[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 196 (Wednesday, December 12, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7458-S7474]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE 
   DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY TO RETURNS BY EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS AND 
              RETURNS BY CERTAIN NON-EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S.J. Res. 64, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 64) providing for 
     congressional disapproval under chapter 8 title 5, United 
     States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of the 
     Treasury relating to ``Returns by Exempt Organizations and 
     Returns by Certain Non-Exempt Organizations.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.


                        CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW ACT

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today, the Senate is voting on a 
resolution of disapproval that would rescind a dangerous decision made 
by the Treasury Department and restore a vital tool in the fight 
against illegal spending in U.S. elections.
  In July, the Treasury decided to reverse decades of precedent and 
eliminate a requirement that certain tax-exempt organizations must 
report the identities of their major donors to the Internal Revenue 
Service as part of their annual returns.
  Why is this important? Because the 501(c)(4) ``social welfare 
organizations'' and 501(c)(6) business leagues that now are no longer 
required to disclose their donors to the IRS are the very same groups 
that have poured nearly one billion dollars of dark money into U.S. 
elections since 2010.

[[Page S7459]]

  Dark money makes it nearly impossible for the public to find the true 
sources behind the shady attack ads and political campaigns that these 
organizations fund. But by at least requiring these groups to disclose 
their major donors to the IRS, the rule ensured that the government 
could monitor the groups' compliance with campaign finance laws, such 
as the ban on foreign contributions. Now that this enforcement tool has 
been lost, it will be much easier for foreign powers to illegally 
funnel money into our elections through dark money organizations.
  At a time when we know the U.S. remains under threat of foreign 
interference in our elections, why would we make it harder for the IRS, 
law enforcement, and our nation's intelligence organizations to monitor 
the movement of money in our political system? The answer is clear--we 
shouldn't. The Senate must act to rescind Treasury's misguided decision 
and restore an essential tool in the fight against illegal money in 
politics and ward off the threat of foreign funds influencing U.S. 
elections.
  I am proud to join Senators Tester and Wyden in support of this 
resolution and urge my colleagues to cast their vote in support of 
today's CRA.


                         Tribute to Bill Nelson

  Mr. President, I would like to enter into the Record a tribute to my 
colleague and friend Bill Nelson of Florida.
  Bill is leaving the Senate after an amazing career. We served 
together on the House for 8 years, 17 years in the Senate--a quarter of 
a century working together. He is an extraordinary man who has 
represented the State of Florida so well, served as one of the few 
congressional astronauts in 1986 when he was on the Space Shuttle 
Columbia.
  He is a courageous, hard-working man. With his wife Grace by his 
side, they have done so many good things. They went to Haiti together, 
and I respect his commitment to public service and his commitment to 
the people of Florida.
  Senator Nelson and I go back a long ways. We served together in the 
House for 8 years--and 17 years in this Senate. A quarter-century 
together in the arena. I remember then-Congressman Bill Nelson made the 
gutsy decision to fly in space aboard NASA's Space Shuttle Columbia in 
January 1986.
  To give you an idea of how much courage that took, consider this: 
That was the last shuttle mission before the Space Shuttle Challenger 
disaster.
  A number of people who have flown in space talk about something they 
call ``the overview effect''--a shift in perspective that occurs when 
you see the Earth hanging like a tiny, fragile ball in the black void 
of space. From the heavens, there are no boundaries, and you see that 
all of us on this planet are part of the same whole.
  I think that seeing the Earth from that perspective would make anyone 
a better Senator. It may explain why Bill Nelson has always been so 
willing to reach out to other Senators--including our friends on the 
other side of the aisle--to solve problems for the people of Florida 
and for our Nation. He knows that our common humanity is bigger than 
our differences of opinion.
  Senator Nelson displayed a different kind of courage in the Senate. 
He voted for the economic stimulus package that helped pull America and 
the world back from the brink of a Second Great Depression. He voted to 
create the Affordable Care Act--a vote that was politically risky, but 
has saved lives.
  NASA and America's manned space program has had no greater champion--
save possibly John Glenn himself.
  Bill Nelson has been a champion for: Working families; economic 
fairness; and good schools and affordable college education.
   He has fought for: Clean oceans; safe and sustainable energy; 
reasonable, responsible action to prevent climate chaos; and for 
scientific integrity.
  He has given most of his adult life to public service. He is a 
reasonable man in an unreasonable time. I will miss his courage in our 
caucus and in this Senate. I wish my old friend all the best as he 
begins the next chapters in his remarkable life. He will be missed.


                            Border Security

  Mr. President, let me also say at this moment that we are debating 
the question of border security.
  Yesterday, the Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection appeared 
before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Mr. McAleenan, who has been the 
Commissioner, is a professional. I respect the fact that he has a world 
of experience.
  When he came to my office last year, I said to him: If I gave you a 
blank check for border security to make us safer in the United States, 
what would you buy?
  He said: More technology, more people.
  You will note that he didn't say a wall because he knows, as we do, 
that a wall is a 19th century answer to a 21st century challenge. We 
can make America safer, and should, with a secure border, using 
technology and personnel--well trained. This notion that we need to 
build a $5 billion wall came up yesterday during the course of the 
hearing.
  I noted the fact that for the first time in my life, it was being 
reported publicly that the life expectancy of Americans has gone down. 
You wonder why, in this great, progressive, prosperous Nation, it is 
the case. It is because of the drug epidemic--an epidemic which has 
been fueled by opioids and heroin and fentanyl. Some 40,000 or more 
Americans lose their life annually to this epidemic--more than we lose 
in traffic accidents, for example.
  When you look at the source of the narcotics, you find the most 
deadly chemical, fentanyl, is coming into the United States over our 
borders, where it is then mixed with other chemicals and sold to those 
on the street, ultimately leading to their death.
  My question to Customs and Border Protection was: What more can we do 
to stop the flow of fentanyl into the United States from China, through 
Mexico, and other places? What I heard from Mr. McAleenan was not 
encouraging because it says to me he knows what can be done, and yet he 
doesn't have the resources to address it.
  Let me be specific. He told me last year there is something called a 
Z Portal. This is a scanning device which can literally scan railroad 
cars, trucks, and cars coming into the United States to see if they 
detect anything suspicious--whether it is narcotics or contraband or 
guns or individuals hidden away.
  Currently, almost 100 percent of the railroad cars go through the 
scanning before they come into the United States, but fewer than one 
out of five other vehicles are scanned. I asked Mr. McAleenan, if we 
are going to put more money into border security, wouldn't we put money 
into these Z Portals; wouldn't you ask for more money to fund this 
technology? He said he would, and he wanted to.
  I asked him how much it would cost to really make sure we have border 
protection to stop these deadly narcotics from coming into the United 
States. His answer was $300 million. Put that next to the President's 
outrageous demands for $5 billion for a wall that all of us agree--at 
least most agree--is an ineffective and wasteful expenditure of 
taxpayers' money.
  The President may think he made some campaign pledge that he has to 
keep come hell or high water, but that pledge also included a promise 
that Mexico was going to pay for this wall. Now the President wants us 
to pay for this wall. That is $5 billion for his campaign promise 
instead of $300 million to keep America safe from more narcotics 
flowing across our borders. That, to me, is a ridiculous option that 
the President is demanding.
  If we want a safe border, if we want to stop this drug epidemic which 
is killing so many people, let us put the technology in place which 
will keep us safer. That technology is not a wall from sea to shining 
sea that the President demands.


                         Saudi War Powers Bill

  Mr. President, regardless of who is serving in the White House--a 
Democrat or Republican--I have long felt the Constitution is very 
clear. The American people--through Congress, and through Congress 
alone--have the constitutional responsibility to declare war.
  Whether I was holding President Bush in the Iraq war or President 
Obama in our interventions in Syria or Libya to this standard, it 
really came down to the same basic principle. The Constitution is 
clear. Article I section 8 states: ``The Congress shall have the power 
. . . to declare War.''

