Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the pressing need to reform our high-skilled immigration system. This is an issue I've championed for a number of years and one that becomes only more urgent with each passing season.

It is also an issue that I believe ties in directly with the recent discussions we have been having about merit-based immigration. As I said on the floor last week, high-skilled immigration is merit-based immigration. It is immigration targeted at the best, the brightest, and the most highly educated. It is immigration targeted at individuals who have the skills employers need. If we want to have a discussion about individuals who will add value to our economy, who will bring critical skills to the table, and who will help keep our country competitive, high-skilled immigration is what we should be talking about.

For years, we have had a system for bringing high-skilled workers from other countries to the United States to fill jobs for which there is a shortage of American labor. This system does not replace American jobs. Rather, it supplements our workforce with talent from other countries in industries where there are simply not enough qualified American workers to meet demand.

But the system is badly out of date. To begin with, it caps the number of high-skilled worker visas--also called H-1B visas--that employers can obtain each year at a number that is far below demand. This year, just like last year and the year before, USCIS reached the annual cap on H-1B visas within the first week that visa petitions could be submitted. In fact, during that single week, USCIS received over twice as many visa petitions as there were available visas.

Our laws also lack a straightforward path for companies to hire American-educated students from other countries on a permanent basis after graduation. We educate some of the world's best and brightest here in America and then send them back home because they can't get permanent work in the United States. That makes no sense. In fact, it is just plain stupid.

There is also a significant backlog for skilled professionals and advanced degree holders who want to come to the United States on green cards. These are the very individuals we should be encouraging to come to our country--individuals who have the technical skills our science and technology companies need and who will earn good salaries and contribute meaningfully to our economy--and yet we respire them to wait years and years to obtain a green card. Again, you want to talk about merit-based immigration? These are the folks we should be welcoming to our country with enthusiasm. Instead, we throw up barrier after barrier until many simply give up.

At the same time, a handful of companies have found ways to game the H-1B system to displace American employees with lower paid foreign workers. We have all seen the news stories: American workers told they are being replaced with foreign personnel and that if they want to receive a severance package or a positive employer reference, they better train their replacements. These stories disgust me as they should disgust all Americans. Under no circumstances should an employer be able to use a program that was designed to mitigate workforce shortages to put hardworking Americans out of a job. That was never the intent of the H-1B program, and it must not be allowed to continue.

There are also other problems with the H-1B program that we need to fix. Too often, large employers crowd out small businesses by submitting far more visa petitions than they actually need. This practice can lead to wasted visas and puts small employers at a significant disadvantage in the H-1B lottery.

Another problem concerns H-1B workers who wish to transition to green card status. Because of the significant backlog in employment-based green cards, high-skilled workers who wish to come to the United States on a permanent basis often start out on H-1B visas, and because of quirks in our immigration laws, these workers must stay with their original sponsoring employers until green cards become available, which may take 10 years or longer. During this time, the employee may be forced to accept below-market wages or suboptimal working conditions just to stay in the green card queue. If the employee were to take a higher paying, or better, job at another company, the employee would lose his or her place in the green card line. This creates a power imbalance between H-1B workers and employers that leads to a whole host of issues.

So there are a number of problems we need to address with our high- skilled immigration system.

That's why today I am introducing my Immigration Innovation Act, or I-Squared, to bring our high-skilled immigration system into the 21st century. This critical legislation contains reforms that will end abuse, provide a clearer path for individuals educated in the United States to stay in the United States, and enable employers more easily to hire the talent they need.

I would like to thank my good friend from Arizona, Senator Flake, for cosponsoring I-Squared. Senator Flake and I have worked together for a long time on this issue, and I am grateful for his leadership.

Many of my colleagues are familiar will I-Squared. I have introduced previous versions in the last two Congresses. The version I am introducing today, however, has a number of important changes. In many ways, it is a different bill. Allow me to highlight some of the changes.

Like previous versions, my updated I-Squared bill raises the annual H-1B cap to better meet market demand. In fact, it ties the cap to market demand so that the cap increases and decreases as demand increases and decreases. It also enables H-1B workers to change jobs without losing their H-1B status and allows foreign students attending American universities to declare an intent to stay in the United States following graduation so they can more easily secure full-time employment. Lastly, the bill authorizes the recapture of unused green cards from previous years and eliminates per-country green card caps, which unfairly discriminate against individuals from countries with larger numbers of applicants.

Here is what is new to I-Squared this Congress.

First, and most importantly, the bill creates an express prohibition on hiring an H-1B worker with the purpose and intent to replace an American worker. That was never the intent of the H-1B program and must not be allowed to happen.

Second, the bill creates an express prohibition on conditioning an employee's pay or severance on training an H-1B replacement.

Third, the bill raises the level-1 wage employers must pay to prevent employers from using H-1B workers to undercut labor costs.

Fourth, the bill updates the 1998 law that exempts H-1B employers from certain recruitment and non-displacement requirements if the employer pays its H-1B employees a high enough salary. Specifically, the bill raises the salary threshold to match inflation and eliminates the exemption altogether for particularly heavy users of H-1Bs.

Fifth, the bill imposes penalties on employers who file more H-1B petitions than they need to prevent large, cash-rich employers from freezing out small businesses. All of these provisions will work to tamp down on the abuses we have seen in the H-1B system.

My updated I-Squared bill will also end the problem of H-1B workers who are on the path to a green card from being locked into their current jobs by enabling such workers to change jobs earlier in the process without losing their places in the green card line, and it creates a new, streamlined green card process for high-skilled workers who wish to come to the United States on a permanent basis to obtain conditional residency without having to use the cumbersome H-1B system.

Many of the problems with our current H-1B program stem from the fact that workers seeking temporary employment and workers seeking long-term employment are funneled into the same system. My updated I-Squared bill will help separate these two employment streams in ways that will benefit both employers and employees.

Finally, my updated I-Squared bill will provide nearly $1 billion in new funding for STEM education and worker training programs without raising a single cent in taxes. It does this by increasing fees for H- 1B petitions and green cards and directing the new funding to State block grants for STEM training.

In many ways, this last piece is the most important provision of I- Squared. The STEM disciplines--science, technology, engineering, and math--are going to be critical to our country's success in the coming decades. Increased funding for STEM education and worker training programs will help ensure that we have the workforce we need to succeed in the global economy. It will help produce more graduates with the computer science and engineering skills high-tech employers require. It will enable workers displaced by globalization and the changing economy to acquire new, in-demand skills so they can restart their careers, and if we're successful, increased STEM funding may even reduce the demand for H-1B and other skilled visas in the first place because it will better align our workforce with employer needs.

I-Squared is supported by a broad coalition of tech commies, trade associations, and other job creators. I ask unanimous consent at this time to be printed in the Record a number of letters in support of the bill, including letters from the Information Technology Industry Council and the Semiconductor Industry Association. Other key stakeholders who will be issuing statements of support include Microsoft, Facebook, the Internet Association, and the Software Alliance.

Mr. President, there is a lot of debate about immigration right now. We all know that we need to do something about DACA. I know that as well as anyone. I have been working on a solution for the Dreamer population for a very long time, and we are going to find a solution. We also need to do something about border security and interior enforcement so we don't end up back in the same place 20 years from now.

But we can walk and chew gum at the same time, and I think talking about merit-based immigration is a good thing. It is an important principle.

As we do so, we need to remember that we already have merit-based programs built into our existing immigration laws. The problem is those programs aren't working the way they are supposed to. They are not properly aligned with employer needs, and in their current set-up, there is too much room for waste and abuse.

My I-Squared bill will fix both of those problems. It will help ensure we have the talent in our country that we need to succeed. It will also help equip the next generation of Americans to meet the demands of our increasingly tech-driven economy.

I-Squared will also help put an end to the troubling abuses we have seen in the H-1B program and ensure that the program is used as it was intended--to supplement, not replace, American labor.

I repeat what I said at the outset: High-skilled immigration is merit-based immigration. It is immigration targeted at the best, the brightest, and the most highly educated.

As we debate how to improve our immigration system, let us keep in mind that we already have merit-based programs in our existing laws. Thinking outside the box is important, but it is also important not to overlook what is right here in front of us.

