Mr. Hatch mr. President . The presiding officer president pro tempore, the senator from utah. Mr. Hatch the senate is not in a quorum, right . The presiding officer the senate is not in a quorum call, senator. Mr. Hatch mr. President , i represent a generation of lawmakers brought up on the principles of bipartisanship and compromise. And i believe that these very virtues of the key to my success as a legislator. By putting these principles in practice as chairman of the finance committee, i was able to pass more than 40 bills sent to law during the last congress. And by working with my friends across the aisle over many decades of Public Service, ive been able to pass more legislation than anyone alive today. Mr. President , i draw from these personal experiences to illustrate a simple point. In an era of endless gridlock and increasing polarization, there is no alternative to civility and healthy debate. We would do well to remember this in light of the frustrations we have all felt over the past several months. The senate is capable of so much more than it is today. I know because ive seen the senate at its best and ive seen the senate when regular order was the norm, when legislation was debated in committee, and when members worked constructively with one another for the good of the country. Ive seen the senate where seen the senate when it truly lived up to its reputation as the worlds greatest deliberative body. Mr. President , i believe we can do we can again see this body at its best, but restoring the senate to its proper function requires real change on all sides. It begins by recognizing that all of us here, democrats and republicans alike, are to some extent culpable for the current dysfunction. If we want to break free of the current gridlock and if we want to show the American People that were serious about legislating, then we have to be honest with ourselves and we have to recognize that laying all the blame on the other side is as counterproductive as it is disingenuous. Most importantly, we must be willing to work in good faith with members of the opposite party. All too often we miss the opportunity to effect meaningful change by hiding behind partisan differences. We must take the opposite course by renewing our efforts to reach across the aisle, to overcome division, and forge consensus. There is no better temp lat for effective bipartisan legislating. This is the model that i followed for decades for the betterment of utah and the nation. And its the model that i followed most recently in working with my dear friend, senator coons, to introduce the International Communications privacy act or what we affectionately refer to as icpa. Icpa is more than just a commonsense proposal that updates Law Enforcement for the modern age. Its a symbol of what our two parties can accomplish when we lay aside petty differences and come together for the good of our nation. In crafting this proposal, senator coons and i took great pains to strengthen International Data privacy protections while also enhancing Law Enforcement civility to access data across borders. This issue has long been a priority of mine. Ive spoken about it at length both here on the senate floor and in other venues and have introduced legislation on the subject over multiple congresses. Most recently i came to the senate floor to explain how the rise of cloud and Remote Network computing has transformed the way we store data and to describe the implications of that transformation for our data privacy laws. Until recently or i should say until relatively recently, most electronic data was housed in personal computers or on servers located in offices or homes. This meant that in order to access data, a person could simply go to the relevant location and retrieve it. That is no longer the case. 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. Data pertaining to a single individual or even to a simple document may be stored at multiple sites spread across the countries, or even conts innocents continents. This has profound implications for data privacy. To begin with our privacy laws require government officials to obtain a warrant before they can access many types of electronic communications. Warrants, however, traditionally have stopped at the warrants edge. This means if a Law Enforcement agent is investigating a crime here in the United States but a key piece of information is stored on a remote server outside the United States, the agent may have significant difficulty obtaining the information. Without a warrant or an ability to get a warrant, the agent may have to use diplomatic channels to obtain the information, a process that can be extremely slow and cumbersome. Our privacy laws also prohibit disclosure to foreign entities. This means that when a Foreign Government is investigating a crime within its borders and a key piece of information is stored in the United States, the Foreign Government must likewise work through diplomatic channels to obtain the information. The growing prevalence of cloud and Remote Network computing has brought Law Enforcement into increasing conflict with these sorts of restrictions. Crime knows no borders. A child pornographer in bangalor may post photos of a victim on a british server that can be accessed worldwide. A u. S. Official investigating the crime pay need information stored on the british server in order to track down the culprit. If the server was in the United States, the official could simply issue a warrant but that tool isnt available in this scenario because the server is overseas. Moreover, the United Kingdom may have a statute similar to our own law that prohibits British Service for riders from disclosing communications to foreign entities. Diplomatic channels exist for storing such data but those channels are exceptionally slow and take months or even years to process requests. In the meantime, crimes go unpunished and perpetrators disappear. Mr. President , this state of affairs is simply not tenable. We cannot allow outdated laws to hamstring Law Enforcement. Law enforcement efforts in this way. At the same time, we must adequately protect americans privacy against unwarranted government intrusions. Some have suggested that the answer is to simply extend the reach of u. S. Warrants worldwi worldwide. This, however, is not a viable solution as foreign disclosure laws can and do conflict with u. S. Laws. Extending the reach of u. S. Warrants without reasonable limits would thus Place Service providers in the impossible position of having to choose which countrys laws to violate, ours or the foreign jurisdicti jurisdictions . What we need, mr. President , is a sensible ar regime with clear rules based on factors that matter to the person whoses data whose data is being sought. We need to take proper account of the laws and interest of the other countries, especially our allies. We ought to avoid wherever possible trampling on other nations sovereignty or ignoring their own citizens legitimate claims to privacy. Accordingly, icpa 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. Heres what the bill says. If a person is a u. S. National or is located in the United States, Law Enforcement may compel disclosure regardless of where the data is stored provided the data is accessible from a u. S. Computer and Law Enforcement uses proper criminal process. If the 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 the United States, then u. S. Law enforcement must first notify the persons country of citizenship and provide that country an opportunity to object. This shows respect to the other country and gives it 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 rightly prevail. The u. S. Interest in obtaining the data or the foreign interest in safeguarding the privacy of its citizen. As a part of this analysis, the Court Considers such factors as the location of the