[[Page S7460]]

  What we are doing later today is a debate over the future of the U.S. 
involvement in the war in Yemen. It is long overdue and deeply 
important.
  It occurs as we are entering the 18th year of the war in Afghanistan. 
That is an incredible fact. I was on the Senate floor and voted some 18 
years ago, after the 9/11 occurrence, to go after those responsible for 
killing 3,000 innocent Americans and who were believed to be in 
Afghanistan at the time. I voted with a clear conscience, understanding 
no one can strike the United States and kill innocent people without 
being held accountable.
  I had no idea when I cast that vote that beyond Osama Bin Laden, we 
would continue using that authorization against terrorism 18 years 
later to prolong the longest war in the history of the United States--
the war in Afghanistan.
  I don't believe anyone who voted, as I did, in 2001, for that 
authorization of force could have imagined that 18 years later we would 
still be engaged in a war in Afghanistan or that the authorization 
would be stretched beyond credibility to approve the U.S. military 
action in multiple countries around the world, which brings us to the 
war in question today.
  The disastrous and bloody Saudi-led war in Yemen is supported by the 
United States. Does anyone here remember voting to authorize U.S. 
military involvement in that war? Of course not. Did anyone who voted 
for the 2001 AUMF, authorization for the use of military force dealing 
with al-Qaida, believe we were including the Saudi-led quagmire in 
Yemen, a quagmire led by a reckless, young Saudi Crown Prince who I 
believe had direct knowledge of the brutal murder of journalist and 
U.S. resident Jamal Khashoggi?
  Not only was this war never authorized by the elected representatives 
of the American people, it is a humanitarian disaster. An estimated 
85,000 children have already died of malnutrition in this war, and in a 
country of 28 million, nearly half are facing famine because of a war 
that was initiated by the Saudis and supported by the United States.

  Look at this heartbreaking photo. This is the photo of a 7-year-old, 
young Yemeni girl, named Amal Hussain. This photo was taken and 
featured in the New York Times in November. This young girl died 
shortly after this photo was taken.
  ``My heart is broken,'' her mother said.
  I know this is a difficult photo to display in the U.S. Senate, but I 
believe it is necessary. It shows the consequences of this war and the 
failure of Congress to speak out clearly to this administration and 
take the actions necessary to stop our involvement in this war and 
humanitarian disaster in Yemen. The malnutrition and innocent suffering 
that you see in this photo cannot be ignored.
  On Sunday, some may have read the New York Times columnist Nick 
Kristof's devastating piece ``Your Tax Dollars Help Starve Children'' 
about his recent and courageous trip to Yemen. Mr. Kristof writes about 
girls like Amal and notes how we typically think of war casualties as 
being men who have had their legs blown off. Yet, in Yemen, he writes, 
the most common war casualties are children who are dying of starvation 
and that in the conference room in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and here in 
Washington, officials, simply, don't fathom the human toll of their 
policies. Maybe some think that this war in Yemen is justified, that 
Iranian influence and the Houthis in Yemen are credible threats to U.S. 
security interests.
  Ultimately, this is not about the merits of any such fight. It is not 
about soldier against soldier or combat against combat. It is about the 
innocent bystanders who are dying by the thousands. It is also not any 
way to vindicate the Houthis' troubling role in the horrible Yemeni 
civil war or their likely support from Iran. I don't try to do that, 
and I won't. It is about our constitutional duty and responsibility to 
debate and vote to participate in this war or in any war.
  Our Founding Fathers were wise and knew that the decision to send 
someone's son or daughter into war must not be made by a King or a 
supreme executive, but in our case, it is by the United States, by the 
elected Representatives of the people. Just think of how many battles 
in human history--how many deaths, how much blood and destruction--have 
occurred to satisfy vanity or the narrow interests of a despot or an 
unelected ruler.
  Our Constitution makes it clear that we are different. The American 
people are given the voice and the responsibility to decide if their 
sons or daughters will participate in the war, and they do it through 
the U.S. Congress, including this very organization, body, in which I 
serve. We have utterly failed as the U.S. Senate in this 
responsibility.
  So we are long overdue to have this debate, which is coming up today 
or tomorrow, and a vote, which will ultimately reflect whether we 
should continue with the war in Yemen. I will be voting against that 
war. I believe we have to put an end to this humanitarian disaster, and 
the American people, especially those in Illinois, have sent me here to 
Congress to express that clearly.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Congressional Review Act

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the Senate is now opening the crucial 
debate on our proposal to throw out the Trump pro-dark money campaign 
rule under the Congressional Review Act.
  At the outset, I thank my colleague Senator Tester for his leadership 
on the issue of bringing sunshine to American elections.
  The fact is the State of Montana is the poster child of campaign 
finance reform--a textbook case of the sort of transparency and 
accountability that American elections need to all be about, and no 
Senator embodies that tradition more than Montana's own Jon Tester.
  If you know anything about the history of the State and the Montana 
Copper Kings, you know why Montanans and Jon Tester always lead this 
fight. That is why I am so glad, as the ranking Democrat on the Finance 
Committee, to be able to partner with him on this critical issue. The 
Trump administration's dark money rule makes it easier for foreigners 
and special interests to corrupt and interfere in our elections. 
Senator Tester and I have filed this Congressional Review Act proposal 
because we want to make it harder.
  I believe deeply that when you are facing down secret money that is 
shifting between shadowy groups that want to buy our elections, 
sunlight is the best disinfectant. If you are concerned about foreign 
actors who are hostile to our country and who are illegally funding 
candidates who will do their bidding, sunlight is the best 
disinfectant. If you are worried about anonymous political insiders who 
have deep pockets that are tightening their grips on Washington, DC, 
sunlight is the best disinfectant. I hope, today, we will prove that 
sunlight should not be a partisan proposition.
  Yet the rule change the Trump administration pushed through this 
summer is not about sunlight; it is all about darkness. It is about 
secrecy. It is about giving the well-connected even more of a say in 
how American Government works. You can see that pretty clearly just by 
going back to the day the rule was announced. That alone shows how out 
of whack these policies are, how wrongheaded they are.
  On July 16, 2018, a Monday morning, the American people woke up to 
the news of the arrest of an accused Russian spy in Washington, named 
Maria Butina. She had come to our country years earlier and had set out 
to infiltrate conservative organizations, especially the NRA. She 
cultivated relationships with political insiders. She worked to 
organize back channel lines of communication for the benefit of the 
Russian Federation, and she set up a shell company in North Dakota with 
a very prominent NRA political operative. For months, her lawyer 
claimed she was nothing more than a typical college kid who was 
enjoying life in the Nation's Capital.

[[Page S7461]]