My I-Squared bill will help ensure that we have a high-skilled immigration system that works, that meets employer needs, that keeps America competitive, and that prepares the next generation of Americans to succeed. It is commonsense legislation; It is balanced legislation; and I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, earlier this week, the Senate voted to pass a continuing resolution to reopen the government. This came after weeks of acrimony and no shortage of hostility here on the Senate floor and elsewhere. While most of the recent debate has been focused on the future of immigration policy, another vitally important priority--and a bipartisan priority, no less--was also addressed this week.

I am talking, of course, about the 6-year extension of the Children's Health Insurance Program, which was included in the funding bill. It is a shame, really, that this bipartisan accomplishment has, in some respects, been overlooked while more attention has been given to partisan squabbling over other divisive issues.

Since its inception, CHIP has been a bipartisan program. In 1997, Senator Kennedy and I came together to create CHIP in order to provide health insurance to vulnerable children. It was a Republican-controlled Congress working with a Democratic President that brought this program into existence.

The year before, that same Republican Congress and Democratic President worked together to produce another landmark welfare reform bill that sought to replace a culture of dependency with an emphasis on work. S-CHIP became a necessity for those families making the transition.

Prior to the introduction of the original CHIP bill, I came across a number of families with parents who worked but still could not afford private coverage for their children. Yet they made too much to qualify for Medicaid. Senator Kennedy and I designed our bill to fill this gap and meet those needs.

Today, the CHIP program provides health insurance for about 9 million needy children every year. While the program isn't perfectly designed-- though few programs are--it is widely considered to be one of the most efficient and cost-effective healthcare programs. For that reason, Members from both parties have been supportive of the program since the day it was signed into law.

Last year, with an extension deadline approaching, Senator Wyden, the ranking member of the Finance Committee, and I went to work on drafting another bipartisan CHIP bill, one that would make needed improvements to the program and extend it for an additional 5 years. We were successful. We introduced our bill in September and, shortly thereafter, the Finance Committee marked it up and reported it by voice vote.

We have been working to pass our bill since last September, and, thankfully, that time came earlier this week. When we voted to pass the CR, we also voted to successfully extend CHIP for 6 years. That is the longest CHIP extension in the history of this program.

Other than that extra year of funding, the bill we passed was identical to the one Senator Wyden and I introduced last year. I know we have colleagues already talking about adding additional years, and I know a number of stakeholders would like to see that as well. I am definitely open to having a conversation with my colleagues on how we might move forward to support an additional 4 years of funding for

Mr. President, I rise with my good friend from Tennessee to discuss some truly landmark legislation we are introducing today that is long overdue. It is called the Music Modernization Act, and it will reshape the music licensing landscape to bring it into the 21st century.

As a songwriter myself, I have a deep interest in music issues and in ensuring we have a music licensing system that works. Unfortunately, our music licensing laws have not kept pace with technological change. We have an outdated, antiquated system that is designed for the era of CDs and cassette tapes rather than the era of digital streamlining and audio on demand.

Most of us rarely think about the complex laws that govern who can listen to what music when and who gets paid when we purchase an MP3 or listen to an interactive stream. We pay our money to iTunes or the streaming service without thinking about how that money then gets distributed to dozens or even hundreds of actors across the music industry. You have songwriters and publishers and recording artists and record labels. You have agents and broadcasters and streaming services and performing rights organizations. You have multiple copyrights across multiple individuals for the same song. It is a dense, interconnected web of licenses, rights, and legal obligations that all need and should be carefully calibrated, but our current regime is not well calibrated--far from it.

To begin with, the process of ensuring that songwriters are paid when the songs they have written are downloaded or played on the internet is a complete mess. The problem lies in matching sound recordings to the underlying musical work; that is, to the song performed in the sound recording. When a person downloads or streams a song, there are actually two sets of copyright holders whose interests come into play.

The first is the recording artist who owns a copyright in the sound recording; that is, in the recorded version of the song. Often, the recording artist will have assigned his or her copyright to a record label.

The other relevant copyright holder is the songwriter--the person who actually wrote the music and, in virtually every case, the lyrics that the recording artist performed. The songwriter owns a copyright in the song itself, in the actual words and music. Often, the songwriter will have assigned his or her copyright to a music publisher.

When a sound recording is reproduced, whether by download, interactive stream, or fixing the song on a CD or other physical object, the recording artist and songwriter or their respective assignees will both receive royalties. The recording artist receives a royalty for the sound recording itself, and the songwriter receives a royalty for the underlying song. These are called mechanical royalties because, historically, the reproduction of sound recordings was done through mechanical means. Think of a vinyl record and its grooves.

There is also a second type of royalty that comes into play when a song is performed publicly, such as on the radio, at a concert, or over a digital transmission service like Pandora. This type of royalty is called, sensibly enough, a public performance royalty. Just like with mechanical royalties, it is paid to both the recording artist and the songwriter or their assignees.

As I said earlier, the problem lies in matching the sound recording to the underlying musical work; that is, in determining who should get paid when an individual downloads a song or listens to an interactive stream.

Figuring out the recording artist is pretty easy. When digital music services play music, they play sound recordings. They play a song recorded by Taylor Swift or Jay-Z or Garth Brooks or they offer the sound recording for download. In either case, determining who recorded the song is straightforward. Figuring out who the songwriter is, however, can be much more complicated.

A recording artist may play 10 different songs by 10 different songwriters on a single album or 10 separate writers may have contributed to a single song, with each being entitled to a cut. Unlike with recording artists, it is usually not apparent from the sound recording itself who the songwriter is.

Of course, the recording artist--or the record label, if the recording artist has assigned his or her rights to a record label--may know who the songwriter is, but not always, and it is simply not feasible for digital music providers to independently track down

every individual songwriter for the millions of songs they offer over their services.

The problem of unmatched works--that is, works for which the sound recording has not been matched to the underlying songwriter--creates significant difficulties for both digital music providers and songwriters.

Start with digital music providers. By law, these services are required to pay mechanical royalties to songwriters for interactive streams and digital downloads. But if they don't know who the relevant songwriter or publisher is, they can't pay the royalty. This exposes digital music providers to significant liability if a songwriter or publisher later appears and asserts their rights. At the same time, songwriters get short shrift because they don't get paid when they are supposed to be. Streaming services play their songs and digital platforms offer their songs for download without paying the required royalties. As you can see, this is a complicated system. It is a bad situation all around.

That is where the legislation Senator Alexander and I are introducing today comes into play. Our bill, the Music Modernization Act, creates a blanket mechanical license for digital music providers. This license, which will be administered by a mechanical licensing collective, will enable digital music providers to obtain a single mechanical license for the music they play rather than having to individually seek out songwriters and publishers. Services that obtain the license will receive liability protection.

Songwriters and publishers, in turn, will benefit from increased royalty payments. Among the mechanical licensing collective's duties will be establishing and maintaining a public database that identifies musical works and their owners. This will help reduce the number of unmatched works.

In addition, the Music Modernization Act provides that royalties for unmatched works will be distributed after a holding period of 3 years to known copyright holders on a market-share basis. This means that rather than going unpaid, royalties for unmatched works will go to existing copyright holders according to how active each copyright holder is in the marketplace.

Our bill also contains a critical update to the rate standard for mechanical royalties for songwriters. Current law requires the Copyright Royalty Board to consider a variety of statutory factors in setting mechanical royalties. These factors, however, do not accurately reflect market demand, with the result that songwriters are paid a below-market rate. Our bill revises this standard to instruct the Board to establish rates that reflect what a willing buyer and willing seller would agree to in the marketplace.

Lastly, the bill makes two changes related to public performance royalties for songwriters. As I explained earlier, this type of royalty comes into play when a song is performed publicly, such as on the radio, at a concert, or over a digital transmission service like Pandora.

Public performance royalties for songwriters and publishers are administered through performing rights organizations, or PROs, the best known of which are ASCAP and BMI. ASCAP and BMI offer blanket licenses to radio stations, restaurants, digital transmission services, and others that allow licensees to play all songs in the PRO's catalogue. These blanket licenses are governed by 1940s-era consent decrees that require all rates under the licenses to be set or approved by a Federal judge in the Southern District of New York.

