In. The house in session today taking up a number of bills this week to coincide with combating trafficking and Child Protection week, you can follow the house on cspan. We are covering coverage of the briefing by the budget director, mick mulvaney, president unveiling the fiscal year 2018 Budget Proposal. We have posted that budget on our website at the top of cspan. Org. You can see the budget directors briefing and all the other related briefings online as well as cspan. Org. Pro tempe senator from utah. Mr. Hatch mr. President , i rise today to discuss International Data privacy. This is a critically important issue that has become all the more important over the years, as weve become more sophisticated. But its been pressing in recent months as a result of the Court Decisions impacting Law Enforcements ability to access Electronic Communications overseas. I dont think it will surprise anyone, mr. President , to hear me say our privacy laws have not kept pace with technological developments. The primary statutes that govern laws ability to access electronic data was enacted over 30 years ago, long before most people had even heard of email or the internet. Ecta was drafted in a world in which electronic data was stored on computers or on servers located in offices or homes. It presumes a world where data is in one location and where in order to access data, a person simply goes to the relevant location and retrieves it. That is not the world we live in at least now. Nowadays much of our data is stored not on home or office computers, but in the cloud, a network of remote servers spread throughout the world that allows us to access data from literally anywhere. The rise of cloud and Remote Network computing has transformed the Way Companies and individuals store data. No longer is data stored on site or in one discreet location. Rather, data pertaining to a single individual or even to a single document may be stored at multiple sites spread across countries or even across continents. This has created all sorts of complications for our laws. Ecta requires Law Enforcement to obtain a warrant before it can access many types of communications. It limits dis closure to foreign entities. War rents have traditionally stopped at the waters edge. A judge here in washington can issue a warrant authorizing Law Enforcement to search an office here in washington but cannot issue a warrant for searches in london or paris. What is Law Enforcement to do in a world of Cloud Computing where pieces of the same electronic document might be stored in washington, london, and paris . One possibility is to say that as long as the data is accessible from the United States, and so long as you can retrieve it by logging on to a computer somewhere in the United States, thats all that matters. Law enforcement can order its disclosure. This sort of maximalist approach brings with it a whole host of problems, however. To begin with, it pays scant attention to the laws and interests of other countries, including other closest allies. Other countries it turns out have data privacy laws of their own. And just like ecpa, sometimes these laws prohibit disclosure to foreign entities including foreign Law Enforcement. To say u. S. Law enforcement can compel disclosure of data stored anywhere in the world so long as that data is accessible from anywhere in the United States is really to say u. S. Law enforcement can override the laws of other countries. Or more particularly, its to say u. S. Law enforcement can order individuals or companies that store data overseas to violate the privacy laws of other countries. This is unfair to Service Providers who may find themselves on the wrong side of the law, no matter which side they choose. And it does little to help international relations. It also undermines trust, drives customers and undermines the privacy of u. S. Citizens by emboldening other countries with less robust privacy regimes to similarly seek unlimited extraterritorial access to data. Another possibility is to say that if the data is stored in the United States, then Law Enforcement may access it. But if its stored outside our borders, its off limits. This is essentially the current state of affairs following a decision last summer by the u. S. Court of appeals for the Second Circuit that ecpa warrants do not reach data stored abroad under the Second Circuits decision. U. S. Law enforcement can use compulsory process to access data stored in the United States but must work through diplomatic channels to obtain data stored overseas. This sort of domestic storage regime has the benefit of avoiding the conflict of laws problems that ive just described. But it also has very redrawlbacks. To begin with, it impedes Law Enforcements ability to solve and prevent crime in cases where the needed data is stored outside the United States, even when the creator of the data is an american, the Service Provider storing the data is an american, and the crime being investigated took place here in the United States. The mere happenstance that the data is stored beyond our borders, even though it may constantly or instantly be accessed from within our borders, places it off limits. Service providers in varying businesses practices