  It has been a few years since I have been in college, but I don't 
know of many students at Portland State or Southern Oregon who cross 
State lines to set up shell companies and organize lines of 
communication with the Kremlin. Most college kids in Oregon are too 
busy being college kids to infiltrate conservative political circles on 
behalf of a hostile foreign power.
  Hours after the vast majority of the American public heard Maria 
Butina's name for the first time, the Trump administration dropped its 
dark money bombshell. It announced a new policy that is going to let 
even more untraceable dark money from foreigners and special interests 
find its way into--infiltrate--our elections. For those like Maria 
Butina who want to secretly, furtively, invade and twist and corrupt 
our democracy, the Trump administration, just this summer, made it a 
lot easier.
  Shadowy political spending groups used to be required under tax law 
to disclose the identities of their major donors. After this rule was 
adopted, they didn't have to disclose their donors at all. Federal 
investigators are going to be blind to bad actors who use dark money 
groups to do their bidding. Even if the Internal Revenue Service and 
State tax authorities suspect a particular spending group is guilty of 
wrongdoing, they will not know who provided the cash.
  Since this is a tax policy change, it falls under the jurisdiction of 
the Finance Committee, where we do a lot of work on issues that deal 
with tax exemptions. Let's make one thing clear. There was no debate on 
this issue in the Finance Committee, and it received no debate on the 
Senate floor. The American people had no opportunity to comment on the 
rule change, which would be typical if you are talking about a major 
change in a regulation. So we are going to unpack that this morning.
  I am going to start by just spending a minute or 2 on some of the 
arguments I have heard from some who might not be inclined to support 
it.
  First, there has been an argument that disclosing these major donors 
is a violation of privacy. The Presiding Officer and I serve together 
on the Select Committee on Intelligence, and I think anybody who has 
followed that work knows that I am a real privacy hawk and don't take a 
backseat to anybody in terms of privacy rights. Yet allowing foreigners 
and megawealthy corporations to buy elections in secret is not a matter 
of privacy policy; it is a proposition that is anti-democratic. 
Furthermore, I will point out that the group that is making the case 
for the privacy argument online is, in fact, a dark money group.
  Second, since the announcement, the Trump administration has tried to 
downplay the significance of the new rule. The Deputy Secretary of 
Treasury told the Finance Committee that cutting off disclosure was all 
about working to ``further efficient tax administration.'' That sounds, 
to me, like dry Washington lingo for ``enforcing the pro-sunshine law 
is a pain, so why would anybody bother?'' Others, simply, claim it will 
have no real consequence.
  I have two responses to that one.
  First, if the dark money rule change is not any big deal, then why 
did the Trump administration work so hard to block Congress from 
challenging it? It kept the rule change off the official books for as 
long as it could because it was hoping to run out the clock on our 
oversight. This is real gamesmanship in order to make sure the American 
people don't find out about how there would be less sunlight with 
respect to big political donations.
  Second, the argument that cutting off disclosure will not have 
harmful consequences is another one that has been trotted out in 
opposition to our reform.
  If the existing rule requiring disclosure of major dark money donors 
to the IRS wasn't casting enough sunshine, that is not a reason to 
bring on total secrecy. That is not a reason for bringing on darkness. 
It is a reason to say you want to be on the side of more sunshine.
  A number of our colleagues on the Finance Committee--Senator 
McCaskill and Senator Whitehouse, who is a champion of disclosure--are 
all in favor of more sunshine. To me, this argument, as well, just 
doesn't stand up. We think that making as much public information 
public ought to be the policy of our land.
  One thing that is clear to me from my conversations this election 
season is that voters do not want more secret spending for more 
anonymous wealthy donors and foreigners leading to more political ads.
  It is not possible to escape all of these ads on television. Short of 
pitching a tent and camping out in the woods until the second week of 
November, you can't get away from it. People hear all of these charged-
up political ads, but much of the time they have no way of determining 
who is behind them. You get to the end of the ad, and a voice says that 
it was paid for by an oddly named group that you have probably never 
heard of, something like ``Americans United for Patriotic Priorities'' 
or ``Grandparents for This and That.'' Maybe the group is called 
``Families for Stuff.'' That is the kind of nonsense that is offered up 
in terms of disclosure that I, Senator Tester, Senator Whitehouse, and 
others who have been in this fight think is ridiculous.
  By the way, there are real-life examples that actually demonstrate my 
point. Some will remember Don Blankenship, whose mining company broke 
safety laws and lost 29 employees in the worst mine explosion in 
decades. A couple of years ago, he wanted, more or less, to buy a seat 
on the West Virginia Supreme Court. So he set up a political spending 
group called ``And For The Sake Of The Kids.'' Then he dropped a 
mountain of cash on the election, and his preferred candidate won. Let 
me repeat that in case anybody didn't get the essence of what he was up 
to. An energy baron, a leader in the fight for more dirty energy 
started a political spending group to protect his dirty energy 
interests, and he actually named it ``And For The Sake Of The Kids.''
  The dark money rule change--what the Trump administration worked so 
hard to get, what they worked so hard to hide from oversight--feeds 
right into what I have shown is a system of malignant, secretive 
politics that our people have had a belly full of. It gets to the heart 
of a larger problem. Across the country, our right to vote, our 
elections, and our democracy are under assault.
  Here are a few examples of what that means. Since the Citizens United 
decision, the amount of outside money spent by shadowy groups on our 
elections has gone into the stratosphere. Congressional districts are 
gerrymandered to such an extreme that millions of Democratic voters 
are, in effect, denied equal representation. In Wisconsin, Democrats 
got 54 percent of the vote, but only 37 percent of the seats in the 
legislature.
  Republicans ignore the advice of Trump intelligence experts ringing 
the alarm bells over election security, and they ignore the cyber 
security experts who have clearly stated that paper ballots and risk 
limiting audits are the key--the best way--to defend attacks on our 
voting system.
  Tens of millions of Americans cast their votes on insecure, hackable 
machines produced by companies that buy off election officials and 
evade oversight by the Congress. The Trump administration and his 
allies have invented a fake crisis of voter fraud out of thin air, and 
they have used it as a pretext to purge millions of voters from the 
rolls and discourage Americans from casting a ballot.
  State officials have targeted communities of people of color, 
shutting down polling places where they live and restricting 
opportunities to vote early or as an absentee.
  In the last few days, Americans have learned more and more about what 
happened in one district in North Carolina, where Republican Party 
operatives schemed to confiscate and destroy mail-in ballots, likely 
belonging to Democratic voters, if you read the press reports that are 
coming out daily.
  In some States where Democrats have won elections--look at Wisconsin 
and North Carolina--outgoing Republican lawmakers have sabotaged the 
powers of incoming Governors, in defiance of the voters who elected 
them.
  Trump's dark money policy--the idea that it is OK to have more dark, 
secret money in politics--reinforces the corruption that I have just 
described. It

[[Page S7462]]

