Senator Hatch Applauds Supreme Court’s Stay of EPA “Clean Power Plan"
Washington, D.C.—Responding to the Supreme Court’s issuance of a stay on the EPA’s heavy-handed regulations on coal-fired power plants, Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the senior Republican in the United States Senate, applauded the decision.
"This administration's continuous attempts to circumvent Congress by unilaterally waging a war on coal production and electrical generation hurts all Americans, especially Utahns, by destroying jobs and hiking energy prices. I applaud the Supreme Court's decision to halt this onerous, unlawful, and costly EPA regulation and will continue to work with my colleagues in Congress to rein in the out-of-control executive branch."
Hatch: Obama Budget an “ideological document designed to satisfy political constituencies”
WASHINGTON – Lawmakers responded coolly to President Obama’s budget that was unveiled Tuesday. During a hearing examining Obama Administration’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 budget request for the U.S. Department of Treasury, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, dismissed the budget as purely political.
“Congress officially received the President’s budget proposal yesterday,” Hatch said. “And, as has too often been the case—particularly under this administration—what we received was not a practical vision for the future, but an ideological document designed more to satisfy political constituencies than to advance serious policy proposals.”
Outlining just a few of his concerns, Hatch added, “No matter what terms people want to use, this budget once again taxes too much, spends too much, and never balances. It presents a vision for expanding government, deficits as far as the eye can see, and an ever-growing national debt.”
The full statement, as prepared for delivery, is below
Today’s hearing is on President Obama’s budget for Fiscal Year 2017. I want to thank Secretary Lew for appearing before us this morning.
While there were some hints about some of the details in advance, Congress officially received the President’s budget proposal yesterday. And, as has too often been the case – particularly under this administration – what we received was not a practical vision for the future, but an ideological document designed more to satisfy political constituencies than to advance serious policy proposals.
For example, in his budget, President Obama once again looks to raise taxes on hardworking Americans, including some special new regressive taxes that are being packaged as “fees,” with all the revenue going to fuel expanded government and spending that is being sold to the public as “investment.”
No matter what terms people want to use, this budget once again taxes too much, spends too much, and never balances. It presents a vision for expanding government, deficits as far as the eye can see, and an ever-growing national debt.
That debt, by the way, currently stands at an astronomical $19 trillion, close to 80 percent larger than when the President took office, and at a level relative to the size of our economy not seen since the years surrounding World War II.
I will also note that the budget contains provisions relating to Puerto Rico. The challenges facing Puerto Rico have received a lot of attention in recent months. And, unfortunately, much of the debate has been overly politicized.
The President’s budget calls for $6.6 billion intended to provide an Earned Income Tax Credit for residents of the island, and roughly $30 billion for increased Medicaid funds, some of which are intended to offset what we are now being told was an inequity written into the so-called Affordable Care Act.
Apparently, the authors of ACA wrote a Medicaid funding cliff for Puerto Rico into the law. Now, we are being told – by some of those same authors, no less -- that this funding cliff is unfair and must be undone. I’d like someone – maybe Secretary Lew or perhaps any members of Congress who drafted and supported the health law – to explain why that was done in the first place.
I have been working hard with a number of my colleagues to put together a package to help the people of Puerto Rico, who should be our real focus in this. I have a bill with Senators Grassley and Murkowski that offers assistance, along with more than $7 billion of fiscal relief to the island without adding a penny to the federal deficit or debt.
And, since last summer, I have been asking administration officials, as well as some of my Senate colleagues, just how much additional health funding they would like to see for Puerto Rico. In every case, specific details have been withheld and Congress has simply been admonished to fix this problem in fiscally responsible way.
Yesterday, with the release of the budget proposal, we finally saw specific proposed numbers from the administration. Why it took until now for these details to emerge is beyond me.
In addition, while we’re on the subject of Puerto Rico, I do not believe the administration has been straightforward about the nature of the debt restructuring authority it is seeking for the territory.
While we keep hearing from our friends on the other side that Republicans are ungenerously denying Puerto Rico access to the bankruptcy protections offered to every municipality in the U.S., that is actually not what is being sought.
Specifically, the administration is advocating to provide unprecedented debt-restructuring authority to Puerto Rico, with an explicit preference for public pension liabilities over debt issued by the Puerto Rican government, even though the territory’s constitution gives preference to some of those latter debts.