The Music Modernization Act makes two changes relevant to these consent decrees. First, it says that any judge in the Southern District of New York may hear a rate-setting case involving ASCAP's or BMI's license fees, not just the particular judge who oversees the consent decree.

Second, the bill revises current law to allow judges in these rate- setting proceedings to consider evidence of public performance royalties paid for sound recordings in setting public performance royalties for songwriters. The purpose of this provision is to better align public performance royalties for sound recordings with public performance royalties for the underlying musical work and to ensure that songwriters are properly rewarded when a song they write becomes a hit.

As I mentioned earlier, music licensing is an incredibly complicated subject. I have endeavored today to explain the Music Modernization Act in a straightforward way that individuals not steeped in this subject can understand. The key points are as follows. First, the bill will have to solve the problem of unmatched works so that digital music providers are protected from liability and songwriters receive the royalties they are due. Second, the bill will better align royalties for songwriters with royalties for recording artists and with market demand. It will also bring much needed transparency to our music licensing system by creating a public database that identifies musical works and their owners.

I am pleased to report that our bill has broad support across the music industry, which is a tremendous thing. One of the things that makes this legislation such a breakthrough is that we have been able to get the songwriting side of the industry--the songwriters and their representatives in all these matters in the publishing and PRO community--on board with the recording and distribution side of the industry--the record labels and digital music providers. Indeed, I don't think I have ever seen a music bill that has had such broad support across the industry. All sides have a stake in this, and they have come together in support of a commonsense, consensus bill that addresses challenges throughout the music industry.

I should also note that introduction is just the start of the process. Bills change as they move through markup and floor consideration, and there are some outstanding issues in the latter part of the bill that remain to be resolved with broadcasters. I am committed to working through these issues as the bill moves forward so that we have the broadest consensus possible.

I said at the outset that I am a songwriter myself. I have a deep and abiding interest in these issues. These matters are personal to me. They are also an important part of my legacy. I am relatively unknown, and I don't expect to make a lot of money out of the music industry, but I am deeply interested in this, in making sure that those who do create these wonderful musical subjects will be treated more fairly than they are today.

I have fought long and hard for strong copyright protections my entire time in the Senate. I have passed a number of landmark copyright bills, from the Copyright Term Extension Act to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to the Family Movie Act.

The Music Modernization Act is another in that long line of landmark legislation. In fact, I view it as the capstone of my work on copyright. I say that because I want my colleagues to know how important this bill is, not just to me but to my friends, and I want my friends in the industry to know how important this bill is to me as well. I have less than a year left in this body, and one thing that I am dead set on is enacting this bill into law before I leave.

I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting and sponsoring this bill. The music we create in our country is an important part of our culture and of the message we carry to the rest of the world. Let's do everything we can to ensure we have a music licensing system that is fair, that rewards creativity, and that creates the right incentives to write, perform, and sell music. That is exactly what the Music Modernization Act will do.

I have a partner in this business of trying to get this bill through, the great Senator from the State of Tennessee, Lamar Alexander, who himself is a very accomplished musician. He is a great piano player, and he is a great friend, and he understands these issues as much as if not more than anyone else I know in the Congress of the United States. I just feel very indebted to him and blessed to have him as one of the people who will be working with me on this matter.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I can't express my appreciation well enough to thank the Senator from Tennessee for this wonderful set of remarks he has just given. He has outlined it as well as it could be done. Tennessee has always been very well represented, but Lamar Alexander is one of the great Senators here, and I am just grateful that he is standing side by side with me on this.

The songwriters of America have been mistreated for years and years and years, and it is time to change it. It is time to get some equity and some fairness into this system, and I think Lamar has outlined that about as well as it could be outlined. I want to personally express my appreciation to the Senator from Tennessee for what he has said here today.

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

Mr. President, I rise with my good friend from Tennessee to discuss some truly landmark legislation we are introducing today that is long overdue. It is called the Music Modernization Act, and it will reshape the music licensing landscape to bring it into the 21st century.

As a songwriter myself, I have a deep interest in music issues and in ensuring we have a music licensing system that works. Unfortunately, our music licensing laws have not kept pace with technological change. We have an outdated, antiquated system that is designed for the era of CDs and cassette tapes rather than the era of digital streamlining and audio on demand.

Most of us rarely think about the complex laws that govern who can listen to what music when and who gets paid when we purchase an MP3 or listen to an interactive stream. We pay our money to iTunes or the streaming service without thinking about how that money then gets distributed to dozens or even hundreds of actors across the music industry. You have songwriters and publishers and recording artists and record labels. You have agents and broadcasters and streaming services and performing rights organizations. You have multiple copyrights across multiple individuals for the same song. It is a dense, interconnected web of licenses, rights, and legal obligations that all need and should be carefully calibrated, but our current regime is not well calibrated--far from it.

To begin with, the process of ensuring that songwriters are paid when the songs they have written are downloaded or played on the internet is a complete mess. The problem lies in matching sound recordings to the underlying musical work; that is, to the song performed in the sound recording. When a person downloads or streams a song, there are actually two sets of copyright holders whose interests come into play.

The first is the recording artist who owns a copyright in the sound recording; that is, in the recorded version of the song. Often, the recording artist will have assigned his or her copyright to a record label.

The other relevant copyright holder is the songwriter--the person who actually wrote the music and, in virtually every case, the lyrics that the recording artist performed. The songwriter owns a copyright in the song itself, in the actual words and music. Often, the songwriter will have assigned his or her copyright to a music publisher.

When a sound recording is reproduced, whether by download, interactive stream, or fixing the song on a CD or other physical object, the recording artist and songwriter or their respective assignees will both receive royalties. The recording artist receives a royalty for the sound recording itself, and the songwriter receives a royalty for the underlying song. These are called mechanical royalties because, historically, the reproduction of sound recordings was done through mechanical means. Think of a vinyl record and its grooves.

There is also a second type of royalty that comes into play when a song is performed publicly, such as on the radio, at a concert, or over a digital transmission service like Pandora. This type of royalty is called, sensibly enough, a public performance royalty. Just like with mechanical royalties, it is paid to both the recording artist and the songwriter or their assignees.

As I said earlier, the problem lies in matching the sound recording to the underlying musical work; that is, in determining who should get paid when an individual downloads a song or listens to an interactive stream.

Figuring out the recording artist is pretty easy. When digital music services play music, they play sound recordings. They play a song recorded by Taylor Swift or Jay-Z or Garth Brooks or they offer the sound recording for download. In either case, determining who recorded the song is straightforward. Figuring out who the songwriter is, however, can be much more complicated.

A recording artist may play 10 different songs by 10 different songwriters on a single album or 10 separate writers may have contributed to a single song, with each being entitled to a cut. Unlike with recording artists, it is usually not apparent from the sound recording itself who the songwriter is.

Of course, the recording artist--or the record label, if the recording artist has assigned his or her rights to a record label--may know who the songwriter is, but not always, and it is simply not feasible for digital music providers to independently track down

every individual songwriter for the millions of songs they offer over their services.

The problem of unmatched works--that is, works for which the sound recording has not been matched to the underlying songwriter--creates significant difficulties for both digital music providers and songwriters.

Start with digital music providers. By law, these services are required to pay mechanical royalties to songwriters for interactive streams and digital downloads. But if they don't know who the relevant songwriter or publisher is, they can't pay the royalty. This exposes digital music providers to significant liability if a songwriter or publisher later appears and asserts their rights. At the same time, songwriters get short shrift because they don't get paid when they are supposed to be. Streaming services play their songs and digital platforms offer their songs for download without paying the required royalties. As you can see, this is a complicated system. It is a bad situation all around.

That is where the legislation Senator Alexander and I are introducing today comes into play. Our bill, the Music Modernization Act, creates a blanket mechanical license for digital music providers. This license, which will be administered by a mechanical licensing collective, will enable digital music providers to obtain a single mechanical license for the music they play rather than having to individually seek out songwriters and publishers. Services that obtain the license will receive liability protection.

Songwriters and publishers, in turn, will benefit from increased royalty payments. Among the mechanical licensing collective's duties will be establishing and maintaining a public database that identifies musical works and their owners. This will help reduce the number of unmatched works.