concentrates power in the hands of special interests that can afford to 
cut a big check and buy the election results they want. It takes power 
away from individuals, away from moms and dads who vote to give their 
kids a brighter future, away from seniors who vote to protect Medicare 
and Social Security, and away from young people who are saying it is 
long past time to fight the devastation of climate change and the 
rising cost of education.
  Having more disclosure and more sunshine in elections traditionally 
has been bipartisan, and I hope the resolution Senator Tester and I are 
offering will also be bipartisan. All we have to do is have an outbreak 
of the legacy of the late John McCain.
  A few years ago, I introduced a bipartisan disclosure bill with my 
friend and colleague Senator Murkowski. Big bipartisan majorities 
passed campaign finance legislation in the 1970s. That is what Senator 
Tester and I believe the Congress ought to get back to. Throwing out 
the Trump dark money rule seems to us to be a good first step.
  This is an opportunity, today, to vote for sunshine in our elections, 
to say that sunshine is, again, the best disinfectant. There is none 
other like it for corruption in our elections. I am hopeful that, once 
again, this idea of transparency, disclosure, and accountability will 
be bipartisan in the Senate when we vote a little bit after noon today.
  I will close by way of saying that I come from a State where citizens 
have insisted on open government. I have had more than 900 open-to-all 
townhall meetings, and the reason why people want them is because they 
see that as a path to accountability, and they don't want politics 
driven by just campaign donations and big money. They certainly don't 
want it to be dark money.
  We are going to know a little bit more about Maria Butina here in the 
next day or so, but, again, when you have college students setting up 
shell companies thousands of miles away from going to college, that 
ought to be a wake-up call that the Trump dark money rule makes it more 
likely and that we will have more of those shell companies in the days 
ahead.
  When we vote at 12:15, I urge my colleagues to support Senator 
Tester's and my resolution, with the support of many colleagues, like 
Senator Whitehouse, who has been a champion on these disclosure issues. 
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to remember that these 
issues have always been about bipartisanship and to join us in voting 
for our proposal that we will vote on shortly after noon.
  I yield the floor to Senator Whitehouse and thank him for all his 
work on these issues over the years.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am honored to join the senior 
Senator from Oregon in support of this important resolution.
  As I think everybody on this floor has observed, there is a rot in 
our American democracy, and there is a shadow over the Halls of 
Congress. The rot is dark money, and the shadow is special interest 
influence empowered by that dark money.
  A lot of this goes back to the extraordinarily misguided decision of 
the U.S. Supreme Court--or, I should say, five Republican appointees to 
the U.S. Supreme Court--in Citizens United, which took the astonishing 
position that the integrity of our elections should receive a value of 
zero in their calculus and their solicitude should be exclusively for 
the wealthiest forces that bring their power to bear on American 
democracy, because, after all, if what you are doing is unleashing the 
power of special interests to spend millions of dollars, by definition, 
you are only powering up the group that has millions of dollars to 
spend and a reason to spend it.
  That is, perhaps, the segment of the American population entitled to 
the least solicitude in our great American debate. Yet it was the 
exclusive interest of the five Republican appointees on the Court. It 
was an evil balancing of priorities but, sadly, part of a long 
tradition--going back to the Bellotti decision--of Republican 
appointees to the Supreme Court expanding the role and influence of 
corporations and special interests.
  In their foolishness, the five Republican judges who gave us the 
Citizens United decision claimed that the spending they unleashed was 
going to be transparent--not so.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to append to my remarks at the 
end with an article pointing out that secret political spending in 
elections in the United States of America is on track to hit a $1 
billion milestone.
  Not only is the secret spending a menace, but once you allow 
unlimited spending--particularly, if you allow unlimited secret 
spending--there is another dark problem, which is that if you are a big 
special interest that is able to spend unlimited money, and perhaps 
secret unlimited money against a candidate, what else have you been 
given the power to do? You have been given the power to go to that 
candidate and say: We are coming after you unless you do what I tell 
you.
  It opens threats and promises that are always going to be secret. So 
even were there not these evil channels for dark money to pollute and 
influence our democracy, Citizens United would still be misguided with 
respect to the darkness of the threats and promises that it empowered.
  Of course, when you remove accountability for the advertising and the 
sleazy campaigns that this supports, you get a lot more negative 
advertising. That is why one of the consequences of all of this has 
been described as a tsunami of slime.
  Whether you want to rid dark money channels, whether you want to 
diminish secret threats, or whether you want to combat the tsunami of 
slime, there is every reason to take a stand against what has become of 
our democracy. If you think this is just an academic pursuit, take a 
look at the climate change dispute.
  In 2007, 2008, and 2009, when I was a new Senator, we did bipartisan 
work on climate change every one of those years. We had bipartisan 
hearings. We had bipartisan bills. I think we had four of them in the 
Senate.
  Along comes Citizens United in January of 2010. From that moment 
forward, bipartisanship was dead because the fossil fuel industry that 
asked for the Citizens United decision and that got the Citizens United 
decision from the five Republican appointees was instantly ready to 
bring that new power to bear. They went to the Republican Party, and 
they said: Anybody who crosses us on climate is dead. They took 
representatives like Bob Inglis and put him out of his job to 
demonstrate their seriousness.
  From that moment, from the day the Citizens United decision was 
announced, there has not been a serious piece of climate legislation 
that any Republican has been willing to sign onto.
  If you doubt the effects of dark money, take a look at where we are 
on climate change. In this weird way, the pollution of our democracy is 
directly connected to the pollution of our atmosphere and oceans.
  And, of course, once you open a channel for a dark money influence--
an American dark money influence; ExxonMobil, the Koch brothers, Big 
Pharma, you name it--when you open a dark money channel for that 
influence to wreak its power, you can't control who comes through it. 
Dark is dark. And there is every reason now to believe that foreigners 
are taking advantage of our dark money channels to exert influence in 
our elections.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the end of 
my remarks an op-ed in Politico entitled ``Foreign Dark Money is 
Threatening American Democracy,'' written by former Vice President 
Biden.
  Today's Congressional Review Act measure is a small step. It won't 
provide much public disclosure; it will only require that companies and 
entities that are using these dark money channels continue to report to 
the IRS. So there is not going to be an enormous difference made here, 
but there is an enormous difference in which side this body will choose 
to be on in this vote today on Senator Tester's resolution. It is a 
very simple and a very stark choice. We can choose, one by one. Each 
one of us will make this choice today. We can choose to be on the side 
of dark money. We can choose to decide to be on the side of special 
interest influence, we can choose to decide to be on the side of 
whispered threats--I will tell you that dark money and special interest 
influence

[[Page S7463]]

and whispered threats have a disgraceful force in this building right 
now, thanks to Citizens United and the dark money channels that it 
empowered--or we can choose to be on the side of America as a city on a 
hill. Why do we call America a city on a hill? Because everyone can see 
it. And a city on a hill does not do its business through the dark 
money sewers that run under the city; it does its business in the plain 
marketplace and open spaces of that city, and that is what we should be 
for.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a report on 
this issue by a terrific bipartisan group, called ``Issue One,'' as a 
third appendant to my remarks.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    [From MarketWatch, Nov. 26, 2018]

    Secret Political Spending on Track to Reach $1 Billion Milestone

                          (By Victor Reklaitis)

       So-called dark money, which came into being after a Supreme 
     Court ruling, soon may reach a ten-digit milestone.
       That term refers to election-related spending by groups 
     that don't disclose their donors. This type of political 
     outlay remains far from becoming dominant, but it keeps 
     spooking researchers, lawmakers and activists, as it nears a 
     big round number.
       ``We see dark money flowing into this process from both 
     liberal and conservative sources, and in 2020 we will be 
     reaching this milestone where $1 billion will have been spent 
     by dark-money groups since Citizens United,'' said Michael 
     Beckel, manager of research, investigations and policy 
     analysis at Issue One.
       He was referring to the 2010 Supreme Court ruling in 
     Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that struck 
     down a ban on political spending by corporations. Beckel, 
     whose nonprofit organization aims to reduce the role of money 
     in politics, was speaking at a recent event focused on dark 
     money.


                  Far from the biggest source of funds

       Getting to $1 billion shouldn't be a big stretch, given the 
     current estimates for how much has been spent in the shadows. 
     More than $800 million has been shelled out to date since the 
     court decision eight years ago, according to Anna Massoglia, 
     a researcher at the Center for Responsive Politics, who also 
     spoke at the event.
       While it would be significant to have dark-money groups hit 
     $1 billion in spending since 2010, that amount is far below 
     what's spent in just one election cycle by all groups. The 
     2018 midterm races, for example, sparked an estimated $5.2 
     billion in outlays alone, mostly by Democratic and Republican 
     candidates, rather than dark-money groups or other outside 
     organizations.
       The $800 million spent to date by groups that don't 
     disclose their donors in the past eight years represents 
     about 18% of all political spending by outside groups during 
     that period, said Massoglia from the Center for Responsive 
     Politics, a campaign-finance watchdog.
       Dark money's rise has been rapid, but it's hard to predict 
     if it eventually could make up 100% of all outside spending, 
     Massoglia told MarketWatch. She noted some organizations want 
     to publicize their spending, rather than hide it: ``There are 
     advantages to doing that, in terms of getting credit for what 
     you're spending on.''


                       The trouble with dark money

       Dark money is a growing problem for candidates and voters, 
     according to Issue One Executive Director Meredith McGehee.
       ``Talking to members of Congress--whether they be 
     Republican, Democrat or independent--one thing they all fear 
     is dark money, because it's money that they have a hard time 
     anticipating, responding to, understanding,'' she said.
       ``And it's really a big question for the American people, 
     because when you don't know where the money is coming from, 
     it's hard to do what the Supreme Court said you should be 
     able to do as an American citizen--and that is to judge the 
     message partly by who the messenger is.''
       Other campaign-finance activists have said secret money 
     encourages corruption and threatens democracy.
       On the other side of the issue, former commissioner for the 
     Federal Election Commission Brad Smith, known for opposing 
     campaign-finance regulations, once wrote that dark money is 
     ``a term used not to enlighten, but to scare Americans into 
     approving of sweeping new laws, invading privacy in ways 
     never before seen in American politics.'' Supporters of 
     anonymity in politics have noted Thomas Paine's famous 
     ``Common Sense pamphlet was published anonymously in 1776. 
     They also have said that throughout history anonymous 
     political speech has been attacked by entrenched powers but 
     has helped challengers, and they've stressed that disclosures 
     can chill speech and lead to the harassment of donors.