We need to be clear about what’s actually being debated and proposed here, and, Secretary Lew, I hope to learn more about your thoughts on this today, and, going forward, I hope to learn more about Puerto Rico’s pension exposures. In fact, just this morning I wrote to the Governor of Puerto Rico asking for details since, all told, Puerto Rico’s debt and its unfunded pension liabilities amount to almost $120 billion.
As we know, lurking behind the recent increase in ever-larger municipal bankruptcies nationwide is a growing crisis of underfunded public pensions, and the underfunding of Puerto Rico’s public pensions is striking.
Another issue that I look forward to discussing today is a provision of the recently enacted FAST Act regarding the inactive debt collection program. As we’ll likely hear today from Senator Grassley, if not others, the conference report accompanying the law made clear that the intent of Congress was for Treasury and the IRS to expeditiously implement this provision by utilizing approved private collection contractors and debt collection centers. The law also requires that contracts be signed within three months after enactment.
That deadline is March 4th, just over three weeks away. So I look forward to a status update today on the efforts to get the contracts signed and the cases released, and to ensure that taxpayers are made aware of the program and how it will be implemented.
Finally, and related to the large federal debt that Treasury is supposed to manage, I want to make note of some disturbing revelations from the House Financial Services Committee about contingency plans formulated by Treasury and the Federal Reserve.
Secretary Lew, as you know, for nearly five years now, I have asked Treasury and the Fed for details about plans the agencies had to handle debt default, whether caused by a natural disaster, terrorist attack, cyberattack, or debt limit impasse. I have asked for these details in writing, in public hearings, and in private conversations.
And, in response to my inquiries, you, your predecessor Secretary Geithner, Fed Chair Yellen, and former Chair Bernanke have all opted to cloak any contingency plans in secrecy, sharing them only in private discussions with financial market participants. All of you failed to provide specific answers to direct questions, choosing instead to obfuscate the issue.
We know these contingency plans exist, yet officials at the highest levels of the executive branch have refused to share them with Congress or the American people.
This is unacceptable.
And, because we’ve received virtually no voluntary cooperation on this issue, legislation to require such cooperation and provide accountability is now probably necessary so the American people can know as much about our debt management as those working at Treasury and the Fed and in financial markets.
So, as you can see, we have quite a bit to discuss today. I look forward to a robust discussion of these and other important issues
Hatch Votes to Increase Sanctions on North Korea Following Repeated Provocations
Washington, D.C.—Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the senior Republican in the United States Senate, issued the following statement after voting in support of the the North Korea Sanctions Enforcement Act:
“This important piece of legislation tightens the ring of deterrence against a regime that continues to defy international law,” Hatch said. “This bill’s objective is not to needlessly interfere in the affairs of a foreign nation. Rather, it is to provide a tool to force an aggressor into compliance with international law and to deter North Korea from committing hostile acts, not only against the United States and its allies, but also against the North Korean people. I urge the prompt passage of this legislation.”
Background
On January 6th, the North Korean regime conducted a subterranean nuclear weapons test, claiming to have detonated a hydrogen bomb for the first time. Even Russia decried the test as “a flagrant violation of international law and existing UN Security Council resolutions.” This past weekend, a North Korean satellite launched on Sunday passed almost directly over the stadium where the Super Bowl was played an hour after the game, according to press reports. The pattern of closely pairing a nuclear test with rocket launches began in 2006, when the regime fired seven ballistic missiles, including the long-range Taepo Dong-2. Three months later, North Korea conducted its first underground nuclear test.
These acts prompted the UN Security Council to adopt, under Chapter VII, Resolution 1695—condemning the missile launch—and Resolution 1718—demanding that North Korea refrain from further nuclear tests and imposing sanctions on the regime.
Once again, in 2009, North Korea carried out a virtually identical pairing of rocket and nuclear tests. In April of that year, the rogue state launched a three-stage Unha-2 rocket. One month later, Pyongyang conducted another underground nuclear test. This second round of nuclear and rocket tests elicited UN Security Council Resolution 1874, which expanded sanctions, intensified inspections to prevent proliferation, and barred further missile tests.
Pyongyang repeated its weapon and rocket pairing in late 2012 and early 2013. Specifically, in December 2012, the newly-installed Kim Jung-un ordered the launch of another Unha-3 rocket. Two months later, North Korea conducted another underground nuclear test. The UN Security Council responded in kind with Resolution 2087—strengthening sanctions related to the missile launch—and Resolution 2094—tweaking sanctions related to North Korea’s nuclear program.