In addition, the Music Modernization Act provides that royalties for unmatched works will be distributed after a holding period of 3 years to known copyright holders on a market-share basis. This means that rather than going unpaid, royalties for unmatched works will go to existing copyright holders according to how active each copyright holder is in the marketplace.

Our bill also contains a critical update to the rate standard for mechanical royalties for songwriters. Current law requires the Copyright Royalty Board to consider a variety of statutory factors in setting mechanical royalties. These factors, however, do not accurately reflect market demand, with the result that songwriters are paid a below-market rate. Our bill revises this standard to instruct the Board to establish rates that reflect what a willing buyer and willing seller would agree to in the marketplace.

Lastly, the bill makes two changes related to public performance royalties for songwriters. As I explained earlier, this type of royalty comes into play when a song is performed publicly, such as on the radio, at a concert, or over a digital transmission service like Pandora.

Public performance royalties for songwriters and publishers are administered through performing rights organizations, or PROs, the best known of which are ASCAP and BMI. ASCAP and BMI offer blanket licenses to radio stations, restaurants, digital transmission services, and others that allow licensees to play all songs in the PRO's catalogue. These blanket licenses are governed by 1940s-era consent decrees that require all rates under the licenses to be set or approved by a Federal judge in the Southern District of New York.

The Music Modernization Act makes two changes relevant to these consent decrees. First, it says that any judge in the Southern District of New York may hear a rate-setting case involving ASCAP's or BMI's license fees, not just the particular judge who oversees the consent decree.

Second, the bill revises current law to allow judges in these rate- setting proceedings to consider evidence of public performance royalties paid for sound recordings in setting public performance royalties for songwriters. The purpose of this provision is to better align public performance royalties for sound recordings with public performance royalties for the underlying musical work and to ensure that songwriters are properly rewarded when a song they write becomes a hit.

As I mentioned earlier, music licensing is an incredibly complicated subject. I have endeavored today to explain the Music Modernization Act in a straightforward way that individuals not steeped in this subject can understand. The key points are as follows. First, the bill will have to solve the problem of unmatched works so that digital music providers are protected from liability and songwriters receive the royalties they are due. Second, the bill will better align royalties for songwriters with royalties for recording artists and with market demand. It will also bring much needed transparency to our music licensing system by creating a public database that identifies musical works and their owners.

I am pleased to report that our bill has broad support across the music industry, which is a tremendous thing. One of the things that makes this legislation such a breakthrough is that we have been able to get the songwriting side of the industry--the songwriters and their representatives in all these matters in the publishing and PRO community--on board with the recording and distribution side of the industry--the record labels and digital music providers. Indeed, I don't think I have ever seen a music bill that has had such broad support across the industry. All sides have a stake in this, and they have come together in support of a commonsense, consensus bill that addresses challenges throughout the music industry.

I should also note that introduction is just the start of the process. Bills change as they move through markup and floor consideration, and there are some outstanding issues in the latter part of the bill that remain to be resolved with broadcasters. I am committed to working through these issues as the bill moves forward so that we have the broadest consensus possible.

I said at the outset that I am a songwriter myself. I have a deep and abiding interest in these issues. These matters are personal to me. They are also an important part of my legacy. I am relatively unknown, and I don't expect to make a lot of money out of the music industry, but I am deeply interested in this, in making sure that those who do create these wonderful musical subjects will be treated more fairly than they are today.

I have fought long and hard for strong copyright protections my entire time in the Senate. I have passed a number of landmark copyright bills, from the Copyright Term Extension Act to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to the Family Movie Act.

The Music Modernization Act is another in that long line of landmark legislation. In fact, I view it as the capstone of my work on copyright. I say that because I want my colleagues to know how important this bill is, not just to me but to my friends, and I want my friends in the industry to know how important this bill is to me as well. I have less than a year left in this body, and one thing that I am dead set on is enacting this bill into law before I leave.

I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting and sponsoring this bill. The music we create in our country is an important part of our culture and of the message we carry to the rest of the world. Let's do everything we can to ensure we have a music licensing system that is fair, that rewards creativity, and that creates the right incentives to write, perform, and sell music. That is exactly what the Music Modernization Act will do.

I have a partner in this business of trying to get this bill through, the great Senator from the State of Tennessee, Lamar Alexander, who himself is a very accomplished musician. He is a great piano player, and he is a great friend, and he understands these issues as much as if not more than anyone else I know in the Congress of the United States. I just feel very indebted to him and blessed to have him as one of the people who will be working with me on this matter.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I can't express my appreciation well enough to thank the Senator from Tennessee for this wonderful set of remarks he has just given. He has outlined it as well as it could be done. Tennessee has always been very well represented, but Lamar Alexander is one of the great Senators here, and I am just grateful that he is standing side by side with me on this.

The songwriters of America have been mistreated for years and years and years, and it is time to change it. It is time to get some equity and some fairness into this system, and I think Lamar has outlined that about as well as it could be outlined. I want to personally express my appreciation to the Senator from Tennessee for what he has said here today.

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

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

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

Mr. President, ensuring that America's kids have access to quality medical care is among my top priorities in the Senate. That is why, long ago, I reached across the aisle to create the revolutionary Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP.

I am proud to call CHIP my own. Teddy Kennedy and I faced an uphill battle to get this bill passed, but we were willing to take the heat because we knew it was the right thing to do--he came on board shortly after I filed this bill--and I have never regretted it.

For more than 20 years, CHIP has served as a literal lifeline for millions of children whose families could not have otherwise afforded health insurance. Without exaggeration, this groundbreaking program has saved thousands of young lives, and it has long stood as a symbol of what our two parties can accomplish when we look beyond the horizon of our differences to find common ground.

Sadly, in today's Washington, the bipartisan spirit that breathed life into CHIP has been all but snuffed out. As a case in point, the Democrats are now holding this healthcare program hostage to their own radical agenda, using it as a bargaining chip in a dangerous political game.

After months of hard work and good faith negotiation, the progressives

have, effectively, walked away from a once-in-a-generation deal to extend CHIP for 6 years--the longest extension in the program's history and something I would like to do. Unless Republicans cave to their unreasonable demands, the Federal Government will remain shut down for--who knows how long?

Rather than holding CHIP for ransom, I implore my friends on the left to work with us not only to reauthorize this beloved program but also to approve a Federal funding package so that we can get the government back up and running.

Contrary to what the Senator from Ohio asserted just a few moments ago, the Republicans have been working diligently this whole past year to get CHIP across the finish line. We did not let CHIP funding lapse but worked continually to make sure that there were sufficient funds for the program even after the fiscal year.

Under no circumstances was I ever going to let CHIP expire without taking care of it. That is why Senator Wyden and I engaged in a bipartisan process, following regular order, back in the summer. We came to an agreement together. We reported a CHIP bill out of committee on a voice vote, with plenty of time to pass it through both Chambers. Since that time, I have worked with leaders to ensure that the program has been sufficiently funded in the short term until we could bring up and pass our long-term extension.

Mr. President, the idea that we would have let funding lapse is absurd, and the Senator from Ohio knows it. Moreover, the accusation that Republicans have ignored CHIP is false on its face. Give me a break. Our work is on the record, and anyone who tells you otherwise is either severely misinformed or playing political games--something that is not unusual around here, especially now.

Speaking of political games, Democrats are now saying that both CHIP and DACA are a package deal, and there is no fixing one without the other. Sounds like real support, doesn't it? But that simply isn't true. We are imposing imaginary deadlines on ourselves that will leave everyone worse off, both CHIP recipients and Dreamers alike. The truth is, we can secure CHIP funding tonight, ensuring that the 9 million kids who depend on this critical program will wake up tomorrow with the promise of continued medical care. Resolving the CHIP crisis now will then give us the breathing room we need to find a lasting solution on the DACA issue.

Let's not pretend that right now is the do-or-die moment on immigration reform. We have until March to resolve the issue, and we are going to need all of that time to make sure this gets done right.