in moving and holding data determine whether and investigation moves forward. This sort of domestic storage regime also forces u. S. Law enforcement to work through diplomatic channels, which sometimes are slow. And sometimes very cumbersome. And in many instances less protective of privacy in the u. S. Criminal process which requires a warrant from a neutral magistrate than a finding of probable cause. The upshot, mr. President , is that neither of these regimes is satisfactory. The maximalist regime that extends u. S. Law enforcement jurisdiction worldwide creates serious conflict of law problems in places u. S. Service providers in impossible positions. The more modest domestic storage regime, by contrast, hinders Law Enforcements ability to solve crimes and protect us from harm based on, based solely on where a particular document or piece of data happens to be stored at a given moment in time. What we need, mr. President , is a sensible regime with clear rules that determine access based on factors that actually matter to the person whose data is being sought. Privacy laws are meant to protect people, not obstructions. We ought not get bogged down with mindless formalism. Most people couldnt care less whether that, their data is stored at site, at site a or site b or country a or country b so long as its easily accessible and has robust privacy protections. At the same time we need to take proper account of the laws and interests of other countries, especially our allies. We ought to avoid, where possible, trampling on other nations sovereignty or ignore their own citizens legitimate claims to privacy, whether here in the United States or abroad. For this reason, mr. President , i believe the right approach to International Data privacy is to ground the analysis on the location of the person whose data is being sought. It is, after all, the person that has rights and the person whose interests are devalued when data is obtained without proper process. Accordingly, i propose legislation called the International Communications privacy act, or icpa, that sets clear rules for when and how u. S. Law enforcement can access electronic data based on the location and nationality of the person whose data is being sought. I intend to introduce an updated version of this legislation in the future. Heres what the updated legislation will say. If a person is a u. S. National or located in the United States, then Law Enforcement may compel disclosure, no matter where the data is stored, provided the data is accessible from a u. S. Computer and Law Enforcement uses proper criminal process. If a person is not a u. S. National, however, and is not located in the United States, then different rules apply. These rules are founded on three principles respect, comity, and reciprocity. First, respect. If u. S. Law enforcement wishes to access data belonging to a nonu. S. National located outside of the United States, then Law Enforcement must notify the persons country of citizenship and provide that country an opportunity to object to the disclosure. This protocol shows respect to the other country and gives the country an opportunity to assert the privacy rights of its citizen. Second, comity. If after receiving notice the other country lodges an objection, the u. S. Court undertakes a comity analysis to determine whose interest should rightfully prevail. The u. S. Interest in obtaining the data or the foreign interest in preventing disclosure. As part of this analysis, the Court Considers such factors as the location of the crime, the seriousness of the crime, the importance of the data to the investigation, and the possibility of accessing the data through other means. This analysis prevents an obstinate foreign power from impeding investigations without good reason where the u. S. Issue of disclosure is particularly strong. Third, reciprocity. In order to receive notice and an opportunity to object, the other country must provide reciprocal notice and objection rights to the United States. The country must provide robust privacy protections within its own borders and satisfy International Human rights standards. These requirements ensure that the u. S. Provides its own citizens an equal or greater level of protection against foreign requests for data. They also offer incentives to foreign governments to properly safeguard the data of u. S. Citizens within their jurisdiction. Tomorrow the Senate JudiciaryCommittee Subcommittee on crime and terrorism will hold a hearing on Law Enforcement access to data stored abroad. In that hearing, i hope well elucidate many of the principles ive described. Soon after the hearing i will reintroduce the International Communications privacy act. The bill reintroduced will incorporate feed isback from Law Enforcement and privacy groups. I intend to push very hard for this legislation, mr. President , and will seek every opportunity to do so. I want my colleagues to know that i will be pursuing any and all legislative vehicles to get it across the finish line. In the words of utah businessman jeff hamfield. Its imperative congress address the ambiguity within our current law. As every Company Becomes a software company, we need legislation that supports our companys