In addition to the now-cyclical pairing of rocket launches and nuclear tests, North Korea has consistently flouted international law and UN Charters . For example, North Korea has directly violated both the Korean Armistice Agreement and Article 2 of the UN Charter by taking kinetic military action against South Korea.
In 2010 alone, North Korean forces sunk a South Korean patrol ship—according to a multinational commission that investigated the incident—and separately fired artillery rounds at a South Korean island, killing two Korean Marines and injuring seventeen others.
North Korea has also been guilty of repeated acts of proliferation to rogue states around the world. The Washington Post and the New York Times reported that, in 2004, Libya received uranium hexafluoride of suspected North Korean origin. Similarly, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence revealed that North Korea assisted the Assad regime in constructing a nuclear reactor in northern Syria that Israeli forces destroyed in 2007.
-
Hatch Applauds Senate Action on Bipartisan Customs Legislation
Utah senator says, “This is a big win for American job creators and the future of trade policy in our country. Even more, it further underscores that through bipartisan persistence and hard work Congress can accomplish great things.”
WASHINGTON – Today, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) applauded Senate passage of H.R. 644, the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act. The measure, which was authored in the Senate by Finance leaders, Chairman Hatch and Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), authorizes U.S. Customs and Border Protection and puts in place effective tools to strengthen trade enforcement at the border and facilitate the efficient movement of legitimate trade and travel. Passage of the bill marks the largest legislative reform in customs and enforcement policy in nearly 20 years.
“Today’s Senate action culminates what has been an historic thirteen months for trade legislation in our chamber,” said Hatch. “Years of stagnation had enabled countless trade problems to accumulate, many of them crying for legislative resolution. Today, Congress responded and moved to enact legislation that will strengthen and modernize U.S. international trade institutions and policies for generations to come. This is a big win for American job creators and the future of trade policy in our country. Even more, it further underscores that through bipartisan persistence and hard work Congress can accomplish great things.”
The Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act passed the Senate by a vote of 75 to 20. This marks the fourth major trade bill that has moved through the 114th Congress under Chairman Hatch’s leadership. With approval from the U.S. Senate, this legislation will send two more Senate Finance Committee bills to the President’s desk to be signed into law. In addition to the trade enforcement provisions, H.R. 644 included the Internet Tax Freedom Forever Act, bipartisan legislation to permanently ban the internet tax.
Background
Whether it’s a local manufacturer, small business owner, or individual entrepreneur, American businesses need to exploit global supply chains so they can access the best inputs, add the most value to products, and ship their goods around the world as efficiently as possible.
And the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act does just that. Specifically, the legislation authorizes U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and puts in place tools to facilitate the efficient movement of legitimate trade and travel, while strengthening trade enforcement at the border.
It marks the first congressional action to modernize America’s customs system in more than 20 years and has garnered the support of industries, businesses, and stakeholders across the country.
Here’s a look at what they are saying
MICRO-ENTREPRENEURS: “Easing barriers to international trade and shipping is a top priority for Etsy sellers, and the customs bill does just that. We, along with our community of creative micro-entrepreneurs, applaud this Congress’ leadership on international trade.” (Chad Dickerson, CEO of Etsy 12/9/15)
MANUFACTURERS: “…providing much-needed guidance and statutory authority to automate and modernize U.S. customs operations to eliminate red tape and reduce trade delays that affect manufacturers.” (Aric Newhouse, Senior Vice President Policy and Government Relations, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) 12/10/15)
BUSINESSES: “This legislation would facilitate trade, improve customs enforcement, advance government agency cooperation, enhance enforcement of intellectual property rights, and set the global standard for border management.” (R. Bruce Josten, U.S. Chamber of Commerce 12/10/15)
SHIPMENT INDUSTRY: “…includes important provisions to simplify customs procedures for low-value shipments and enable more small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) from the U.S. to start exporting.” (Laura Lane, Global Public Affairs President, UPS 12/11/15)
SEMICONDUCTOR INDUSTRY: “As one of the nation’s top exporting industries, with over 80 percent of industry sales overseas, the semiconductor industry depends on the efficient movement of goods in and out of the U.S., which will be advanced by this legislation.” (John F. Neuffer, President & CEO of Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) 12/10/15)
STEEL INDUSTRY: “… a high priority for the steel industry because it would give the domestic industry and its workers the ability to petition U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to take action when there is evidence that foreign companies are evading the payment of duties intended to offset injurious dumping and subsidies.” (Thomas J. Gibson, President & CEO of the American Iron & Steel Institute (AISI) 12/9/15)