Quite frankly, I have had enough of the Democrats' arbitrary deadlines, and I am offended by those who say that lawmakers who want to spend more time to resolve the DACA issue don't care about Dreamers and their families. I have stuck my neck out on immigration issues year after year, and I have more to show for it than most. So the idea that I don't care because I would rather do this right than simply do it now is ridiculous.

As anyone who has served more than a single term in this body can tell you, immigration is an incredibly complex issue filled with pitfalls and surprises at every turn. An issue of this sensitivity needs to be negotiated in good faith, not in the middle of a government shutdown with a gun to our heads.

On the subject of immigration reform, I am bewildered by my Democratic colleagues who insist on poisoning the well with an unnecessary government shutdown. There is no reason for my colleagues to pit their righteous crusade on immigration against their righteous crusade for CHIP. This is simply a matter of priorities.

As it turns out, the American people agree with me. In fact, a CNN poll released on Friday showed that a majority of Americans feel that funding the government is more important than finding an immediate solution to the DACA Program. We were extremely close to doing exactly what the American people wanted. Bipartisan majorities in both the House and Senate supported a noncontroversial bill to keep the government funded. But Democrats filibustered this bill, voting instead to shut down the government and block funding for CHIP. They own this mess. Now we need to work together to clean it up. We won't make any progress by continuing to invent imaginary deadlines.

Now is not the time for political brinksmanship but for responsible governance. Millions are depending on us to do the right thing--and we cannot let them down. So let's get this done, and let's get it done right.

I suggest the absence of a quorum

Madam President, I listened to the distinguished Senator from Illinois. The Democrats never do anything wrong, do they? They are always right. I have to tell you, they do a lot of things that are wrong, and they are not always right. And this is a situation where they have literally pushed everybody in this country into the corner. Republicans want to do DACA. They want to take care of these young people. They have even interfered with that. I could go on and on.

All I can say is, I get a little sick of hearing some of these arguments that are made like they are holier than thou. They are not holier than thou; they are more political than thou.

I think it is time that we work together and get some things done here that make a difference in people's lives and especially in these young DACA kids' lives. We can do that, but we can't do it by just Democrats saying: Well, we are just going to give them everything they want. We are not going to worry about U.S. laws or immigration laws or anything else, for that matter.

It is incredible to me. I have put up with this all these years in the Senate, and they get away with it because the media in this country is primarily focused on them and basically supports them. And they admit it. That is the thing that is really mind-boggling--the media admits it. And the reason they do is because they know they would be laughed out of town if they didn't admit it.

All I can say is, we have a desire to resolve these problems in a reasonable and good manner. The majority leader has indicated that time after time. Politics always takes preference with our friends on the other side. They are good at it. They are really good at it, even though, if you really look at the

facts and you look behind what they are saying, it is a lot of bunk. Not all--I have worked with really top-notch Democrats in this body to do some of the most important legislation in this country's history when they were willing to sit down and really work with you. But politics rears its ugly head almost every time in such a way that it is almost impossible to get anything done around here. I have to admit, we have some on our side who fit that mode, as well.

I just wish we could do a better job. There are some of us who would do a better job if we knew that there was a way of bringing both sides together.

Having said that, we are now just a few hours away from a government shutdown, unless, of course, enough Senators can find a way to come together in order to avert it. Unfortunately, it appears that our Democratic colleagues would prefer a shutdown to compromise. The Democrats have activists and pundits cheering for that result. They have their Members in line to vote against the alternative. They have set the stage for a grand demonstration of their commitment.

But for the life of me, I can't see what they are committed to with this latest gesture to their political base. First of all, most of them don't object to the substance of the House-passed continuing resolution. That bill would keep the government open and address a number of bipartisan healthcare priorities. I don't know any Democrats who are against those. I am sure there may be some, but the rest of them, I think, are pretty much for it.

The bill before us includes what would be the longest extension of the Children's Health Insurance Program in history. CHIP has given children and their families access to quality healthcare. Maybe I have a right to speak on CHIP since I am the author of the CHIP bill and I believe in it. I believe it has done so much good for our young people in this society. I really resent it being played politics with all the time, which our friends on the other side just can't resist.

CHIP has given children and their families access to quality healthcare coverage for over two decades. It was founded on the belief that the health of our future is too important to be dragged down by the political bickering of the present. Approximately 9 million children depend on this critical program. It is important to me. After several months of uncertainty, those 9 million children deserve the peace of mind that comes with a long-term CHIP extension.

As I noted here on the floor the other day, as chairman of the Finance Committee, I have been working with my Democratic counterparts on a bipartisan CHIP extension bill for months now. The committee's ranking member, Senator Wyden, and I introduced our initial bill earlier, last fall. That bill would have reauthorized CHIP for 5 years. It was promptly reported out of the Finance Committee with near- unanimous support. Then the Democrats decided to pretend that bill never existed.

As we worked through a crowded legislative calendar at the end of last year, my colleagues were well aware that efforts to reauthorize CHIP were ongoing. Yet many of our colleagues accused Republicans of neglecting vulnerable children.

I was leading the fight as one of the leading Republicans, as chairman of the Finance Committee, the author of the original bill, the one who has always voted for it. I just want a bill that works and not the political brouhaha that it always becomes whenever some of the Democrats think they can score some political points. The attacks on this front were fierce and usually high volume. I was personally attacked by colleagues in committee, here on the floor, and in the media. All kinds of vitriol was thrown in my direction both here in the Senate and out in the political intelligentsia. No one needs to worry about me, Madam President. I can take it and throw it right back, if it is necessary. But for months, colleagues have been coming to the floor or going on TV--pretty much anywhere with a camera--to accuse Republicans of wanting to take away health insurance for vulnerable children. Total BS. Yet they do it all the time because they, with their friends in the media, know they can get away with it in spite of the wrong they are doing.

Throughout all of this time, they conveniently neglected to mention that bipartisan efforts with regard to CHIP were moving forward, even though they clearly knew that such was the case. In fact, one of the harshest critics was an original cosponsor of our bill and a Senator who voted in support of our bill in committee.

This new bill before us would reauthorize CHIP for 6 years--something that has never been done before. A 6-year extension would be the largest and longest in the history of the program. We had already done that in the Finance Committee. In all other respects, the bill is identical to the one the Finance Committee reported with broad bipartisan support.

So where are our colleagues today? Is Senator Wyden, who coauthored the committee's CHIP bill, prepared to vote for an even longer extension of the CHIP program? Apparently not. Are other Democrats on the Finance Committee, including those who publicly touted their support for the committee bill, prepared to vote for this extension? Apparently not. What about those Senate Democrats--both on and off the Finance Committee--who have been on their own righteous crusades with respect to CHIP? Are they prepared to vote for it today? Apparently not.

What has changed? Do they oppose something in the broader bill? No. Most Democrats have supported the other healthcare elements in the package, including delays on the medical device tax, the health insurance tax, and the so-called Cadillac tax from ObamaCare. The bill would accomplish those goals as well. Think about that.

What about the Democrats? Have they championed those causes? Are they prepared to vote in favor of this bill? Apparently not. The question is, Why? Why are Democrats willing to filibuster this continuing resolution and shut down the government? What crazy, rightwing fantasy have we inserted into the bill? Of course I am being sarcastic. There is really nothing wrong with the substance of the bill, or at least very few of our Democratic colleagues are complaining about what is actually in the bill. Instead, they are complaining about what is not in it. The Democrats think they have struck political gold with immigration this week, so they are holding everything hostage so that they can stage another ``righteous'' crusade on the floor and in TV interviews.

It should go without saying that I personally would like to see a legislative fix for the so-called Dreamers--undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children. This is an important matter that needs to be addressed. Not only are there myriad elements to our Nation's immigration system that are in dire need of reform, immigration isn't something that can be solved with a few roundtables with the President and some quick negotiations behind the scenes. It certainly isn't something we can or should try to solve under the threat of an imminent government shutdown. Unless you have been hiding in a cave or trapped under something very heavy for the past 15 years, you know that immigration reform--even piecemeal reform--is an extremely difficult lift. There are Members of both parties willing to work on this. The President has indicated his willingness as well. But some don't want to go the reasonable route, so here we are.