ability to store data overseas, protects our individual privacy rights, and help u. S. Law enforcement do its important job. Unquote. I could not agree more. The International Communications privacy act provides critical guidance to Law Enforcement while respecting the laws and interests of our allies. It brings a set of simple straightforward rules to a chaotic area of law and creates an example for other countries to follow. It is a balanced approach and a smart approach and it deserves this bodys support. Now, mr. President , on another matter, i wish to register my strong support today for the confirmation of John Sullivan to be deputy secretary of state. Mr. President , the nomination of John Sullivan is another example of President Trump choosing the best and brightest for National Security positions in his administration. Ive known John Sullivan since he was confirmed as deputy secretary of commerce during the george w. Bush administration. He excelled in this position, which bears many similarities to the deputy secretary of state role to which he has been nominated. For example, as deputy secretary of commerce, john was responsible for the daytoday operations and management of a major federal agency. As deputy secretary of state, he will assume the same managerial duties but for a different federal agency. In facilitating International Trade agreements at the department of commerce, John Sullivan also owned his negotiating abilities, developing a diplomatic skill set that will be critical in his new role at the state department. As the chairman of the finance committee, i closely followed johns tenure at commerce. I was consistently impressed with his ability to promote american interests abroad while maintaining constructive relations with our trading partners. I have no doubt that he will continue to serve our nation well as the deputy secretary of state. In addition to his management expertise, John Sullivan is a practicing attorney with the law firm of myer brown l. L. P. There, too, he has developed a reputation for excellence, especially in the area of National Security law. Mr. President , in John Sullivan, we have a proven manager, a seasoned diplomat and a sharp policy mind who will bring strong leadership to the state department. In John Sullivan, President Trump and secretary tiller son have made an inspired choice. Mr. President , secretary tiller son is tillerson is doing a tremendous job at the state department. With John Sullivan as his deputy, even more can be accomplished. In addition, id like to thank John Sullivan for his willingness to serve. Of course i would be remiss if i did not also thank his family, especially his wife of 29 years, grace rodriguez, who has provided invaluable support to john throughout his Public Service. Its unlikely john would be here today without their consent and their constant support. Mr. President , few have the skills which John Sullivan possesses. Fewer still possess the patriotism, professionalism and integrity he has displayed over a distinguished career. He is the best man for the job, which is why i urge my colleagues to confirm him without delay. Mr. President , i appreciate this opportunity to make these points on the floor, and i yield the floor. Mr. Udall mr. President. The presiding officer the senator from new mexico. Mr. Udall thank you, mr. President , for the recognition. Today many of my colleagues will come to the floor to speak about the devastating impact that trumpcare will have on Rural Communities. I rise to join them in speaking on this topic and on the many other series flaws in the republicans bill to replace obamacare. When he was elected, President Trump promised he would provide health care for everyone. President trump and our republican friends have turned their backs on that promise. The Republican Health care proposal would put Insurance Companies back in the drivers seat and that means less quality and more costs for all of us. Rural communities, working families and people with medical conditions would be hit the hardest. Today we got a taste of how devastating trumpcare would be. The president s Budget Proposal slashes billions of dollars from medicaid and the Childrens HealthInsurance Program. President trump takes direct aim at bipartisan programs that have made historic progress for kids, for the disabled and for the elderly. Mr. President , former senator Hubert Humphrey once said, and i quote here, the moral task moral test of government is how it treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children, those who are in the twilight of life, the aged, and those in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped. When senator humphrey spoke those words, he had been diagnosed with terminal cancer. He died a few months later, and his words are just as meaningful today. Mr. President , trumpcare fails senator humphreys moral test. It doesnt cover more people or more services or provide health care or improve health care. It raises costs and reduces quality. Compared to the a. C. A. Or obamacare, trumpcare would be a disaster for families in my home state. In new mexico, tens of thousands of people have health care, thanks to obamacare and the Medicaid Expansion. Before the