing China trade is essential to job creation. But based on its failure to use existing tools available to designate China as a currency manipulator, the administration apparently disagrees or it would have long ago used its authority to make such a designation under the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act and then acted on the problem. The President's focus seems to be elsewhere. He seems to think that at least as important for jobs as the issue of China trade identified by the majority leader is his so-called American Jobs Act. Advertisements by the Democratic National Committee and campaign speeches by the President since he announced it in a joint session of Congress early last month tell us quite clearly that we should ``meet our responsibilities'' and consider that Act ``right away.'' Yet my friends on the other side of the aisle apparently believe that a political debate over China and its currency policies are more important for job creation than the President's American Jobs Act. If the President's act is, as advertised, so crucial for job creation in the face of our national unemployment crisis, why is Senate Democratic leadership delaying its consideration? Why not consider the legislation right away, as demanded by the President in his campaign speeches and Democratic National Committee advertisements? We are told by the President that Americans who are out of work cannot wait until the next election for us to act boldly for job creation. So why are we not considering his American Jobs Act, unless my Democrat friends disagree with the President that the act would be the most important job creator available to us today? I suspect they know that the $447 billion in new stimulus spending included in the President's jobs bill, and the accompanying proposals to impose $1.5 trillion in new taxes on a sluggish economy, is economically counterproductive and a sure-fire political loser. I must say that the President's Jobs Act looks like more of the same debt-fueled stimulus spending, cloaked under the guise of ``investment,'' along with higher taxes, cloaked under the label ``tax reform.'' While I may disagree on the particulars of the President's proposal, I do not disagree with his premise that we face a national crisis in our labor markets and that we should be debating measures that will promote American job creation now, without delay. We are also told by the President that we must pass our pending trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. Jobs are at stake, he says. As with the political campaign rhetoric exhorting Congress to pass the President's American Jobs Act, which the majority leader has opted to shelve until some unspecified future date, the President delayed the action required to get these agreements passed for much too long. Pass the American Jobs Act, the President scolds. But we can't because the Democrat's majority leader has not brought the Act to the Senate floor. The currency bill, which is unlikely to lead to much, if any, job creation before the next election, has come first, perhaps to allow more time for campaign speeches and ads by the Democratic National Committee. Pass the free trade agreements, the President lectures. But they were delayed, as they sit idle on his desk. I am pleased, since the trade leader in the administration called me a few minutes ago to tell me they are on their way up here today. This currency bill is coming first. But what needs to come first is job creation, not electioneering and politics. Our jobs deficit is a full-blown national crisis. The unemployment rate has been persistently above 9 percent since April of this year. It has averaged 9.4 percent since the President took office. It has been above 9 percent in 26 out of the 31 months since the President took office, despite promises by administration economists that the massive debt-fueled stimulus, which will cost over $1 trillion when all costs are included, would keep unemployment contained below 8 percent. And the unemployment rate is even higher, at over 16 percent, once we include, for example, people who want to work but have become so discouraged that they no longer look for work. Nearly 14 million workers are unemployed, and the number grows when we include discouraged workers. The number of long-term unemployed workers has been at record highs. According to Census data released last month, those in their twenties and thirties are suffering from the highest unemployment rate since World War II. The enthusiasm of young citizens in 2008 long ago gave way to disappointment and disaffection. Our joblessness crisis is nothing short of a crisis for liberty. When American men and women do not have jobs and opportunity, their freedom to make lives for themselves is eroded. Yet we are to understand that in the face of this historic crisis, there is no more important issue regarding jobs than our bilateral trade with China. Again, I agree we need to address the issue of currency manipulation and our sustained and large trade deficits with China. However, let us be clear that dealing with issues related to China involves only one bilateral trade relationship. The trade and current account problems facing the United States, and the global financial, trade, and economic imbalances that everyone faces are not solved by addressing this one trading relationship. That is one reason I will be offering an amendment to this bill calling for multilateral and plurilateral negotiations to address currency misalignment. If we are going to succeed, we need to look at the big picture and work with our allies to counter China's current practices. I will discuss my amendment in more detail soon, but hope it will receive strong bipartisan support. Our trade imbalances are not with China alone. Rather, as part of the problem of saving too little, the United States has multilateral trades imbalances which require more action than focusing solely on one bilateral relationship. According to recent data from the U.S. International Trade Commission, the United States has trade deficits with nearly 100 countries. The United States saves too little, and that problem will not be solved solely by passing the bill before us. Make no mistake, the legislation we are considering can provide useful tools for addressing concerns about China, if the administration actually uses the tools. But those tools alone are not sufficient. If we try to address our multilateral problems by putting pressure on China alone, without also attending to our lack of saving and our own role in generating trade deficits with nearly 100 other countries, the Chinese piece of the U.S. imbalance will migrate somewhere else. This bill is not a magic bullet to solve our problems or the problems arising from global imbalances. And it almost surely is not the highest priority piece of legislation if job creation is truly our focus. The United States, for its part, contributes to global imbalances by persistently saving too little. Following the financial crisis, which was precipitated partly by large runups in household indebtedness, American families have tightened their belts to save more and repair their own balance sheets. It is the U.S. Federal Government that has been missing in action to restore national savings, reduce our Federal debt, and promote global balance. Rather than repair the Federal balance sheet, the administration has chosen to run trillions of dollars of debt-fueled deficits and borrow ever-increasing sums from abroad, including China. And rather than facing the fact that the Federal Government has a spending problem, the President is advertising and campaigning on a new American Jobs Act stimulus and tax hike platform containing even more spending and short- term debt accumulation. We are told that it will be in the interest of the American people to borrow more today in order to spend more on infrastructure, for example. The stimulus proponents say: Interest rates are low, so let's ramp up borrowing right now. That is the same approach the Senate took when it voted to extend and expand trade adjustment assistance. They ignore, however, that piling trillions more onto our national credit card issued by China and our other creditors moves us that much faster into the company of the eurozone countries who now face default and elevated interest costs. While Federal borrowing rates are low today, what happens when global markets tire of our profligacy and debt-financed spending and begin to demand higher interest compensation? As Spain and Italy have seen recently, low interest rates are not guaranteed and the interest rate environment that you face can pivot on a dime and escalate rapidly. Borrowing at low rates today sounds great, until you wake up tomorrow and are forced to refinance at more punitive rates. More debt-fueled government spending beyond our means is sure to drive us rapidly down the road to the stagnation and debt crisis we are seeing today in Europe. Of course, the President claims his new stimulus and tax hike proposals are all paid for, but the payments are largely promises of future austerity. Anyone who has paid attention knows that when the Federal Government promises to go on a spending diet later it never leads to fiscal weight loss because future Congresses are not bound by today's promises. It is interesting to hear the President's persistent calls for more debt-fueled infrastructure spending. Presumably, given his interest in job creation ``right now,'' the projects he has in mind will be more shovel-ready than the readiness of the previous stimulus projects, which turned into something the President found so funny that he joked about it. Of course, it is no joke to jobless Americans who are stuck with the stimulus debt bill. We heard in early September from the chairman of the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness that the council identified ``ten high-priority infrastructure projects based on their potential to put Americans to work right away--projects that have already been funded, but are being held up by regulations.'' The jobs council says it will work with the administration to try to get the projects moving. Let me repeat that: the projects ``are being held up by regulations.'' This comes from the chairman of the President's own jobs council. Yet when some on the other side of the aisle are reminded that regulations are holding back job creation, they recoil in disbelief. If there are 10 large-scale infrastructure spending projects ready to go and already fully funded and are only being held up by regulatory review lag, I urge the President to act ``right now'' to get those projects underway in the interest of job creation. Make one fewer campaign appearance and use that time to expedite regulatory review and get those projects going if, as should be the case, he believes job creation is more important than politics and wishes to act on that belief. We have also heard the President remarking on how, from a global competitiveness perspective, the United States should borrow more today and spend on what he generically calls ``infrastructure,'' which, as it turns out, can be anything from paving a road to doling out money to solar panel makers. The President cited in his infrastructure advocacy a set of global rankings on infrastructure from the World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Report. The President seemed to read the report and its ranking of the United States as 23rd out of 139 countries for transportation infrastructure competitiveness as a call for more spending on whatever it is he thinks of as infrastructure. It appears, however, that he did not read the report in its entirety. If he did, he would have noticed that the ranking is for only one of nine factors in the report's overall infrastructure assessment. More importantly, if he had read the report, he would have noticed the overriding area identified as the weakest one for the United States in terms of eroding our global competitiveness. To quote the report directly: A lack of macroeconomic stability continues to be the United States' greatest area of weakness (ranked 87th). Prior to the crisis, the United States had been building up large macroeconomic imbalances, with repeated fiscal deficits leading to burgeoning levels of public indebtedness; this has been exacerbated by significant stimulus spending. In this context, it is clear that mapping out a clear exit strategy will be an important step in reinforcing the country's