I get that there is an adage in this town that no one should let a good crisis go to waste, and I certainly understand the desire to strike when a political iron is hot. And in the eyes of most Democrats, that time is now. However, if they filibuster this legislation, they will be filibustering authorized funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program. They will be voting to prevent this bipartisan effort--the one we have been talking about for years now--from moving forward; the one they have been harping about for years now from moving forward.

There is another political adage that goes around this town, one that horribly misquotes Napoleon. That axiom goes something like this: Never interrupt your opponent when they are making a mistake. Truthfully, I don't consider my Democratic colleagues to be my opponents, but a number of people, unfortunately, view Congress that way.

Setting those semantics aside, by urging my Democratic colleagues to vote in favor of this bill, I may very well be ignoring Napoleon's advice. Still, my colleagues have to know that if they vote to block this legislation, they will unequivocally be voting against a historically long-term Children's Health Insurance Program extension-- the longest it has ever been, and I have had a lot to do with that. They will be voting to prolong the very crisis--that is their word, not mine--that they have been lamenting for the past several months. If they don't know that, the CHIP's advocates and stakeholders throughout the country know it, and the families and children who depend on CHIP will know it as well.

There is no reason for my colleagues to pit their righteous crusade on immigration against their righteous crusade for CHIP. This is simply a matter of priorities. Today, the priority should be to keep the government open and to ensure funding for CHIP well into the future.

As I said, offering my colleagues this advice may amount to stepping in the way of an opponent's mistake, but the politics on this issue must stop. The right answer in this case is pretty obvious. The right vote is one in favor of the House-passed continuing resolution.

I urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting for this bill.

Look, I get so tired of the cheap politics that are played. When they are played on a bill like CHIP--virtually everybody is going to vote for it. Everybody agrees with or wants to agree with or has claimed credit for it. That makes you wonder what is going on.

I think I have the right to speak on this because I am the original author of CHIP. I wrote the original language. I was the one who got the committee to go for it. I was the one who went to Ted Kennedy-- representing the Democrats--to come on board, and he did, and it brought both sides together. I am sure he is up there wondering, what is the matter with my side down there? And he ought to be.

It hasn't been easy to do all that, but we did it. It works. It has helped millions of children. It will help 9 million children now. It is something everybody in this Senate ought to be for and ought to quit playing games with. Unfortunately, some people think they can score points by playing games with something like CHIP. It is not only wrong, it is abysmal.

I love my colleagues. There are some I love more than others, but I love all of them. I have to say, the ones I love more than others are those who really are honest and deliberative, who really want to do what is right while they are here and who are willing to work with others to get there, who are willing to work in a bipartisan manner to be able to bring these things to pass.

I understand the differences between the two parties. I understand the politics that are constantly being played around here. But if we are going to play politics, play it on something other than CHIP. Play it on something that deserves the political ramifications. CHIP does not.

CHIP is something that we all know works and works in the best interests of our children. It is something that we as Federal employees can all work on and do, that we go home and feel really good about it and know we have done something really worthwhile. I can say that because I am the original author of the CHIP bill, and I have been for it ever since. I was the one who got Senator Kennedy to come on board and to help with it, and that brought a lot of Democrats on board, as well, because if Kennedy was on board, they could be on board. I was the one who got a lot of Republicans on board, like he was getting Democrats. In other words, the two of us made this system work--and not just the two of us but people in the House and other Senators here in the Senate. A lot of people deserve a lot of credit for the CHIP bill.

Now we are sitting here arguing about something that we shouldn't have to argue about. It is disappointing to me, and I am disappointed in the politics that are being played around CHIP. There are better arguments on other bills than there are on the CHIP bill. Everybody knows that CHIP is going to pass one way or the other, so naturally our friends on the other side--maybe even some on our side--want to hang whatever they can on the CHIP bill, knowing that the American people want it, that Senators want it, that the House of Representatives has proven that they want it, and they might be able to score a few political points.

Well, I want the two leaders to get together and get this matter resolved, and let's quit playing these silly games that are so often played around here. I don't mind them maybe on the bills that are lesser in import and nature, but to do it on the CHIP bill, my gosh, it is incredible to me.

This is the greatest country in the world, but we do have some really stupid people representing it from time to time. With that--I probably have gone too far saying that, but it is true, and it is disappointing to me.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, as we move closer to the expiration date for Federal Government funding at the end of the week, there is no shortage of rancor in the air. Pundits and partisans have, for weeks now, been arguing incessantly about a wide range of issues, all of which, in one way or another, have been tied to the fast-approaching deadline. Don't get me wrong, there are legitimate issues at play this week. These debates, to the extent they are focused on solutions, are meaningful, and I am optimistic we can find solutions.

Today I would like to talk about some of the more positive developments we have seen recently with regard to healthcare aspects of the current debate. As we know, last night, leaders in the House unveiled a legislative package that would keep the government funded as well as address some bipartisan healthcare priorities, including some issues I have personally been working on for some time. I am hoping the House will pass this legislation in short order and that the Senate will quickly follow suit.

Let me talk about some of the specifics in the package. First, the House bill would extend funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program for 6 years, which is the longest extension since the creation of the program. As I am sure the Presiding Officer knows, I am the original author of the CHIP Program. Twenty years ago, Senator Ted Kennedy joined with me to draft the original CHIP legislation and to move it through Congress on a bipartisan basis. I have maintained my commitment to this program for the past two decades, even during times when others sought to change it dramatically from its original purpose.

During this Congress, as the chairman of the Finance Committee, I have been working with colleagues on a long-term reauthorization of CHIP, despite some contrary claims that I and the Republican leadership had somehow neglected or forgotten about the CHIP Program and had no intention of reauthorizing it. It is no secret that I have taken some flak in some corners of the Senate from colleagues looking to get some political mileage out of the issue I have worked so hard to keep bipartisan, but I will remind my colleagues that this past September, the Finance Committee's ranking member, Senator Wyden, and I introduced a long-term, bipartisan CHIP extension bill that was overwhelmingly reported out of the committee. A number of my colleagues, including some who were on the committee and voted in favor of that bill, seem to have forgotten this legislation had been drafted and reported. We have endured a number of speeches and television appearances from colleagues accusing Republicans of ``abandoning children in need.'' My gosh. This is even though our friends on the other side were entirely aware that the effort to reauthorize the program had been continually moving forward.

The House's bill is identical to the legislation Senator Wyden and I introduced last fall, except that the funding continues for 1 more year. As I noted, it extends CHIP for 6 years. We have never gotten such a long extension since the creation of the program over 20 years ago.

I hope my colleagues in the Senate, particularly those who have been so outspoken and righteous in their condemnations of Republicans regarding CHIP will support this legislation. It would be odd to see them vote it down after all the acrimony we have endured over the past few months.

In addition to the historic CHIP reauthorization, the House legislation addresses some other long-term priorities of mine: the taxes imposed by the so-called Affordable Care Act. Under the bill, the job-killing medical device tax will be delayed for another 2 years. This foolhardy tax, which has been criticized and condemned by Members of both parties, will come back into effect at the start of this year.

Eliminating this tax has been an important cause to me since the day ObamaCare was signed into law. Utah is home to some of our Nation's most innovative medical device companies, and the United States has led the world in developing lifesaving and life-improving medical technology, an advantage that was threatened by this poorly crafted and irresponsible tax. I would like to see the medical device tax repealed entirely. I have introduced a number of bills to that effect over the years, but until we get that done, it is important that we keep shielding American consumers, patients, families, and job creators from the impact of this tax. The House bill would prevent the medical device tax from hitting any device innovators and their customers until 2020 at the earliest.

The House package also extends the delayed impact of the so-called Cadillac tax, which is another one of ObamaCare's ill-advised shots aimed at the middle class. Again, Members from both parties have expressed concern and opposed this tax. Previous delays have received broad bipartisan support. The House bill would put off the impact of the Cadillac tax through 2021, and I am hopeful this delay receives bipartisan support in the House and Senate.

Finally, the bill would pull back the health insurance tax, which is another reckless tax provision, for 2019. This tax targets small businesses and middle-class consumers. There is not even a set rate for this tax. There is a revenue target, and the rate moves around from year to year in order to raise a specified amount. The results are increased costs passed along to insurance beneficiaries in the form of higher premiums and increased burdens on small businesses. The House bill will give additional relief from this tax starting in January of next year so insurers can lower premiums before the 2019 filing period.