                    The big spenders and key vehicles

       The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been the biggest spender 
     of dark money with an estimated $130 million paid out, 
     according to Issue One's recent ``Dark Money Illuminated'' 
     report. It's followed by Crossroads GPS, which is tied to 
     Republican operative Karl Rove and has spent about $110 
     million, and Americans for Prosperity, which is funded by 
     conservative billionaire industrialists Charles and David 
     Koch and has shelled out $59 million. The Democratic-leaning 
     spenders of dark money include Patriot Majority USA, with its 
     $18 million in outlays.
       Issue One said it was able to reveal some dark-money 
     through back-door methods such as analyzing tax returns, 
     looking at lobbyists and labor unions' filings and examining 
     other data sources.
       There are three main vehicles for putting such money in 
     play, according to Issue One. They are ``social welfare'' 
     groups organized under Section 501(c)(4) of the tax code, 
     trade associations established under Section 501(c)(6), and 
     limited liability companies.
       The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which lobbies for big 
     business in Washington, didn't respond to a question about 
     whether it agreed with Issue One's $130 million figure. ``As 
     a 501(c)(6) organization, the chamber complies with all 
     applicable lobbying disclosure laws as we advocate for 
     policies that grow the economy and create jobs,'' the trade 
     association said in a statement.


              An FEC creation that looks set to stay alive

       After the Supreme Court opened the door for corporate 
     spending in elections, the FEC said existing disclosure laws 
     weren't a good fit for this new category of outlays, said 
     Adav Noti, an attorney with the Campaign Legal Center, an 
     ethics and campaign-finance watchdog. The regulatory agency 
     then created a new disclosure rule that was ``extremely 
     narrow'' and led to dark money's rise, he said.
       ``Although it gets conflated with Citizens United pretty 
     frequently, it's not a creation of the Supreme Court,'' Noti 
     said at the Nov. 14 event. ``Dark money is a creation of the 
     FEC.''
       You don't need judges to overturn Citizens United to end 
     secret political spending, and you don't need Congress to 
     make a move, he added. You just need action by the FEC, but 
     that is ``simply not going to happen, at least not as the FEC 
     is currently constituted,'' said Noti, who worked as an FEC 
     attorney for a decade. He doesn't sound upbeat about seeing 
     an imminent end to dark money.
       ``The courts may intervene at some point. Congress may 
     intervene at some point. Otherwise we'll see what the FEC 
     does,'' Noti said.
       The U.S. Supreme Court in September let stand a lower 
     court's ruling that required dark-money groups to reveal some 
     secret donors, but then new guidance in October from the FEC 
     was viewed as limiting that development's impact.
       FEC Chairwoman Caroline C. Hunter and Commissioner Matthew 
     S. Petersen, both Republicans, blasted the lower court's 
     ruling in a joint statement, saying it had ordered a new 
     expenditure reporting regime just two months before the 
     midterm election and caused confusion. Commissioner Ellen 
     Weintraub, a Democrat, had praised the judicial actions as 
     ``a real victory tor transparency,'' but then after the 
     October guidance described the overall progress on the matter 
     as ``not as broad as some people had hoped.'' Hunter, 
     Petersen and Weintraub didn't respond to requests for 
     comment.
       This report was first published on Nov. 20, 2018.
                                  ____


                     [From POLITICO, Nov. 27, 2018]

          Foreign Dark Money Is Threatening American Democracy

                 (By Joseph Biden and Michael Carpenter)

       Here's how to put a stop to it.
       Whatever Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation 
     ends up revealing about Russia's efforts to subvert our 
     democracy, one thing is already clear from the media 
     attention this topic has received: America's democratic 
     institutions are highly vulnerable to foreign influence.
       Foreign powers use three basic tools to interfere in 
     democratic politics: cyber operations, disinformation and 
     dark money. Thanks in part to Mueller's indictments of 
     members of Russia's military intelligence agency (GRU) and 
     the St. Petersburg troll farm known as the Internet Research 
     Agency, we have begun to address election-related cyber 
     attacks and foreign disinformation. But when it comes to 
     foreign dark money--money from unknown foreign sources--we 
     remain woefully unprepared.
       The lack of transparency in our campaign finance system 
     combined with extensive foreign money laundering creates a 
     significant vulnerability for our democracy. We don't know 
     how much illicit money enters the United States from abroad 
     or how much dark money enters American political campaigns, 
     but in 2015, the Treasury Department estimated that $300 
     billion is laundered through the U.S. every year. If even a 
     small fraction of that ends up in our political campaigns, it 
     constitutes an unacceptable national security risk.
       While foreign funding of campaigns is prohibited by federal 
     statute, the body that enforces campaign finance laws--the 
     Federal Election Commission (FEC)--lacks both teeth and 
     resources. Sophisticated adversaries like Russia and China 
     know how to bypass the ban on foreign funding by exploiting 
     loopholes in the system and using layers of proxies to mask 
     their activities, making it difficult for the FEC, the FBI, 
     and the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement 
     Network to follow the money.

[[Page S7464]]

       One of the key loopholes is the ability of so-called super 
     PACs to accept money from U.S. subsidiaries of foreign 
     corporations. And while super PACs are required to file 
     financial disclosure reports, non-profit 501(c) organizations 
     (for example, the National Rifle Association or the U.S. 
     Chamber of Commerce) are not. So if a foreign entity 
     transfers money to a 501(c), that organization can in turn 
     contribute funds to a super PAC without disclosing the 
     foreign origin of the money.
       The last time Congress took on dark money was after 9/11, 
     in the Patriot Act, when we made it illegal for banks to be 
     ``willfully blind'' to money laundering and requiring them to 
     verify their customers' identities. But the lack of any 
     requirement to disclose the beneficial (i.e. ``true'') 
     ownership of limited liability companies (LLCs) makes it easy 
     for foreign entities to establish shell companies in the 
     United States. These shell companies can then contribute to a 
     501(c), invest in real estate or channel money directly to a 
     super PAC. Fortunately, there are steps we can take to secure 
     our system and shine a light on these murky transactions.
       In August, two dozen state attorneys general asked Congress 
     to pass legislation to disclose the beneficial owners of 
     LLCs. A federal solution to this issue is necessary because 
     individual states compete for incorporation revenue and 
     therefore have little incentive to reform on their own. In 
     Nevada, for example, the process of registering a company has 
     been described as ``easier than getting a library card.'' A 
     federal requirement to disclose the true owners and 
     controlling interests of LLCs would allow law enforcement to 
     scrutinize the ``ghost corporations'' that pop up overnight 
     in states like Nevada or Delaware--and that could be used to 
     funnel dark money into our politics.
       Real estate deals are also susceptible to foreign money 
     laundering because they are largely exempt from the ``know 
     your customer'' rules that apply to the banking industry. 
     This allows foreign entities to use shell companies to park 
     their wealth in the United States or to channel that money to 
     U.S. political interests (for example, by purchasing real 
     estate at above-market prices). Implementing more 
     comprehensive disclosure requirements in high-end real estate 
     and prohibiting all-cash sales above certain thresholds would 
     help create transparency in this sector.
       The fact that we don't know exactly how much foreign dark 
     money is being channeled into U.S. politics is precisely why 
     we need to reduce our vulnerabilities. There is ample 
     evidence of dark money penetrating other democracies, and no 
     reason to believe we are immune from this risk. In 2004, for 
     example, Lithuania's president was impeached after the media 
     disclosed that a Russian oligarch who contributed to his 
     campaign later received Lithuanian citizenship. Just this 
     past January, in Montenegro, a local politician was charged 
     with laundering Russian funds to support a pro-Russian 
     political party. In Australia, an intelligence report leaked 
     in 2017 exposed pervasive Chinese financial influence in the 
     country's domestic politics. Similar allegations recently 
     surfaced in New Zealand.
       As we take on the threats posed by cyber attacks and 
     disinformation from foreign actors, we can't ignore the 
     threat posed by foreign dark money. With a new Congress about 
     to be sworn in, there's an opportunity to finally end the 
     permissive environment for foreign dark money in this 
     country. Campaign finance reform is certainly a necessary 
     part of the solution, but so too is disclosure of beneficial 
     ownership and greater transparency in real estate 
     transactions. As matters of national security, these are 
     issues that should be of interest to both Democrats and 
     Republicans who want to reduce our vulnerability to foreign 
     corrupt influence.
                                  ____