competitiveness going into the future. There you have it. The report the President data-mined to find a number to use to support more stimulus quite clearly says that declining U.S. global competitiveness has come from fiscal deficits, exacerbated by stimulus spending. It clearly says the solution is to exit from our unsustainable fiscal path. That means reining in the runaway debt-fueled spending, not more spending. Before turning to the legislative process on the bill before us, let me post a trail marker for our deliberations. The currency bill we are considering includes reliance on exchange rate models used by the International Monetary Fund. Those models allow for the macroeconomic effects on currency valuations of fundamental changes in policies of trade partner countries. For example, if the United States engages in fundamental tax reform that would lead to improved growth and reduced deficits and debt, the models considered in the legislation before us have the ability to capture those effects. The marker I wish to set here is a reminder that we should be similarly so inclined to use economic models that allow for macroeconomic effects of policy changes when we choose to make fundamental changes to tax and spending policies. We should be as willing to have our budget score keepers use economic models that allow for long-run growth and macroeconomic effects of fundamental tax and spending reform policies as we seem to be here in this legislation to use models that incorporate such effects when evaluating currency alignments. If it is good to use economic models that allow for an accounting of growth effects here, then it should be good elsewhere. I also need to address the process we will follow in our consideration of the currency bill before us. The bill has garnered bipartisan support. In the interest of promoting a truly bipartisan effort, which the American people would love to see, it is my hope there will be balance in amendments that are allowed to be considered. This bill has sound objectives, but it is not perfect. I believe amendments from both sides of the aisle can improve the final product. And, as I mentioned earlier, I have an amendment that I believe will improve this bill significantly and help us devise a long-term approach to dealing with currency misalignment. I hope there will be an opportunity for it, and others, to be considered. I hope they are not going to lock up the tree again, which is the standard practice around here by the majority. This bill is an important bill, and we ought to be able to amend it with important amendments. The overriding objective of the legislation--job creation--is shared by Republicans and Democrats alike. Therefore, it is my hope that amendments from my side of the aisle, designed to promote job growth today and in the future, will be duly considered, allowed, and duly debated. I look forward to consideration of the currency bill before us and a robust, bipartisan process, which includes consideration of amendments from both sides to promote job creation. As I have said, our Nation faces a crisis of unemployment and joblessness that is filled with pain today and threatens erosion of human capital and skills, which will negatively impact families and the overall economy for years and years to follow. Let us not have politics and special interests dictate what we consider to promote job creation and economic growth. American workers and families, many of them struggling and in pain, cannot wait until the next Presidential election is resolved for the Federal Government to act to promote job creation. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to two men whose influence has greatly benefitted my State. My good friend Lawrence H. Lee was, at one time, the CEO of Western Airlines. As you may know, before merging with Delta Air Lines in 1986, Western was one of the largest airlines serving the western U.S. In 1982, as an executive at Western Airlines, Lawrence was responsible for establishing a hub for the airline in Salt Lake City, UT. This would prove to be a consequential decision, both for the airline and, most especially, for the economic future of the State of Utah. In the early 1980s, Western Airlines was on the verge of bankruptcy. Lawrence was appointed CEO in 1983 and tasked with the job of turning the airline around. Under his leadership, they were able to reduce costs and return Western to profitability. Ultimately, this success led to Western's merger with Delta Air Lines. During his tenure as CEO of Western Airlines, Lawrence's right-hand man was none other than Gerald Grinstein, Delta's future CEO. An excerpt from Lawrence's journal gives an account of Mr. Grinstein's efforts to save Delta Air Lines and preserve its Salt Lake hub. It is important to note that Delta's Salt Lake hub, which exists as a direct result of my friend Lawrence's decision to create a hub there for Western Airlines, is vital to Utah's economy. Salt Lake City is small relative to other major airline hubs in the U.S. Therefore, the city and its surrounding community receive an almost inordinate economic benefit from the presence of the Delta hub. Delta's Salt Lake hub attracts untold amounts of business to Utah. It was cited as a reason that Utah was able to secure the Winter Olympics in 2002. All told, Utah receives nearly $18 billion every year from commercial aviation, most of which is derived from Delta's presence in the market. I thank my good friend Lawrence Lee for his contribution to Utah's growth and development. In his journal, Lawrence states that Gerald Grinstein should be considered a ``Giant of Salt Lake City.'' I certainly agree. But, I believe much the same could be said about Lawrence Lee. Mr. President, as testimony to the importance of Lawrence Lee and Gerald Grinstein to Utah's economic growth, I ask unanimous consent that an excerpt from the Personal Journal of Lawrence H. Lee be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank Senator Rubio for offering his important amendment that will constrain spending on TAA by limiting TAA benefits to workers negatively impacted by free trade agreements negotiated by the U.S. Government. As I explained in offering my amendment yesterday to tighten the standard of eligibility for TAA, the expanded TAA Program will grow and grow and cost more and more taxpayer money. The expanded TAA Program proposed by the chairman is no longer about trade policy but, rather, about expanding a domestic spending program. The TAA Program proposed by our friends across the aisle extends TAA to services workers and to workers impacted by shifts of production or services to any foreign country. In an integrated and rapidly expanding global economy, conceivably all business decisions made at home and abroad could trigger TAA's generous benefits. As I predicted at the beginning of this debate, many of my friends who support TAA have argued that more people used the TAA Program when it was expanded in 2009; therefore, it must be working. I strongly reject this argument. Spending more money and certifying more workers does not mean a program is succeeding; it simply means the program is expanding and costing more and more taxpayer dollars. Proponents of an expanded TAA Program tell us there is a moral obligation for the government to help mitigate the costs from job losses associated with increased imports and offshore outsourcing, which often occurs as a result of direct government policies, that is, trade agreements. But why do we choose to reward some Americans who lose their jobs due to adjusting to some Federal policies--in this case, trade policy--but not others? Even if one were to concede that the Federal Government has some obligation to help those who lose their jobs due to the trade policy actions of the United States, surely workers who lose their jobs for reasons that have nothing to do with Federal Government actions should not receive these favorable TAA benefits. I have heard lots of talk about the improvements made in the 2009 TAA stimulus expansion. One word I do not hear much anymore is ``globalization,'' because if you go back and look at the actual bill, the 2009 stimulus TAA package was actually called TGAA, trade and globalization adjustment assistance. The chairman has dropped the ``globalization'' reference in the title of the TAA extension amendment we are considering today, but the legislation retains the untenable expansion of eligibility criteria included in the 2009 stimulus version. The TAA Program we will vote on today, as offered by the chairman has lost any nexus to U.S. trade policy actions. Under the chairman's expanded TAA Program, workers who lose their jobs, allegedly due to shifts in production to non-free-trade agreement countries, will be eligible for the generous TAA benefits. As I highlighted in my remarks yesterday about Solyndra, in a dynamic U.S. and global economy, businesses can start up and shut down for many reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with foreign trade and certainly nothing to do with any specific U.S. trade policy. Solyndra failed due to a bad business model and an ill-conceived Federal loan of a half a billion dollars in taxpayer money--it was a little bit more than that--not because of trade policy. That Solyndra workers may receive TAA benefits highlights the problems with the program. Globalization has changed how our businesses operate--both large and small--and all the variables that now impact buying and selling decisions through global supply chains, shifting demographics, shifting demand trends, different tax regimes, and ever-changing investment climates will necessarily create opportunities and challenges for all American businesses. We should help American businesses and farmers compete for the new customers and consumers around the world, and we do this best by prying open those markets, protecting American intellectual property rights and investments, and strengthening the rule of law. That is why my colleagues and I continue to push the White House to send the three pending free-trade agreements to Congress for a vote, so we can help our businesses and farmers better compete in a global economy. If we want to help our economy and create jobs, passing the FTAs should be our first order of business. The best response to globalization is to harness its dynamic growth to our benefit, not to choose winners and losers and give them unproven training and additional income support and health care entitlements. If the purpose of TAA is to help workers adjust to trade policy actions by the government, then only those workers impacted by trade with U.S. free-trade agreement countries should be eligible. Again, I thank my colleague and friend, Senator Rubio, for offering this important amendment and trying to look out for the taxpayer and narrowly constrain spending on TAA. I urge my colleagues to support his amendment. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Casey-Reid amendment. Over the past several days we have had the opportunity to publicly discuss and debate a number of serious flaws in the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program and its proposed expansion. Perhaps the most egregious aspect is voting to spend more taxpayer dollars on an expanded domestic spending program of dubious value at the very same time our colleagues on the supercommittee are scrutinizing every penny of Federal spending in a bipartisan effort to get our Federal deficit under control. It makes me wonder whether this body understands the gravity of the deficit we are facing. As a country, we are simply spending more money than we have. If it continues we are going to be bankrupt. We will bankrupt our country and leave behind a grim future for our children and grandchildren. We will hear many of my colleagues talk about how important it is to spend this money, and I am sure a lot of them will feel good about their votes. But we all know the good feeling that comes from buying things we cannot afford is fleeting while the debt accrued hangs like a dark cloud over our daily lives. We simply cannot afford to continue to spend money our country does not have. This is why I, for one, am voting no. Despite my concerns, I am convinced that this amendment and bill will pass. This spring, the President made it clear that if this domestic spending program was not expanded and approved he would abandon our allies in Colombia, Panama, and South Korea, and cede these growing markets to our foreign competitors. How shortsighted. While the President may have been willing to accept that outcome, many of my colleagues were not. They stepped up to the plate and vowed to support efforts to move the process forward. As a result, the deck in favor of this bill was stacked long ago. Still, I am glad we have had an open debate on the merits of this program. Earlier this year, the President attempted to shield TAA from strict scrutiny and debate by jamming it into the South Korea implementing bill. Doing so would have been a clear abuse of U.S. trade laws and would have denied the Senate an opportunity to fairly debate and amend TAA. The American people deserve better than this and Finance Committee Republicans fought hard to ensure that this did not happen. It is largely a result of their efforts that we are here today. Even though the deck was stacked against our amendments long ago, this discussion has been a useful exercise. It has been over 9 years since the Senate engaged in a real trade debate on the Senate floor. Senators deserve an opportunity to have their voices heard on issues related to international trade, and by engaging in debate we are honoring our republican constitutional traditions. We are doing what the American people expect us to do: openly discussing problems and, in doing so helping to resolve them. During this debate, a number of amendments were offered that enabled Senators to go on record regarding their trade priorities and core beliefs. For the first time in years, we were able to draw clear distinctions between rhetoric and action. Of course, there has been debate about the merits of the free-trade agreements themselves. As I noted earlier, the President and many of my colleagues who purport to support these agreements made it clear that in reality they only support the FTAs in exchange for something else. That something else turned out to be a demand for more spending. I am worried that going forward this pattern will continue. I certainly hope not. As a nation we cannot afford to hold our international economic competitiveness hostage to unrelated demands for more spending or for a more liberal social agenda. During the course of this debate, I have expressed concerns that the real cost of the TAA expansion bill is unknown. Recall that benefits under TAA are paid out on top of unemployment insurance, which is supposed to take care of those who are out of work. As more and more people take advantage of the program, and as the number of weeks of regular unemployment insurance contract, the cost of this entitlement program could spiral out of control. So a number of amendments were offered that would help constrain its future growth so we do not end up sticking the American taxpayer with another out-of-control spending program. Every single one of these amendments was rejected by my colleagues across the aisle. Their passion for spending runs so deep that even an amendment by my friend and colleague, Senator Kyl, which implemented one of President Obama's recommendations to cut TAA funding for firms, was rejected. At a time when the supercommittee is struggling to cut spending in areas such as defense and health care, I find it astonishing that my colleagues cannot support eliminating a program that even President Obama agrees should be cut. That is a true rarity-- that is, that President Obama agrees to any kind of a cut, not that my colleagues will not support eliminating a program. That, we know, has happened around here for all of the 35 years I have been in the Senate. But even when President Obama, one of the biggest spenders in the history of the world, agrees that a program should be cut, they will not even do that. My colleagues across the aisle also chose to reject an amendment to provide their own President with the authority to negotiate new trade agreements. Can you believe that? We all know the authority to negotiate trade agreements expired years ago. Since then the United States has been sitting on the sidelines while other countries negotiate agreements all around the world. Everyone knows if we are not in the game we do not even have a small chance to win. Right now, the United States is not in the game. While it is true that the President is in the process of negotiating an agreement to create a transpacific partnership, we all know that the chances of it actually succeeding are actually almost nonexistent without trade promotion authority. While the protrade rhetoric sounds good from the other side, when it comes down to concrete action, President Obama and his Democratic colleagues are absent once again. I am perhaps most disturbed by their rejection of my amendment which would have made the expansion of this domestic spending program contingent upon submission, approval, and signature of our pending free-trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. This amendment simply held President Obama accountable. The President said there would be no FTAs unless Congress passed TAA. The insinuation is that if Congress does pass TAA, the President will submit, support, and sign all three FTAs. Yet, even today we do not know if that is the case. My understanding is the White House has given no indication they will actually submit these agreements for a vote. That is truly pathetic. They are willing to spend more. They are willing to pass TAA so they can spend more regardless of whether they are sincere about doing these free-trade agreements that will provide almost 250,000 new jobs in this country, or at least jobs. My amendment simply called for Presidential accountability. But even Presidential accountability was rejected by the other side. Once again, protrade rhetoric of the past several months has been shown to be nothing but a facade. I will be voting against the amendment to expand TAA, and if it is approved, I will vote against final passage of the bill. I simply cannot condone more spending on a program with dubious value at a time when our Nation is clearly broke. I remain hopeful President Obama will submit our pending free-trade agreements to Congress. If he does, and they are approved, I am confident President Obama and his team will drape themselves in the protrade flag and claim responsibility for moving these agreements forward. The fact of the matter is the authority to negotiate these agreements and the actual negotiation of these agreements themselves is due to the hard work of late nights of President Bush and his team. This is one instance where President Obama can rightly place responsibility at the feet of his predecessor. My Republican colleagues and I put forward a number of amendments during the week to constrain government spending, open foreign markets for our products, and hold the President accountable for his rhetoric. Unfortunately, every single one was defeated, mostly along party lines. But we will not be deterred. We will continue to fight against out-of- control government spending. We will continue to fight for Presidential authority to open foreign markets to U.S. exports. We will continue to fight for transparency and accountability in our international trade policy. While we may not win the battle today, I am confident we will win in the end. Over the next year I plan to conduct rigorous oversight of President Obama's trade policy. If these agreements are eventually submitted and approved, I will work hard to make sure they enter into force quickly. I also plan to conduct extensive and continued oversight of the operation of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program. I am convinced it is a flawed program and that strong congressional oversight will help expose those flaws. I will also work hard to make sure our next President, whoever that may be, has the authority to negotiate strong trade agreements that tear down barriers to American exports. Over the past several days many of my colleagues expressed interest in updating this authority. I welcome that interest and want to express my sincere desire to work with them to immediately see that trade promotion authority is renewed. Our Nation and our workers cannot afford to wait. I ask unanimous consent that we divide the quorum call I am about to suggest equally between both sides.

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

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the amendment filed by my colleague from South Dakota. This amendment deals with an important issue, namely, the cost of delay when it comes to free-trade agreements. The President's desire to increase spending on TAA--an expensive domestic spending program of debatable worth--at a time when taxpayers are struggling to make ends meet during a recession makes no sense to me. His strategy to link passage of FTAs to renewal of this expanded TAA program is equally perplexing. TAA is meant to assist workers who have allegedly lost their jobs due to trade. But the administration has repeatedly stated that the three pending trade agreements will create jobs, not cause people to lose them. According to the Business Roundtable, passage of the three pending trade agreements will support 250,000 American jobs. Since jobs will be created rather than lost, it makes no sense to link the passage of an expanded version of trade adjustment assistance to these three FTAs. In fact, the only jobs lost to date have been those caused by the President's refusal to send these FTAs to Congress. His refusal to act has caused U.S. farmers, manufacturers, and service providers to cede market share to our competitors in Panama, Colombia, and South Korea. Given the state of the economy under this administration, one would think passage of these trade agreements--which were handed to the President wrapped up in a bow by his predecessor--would be the first order of business. Yet, here we are, more than halfway into this administration and the President has not even made a commitment to send us the trade agreements so we can consider them. My colleague's amendment would help us assess the impact of the President's delay, and future Presidents as well, on the American economy. The amendment would require the ITC to assess the negative impact to U.S. businesses if a trade agreement is signed but has not been considered by Congress within 2 years. Among other things, the ITC study would highlight lost U.S. export opportunities, the impact on the protection of U.S. intellectual property overseas, the impact on U.S. employment to date, and the prospective impact on U.S. employment if agreements are not sent to Congress. If the President believes these trade agreements will create jobs, he needs to submit them to Congress. It is absurd that they are still sitting on the President's desk, while our companies and workers lose market share to our competitors in Colombia, South Korea, and Panama. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from New Hampshire be permitted to make her remarks at this time.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this is a caustic program of dubious value. In our hearings, the representatives of the administration couldn't come up with one job that would be lost as a result of these free-trade agreements. There is no evidence that TAA works and, in all honesty, there is no commitment from the President we are going to have the free-trade agreements come up anyway. I have to say that even though we haven't done a trade agreement in years, TAA continues to grow and TAA is on top of unemployment insurance that we are paying anyway, and it isn't justified. All I can say is, literally, this program should not be adopted at this particular point. And if it is adopted, it ought to be adopted based upon reason and so forth.