So, as we can see, in addition to keeping the government open, the legislative package unveiled last night in the House would address some key bipartisan healthcare priorities.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this approach. Given their recent statements on some of these issues and their past votes, I think many Democrats would have a hard time explaining to their constituents why they oppose these measures.

While there are still a number of healthcare priorities that must be addressed as quickly as possible, including Medicare extenders, I am very pleased to see the House moving forward with a long-term extension of CHIP and relief to some of the most burdensome ACA taxes. I have been working with my colleagues in both parties and in both Chambers to bring these efforts to fruition. Once again, I hope all of my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation once we receive it from the House.

Having said that, let me make my second set of remarks.

Immigration

Mr. President, I rise to speak on immigration reform. For nearly 20 years, we have been talking about the Dreamer population. We have been talking about border security for just as long. It is time we did something, and there is a lot of desire among my colleagues to find a path forward to make a deal, but as I said at yesterday's Judiciary Committee hearing, to do that, we need to be realistic.

To my Democratic friends, I say it is time to stop pushing for a clean Dream Act. As a matter of simple political reality, it is not going to happen.

To my Republican friends, I say we are not going to get the Sun, the Moon, and the stars. We should push for the best deal we can get, but we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. So let's be realistic, and I say that to both sides, as one who has made a lot of deals in my time.

Here is where I am on the issue.

First, we need a deal that has broad support. I hope we can get that support from both sides. Certainly, with the Republican majority in Congress, any deal that moves forward must have broad Republican support and be supported by the President.

Second, we should be wary of false deadlines. There has been a lot of discussion that we need to have a bill done by this date or that date, even though those dates have nothing to do with relevant program deadlines. We should not create a false cliff and then plunge over it in a rush to get something done right this second. A deal on DACA is a deal worth doing, and it is worth doing right. Moreover, a deal on DACA should not just be about DACA.

Third, we need a deal that is going to help our economy. Our goal here should be to strengthen our country. We do that by supporting communities and families and by ensuring that law enforcement has the tools it needs to keep our country safe, but we also strengthen our country by helping businesses thrive and create good, high-paying jobs for our workers.

Fourth, we need a legislative solution for DACA. We can't keep kicking the can down the road and relying on dubious legal authority to keep individuals in our country. It is not fair to them, and it is not fair to others who are seeking to enter our country legally.

Fifth, we need meaningful improvements to border security and interior

enforcement, not a figleaf, not window dressing--real reform. There has been a lot of talk about a wall. To those who are unwilling to entertain any deal that will have wall funding, I say: Let's not let something that would amount to less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the Federal budget scuttle a once-in-a-generation deal.

Sixth, we need to close loopholes and reduce fraud and abuse. One area that has been particularly susceptible to these problems is the diversity visa lottery. I have long been skeptical of the program. In fact, I introduced legislation in 2011 to sunset the program unless changes were made to cut back on fraud and abuse.

Another area that constitutes an enormous potential loophole is the ability of individuals to come to our country illegally but then use family relationships to absolve themselves of the consequences of their illegal actions. I think it is a problem to allow people who come into our country in open violation of our laws to turn around and avail themselves of our Constitution and laws to backdoor themselves into lawful status. We need a better system than that.

Finally, I think high-skilled immigration needs to be part of the discussion. There has been a lot of talk recently about merit-based immigration. Well, high-skilled immigration is merit-based immigration. It is immigration targeted at the best, the brightest, and the most highly educated.

Next week, I plan to reintroduce my Immigration Innovation Act, or I- Squared Act. This bipartisan legislation, newly updated for this Congress, will better align high-skilled visas with market demand so that employers are able to hire the talent they need. It will help end our stupid practice of educating people here in the United States and then sending them back home to compete against us, and it will stop some of the troubling abuses we have seen with the H-1B visa program. We should welcome the best and the brightest in the world, regardless of their origin. My I-Squared Act will help us to do that.

Our immigration laws are a mess. They are a morass of conflicting and confusing obligations that reflect past Congresses' pet projects and idiosyncrasies, rather than any real overarching principle. I want a system that makes sense. I want a system that is merit-based. I want a system that doesn't penalize people who were brought to our country illegally through no fault of their own but that also discourages future unlawful entries. Surely, we can have a system that does both. Surely, we can find a path forward that is fair and just to the Dreamer population but that reduces future illegal immigration. Surely, we can design a system focused around economic growth rather than arbitrary allocations of visa numbers, and, surely, we can create an immigration policy that focuses on what individuals will contribute to our country rather than where they came from or who they know.

In short, as I said earlier, we should welcome the best and the brightest in the world, regardless of their country of origin. That should be our mantra as we move forward.

With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. today.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, earlier this month, I announced that my current term of service would be my last. Since then, many of my colleagues have asked how I feel with my Senate tenure drawing to a close. I think many expect me to say that I feel an overwhelming sense of satisfaction and relief. Hardly. If anything, the decision to retire has imbued me with a sense of urgency that I have never felt before.

With a year left in office, I have an agenda that is as ambitious as ever,

and the ticking shot clock is a constant reminder of just how much I have left to accomplish. Just 168 legislative days remain in my Senate term, and I can assure you that those 168 days will be among the proudest and the most productive periods in all my public service.

Anyone who thought Orrin Hatch would coast quietly into his golden years clearly doesn't know me. The stars have aligned for this year to be one of my most successful yet. So don't expect me to go gentle into that good night. Expect me to be right here on the Senate floor, early and often, pushing the most critical reforms of this Congress. Expect me to take the lead on a Finance Committee agenda that will equal in ambition our accomplishments of 2017. Expect me to be the same steady presence in this body that I have been for the last 41 years.

Above all, expect a flurry of legislative activity from my office. I have a dedicated staff. They are determined to drive this old workhorse into the ground. And I have arguably the best working relationship with this President of anyone on Capitol Hill. Add to this the advantages that accrue from a lifetime of legislative experience and bipartisan dealmaking.

The point I wish to make is simple: In legislative terms, my final year could well be the most fruitful yet, and I hope it will be.

In the months ahead, I am eager to capitalize on our tax reform victory by putting the Nation back on the path to fiscal sustainability, finding a way forward on immigration, and securing long-term funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program--a program that I helped put into law and have been very pleased with over the years. I also intend to update our intellectual property laws for the 21st century, enact key fixes to our higher education system, and fill our courts with as many qualified judges as possible. Likewise, I look forward to working with my colleagues across the aisle to improve the competitiveness of our workforce, strengthen digital privacy, and blaze new trails on medical marijuana research.

But this brief overview doesn't cover even half of my agenda for 2018, nor does it include some of the legislative surprises I plan for later this year. The virtue of being a seven-term Senator with a reservoir of good will is that you have a little bit of latitude in your final year. That is why my plan is to go big and to go bold, because unless you are Michael Jordan, you retire only once, so you might as well make the most of it.

The truth is, I put the pieces in place long ago to ensure that my final year in office would be a legislative knockout, so no one should count me out, not for a single second, and anyone who does should be reminded that I can do in just a few months what it takes most a decade to complete. Tough old birds like me don't have lameduck years; we just dig in and get tougher. For me, 2018 is not a victory lap but a sprint to the finish, and I plan to finish strong. I look forward to working with all of you until the very end.

With that, I just want to say how much I love the Senate, how much I love my colleagues on both sides of the floor, how much I have enjoyed working with all of you over all these years and will enjoy this remaining year hopefully even more. I hope I can do some things that will be very beneficial to our country, to all of us, and that will help us all feel better about our service here and help us all strive to do better together.

I yield the floor.

If the Senator will yield, I thank the Senator so much. I am grateful for the friendship that I have with all of you but especially with him. He is one of the up-and-coming, moving, strong Senators in this body. I have tremendous respect for his work ethic, the effort he has put forth on a daily basis, the ethics that he imposes upon himself, and the logistical all around way of doing the Senate's work. I am very pleased to have him as a friend.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to a remarkable man whose smile and beautiful soul touched the lives of everyone he met. Matthew Hillyard passed away peacefully at his family home on January 4, 2018, to the grief of not only his family and close friends but to everyone who knew him in the Utah Legislature.