                            [From Issue One]

                         Dark Money Illuminated

       Today many--if not all--politicians live in fear that 
     opaque dark money groups will launch 11th-hour smear 
     campaigns against them. If you listen closely, many members 
     of Congress continuously fundraise precisely to prevent this 
     doomsday scenario, leading some of them to even leave office 
     rather than try to out-raise the deep-pocketed donors 
     attempting to control their electoral fates.
       Dark money groups hold enormous sway over what issues are, 
     and are not, debated in Congress and on the campaign trail. 
     But the donors behind these groups rarely discuss their 
     motivations for bankrolling these efforts, leaving the public 
     in the dark about who funds these increasingly prominent and 
     potent organizations.
       Unfortunately, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy was 
     either ill-advised or misinformed when he--while writing the 
     majority opinion in the Supreme Court's Citizens United v. 
     Federal Election Commission case--assumed that any new 
     corporate spending in politics unleashed by the decision 
     would be wholly independent of candidates and promptly 
     disclosed on the Internet. In that ruling, Justice Kennedy 
     wrote that ``a campaign finance system that pairs corporate 
     independent expenditures with effective disclosure has not 
     existed before today.''
       But let's be clear: It still does not exist today.
       Issue One's new ``Dark Money Illuminated'' project--a year-
     long, deep-dive analysis into the forces at play in the post-
     Citizens United political world, which is accompanied by a 
     first-of-its-kind database of dark money donors--chronicles 
     just how difficult it remains to effectively ascertain 
     information about the true sources behind the deluge of 
     political dark money that Citizens United ushered in, even 
     for campaign finance experts. The project also offers 
     constitutional, bipartisan solutions to bring additional 
     accountability to the political advertisements from dark 
     money groups that are increasingly bombarding citizens across 
     the country.


                  AN EXPLOSION OF POLITICAL DARK MONEY

       Dark money groups are influential in part because they aim 
     to define candidates and issues before, during and after an 
     election. Thus, even if their preferred candidates lose, the 
     issues that define the election are aligned more closely with 
     the labor unions, corporations, mega-donors and other special 
     interests bankrolling these secretive groups.
       According to the Center for Responsive Politics, dark money 
     groups reported spending more than $800 million on campaign-
     related activities to the FEC between January 2010 and 
     December 2016 (the last full election cycle). What is less 
     known is that this surge of opaque spending has been 
     incredibly concentrated: Issue One's new analysis shows that 
     the top 15 dark money groups accounted for three-fourths of 
     this spending--more than $600 million.
       The U.S. Chamber of Commerce--the nation's largest lobbying 
     organization for businesses--alone has spent approximately 
     $130 million on political advertisements since Citizens 
     United. That's about $1 of every $6 spent on political ads by 
     dark money groups between 2010 and 2016.
       Other major dark money players in this top 15 list--each of 
     which reported spending at least $10 million on political 
     activities to the FEC since January of 2010 and all of which 
     are profiled on Issue One's website--include:
       Americans for Prosperity, the flagship politically active 
     nonprofit of the billionaire industrialists Charles and David 
     Koch;
       Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies (Crossroads GPS), a 
     Republican-aligned group associated with Karl Rove, a former 
     advisor to President George W. Bush;
       The League of Conservation Voters, an advocacy organization 
     that works to elect pro-environment candidates who are 
     typically Democrats;
       The National Rifle Association, the nation's top gun lobby 
     and backer of politicians who champion the Second Amendment;
       Patriot Majority USA, an organization led by political 
     operatives with close ties to Democratic Sens. Harry Reid and 
     Chuck Schumer; and
       The Planned Parenthood Action Fund, an advocacy group 
     working to elect politicians who support reproductive rights 
     and to thwart anti-abortion politicians.
       Informing and augmenting the profiles of these 15 major 
     dark money groups is an exclusive, first-of-its-kind database 
     created by Issue One that features information about the 
     donors identified by obscure public records--and other 
     little-known sources--who are funding these organizations.
       In all, this new database contains nearly 1,200 
     transactions spanning more than eight years--and identifies 
     approximately 400 unique donors who have collectively given 
     more than $760 million to these dark money groups in recent 
     years.
       Each record also contains a link to the primary source 
     document for each transaction--constructed through 
     painstaking research and fact-checking by the Issue One team, 
     building off of work previously done by the Center for 
     Responsive Politics, Center for Public Integrity, Center for 
     Political Accountability and others.


  HOW DID CITIZENS UNITED LEAD TO AN EXPLOSION OF POLITICAL DARK MONEY?

       By a slim 5-4 margin, the Supreme Court held in Citizens 
     United that corporations--including limited liability 
     companies and certain nonprofit corporations--could bankroll 
     overt political advertisements that called on people to vote 
     for or against federal candidates.
       While charities and foundations organized under Section 
     501(c)(3) of the U.S. tax code--the types of nonprofits to 
     which you may make tax-deductible contributions--are still 
     prohibited from engaging in electoral politics, the Citizens 
     United ruling allowed certain other nonprofits--most notably 
     501(c)(4) ``social welfare'' organizations and 501(c)(6) 
     trade associations--to spend heavily in elections.
       Unlike political candidates, parties or political action 
     committees, these nonprofits are generally not required to 
     disclose their donors, meaning the public is frequently left 
     in the dark about who is funding the ads that are trying to 
     influence their votes.


                       DARK MONEY DONORS REVEALED

       To paint as comprehensive a picture as possible about what 
     interests have bankrolled the top 15 dark money groups since 
     Citizens United, Issue One searched obscure public records 
     for information that has essentially been hiding in plain 
     sight.
       To this end, Issue One reviewed FEC filings, tax returns, 
     annual reports submitted by labor unions to the Department of 
     Labor, documents submitted to Congress by registered 
     lobbyists, corporate filings, press releases and other 
     sources. (See Appendix 2: Methodology for a more detailed 
     description.)

[[Page S7465]]

       These methods frequently led Issue One to be able to 
     identify transactions--and donors--that have never previously 
     been associated with these dark money groups.
       Here are some of the highlights of what we learned:
       Companies and labor unions are among the donors identified 
     by this research.
       For instance, while the U.S. Chamber of Commerce does not 
     publicly reveal its donors, Issue One found that nearly 100 
     blue-chip companies have voluntarily disclosed their own dues 
     payments to the trade association. The Dow Chemical Co. alone 
     has contributed about $13.5 million to the U.S. Chamber of 
     Commerce in recent years, while health insurer Aetna Inc. has 
     contributed $5.3 million and oil giant Chevron Corp. has 
     contributed $4.5 million.
       Meanwhile, Issue One found that gun manufacturer Sturm, 
     Ruger & Co., Inc. has contributed more than $12 million in 
     recent years to the National Rifle Association, while tobacco 
     company Reynolds American Inc. has contributed substantial 
     sums to three major dark money groups in recent years: 
     $275,000 to Americans for Tax Reform, $61,000 to Americans 
     for Prosperity and at least $50,000 to the U.S. Chamber of 
     Commerce.
       At the same time, Issue One found that labor unions 
     accounted for about $1 of every $8 raised between July 2009 
     and June 2017 by a dark money group known as the VoteVets 
     Action Fund--which has touted itself as the ``largest 
     progressive organization of veterans in the United States,'' 
     In all, the VoteVets Action Fund raised more than $5.6 
     million during this time from labor unions, with significant 
     union donors including the American Federation of Government 
     Employees, the United Association of Journeymen and 
     Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry and the 
     American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees 
     (AFSCME).
       Issue One's analysis additionally revealed that more than 
     two dozen of the nation's largest trade associations have 
     contributed to many of the top dark money groups in recent 
     years. Some have even contributed to three, four or five of 
     the top 15 dark money groups since Citizens United.
       For instance, the American Petroleum Institute (API), the 
     Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and 
     Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) 
     each contributed to five of the top 15 dark money groups 
     during the past eight years.
       PhRMA alone, in recent years, has contributed $12 million 
     to the American Action Network--a dark money group launched 
     in 2010 by former Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) and GOP fundraiser 
     Fred Malek.
       Another large donor identified on the other side of the 
     ideological spectrum: The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation, 
     a private foundation that is primarily funded by billionaire 
     investor Warren Buffett and that is named for his late wife. 
     The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation has contributed $26 
     million to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund since 2012, 
     earmarking these funds for ``the charitable purpose of 
     reproductive health advocacy.''