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise in opposition to this bill before us. It extends the generalized system of preferences program for 2 years, as amended and, as amended, expands the trade adjustment assistance program. I want to be clear. I support the underlying bill passed by the House that extends the GSP Program. GSP helps American companies compete in the global marketplace while helping developing countries grow their economies and achieve sustainable economic growth to lift their people out of poverty. As I have made clear over the past few days, I have serious concerns with expanding the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program as it has been amended by this bill. We can no longer afford to increase domestic spending on programs that have dubious value and unproven results. That is what this bill will do. I cannot condone this spending, so I will vote no. I offered an amendment that would have ended the mystery surrounding the sequencing of TAA and the three pending free-trade agreements that have been the subject of much intrigue and speculation. My amendment would have called off the expansion of TAA until our free-trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea were enacted. Everything would move together. Isn't that what this whole bargain is supposed to be about? Well, that amendment did not pass and the White House still refuses to say when they will send up the FTAs for a vote. That does not seem right or fair to me. TAA is an unproven and costly and counterproductive program. I urge my colleagues to also oppose this bill, but should it pass, I hope the President finally matches actions with words and sends the FTAs up for a vote. I am convinced all three will receive strong bipartisan votes. American businesses, farmers, and workers, and our friends and allies in Colombia, Panama, and South Korea cannot afford any delay.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Mitch McConnell from Kentucky and Senator Cornyn from Texas as cosponsors on S. 1595, the Solidarity with Israel Act.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I encourage all Senators to get on board with that bill. It is time to send messages that the U.N. will understand. Madam President, it appears the leader of the Palestinian Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, is going to request that the United Nations recognize Palestine as a member state. This action will create a major, unnecessary, and avoidable obstacle for peace. It is quite simply intolerable. For that reason, yesterday I, along with 15 of my colleagues, including my colleague and friend from Kentucky, the Republican leader, introduced S. 1595, the Solidarity with Israel Act. Should the United Nations recognize a Palestinian state, this legislation would terminate the U.S. funding for the U.N. I recognize that the consequences for recognizing a Palestinian state are severe, but they are appropriate. Recognition of a Palestinian state at this point would undermine the peace process, and some have even questioned its legality. It would be a deeply irresponsible action that brings into further doubt the legitimacy of the United Nations as a good-faith actor in securing a more peaceful, more free, and more democratic world. As I, and many of my colleagues have repeatedly stated on the floor of the Senate, the sole means to create a lasting and enduring peace between Israel and the Palestinians is through direct negotiations. By attempting an end run around these negotiations--and make no mistake, that is the aspiration of this Palestinian endeavor--the only result would be to delay the critical decisions which must be made to obtain a durable peace. What is required is leadership--real leadership--to impress upon the Palestinians and the world community that if the United Nations capitulates and changes Palestine's status before a comprehensive peace agreement is reached, there will be consequences. Unfortunately, President Obama, in his speech to the United Nations yesterday, failed to provide that leadership and to take control of this quickly deteriorating situation. Accordingly, yesterday, I and my colleagues introduced the Solidarity with Israel Act. The United States can and should exercise its Security Council veto if the Palestinians make good on their threat to attempt to change their U.N. status. However, the use of our veto power might not be enough to stop this subterfuge. There are two methods by which the Palestinians could attempt to change their United Nations status. The first is to have the Security Council recommend to the General Assembly that Palestine become a member nation of the United Nations. But in the Security Council, the United States can veto a proposed change. However, the Palestinians also have another means to alter their status. They could petition the General Assembly directly--where the United States does not have a veto--and seek an upgrade from their current position as a permanent observer entity to a nonobserver state. If this occurs, the Palestinians will be in a much better position to manipulate U.N.- affiliated agencies, such as the International Criminal Court. It should go without saying, but I will remind this body that the prospect of Palestinians bringing actions against Israel's leaders and military forces for defending our sovereign ally's right to exist is completely unacceptable. We should expect more from the United Nations, but in spite of its sweeping statements in support of individual rights and peace, it has a mixed record at best when it comes to the treatment of Israel, a liberal democracy. The low point of its long and tarnished history on this subject was the General Assembly's contemptible 1975 resolution equating Zionism with racism. A General Assembly upgrade of the Palestinians to nonobserver statehood status would be another in a long line of hostile acts toward Israel and another hindrance to the peace prospect and process. Deterring this outcome is the primary objective of the Solidarity with Israel Act. Israel is a friend and ally of the United States. It is a beacon of democracy and liberality in a part of the world that is too frequently lacking in both. Although the Palestinians have officially recognized Israel's right to exist, their rhetoric continues to bring the strength of this commitment into question. Therefore, we cannot sit passively while the United Nations undermines Israel. Simply put, if the United Nations votes to harm our trusted ally by changing Palestine's U.N. status, this legislation would require termination of U.S. funding of the United Nations until a comprehensive peace agreement is reached with Israel. The message of our legislation is also simple. The time for these types of games has ended. We will not stand by and allow a political spectacle to be created which only maligns our ally. The Solidarity with Israel Act seeks to deter those who would engage in false charades and redirect the international community toward promoting the only means to truly achieve a lasting peace: direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. It is my earnest hope that even greater numbers of Members will join us in this cause. I think this is an important issue, and I hope we can get every Member of this community, of this Senate, to join with us in this particular cause.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise in support of my amendment No. 641. As I explained yesterday, this amendment really is about fundamental fairness. The President wants TAA and has held hostage three free-trade agreements to get it. Well, most of us want these free-trade agreements and think it is wrong for TAA to move forward while the FTAs languish. My amendment will ensure that all four legislative ships arrive in port at the same time. It is time for the entire trade agenda to move forward. In August, as he toured the Midwest, the President repeatedly called upon Congress to take the agreements up ``right now'' to help create jobs. This hollow call for action typifies the President's approach to the trade agenda. By calling upon Congress to act, he appears to be embracing the agreements and pushing for their quick approval. But, like so many of the President's trade initiatives, his words do not match his deeds. In reality, Congress cannot take up these agreements ``right now.'' President Obama is relying upon a trade law called trade promotion authority to protect each of these agreements from being blocked or amended by Congress. In order to take advantage of this statutory authority, it is not Congress but the President who must take the first step and submit each agreement for consideration. If the President does not submit these agreements, Congress cannot act under the trade promotion authority. The President and his team know this. In fact, here is a chart which outlines the TPA process, called ``How a Trade Agreement Moves Through Congress Under Trade Promotion Authority.'' This was taken directly from the Web site of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. It clearly shows that Congress cannot act until the President submits the agreements. But why take responsibility for moving the agreements when it is much easier to blame their continued delay on Congress? The fact is, the President wants all the benefits of trade promotion authority but none of the responsibility. Once they were called out on the mismatch between their words and their deeds, the administration finally reined in their rhetoric but provided little guidance as to what their actual plans are. In the meantime, Republicans continued to push for consideration of the three pending FTAs. Back in July, a group of Republican Senators signed a letter vowing to help the administration achieve its objective of gaining approval of trade adjustment assistance in exchange for submitting the FTAs. Now, despite a clear path forward, the President remains silent to this day. As the President continues to delay, our country cedes each of these three free-trade agreement markets to our foreign competitors, and they are taking them over because we are dilly-dallying here instead of doing what is right. Our economy and our workers are suffering under horrific levels of unemployment. Almost 1 in 10 American workers are out of a job under this administration, and we can't afford to throw away any opportunity to create jobs. Yet this is precisely what the President is doing. The President himself has said these three trade agreements, once put into law, will amount to 250,000 new jobs, and that is not something to sniff at. While our economy remains troubled and while the rest of the world watches in bewilderment as the United States lets other countries take over our export markets, we hear nothing but silence from the President. A case in point: The European Union's exports to South Korea increased almost 45 percent in the first 20 days since that agreement went into force on July 1. Their share of Korea's import market increased from 9.5 percent to 10.3 percent in just 3 weeks. Meanwhile, the U.S. share of Korea's import market dropped from 10.5 percent to 8.4 percent. Unless we act quickly, these trends are likely to continue. In an open letter to the President and Congress, over 120 food groups and companies wrote: If there is any doubt about the seriousness of the problem for U.S. agricultural exports, one need only consider the damage that has already been done by the delay in implementing the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. Argentina and Brazil have negotiated trade agreements with Colombia that have given them preferential access. As a result, U.S.- produced corn, wheat, and soybeans have been hit hard, with the combined share of Colombia's imports for these products falling to 28 percent from 78 percent since 2008. That is a big drop, mainly because of the dillydallying on this trade agreement. On August 15, 2011, an agreement between Canada and Colombia entered into force, which will only make the problem worse for U.S. exporters and our farmers. The fact is that each of these agreements is critically important to our economy. For my home State of Utah and for workers across the country, they mean more opportunity and jobs. It is a slam dunk for the President to create jobs by getting these agreements up here and getting them passed. The National Association of Manufacturers estimates that U.S. workers lose $8 million in wages and benefits every day these agreements are delayed. I for one stand ready to continue to fight for their consideration and approval. We have come a long way this year, but we are not yet done. I hope the President will heed my call and submit these agreements to Congress so we can approve them, but history has shown this President will not act unless he is forced to. This amendment I am offering will continue to put pressure on him to act, and act soon, and I encourage my colleagues to support it. The time for dithering and deliberation is over. Let's adopt my amendment and ensure that our work in moving TAA forward leads to the promised result--submission of three pending free- trade agreements by the President and their quick enactment into law. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, nothing of the sort is going to happen. The fact is, we have had nothing but delays by the President. Just a few weeks ago he was accusing us of not passing the free-trade agreements when he knows we cannot even consider them. There have been a lot of games played with us. I remember last spring in our committee when the Trade Representative said: We have a few more things we have to work out on Panama and Colombia, and we will definitely send these free-trade agreements before the August recess. We got near the August recess, and they said: Well, we need one other thing. We need trade adjustment assistance. Now, if they need trade adjustment assistance--and I have no doubt that is going to pass in the Senate if there is a fair process. I do not believe there is any doubt it will pass in the House. The agreement worked out by the distinguished chairman and Chairman Camp over in the House probably will be voted on. I have to vote against it. The fact is, all my amendment--it does evidence some distrust in this process. All my amendment does is say: Look, we are not going to allow trade adjustment assistance to go into effect until these three trade agreements are sent by the President and passed. Both bodies can pass the trade adjustment assistance on this bill, and that is fine with me. My amendment says TAA does not go into effect until the President submits these three treaties, and they are passed and become law. Then trade adjustment assistance goes. That is a very fair way of doing this. It is a way of saying to everybody: Let's get rid of the mistrust. Let's do this in a straight- up way. Let's do it so everybody knows what is going to happen. Trade adjustment assistance will ultimately come into effect, but only after the administration lives up to submitting these trade agreements and they are passed. Why would we want trade adjustment assistance to pass if these three trade agreements do not pass? It is just another big cost to the government. Keep in mind the people who are out of work are getting unemployment insurance. Trade adjustment assistance adds payments on top of that to their unemployment insurance. Why would we do that if we are not going to have these three trade agreements become law? It just makes no sense. Mine is a practical amendment. It says let's get rid of the game playing. We will do this if you do this. Frankly, the President promised to do it, and we are still standing here waiting for the three trade agreements to be sent here. To me, it is hard to imagine why the President is not doing this. By the way, on the trade adjustment assistance a little less than 7 percent of our nongovernment workers are unionized. Yet one-third of these payments will go to union members. I do not blame my colleagues on the other side for wanting to help anybody who is out of work or anybody who belongs to a trade union. But do we always have to do it in a slanted way that helps one small sector of the workers in this country and not the rest of them? It is a problem. We have unemployment insurance to take care of people who are out of work. We should do that. It is important we do that. Trade adjustment assistance is just adding some more payments on top of that. There is a real question whether we should do it here because I asked the representatives of the administration in the committee what jobs are going to be lost as a result of these three agreements. They could not come up with one. There will be, according to the administration, 250,000 new jobs that will occur, or at least jobs that will occur and will be sustained by these three trade agreements once they are enacted into law. Just yesterday my friends on the other side voted down trade promotion authority. I cannot imagine why any President would not want trade promotion authority. It is mind-boggling to me that this President doesn't want it. It is the only way we are going to be able to get free-trade agreements done. Otherwise, we are going to have to do it through other legislative processes, which is much more arduous, much more difficult, and does not come up with just an up-or-down vote. There is a reason for this process, and that is to be able to do free trade in this country. Yet every time we turn around there is another roadblock thrown up by the other side, as though they don't want free trade. I understand that for some unsubstantiated or ridiculous reason the unions don't like free- trade agreements, even though they are going to, according to the administration, create 250,000 new jobs--or jobs, anyway. Why wouldn't they like those? They have an opportunity to unionize companies that come into existence. By the way, even under the stilted, one-sided National Labor Relations Board that currently exists that is running away with our responsibilities and legislating from the regulatory bench--even with that board, unions win 60 percent of union elections--contested elections. It is not as though they are being picked on or are not being treated fairly. By the way, I would be one of the first to make sure they are treated fairly. I am one of the few people in this whole body who earned a union card. I worked in the building and construction trade unions for 10 years. I acknowledge the distinguished Presiding Officer sitting in the chair earned a union card. I am not sure we can call that a union, working with the--just joshing. The entertainment industry unions are not like the AFL-CIO. We are tough as nails. On the other hand, I have to retract that because I have seen some people in the entertainment industry as tough as nails, and the Presiding Officer is one. No question about it. I have great admiration for him. But he ought to be with me on this. He ought to be with me because all we are saying is, look--and the most that would happen is a few days, enough to get the free-trade agreements passed in the House. So what I am saying is, first of all, let's get the President to do what he has blamed us for not doing; that is, to send these three free- trade agreements with these countries that are so important to us and we are important to them. We are losing business every day because this is being dragged out for so long. Send them so we can vote on them. TAA will pass here, and I believe it will pass over there with the process we have. All I am saying is it doesn't become effective because we shouldn't be paying for people when we don't have free-trade agreements that are the basis for paying people. All I am saying is they don't come into existence--the TAA doesn't come into existence until after these free- trade agreements are ratified, are voted up or down, and become law-- voted up and become law. That is fair. It is an intelligent approach to it. It ends the mystery. It ends what some people think is a convoluted process. It ends what some people think is not a good-faith process. It does it in a way that doesn't hurt anybody, and it just says: Look, let's do it straight up so there is no more arguing or moaning or groaning or accusations that one side is not being fair to the other. Let's just do it this way. So I am calling on my colleagues on the other side to vote for my amendment. They don't lose a doggone thing. In fact, it will help this process along, and that is one reason I brought it up. I am personally not sure trade adjustment assistance will pass without my amendment. That is one reason I brought it to the Senate floor--because it is a fair, decent, honorable way of saying, OK, let's get rid of the mysteries. Let's get rid of the arguments. Let's get rid of the partisanship. Let's vote on these three free-trade agreements-- or excuse me, the trade adjustment assistance--which is going to add a lot of money to the cost of this government, and let's vote on them. When they are both voted through by the House and the Senate, then let's bring up the three free-trade agreements which should pass readily in both Houses. Once they become law, trade adjustment assistance comes into being. That is a fair, responsible way of doing this in a way that does away with the mystery, does away with partisanship, does away with Democratism and Republicanism and gets this process down the road. For the life of me, I can't understand why anybody would argue with this. I am calling on my Democratic friends and saying: Let's be bipartisan about this. Let's send a message to the President that we want those doggone trade agreements up here. He controls that process. I just found it astounding when he came out and said: I wish they would pass the three free-trade agreements when he knows we can't until he sends them. This agreement is not only fair, it is the right thing to do. It may be the only way we are going to get these three free-trade agreements done. I would like to hear a good argument against them, but there isn't any. With these free-trade agreements, I believe there will be thousands of jobs created. I am not sure there will be 250,000 as the administration claims, but I believe there will be many jobs at a time when we need jobs. Trade adjustment assistance--there are a lot of sincere people in this body and in the other body who believe it is absolutely essential, even though there was not one shred of evidence as far as I heard that any jobs would be lost as a result of these two free-trade agreements. But I am willing to understand there may be some loss, and therefore-- and even if there aren't, to get these three free-trade agreements through, the other side says we have to pass TAA. Fine. Let's pass it through both bodies. Let's make it subject to getting the three free- trade agreements passed into law because it should be subject to that. There is no reason in the world why we would add more spending from a trade adjustment assistance standpoint unless we have these three free- trade agreements. That is the argument for the trade adjustment assistance that our colleagues on the other side and some on our side are making. I have a feeling this is the way to get this done. It is the smart way to get it done. It is the honorable way to get it done. It is the truthful way to get it done. It is the bipartisan way to get it done. I think people know I have a reputation for being able to bring both sides together from time to time, and that is what I am trying to do. This is not a political game as far as I am concerned. I do want these three free-trade agreements because I know it would be great for our country. We are losing business. We have gone down from 74 percent agricultural exports to Colombia to 28 percent. Anybody with brains would say we shouldn't have allowed that to happen, and it wouldn't have had we passed these three free-trade agreements, or at least the Colombia one, last year. But Korea is such a big, even greater trading partner than Colombia-- although, when I look at what President Uribe and what President Santos, the current President, have done to straighten out that country and get rid of the terrorists and to bring down the violence against union members and so forth, they deserve our support. They deserve these agreements. When I look at Korea and what an important partner they are in our trade--and we are losing trade to them now; others are taking it away from us because we haven't passed the Korean agreement--my gosh, it doesn't take any brains to realize we are not acting like friends to Korea. Then look at Panama. Panama is one of the financial centers of this hemisphere. It is a great nation. It is important to us, above all people. It is dishonorable for us to not pass the Panamanian Free Trade Agreement that they worked out with us and which we had to add labor language in each one of these agreements that wasn't there before because of this administration's fealty to organized labor. Fine. Why don't we do what has to be done to pass these three free-trade agreements and to get the support for TAA for those who believe that is the right way to go and get rid of any kind of concerns that one side or other would not live up to its share of the battle. My amendment will do that. I hope it is not just a partisan vote. I hope we have some Democrats who will vote for my amendment. If we do, I think it will push this whole process forward in a way that makes sense. Mr. President, let me just dwell a few minutes on one of the things I would like to get across. People ask me why I spent years working toward a leadership position on the Senate Finance Committee. It is pretty simple. The Finance Committee has jurisdiction over issues that matter not only to the people of Utah but to everybody: the bloated Tax Code we have, the inheritance taxes, health programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security, issues that go to the heart of international trade such as customs duties, tariff, and import quotas, and free-trade agreements. I could go on and on. It is a very important committee. Sixty percent of all spending in this government comes through the Finance Committee. Being the lead Republican on the Finance Committee gives me a unique platform to shape all of these policies in a way that works best for my home State of Utah, and I hope the Nation as a whole. Today I wish to focus on international trade and why I am so passionate about opening new markets to our goods and services. It gets repeated ad nauseam that 95 percent of our potential customers live outside of the United States, and there is no doubt that trade is vital to America's competitiveness. But trade has immediate and particular importance to jobs and the economy in my home State of Utah as well as every other State. Last year alone companies in Utah shipped over $13 billion in merchandise exports to international markets--$13 billion--supporting nearly 93,000 jobs in our State. Think about that: $13 billion and close to 100,000 jobs thanks to products Utah companies sold outside the borders of the United States. My State is only one State. I think every State can tell a similar story. That doesn't even include our service providers, who similarly take advantage of opportunities across the globe. Companies in Utah exported to over 190 foreign markets; companies such as Varian Medical Systems, which produces cutting-edge x ray products that assist with various cancer treatments and industrial security screening and which provides over 700 people with good-paying jobs in our State. By removing barriers to trade, free-trade agreements level the playing field for our companies operating in markets abroad. This has an immediate and observable impact on trade. Following the implementation of every U.S. bilateral or regional free-trade agreement, Utah has increased its exports to partner countries. Let me give two examples. Utah's exports to Morocco experienced growth of over 2,000 percent after the United States implemented a free-trade agreement with them, and Utah's exports to Singapore increased by over 800 percent after we implemented that FTA. Listening to some of the pundits, it would be easy to draw the conclusion that exports in free trade are only important to large, multinational companies; but nothing could be further from the truth. In 2008, the most recent year for which we have statistics, 86 percent of Utah's exporting companies were small or midsized companies. For the entrepreneurs who lead these small and midsized companies, international trade is their lifeblood. But exports are only part of the story. Thanks to low taxes, family-friendly values, and a well-educated, motivated, and internationally savvy workforce, Utah is a place where people want to live and work. And it is not just the greatest skiing in the world, although that certainly is a draw. When foreign companies look to grow their operations or gain a foothold in the U.S. market, they increasingly look to Utah to site their operations. These companies invest significant amounts of capital to open or expand facilities in our State every year. Foreign-owned companies employ over 34,000 workers in Utah. That is more than 3 percent of all Utah employees in the private sector. These are well-paying jobs. U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies pay an average compensation of over $68,000 per year. And let's not forget all of the spending by international visitors to our world-class colleges and universities, ski resorts, and parks. That is why I have been pushing so hard to get the three FTAs with South Korea, Panama, and Colombia passed and implemented. It is not the only reason, but it is certainly a reason. These agreements have been sitting idle for far too long. They were negotiated during the administration of President Bush. They were wrapped in a bow for President Obama, ready to go the day he took office. His own administration has made some changes in them that these three countries have agreed to. Yet President Obama still has not sent them to Congress for a vote, which is astounding to me. The President himself says these three agreements will create 250,000 new jobs. His failed stimulus, his burdensome overregulation of business, his penchant for taxing and spending to ``redistribute wealth'' all rubbed salt in the wounds of a difficult economy. We are now left with an unemployment rate of 9.1 percent. You would think the President would be eager to do something everyone agrees would actually create real jobs, and not just real jobs, great jobs. But the FTAs with South Korea, Panama, and Colombia remain on his desk. While the President stands still, the world continues to forge ahead. China continues to pursue policies that boost its growth at our expense. Other countries around the world continue to negotiate trade agreements that exclude the United States, putting Utah exporters at a serious disadvantage, as well as other States. The consequences of this administration's trade paralysis are real. By way of example, the U.S. share of Colombia's agricultural imports has already fallen from nearly 44 percent in 2007 to 21 percent in 2010. The EU and Canada swooped in to fill this vacuum. Both have now negotiated free-trade agreements with Colombia. During President Bush's Presidency, we passed trade agreements with 14 countries, providing a significant boost to the U.S. economy. By contrast, President Obama has not submitted a single trade agreement to Congress. It certainly does not help that the President has refused to spend any political capital to seek trade negotiating authority from Congress. The need for it is obvious: Without it, we cannot pass good agreements to open foreign markets for our exports. That is why every President since FDR has sought this authority. Why doesn't this President? I think it is a lack of experience, personally. He is smart enough to understand this. Every President but one has sought it. The only one who has not is our current President. But whether he seeks it or not, I am going to work to see that he gets it. And when he does, you can be sure it will be designed to shape his negotiating objectives so that the resulting agreements embody high standards that best serve the economies of the United States and, in particular, my home State of Utah. It is vital that future trade agreements--such as the proposed Trans- Pacific Partnership Agreement between the United States and six other nations--protect the intellectual property of our innovators and content creators, level the playing field for our companies which are often forced to engage in lopsided competition with state-owned companies and national champions, enable modern day integrated global supply chains, and enhance market access for both goods and services providers. In the months and weeks ahead, we have the opportunity to shape the economic future of our great Nation and my own great State of Utah. I am going to do my part to ensure that trade plays a central part in that equation. I hope everybody in this body realizes how important this is and that we should not keep playing these games because we have political opportunism. Then again, that is another reason for my amendment. My amendment says the games will be over. Both sides will vote on TAA. The President will have to submit the agreements. Once the agreements are passed and made into law, TAA comes into existence. And it should not come into existence until after these agreements become law. What it says to everybody is: Look, the games are over. This is the way to do it. This is the fair way to do it. This is the bipartisan way to do it. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could get these free-trade agreements passed? Wouldn't it be a wonderful achievement for all of us here--a bipartisan achievement, with the President getting lots of credit for it? I think it would be a good thing. If we cannot do this, then you can imagine what this place is going to become in the future. My amendment is the way you get there. I am hoping my colleagues on the other side listen to this. I hope they pay attention. I sure hope they vote for this amendment because if they do not, I question whether we will ever have these free-trade agreements. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. HATCH. My understanding is both sides are waiving the 2 minutes of debate time.

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

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, earlier, I sent an amendment to the desk. This amendment will constrain the growth of this domestic spending program. My amendment is fairly simple. It tightens the nexus between TAA benefits and actual jobs lost because of trade. It does this by changing the eligibility criteria from one that only requires that trade ``contribute importantly'' to job loss to a more restrictive criteria that the job loss be ``substantially caused'' by trade. Under the current program, the worker only has to demonstrate that imports from or shifts in production to a foreign country--what many folks would call the ordinary course of business--``contributed importantly'' to their job loss. So what does ``contributed importantly'' actually mean? The TAA Program holds that the contributed importantly standard is met if trade is a cause, which is important but not necessarily more important than any other cause of the job loss. That does not sound like a tight nexus to me, certainly not a tight nexus to trade to me. Believe me, these fears are not theoretical. Let me give a real-life example. I am sure, by now, everyone is familiar with Solyndra, the now-bankrupt solar firm that was lauded by President Obama as the poster child for his stimulus and green jobs plans. It turns out, now that Solyndra is in bankruptcy, many of its employees are applying for job-training benefits through TAA. To fully understand this lunacy, let's take a look at recent history. Here is how Vice President Biden described the administration's ill- considered plan to direct over one-half billion taxpayer dollars for loan guarantees for Solyndra: The Recovery Act is working and you're going to see it work right on that site. The loan to Solyndra will allow you to build a new manufacturing facility and with it almost immediately generate 3,000 new well-paying construction jobs. And once your facility opens, there will be about 1,000 permanent new jobs here at Solyndra and in the surrounding business community and hundreds more to install your growing output of solar panels throughout the country. Well, that didn't quite happen. Instead, the firm failed, potentially taking over a half billion taxpayer dollars with it. Those ``permanent new jobs''? Well, not quite. The workers are all unemployed because their ``permanent'' jobs no longer exist. It gets worse. According to the Wall Street Journal, the stimulus loans themselves were a major cause of Solyndra's bankruptcy. Here is the headline on the chart: ``Loan Was Solyndra's Undoing.'' In selling the half billion dollar loan to Solyndra, Vice President Biden made it clear that these were the jobs of the future, saying: We are journeying, in a sense, closer and closer to the sun, to a more solar-powered America. And as we do, we're leaving a shadow of a less efficient, more damaging past behind us. We all know--or should know--what happened to the arrogant Icarus when he flew too close to the Sun. Despite the Vice President's exhortations, what happened to Solyndra? Solyndra is set to become an even bigger drain on our taxpayers. How is that possible? Through the magic of TAA, of course. It turns out that the now-unemployed former Solyndra employees have applied for trade adjustment assistance. The irony here is profound. The administration is now considering whether to grant these Solyndra workers TAA benefits because competition from China ``contributed importantly'' to their job loss. That is ridiculous, frankly. Here is another Wall Street Journal article, entitled ``Solyndra Was Always Likely to Fail.'' You can see in the photo what a beautiful plant it was--with all of your taxpayer dollars. In a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal, the CEO from another solar company--tenKsolar--explained that everyone in the solar