crime, seriousness of the crime, the importance of the data to the investigation, and the possibility of accessing the data through other means. Third, respec reciprocity. In order to receive notice and an opportunity to object, the other country must provide reciprocal rights to the United States. This ensures that the u. S. Provides its own citizens an equal or greater level of protection against foreign requests for data. It also offers incentives to Foreign Governments to properly safeguard the data of u. S. Citizens within their borders. Now, mr. President , up to this point ive been focusing on requests by u. S. Law enforcement for data stored outside the United States, but theres another side to the problem. And thats what happens when foreign Law Enforcement requests data stored inside the United States. As ive mentioned, our privacy laws prohibit disclosure to foreign entities. Suppose you have a british subject who committed a crime in britain but data relevant to the legislation excuse me to the investigation is stored in the United States. Even if british law provides for extra territorial process, a u. K. Official investigating the crime will be unable to obtain the data because u. S. Law prevents disclosure to foreign officials. As with u. S. Requests for data in other countries, diplomatic channels exist for sharing such data but these channels are slow and extremely cumbersome. Accordingly, for the past several months, ive been working with senator graham and others to find a solution to this second part of the problem. Senator graham together with senator whitehouse convened a hearing in may of this year that i believe highlighted the need for action. I have also met with ambassadors and sore highranking foreign officials who have impressed upon me the challenges they are facing under existing u. S. Law. And so, mr. President , i think we need to address this second side of the problem. Foreign requests for data in the u. S. As well, and we need to address it in conjunction with the first side, u. S. Requests for data and other countries. It will not do to give foreign authorities readier access to data stored in the u. S. Without likewise clarifying u. S. Law enforcements ability to obtain data stored abroad. Similarly, it is incan conceivable to me that we would it is inconceivable to me that we would open our doors to Law Enforcement requests that say Law Enforcement obtaining data in other countries is not permitted. Surely, we should not preference foreign criminal investigations over domestic ones. Mr. President , i believe these two issues, icfa and the bilateral u. S. U. K. Agreement are inextricably linked. I have worked in good faith with senator graham and senator whitehouse to find a path forward on these issues. It is my firm belief that we need to move these two issues together. Everyone has a vested interest in privacy and everyone has a vested interest in bringing criminals to justice. Were going to Work Together on this. In closing, mr. President , i would emphasize one additional point. The question of whether when and under what circumstances the United States should authorize Law Enforcement access to data stored abroad is a question for congress. There have been suggestions in some quarters that this is a question for the courts to decide. I emphatically reject that position. This is a policy question for congress. We should not defer to the courts interpretation of the statute that was passed 30 years ago with no thought or comprehension of the situation we face today. Subject to constitutional constraints, it is congress job to set the bounds of governments investigatory powers. We decide what government officials can and cannot do. We should not pass the buck to the judiciary merely because this is a this is an issue. We just shouldnt do that. 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 the law and creates an example for other countries to follow. It is a balanced approach, a smart approach, and it deserves this bodys fullthroated support. Mr. President , i suggest the absence of a quorum. The presiding officer the clerk will call the roll. Quorum call the presiding officer the senator from south dakota. Mr. Thune mr. President , i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be suspended. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Thune mr. President , when polls ask americans what issues are most important to them, one topic seems to score high every time jobs and the economy. Its not surprising. The American People had a rough time over the past few years. The obama years were characterized by longterm economic stagnation. Jobs and opportunities were few and far between. Wage growth was almost nonexistent, and yearly Economic Growth alternated between weak and woeful. During the last year of the obama administration, years, i might add, after the recession ended, Economic Growth averaged a dismal 1. 5 . Thats barely half of the growth needed for a healthy economy. Now, there have been some encouraging signs over the past few months. Economic growth for the Second Quarter of 2017 was stronger, but we still have a ways to go to get where we need to be. Things still need to get better and better faster. And another thing, mr. President , we want things to get better for the long term. During the obama administration, there were periods of reasonable Economic Growth but they were quickly followed by weak periods, and thats not good enough. We need to put our economy on a strong, healthy footing for the long term. So how do we do this, mr. President . How do we get back on the path to longterm Economic Health . One important thing that we can do is reform our outdated, inefficient, and growthstifle ing tax code. Now, the tax code might not be the first thing people think of when they think of Economic Growth, but it actually plays a huge role in every aspect of our economy. It helps determine how much money you have left over to save or invest or whether or not you can afford a car or a house. And when it comes to businesses, it can be the key to determining whether or not a young business gets off the ground or an existing business has the money to grow and to hire new workers. Unfortunately, our current tax code is not helping our economy. Too often, American Families find their Opportunities Limited by the size of the tax bill that they owe to uncle sam. And large and Small Businesses alike find themselves struggling under heavy tax burdens that compromise their ability to grow and compete. So what does tax reform need to look like . On the individual side, of course, we need to lower income tax rates to put more money in americans pockets. American families should be the ones deciding how to spend their earnings and not washington bureaucrats. And on the business side, there are two important things that we can do, mr. President , that will have longterm benefits for Economic Growth. First, lower tax rates for all types of businesses. Sole proprietorships, s corporations, limited Liability Companies and corporations. And second, accelerate the rate at which businesses can cover their investment costs to free up money for them to reinvest in their businesses, create new jobs and increase wages. When it comes to lowering business tax rates, there are several things that we need to do. For starters, we need to lower our nations Corporate Tax rate. The United States has the highest Corporate Tax rate in the developed world, and that puts american businesses at a competitive disadvantage in the global economy. When american businesses are taxed at a far higher rate than their foreign competitors, its likely to be the foreign rather than American Companies that expanned expand and thrive. But its not just our high Corporate Tax rate that puts american businesses at a competitive disadvantage. Its also our outdated worldwide tax system. We want american bus