Matt, the loving son of Lyle and Alice Hillyard, was born with Down syndrome. His parents were told he would not live past adolescence; yet he defied the odds and packed a lot of life into 42 years on Earth. Matt never let his disability define him; instead, he shared his special light with everyone who caught his eye.

Matt's father, Lyle, has served as a Utah lawmaker since 1981. The father-and-son duo became a fixture of the Utah Legislature. When things got tense on the senate floor, Matt's innocence stood as a light to other lawmakers, defusing tension and stress during the most heated debates. He made friends with people from all walks of life--be they legislators, security guards, or schoolchildren visiting the capitol. Matt's smile and his big hugs were legendary, and people would often line up to be the recipient of his affection.

I had the privilege of enjoying Matt's hugs and greetings on many occasions, and I never left his side without feeling I had been in the presence of a truly remarkable son of our Heavenly Father. Legislative bodies across our country would be well-served with the steady presence of someone like Matt, a kind soul who gives love and unwavering friendship to all.

I believe there is a special place in Heaven for Matt, who personified the pure love of Christ. He lived a life of sweet innocence, friendship, and love. His warm embrace and sweet smile will be greatly missed by all. It is my greatest hope that his family and all who knew him will find joy and peace in the memories we have shared with this extraordinary man.

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to a trio of excellent staffers, all of whom served with distinction on the Senate Finance Committee for a number of years and who recently left the committee to pursue other ventures.

First, Mr. President, I would like to say a few words about Chris Campbell, a longtime friend and trusted adviser, who until recently served as the Republican staff director on the committee. Last summer, he was nominated and confirmed to serve as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Institutions.

I have known Chris for more than 17 years, and I cannot overstate his importance and contributions to my years of work here in the Senate. Chris joined my campaign for President back in 2000, where I immediately recognized his talent and leadership abilities and appointed him to be my national field director, although he was relatively young and inexperienced at the time. Needless to say, I don't blame Chris for how that particular campaign turned out. In fact, that same year, I asked him to serve as director for my Senate reelection campaign, which thankfully met with much better results. After that, he came to Washington to serve on my staff on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

I have long urged my staffers to get as much education as possible to enhance their understanding and gain new perspectives. I nagged Chris about this during my Presidential campaign. Eventually, after working on my staff for a few years, he wanted to upgrade his bachelor's degree in political science from the University of California at Santa Barbara with an MBA from the Thunderbird School of Global Management.

A short time after receiving his MBA and a brief stint in the private sector, Chris desired to return to public service, and when he returned to Washington, I hired him back without hesitation and asked him to serve as my legislative director, a post he held until 2011 when I took over as the lead Republican on the Finance Committee and appointed him to be the staff director.

During his time on the committee staff, Chris quarterbacked every major effort we undertook. This includes successes like the approval of free-trade agreements, the bipartisan renewal of trade promotion authority and the modernization of U.S. trade laws, the repeal and replacement of the Medicare sustainable growth rate, and the long-term funding of the Federal highway trust fund, just to name a few.

Of course, his work on the long-term tax reform effort was invaluable. We began our work on tax reform right out of the gate in 2011 and worked with Chairman Baucus and others to drive it forward. Chris was a key part of all of the work we did over the years to advance tax reform. While his move to Treasury came just before the final stages of that effort, I was fortunately able to benefit from his continued advice and counsel as we moved closer to and eventually crossed the finish line.

Chris is a shrewd but effective negotiator and a brilliant legislative strategist. Congressional Quarterly named him one of the seven most influential non-elected people working in Congress, and Roll Call put him on its list of the 50 most influential staffers on Capitol Hill for 7 straight years. Clearly, I am not the only one who recognizes his abilities. I know the other members of the Finance Committee--on both sides of the aisle--have also acknowledged and benefited from his years of work.

Still, even with all of his accomplishments, what stands out most to me about Chris Campbell is his life story. He is a great example of how hard work and education can help a person become much more than what some statistician might predict. Chris grew up in Hemet, CA, as one of six children who struggled--and that is putting it lightly--to make ends meet. He didn't grow up with family connections or powerful benefactors, but thanks to his diligence and determination and no shortage of natural ability, he became one of the most effective and influential staffers on Capitol Hill, and he now serves in a key leadership role in the administration.

While it pained me to see him head off to Treasury, I have been comforted to know that the President knows how to pick the best people and that the Department of the Treasury is being well served.

I personally want to thank Chris for his years in working with me, for his candid and thoughtful advice, and for his commitment to public service. I wish him all the best in his future endeavors, which I am quite sure will be just as successful as his time here.

Mr. President, I would like to say a few words about another former staffer, Becky Shipp, who also left the Finance Committee staff a few months ago to pursue another venture.

While I have known Becky for more years than either she or I would like to count, I can tell you that she served tirelessly on the Senate Finance Committee for more than 10 years. She saw chairmen come and go and was an institution here in her own right.

In my time on the Hill, I have come to know many different staffers, all of whom got involved in the government for all types of well- meaning and patriotic reasons. They each have some expertise, some interest, and some motivation that helps them get through the hard times that staff encounter with the stressful conditions and the below- market pay.

I have long said that Senators and staff take on sacred obligations when we come to work here, and I cannot think of many who have taken that sacred obligation to heart more than Becky Shipp. She spent her time in Congress working on welfare and human resource issues. Her dedication and zealousness in defending the less fortunate should serve as an example to all of us.

While issues surrounding child welfare, child and family services, and foster care programs are often overlooked, anyone in Washington who knows anything about these issues knows that Becky has played a singular role in the creation and preservation of the safety net we now have in place. Too often, welfare issues become bitterly partisan, but during Becky's time here, she always strove to find common ground no matter the personal sacrifice.

Her time on the Hill was extremely productive and impacted far more children and families than most any of us could probably ever count. Still, it was not without moments that, when looking back, seemed pretty lighthearted. One such moment came just a few years ago after many in Congress had become aware of the fact that welfare funds distributed through electronic bank transfers had been used by some to purchase alcohol, food, or other illicit items from strip clubs and other less than savory establishments. Becky quietly began developing a proposal to prevent this type of abuse. Eventually, her idea gained more traction than she thought it would initially.

Once members of the Finance Committee and in the House began to realize the nature of this problem, her proposal caught on like wildfire. The problem was that the Social Security Act did not have a definition for these establishments. After quite a bit of wrangling and putting herself in the shoes of some of the more seedy clientele and business owners, Becky developed a definition, more or less, from scratch. Specifically, the bill, now a Federal statute, prohibited the distribution of Federal welfare funds at ``any retail establishment which provides adult-oriented entertainment in which performers disrobe or perform in an unclothed state for entertainment.'' Now, many have chuckled at the specificity of that definition and at the fact that someone, somewhere had to come up with and write down that type of legal terminology, but Becky was not playing a joke or trying to be facetious; she was addressing a legitimate concern. That story, to me, epitomizes the type of person Becky Shipp is and the type of congressional staffer she was when she worked in the Senate.

I am quite certain that, even in her new endeavors, Becky will remain committed to promoting the same type of no-nonsense, proper governance, with an equal eye toward helping those in need to find meaningful work, care, and assistance. While Becky's work ethic, persistence, and friendliness have already been missed on the Finance Committee, I am quite certain that she will continue to do many great things and help many more people.

I personally thank Becky for her years of service and for all that she has done for me, for others in the Senate, and for those in our country who have been in need of a helping hand.

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

Madam President, before I turn to the main portion of my remarks, I wish to speak briefly on the situation in the Middle East.

The protests across cities in Iran reflect the failed leadership of a corrupt regime. The Ayatollah's negligence in denying the basic rights of his own people is inexcusable. Instead of allocating resources to care for families in need, the regime has chosen to use what economic gains it has accrued through the Iran deal to fund terrorism and sectarian violence in Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, and elsewhere in the region. I stand with the Iranian people in their demand for prosperity and freedom, and I call upon my colleagues in Congress to do the same.

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