business knew Solyndra's business model would not work and their solar technology was too costly. That didn't stop the White House from giving this company a $535 million taxpayer loan--money that is basically gone now. This was despite the fact that the government's own analysts had predicted months ago that Solyndra would fail in September. Well, it did. Again, look at the photo of that beautiful building that was built with taxpayer dollars. It is pretty hard to not admire it, to be honest with you. The fact that TAA benefits are even being considered for Solyndra shows how tenuous the nexus between job loss and trade can be--and workers can still get these expanded benefits, on top of unemployment insurance. How can Solyndra workers get TAA, when the business collapsed due to a bad business plan and an ill-conceived loan of taxpayer money? That was the cause of Solyndra going under. China imports, under the current TAA program, however, might be construed by ambitious Department of Labor bureaucrats to have ``contributed importantly'' to Solyndra shutting down--despite the fact that the primary cause was the business model and the government's intervention. This needs to stop. We can do better. If we are going to continue to fund this domestic spending, let's at least make sure its benefits go to those workers whose job loss is actually caused by trade. That is what this amendment will do. It will return the TAA threshold standard to the ``substantial cause'' level. It would require that trade would have to be a ``substantial cause'' of the work dislocation. This standard was included in reforms advocated for by President Reagan that were included in the bipartisan Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1981. That deficit reduction act included the largest package of spending cuts in history--at that time. President Reagan had noted the unfairness of treating one class of workers who lose their job due to foreign competition better than their neighbor, who lost his job due to domestic competition, so he tightened the threshold criteria to be eligible for the TAA Program. By returning to the narrower TAA threshold, this amendment would put reasonable constraints on the program to prevent it from expanding into another out-of-control spending program. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment because I think it makes sense. There is no question it will save taxpayer dollars and make people act more honestly with regard to the use of taxpayer dollars and, in the end, I think it will work better than the current approach that my friends on the other side wish to have. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, September 17 was an anniversary with double significance for our country. On September 17, 1787, delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia held their final meeting and signed the Constitution they had crafted. And on September 17, 1986, this body voted unanimously to confirm Justice Antonin Scalia's appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States. Today, 25 years later, he is the senior member of the Court. These two events are profoundly related because Justice Scalia is literally helping us rediscover the real Constitution. His approach to doing the work of judges is helping us to rediscover the Constitution that America's Founders gave us--the Constitution that is powerful and solid; the Constitution that belongs to the people, protects our rights, limits government, and makes liberty possible. Antonin Scalia was born in Trenton, NJ, on March 11, 1936. After graduating first in his high school class, valedictorian from Georgetown University, and magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, he embarked on a legal career that would include stints in private practice, government service, the legal academy, and, finally, the judiciary. President Reagan nominated then-Professor Scalia to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in July 1982. He appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee on August 4, 1982--another date with constitutional significance. The hearing began just minutes after the Senate voted 69 to 31 to approve a balanced budget constitutional amendment, the only time this body has done so, at least so far. I was an original cosponsor of that amendment. I mention that because Justice Scalia's approach to the Constitution means that the people, and the people alone, have authority to change it through the amendment process outlined in the Constitution. The Senate's vote on that balanced budget amendment was part of that process. Professor Scalia told the Judiciary Committee that, if he were appointed to the bench, his days of being able to comment on the wisdom of laws enacted by Congress would be ``bygone days.'' The sense that judges are doing something fundamentally different than private citizens, fundamentally different than legislators, defines his judicial philosophy. The same theme dominated his confirmation hearing 4 years later, when President Reagan nominated Judge Scalia to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. As that hearing opened, I quoted from the Chicago Tribune that the nominee was determined ``to read the law as it has been enacted by the people's representatives rather than to impose his own preference upon it.'' When Justice Scalia took the oath of judicial office, President Reagan said that the judiciary must be independent and strong but confined within the boundaries of a written constitution. Public officials must swear to uphold and defend this written Constitution. It declares itself to be the supreme law of the land. More than 90 percent of Americans say it is very important to them. But what exactly is it and what are judges supposed to do with it? The answer to that question defines Justice Scalia's career and its lasting impact on all of us. The Constitution is a document, the oldest written charter of government in the history of the world. Professor Steven Calabresi, who teaches at Northwestern University Law School and once clerked for Justice Scalia, writes that when Americans think of liberty, they think of documents, especially of the Constitution. Three statements at the turn of the 19th century tell us what we need to know. First, the Supreme Court, in 1795, literally asked the same question: What is the Constitution? Here is their answer: The Constitution is fixed and certain; it contains the permanent will of the people, and is the supreme law of the land; it is paramount to the power of the legislature, and can be revoked or altered only by the authority that made it. Second, President George Washington echoed this theme a year later in his Farewell Address. He said: The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. Third, the Supreme Court, in its 1803 decision Marbury v. Madison, wrote that through the Constitution, the people established certain limits for the Federal Government. [A]nd that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the Constitution is written. There you have it. The Constitution is the means by which the people express their will and set limits on the government. The people alone have authority to change the Constitution and, until they do, it is fixed and certain. One obvious way to alter the Constitution is to change its words. But a more subtle, and even more effective, way to alter the Constitution is to change its meaning. Words themselves are just the form, but the meaning of those words is the substance. The real Constitution is its words and their meaning together. Whoever controls the meaning of the Constitution controls the Constitution itself. When we say that only the people may alter the Constitution, that simply must mean that only the people can change the words or their meaning. For the Constitution to be what it is supposed to be, both its words and their meaning must remain fixed and certain until the people choose to change them. Justice Scalia delivered the 1997 Wriston Lecture at the Manhattan Institute. Its title was simply ``On Interpreting the Constitution.'' He described his topic as ``what in the world we think we're doing when we interpret the Constitution of the United States.'' This is why it is so important to clarify what the Constitution is in the first place, so we know what judges are supposed to do with it. Justice Scalia believes the only proper way to interpret the Constitution is to find the meaning it already has, the meaning given to the Constitution by the people who alone had authority to establish it. Justice Scalia calls this approach originalism. In his Wriston Lecture, he said that the Constitution ``means what it meant when it was written.'' No one is more candid than Justice Scalia that this approach is not easy, but no one is more certain than Justice Scalia that this approach alone is legitimate. This approach alone preserves both the people's control of the Constitution and the Constitution's control of judges. In 2005, Justice Scalia delivered a speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars titled ``Constitutional Interpretation the Old Fashioned Way.'' He described originalism as beginning with the text and giving it the meaning that it bore when it was adopted by the people. With all due respect to Justice Scalia, he did not invent this approach, but he is helping us to return to those principles. In his service on the Court, in his speeches and writings, Justice Scalia is helping us rediscover what America's Founders told us to do from the start. I have to emphasize that Justice Scalia has for 25 years implemented the very same approach that he described in his hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Vice President Biden was the ranking member at the time, and his very first question was about original meaning as a means of interpreting the Constitution. Justice Scalia explained later in the hearing that the starting point is ``the text of the document and what it meant to the society that adopted it. . . . I am clear on the fact that the original meaning is the starting point and the beginning of wisdom.'' This body knew Justice Scalia would take this approach when we unanimously confirmed him, and he has stayed true to his word throughout his judicial career. In addition to instructing us about the principles we should once again follow, Justice Scalia has been sounding the alarm about failing to do so. He condemns as ``power judging'' the modern trend of judges substituting their own constitutional meaning for that of the people. This amends the Constitution as surely as changing its very words. Judges continually find creative ways to mask their power judging. They think of deeply impeded social or cultural values, evolving standards of decency, and what the Constitution should mean in our time. One of Justice Scalia's former colleagues even said that the Constitution is ``a sparkling vision of the supremacy of the human dignity of every individual.'' All of these evolving standards and sparkling visions are different ways of saying the same thing: that judges have taken control of the Constitution by controlling what it means. Justice Scalia will have none of it. In a 1996 dissent, he rejected this for what it really is; namely, the Court's Constitution-making process. He wrote: The court must be living in another world. Day by day, case by case, it is designing a Constitution for a country I do not recognize. One of the many things I like about Justice Scalia is that he applies his principles across the board. He has often pointed out that judges amend the Constitution by changing its meaning in ways that liberals like, but also in ways that conservatives like. All of it, he says, is wrong. Judges have no authority to design a new constitution no matter what it looks like. Sometimes I wonder how anyone could think otherwise. How could anyone believe that unelected judges may take the Constitution that opens with the words, ``We the People,'' and turn it into something else? Why would anyone tolerate judges who change the very Constitution that judges are supposed to follow? Justice Scalia believes no one should, and he challenges us to live up to the principles that define our system of government and that make our liberty possible. The real Constitution is solid and fixed. It was established and can be changed only by the people. That Constitution, the real Constitution, is strong enough to limit government and protect liberty. But that Constitution is being replaced