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I yield the floor to the distinguished 
Senator from Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of overturning the 
Treasury Department's rule that will allow even more dark money into 
our political process. This action by the Trump administration allows 
groups to hide the identities of their donors. It allows big 
corporations and wealthy individuals to inappropriately influence 
elections by contributing to outside groups in secret. This amounts to 
unlimited corporate political spending, effectively silencing the 
voices of everyday voters.
  Under this President, the Internal Revenue Service is looking out for 
wealthy donors rather than hard-working, middle-class voters.
  I strongly support today's action to overturn this rule. We need to 
reform our campaign finance system, improve disclosures and 
transparency, and restore the voice of the people in the democratic 
process.
  Michigan voters deserve to know who is behind the money being spent 
in our elections. We must take steps to improve transparency and 
restore trust in our electoral system. Above all, we must ensure that 
every American has an equal say in our elections, regardless of their 
means. The right of every citizen to make their voice heard at the 
ballot box is the very foundation of our democracy. I will continue to 
fight to ensure that the voices of Michigan families aren't being 
drowned out by big corporations or wealthy individuals with limitless 
resources who are trying to buy elections and the outcomes.
  We should be working to bring transparency to our political system, 
not shielding special interest groups, big donors, and this 
administration's political allies. I will support today's IRS dark 
money rule CRA, and I urge my colleagues to join me in giving the power 
back to the American people.
  I yield the floor to the distinguished Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the 
resolution sponsored by Senators Tester and Wyden to overturn the 
Treasury Department rule.
  We have heard loud and clear from the American people that they are 
sick and tired of the hundreds of millions of dollars of special 
interest money going into our elections. They are especially sick and 
tired of all of the secret dark money going into our elections.
  What do I mean by that? I mean when wealthy individuals can 
contribute to organizations and the American public has no idea who 
those individuals are, while those organizations go on to spend 
hundreds of millions of dollars to try to influence the votes of our 
fellow Americans.
  We have all seen those commercials that come on TV that say they are 
sponsored by the Committee for a Better America, the Committee to 
Support Mom and Apple Pie, and the public wants to know and has a right 
to know who is spending all of that money to try to influence their 
votes.
  The vehicle of choice for these shadowy, dark money organizations has 
been organizing their entities under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal 
Revenue Code.
  We will soon--probably in January but early on--we will see a bill 
coming over to the Senate from the new Democratic majority in the House 
of Representatives because their No. 1 priority is electoral reform, 
including getting rid of secret money, making sure the public has that 
right to know who is bankrolling these entities.
  What the Treasury Department did took us in the opposite direction. 
Currently, 501(c)(4) organizations have to report to the IRS the 
information about their donors, but currently the IRS keeps that 
information confidential. It does not share it with the public. We 
should share it with the public, and that is what the DISCLOSE Act that 
the House will pass will do.
  What this Treasury rule does is it takes us in the opposite 
direction. It says to those 501(c)(4)s that they no longer even have to 
provide that information to the Treasury Department on a confidential 
basis. So it heads in the wrong direction. It is especially outrageous 
because it will take away one of the key tools the Treasury Department 
has to prevent foreign money from being spent in our elections, because 
right now that information is made available to the Department of the 
Treasury.
  If you are a 501(c)(4), you have to confidentially report who is 
giving you money and how much. Now the Treasury Department says: We 
don't want that information. We don't want to see anything. We don't 
want to know if foreign governments are putting money into 501(c)(4)s. 
We don't want to know if the primary purpose of these funds is for 
electing or defeating candidates as opposed to social welfare--which is 
the requirement for a 501(c)(4) organization under our law.
  I think a lot of people are wondering why it is that this 
administration--and now maybe the Senate--wants to actually cover up 
for those who want to spend their money secretly to try to elect or 
defeat candidates. One thing we know is that across the board, whether 
they are Republicans or Democrats or Independents, Americans believe--
and I agree with them--that they have a right to know who is spending 
all of that money to try to influence their vote. So let's pass this 
resolution to overturn the Treasury rule in defense of secret money, 
when we need more transparency and more accountability.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). The Senator from Utah.


                         Farewell to the Senate

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, for more than four decades, I have had the 
distinct privilege of serving in the United States Senate--what some 
have called the world's greatest deliberative body. Speaking on the 
Senate floor, debating legislation in committee, corralling the support 
of our colleagues on compromise legislation--these are the moments I 
will miss. These are memories I will cherish forever.

[[Page S7466]]

  To address this body is to experience a singular feeling--a sense 
that you are a part of something bigger than yourself, a minor 
character in the grand narrative that is America. No matter how often I 
come to speak at this lectern, I experience that feeling again and 
again.
  But today, if I am being honest, I also feel sadness. Indeed, my 
heart is heavy because it aches for the times when we actually lived up 
to our reputation as the world's greatest deliberative body. It longs 
for the days in which Democrats and Republicans would meet on middle 
ground rather than retreat to partisan trenches.
  Now, some may say I am waxing nostalgic--yearning, as old men often 
do, for some golden age that never existed. They would be wrong. The 
Senate I have described is not some fairy tale but the reality we once 
knew.
  Having served as a Senator for nearly 42 years, I can tell you this 
particular thing: Things weren't always as they are now. I was here 
when this body was at its best. I was here when the 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. I 
was here when we could say without any hint of irony that we were 
Members of the world's greatest deliberative body.
  Times have changed. Over the last several years, I have witnessed the 
subversion of Senate rules, the abandonment of regular order, and the 
full-scale deterioration of the judicial confirmation process. 
Polarization has ossified. Gridlock is the new norm. And, like the 
humidity here, partisanship permeates everything we do.
  On both the left and the right, the bar of decency has been set so 
low that jumping over it is no longer the objective. ``Limbo'' is the 
new name of the game. How low can you go? The answer, it seems, is 
always lower.
  All the evidence points to an unsettling truth: The Senate as an 
institution is in crisis, or at least may be in crisis. The committee 
process lies in shambles, regular order is a relic of the past, and 
compromise--once the guiding credo of this great institution--is now 
synonymous with surrender.