by a very different one. Since about the 1930s, the real Constitution controlled by the people has been replaced in some measure by a fake constitution controlled by judges. The Constitution is weak, pliable, and shifting, according to them. It morphs and modifies. It shivers and it shakes. This Constitution is a figment of the judicial imagination, and it is written in disappearing ink. Thomas Jefferson warned that if judges control what the Constitution means, it would become ``a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.'' Doing so, Jefferson said, would make the Constitution nothing but a blank paper. This is not just an academic exercise. If you think the latest judicial mood swing is strong enough to limit government, think again. If you think that a lump of wax or a piece of blank paper is firm enough to protect your liberty, think again. A constitution that can be changed by nothing more than a judge's imagination is no constitution at all. This struggle over what the Constitution is affects not only what judges do with it but also how judges are chosen in the first place. If judges can change the Constitution by changing its meaning, then the judicial selection process will inevitably focus on the Constitution a judicial nominee is likely to create. It will inevitably focus on the form into which a judicial nominee can be expected to shape and twist the Constitution. Speaking at the State University of New York School of Law in 2002, Justice Scalia warned that if the Constitution's meaning is determined by judges rather than the people, the selection of those judges becomes ``a very political hot potato. Every time you need to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice, you are going to have a mini-plebiscite on what the Constitution means.'' In a 2007 speech at the Jesse Helms Center, Justice Scalia similarly compared the judicial confirmation process to a miniconstitutional convention. If judges may write a new constitution through their rulings, he said, the process will be about finding a nominee who will ``write the Constitution that you want.'' Justice Scalia is also affecting how we do things in the legislative branch. The more that judges are willing to do our work for us, the less of it we are likely to do ourselves. On the other hand, if judges insist that we legislators say what we mean and mean what we say, then we are likely to draft laws differently. The law that we enact, after all, is the text of our statutes and not the speeches, reports, comments, thoughts, or other things that consume the legislative process. Knowing that judges who have to interpret and apply our statutes will look only at the law is an incentive for us to make sure if it is to be the law, it must be in the statute. That approach is more transparent, more accountable, and more reliable. We have Justice Scalia to thank for pushing us in that direction. Justice Scalia seems to be the Justice liberals love to hate. If this were a Harry Potter movie, liberals would put Justice Scalia on a wanted poster as ``Undesirable No. 1.'' Yet they just cannot seem to look away. The principles upon which he stands are so compelling and his way of winning them so powerful that whether you love him or hate him you simply must deal with him. Those who think judges may just make it up as they go along have a hard time figuring out Justice Scalia because he does not follow their game plan. Only a few months into his first term on the Supreme Court, the Washington Post reported that though Justice Scalia was expected to be a hard-changing conservative, he was voting with liberal Justice William Brennan almost two-thirds of the time. Several weeks later another Post headline read: ``Newest Reagan Appointee Joins Liberals,'' and the percentage of agreement with Justice Brennan seemed to be going up. Conservative George Will's column at the end of the 1986-1987 Supreme Court term bore the title, ``Good Grief, Scalia!'' Not to worry, though, because a Post headline just 1 year later read: ``Scalia May Be Successor as Conservatives' Chief Advocate.'' The real way to know Justice Scalia, you see, is to know his principles. They are principles drawn directly from America's founding from the nature of limited government under a written constitution. No one works harder to articulate and apply those principles day in and day out than Justice Scalia. Research in the last several years has demonstrated that he is the funniest Justice in oral argument and the most cited in law reviews and journals. His lectures around the country are consistently standing room only. His interview on the University of California's ``Legally Speaking'' television program has been viewed at least six times as often as any other guest. No doubt some of this popularity, this buzz, comes from his engaging personality, his wit, and his sense of humor. People enjoy being with a person like him. But it also comes from the substance, the sheer magnitude of the message he delivers in that unique way. People like a witty, engaging person. But they also respect powerful principles and a message that weighs more than a passing intellectual fad. I have so far spoken today about Justice Scalia, the jurist; I cannot close this tribute, however, without a few comments about Antonin Scalia, the man. The hearing on his Supreme Court nomination 25 years ago took place in the Judiciary Committee's regular hearing room, which is much smaller than where we hold such hearings today. His hearing lasted just 2 days, including testimony by witnesses. I can still remember that Justice Scalia's family occupied more than one row in the audience. As Justice Scalia introduced them, including all nine of his children, he said, ``I think we have a full committee.'' Media cameras went crazy every time his youngest daughter Meg would lean her head on her mother's shoulder. Meg was just 6 years old then. But as I remember, she held up very well as we lawyers talked about all sorts of jurisprudential minutiae. That sight impressed on me Justice Scalia's deep love for family and the sacrifice that family makes when someone like him is so devoted to public service. He is also a man of deep faith and love for our country and the values on which it was founded. Five years ago, I marked Justice Scalia's 20th anniversary in a speech on the Senate floor. At that time I put into the Record letters from some of his former law clerks. I want to do the same today. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record after my remarks letters from some of the following former law clerks.

Mr. HATCH. Edward Whelan, who clerked during the October 1991 term and later served as my counsel when I was ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, and is now president of the Ethics in Public Policy Center; Paul Clement, who clerked during the October 1993 term and later served as Solicitor General of the United States, and he is now a partner in the Bancroft law firm; Mark Phillip, who also clerked during the October 1993 term and later served as a U.S. district judge, and is now a partner at Kirkland & Ellis in Chicago; Brian Fitzpatrick, who clerked during the October 2001 term and is now an associate professor at Vanderbilt Law School; and Brian Killian, who clerked during the October 2007 term, and is now an associate at the Bingham McCutchen law firm in Washington. In closing, all Americans owe Justice Antonin Scalia a deep debt of gratitude. Every day he serves on the Supreme Court Justice Scalia gives a gift to all of us. He is reintroducing us to the principles and to the document that make our liberties possible. He invites us, in the words of the Kellogg's Corn Flakes commercial, to try it again for the first time. I return to the scene of his first judicial confirmation hearing in 1982. The constitutional amendment process was underway that day, but it was rightly happening on the Senate floor rather than in the confirmation of a Federal judge. Keeping clear the principle that only the people have authority to change the Constitution will give us, as Justice Scalia often puts it, an enduring rather than an evolving constitution. We must step up and govern ourselves rather than look to judges to do it for us. I hope we see this opportunity for what it is, following Justice Scalia's lead, grasping again the principles of liberty and resolving never to let them go. Finally, I have been around here a long time. I have had a role with regard to every current member of the U.S. Supreme Court and a number of those who have gone on. I have to say that one of the most respected men in this country is Justice Scalia. I count him as a friend. I count him as a mentor. I count him as a teacher and professor. I count him as one of the all-time greatest Supreme Court Justices, a man who, without question, is as good a person as you can find. He is a terrific human being. His life has been a life of service to his fellow men and women. His wife is a terrific person, and as far as I know the kids are all great too. We have been fortunate that he has been willing to serve as he has. We are a greatly strengthened country because of Justice Scalia. There are a number of Justices in the history of this country we have to look up to. He is one of them. I think we should revere all of them, but he is one of the greatest. I suspect that he will be quoted, he will be written about, he will be talked about for a long time because of the genuine intellect of the man, the tremendous personality he has, the brilliant mind that we see on display every time he writes an opinion or gives a speech or lectures to us or gives a talk. This is one of the truly great people in our country today. I do not care whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, a liberal or a conservative or somewhere else, this is a man we ought to all respect with every fiber of our beings, and his family as well. Exhibit 1 Ethics and Public Policy Center, Washington, DC, September 9, 2011. Hon. Orrin G. Hatch, U.S. Senate, Hart Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Hatch: Thank you for commemorating the 25th anniversary of the Senate's unanimous confirmation of Antonin Scalia to the Supreme Court in 1986--fittingly, on Constitution Day. As someone who has had the special privilege of working both for you and for Justice Scalia, I am particularly grateful to you for inviting me to take part in this celebration. Over the past twenty-five years, no one has done more than Justice Scalia to promote fidelity to our Constitution. As the most prominent proponent of the interpretive methodology of ``original meaning,'' Justice Scalia has forcefully argued that genuine fidelity to the Constitution requires that its provisions--including, of course, its amendments--be interpreted in accordance with the meaning they bore at the time they were adopted. His intellectual triumph over advocates of the so-called ``living Constitution'' approach-- under which judges are free to look to their own values or sense of empathy in determining what the Constitution means-- has been so devastating that his opponents have largely abandoned the term ``living Constitution'' and some have even tried to rebrand their positions as originalist. Justice Scalia's clear ideas are made all the more potent by his distinctive writing, which combines a sparkling prose and a logical rigor in a manner that is especially accessible and appealing. Time has a way of vindicating Justice Scalia's judgments. Virtually everyone, for example, now recognizes the soundness of Justice Scalia's brilliant solo dissent in Morrison v. Olson, the 1988 case in which the Supreme Court ruled that the independent-counsel statute did not violate the Constitution's separation of powers. Precisely because Justice Scalia's jurisprudence reflects the genius of the Framers and an abiding faith in, and fidelity to, American constitutional principles, there is ample reason to expect that his wisdom on other hotly contested issues of the era will ultimately prevail. I am personally grateful to Justice Scalia for the opportunity to serve as his law clerk for a year, for all that I learned about the law and about legal reasoning from working with him, and for his friendship and support during my ensuing career. But, like all Americans, I am also deeply indebted to him for his years of tremendous service on the Court. May he enjoy many, many more! Sincerely, M. Edward Whelan III.

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.