  Since I first came to the Senate in 1977, the culture of this place 
has shifted fundamentally--and not for the better, in my opinion. Here, 
there used to be a level of congeniality and kinship among colleagues 
that was hard to find anywhere else. In those days, I counted Democrats 
among my very best friends. One moment we would be locking horns on the 
Senate floor, and the next we would be breaking bread together over 
family dinner.
  My unlikely friendship with the late Senator Ted Kennedy embodied the 
spirit of goodwill and collegiality that used to live and thrive here. 
Teddy and I were a case study in contradictions. He was a dyed-in-the-
wool liberal Democrat. I was a resolute Republican. But by choosing 
friendship over party loyalty, we were able to pass some of the most 
important and significant bipartisan achievements of modern times--from 
the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Religious Freedom 
Restoration Act to the Ryan White bill and the State Children's Health 
Insurance Program. These are very important bills, and we were able to 
work together even though we differed widely on politics.
  Nine years after Teddy's passing, it is worth asking: Could a 
relationship like this even exist in today's Senate? Could two people 
with polar-opposite beliefs and from vastly different walks of life 
come together as often as Teddy and I did for the good of the country? 
Or are we too busy attacking each other to even consider friendship 
with the other side?
  Many factors contribute to the current dysfunction, but if I were to 
identify the root of the crisis, it would be this: the loss of comity 
and genuine good feeling among Senate colleagues.
  Comity is the cartilage of the Senate, the soft connective tissue 
that cushions impact between opposing joints, but in recent years, that 
cartilage has been ground to a nub, and I think most of us feel that. 
We have actually seen it happen. All movement has become bone-on-bone.
  Our ideas grate against each other with increasing frequency and with 
nothing to absorb the friction. We hobble to get any bipartisan 
legislation to the Senate floor, much less to the President's desk. The 
pain is excruciating, and it is felt by the entire Nation.
  We must remember that our dysfunction is not confined to the Capitol. 
It ripples far beyond these walls--to every State, to every town, and 
to every street corner in America. The Senate sets the tone of American 
civic life. We don't mirror the political culture as much as we make 
it. It is incumbent on us, then, to move the culture in a positive 
direction, keeping in mind that everything we do here has a trickle-
down effect. If we are divided, then the Nation is divided. If we 
abandon civility, then our constituents will follow.
  So to mend the Nation, we must first mend the Senate. We must restore 
the culture of comity, compromise, and mutual respect that used to 
exist here--and still does, in some respects. Both in our personal and 
public conduct, we must be the very change we want to see in the 
country. We must not be enemies but friends. Though passion may have 
strained, it must not break our bonds of affection.
  ``The mystic chords of memory will swell when again touched . . . by 
the better angels of our nature.'' These are not my words but the words 
of President Abraham Lincoln. They come from a heartfelt plea he made 
to the American people long ago on the eve of the Civil War. Lincoln's 
admonition is just as timely today as it was then. If ever there were a 
time in our history to heed the better angels of our nature, I think it 
is now.
  How can we answer Lincoln's call to our better angels? In the last 
year, I have devoted significant time and energy to answering that 
question. Today, I wish to put flesh on the bones of Lincoln's appeal.
  Our challenge is to rise above the din and divisiveness of today's 
politics. It is to tune out the noise and tune into reason. It is to 
choose patience over impulse and fact over feeling. It is to reacquaint 
ourselves with wisdom by returning to core principles.
  Today, allow me to offer a prescription for what ails us politically. 
Allow me to share just a few ideas that, when put into practice, could 
help us not only fix the Senate but put our Nation back on the right 
path.
  Heeding our better angels begins with civility. While our politics 
have always been contentious, an underlying commitment to civility has 
been important and held together the tenuous marriage of right and 
left, but the steady disintegration of public discourse has weakened 
that marriage, calling into question the very viability of the American 
experiment.
  As the partisan divide deepens, one thing becomes increasingly clear: 
We cannot continue on the current course. Unless we take meaningful 
steps to restore civility, the culture wars will push us ever closer to 
national divorce.
  We would do well to remember that without civility, there is no 
civilization. Civility is the indispensable political norm--the 
protective law between order and chaos. But, more than once, that wall 
has been breached.
  Consider recent events: the pipe bomb plot in the midterm election, 
the terrorist attack in Charlottesville last year, and the shooting at 
the congressional baseball practice before that. These are stark 
reminders that hateful rhetoric, if left to ferment, becomes violence.
  Restoring civility requires that each of us speak responsibly. That 
means the President, that means Congress, and that means everyone 
listening today. We live in a media environment that favors outrage 
over reason and hyperbole over truth. The loudest voices, not the 
wisest ones, now dictate the terms of the public debate. For evidence, 
simply turn on the TV, but be sure to turn down the volume.
  The media deserves some culpability in creating this environment by 
adopting outrage as a business model, but we are complicit when we use 
words to provoke rather than to persuade, to divide rather than to 
unite. We only make the problem worse when the object of our discourse 
becomes to belittle the other side--to own the libs, for example, or to 
disparage the deplorables. If you are looking to convert someone to 
your side, humiliating them is probably not the best place to start. 
Who among us would make friends with the same person who would make him 
a fool?

[[Page S7467]]

  Put simply, pettiness is not a political strategy. It is the opposite 
of persuasion, which should be the ultimate aim of our dialogue. Our 
better angels call on us to persuade through gentle reason. They call 
on us to inspire and unite rather than to provoke and incite. In short, 
they call on us to embrace civility.
  In addition to embracing civility, we must rediscover a forgotten 
virtue, one that lies at the heart of our Nation's founding--pluralism. 
Pluralism is the adhesive that holds together the great American 
mosaic. It is the idea that we can actually be united by our 
differences, not in spite of them.
  In a pluralist society, we can be polar opposites in every respect 
yet still associate freely with one another. I can be White, 
conservative, and Christian, and my friend can be Black, progressive, 
and Muslim. We can be different but united precisely because we are 
united by our right to be different. That, in a nutshell, is pluralism.
  Pluralism is the alchemy that makes, out of many, one possible. It is 
the means by which we have been able to weave together the disparate 
threads of a diverse society more successfully than any other nation on 
Earth. At the heart of pluralism is the understanding that our country 
was built not on a collection of common characteristics but on a common 
purpose.
  When we approach political problems from a pluralist perspective, we 
recognize that the majority of our disagreements are not matters of 
good versus evil but good versus good. Pluralism acknowledges that 
there is more than one way to achieve the good life, if you will. 
Accordingly, it seeks to accommodate different conceptions of the good 
rather than pit them against each other.
  The adversary of pluralism is zero-sum politics, which we embrace at 
our own peril. Zero-sum politics tempts us to view life through an 
absolutist prism, one that filters all nuance and recasts everything as 
an either-or fallacy. This distorted way of thinking renders every 
policy squabble as a Manichaean struggle for the soul of the country. 
If the Republican tax bill passes, it will be Armageddon. If a Democrat 
takes the White House, it will be the end of America as we know it. It 
is funny how these prophecies never come to fruition.
  Answering the call to our better angels requires us to reject zero-
sum politics in favor of pluralism. It requires us to make room for 
nuance and to see our differences not as competing but as 
complementary.
  Nowhere is the pluralist approach more needed than in the fraught 
relationship between religious liberty and LGBTQ rights. As my 
colleagues know, I have made religious liberty a priority of my public 
service. Of all the hundreds of pieces of legislation I have passed--
and I have passed a lot during my 42 years in the Senate--the one that 
I am most pleased with and the one that I hope will most define my 
legacy is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Religious liberty is a 
fundamental freedom. It deserves the very highest protection our 
country can provide.
  At the same time, it is also important to take account of other 
interests as well, especially those of our LGBTQ brothers and sisters. 
We are in the process now of working out the relationship between 
religious liberty and the rights of LGBTQ individuals here in America. 
There are some who would treat this issue as a zero-sum game, who would 
make the religious community and LGBTQ advocates into adversaries. In 
my opinion, this is a mistake.
  Pluralism shows us a better way. It shows us that protecting 
religious liberty and preserving the rights of LGBTQ individuals are 
not mutually exclusive. I believe we can find substantial common ground 
on these issues that will enable us to both safeguard the ability of 
religious individuals to live their faith and protect LGBTQ individuals 
from invidious discrimination. We must honor the rights of both 
believers and LGBTQ individuals. We must, in short, find a path forward 
that promotes fairness for all. My personal religious beliefs require 
that, and I surely want to live up to those beliefs.
  In my home State, we were able to strike such a balance with the 
historic Utah compromise, a bipartisan anti-discrimination law that 
both strengthened religious freedoms and offered special protections to 
the LBGTQ community. No doubt we can replicate that same success on a 
Federal level. That is why, as one of my final acts as a U.S. Senator, 
I challenge my colleagues to find a way to compromise on this crucially 
important issue--a compromise that is true to our founding principles 
and that is fair to all Americans.
  Our better angels invite us to walk the path of civility and to 
embrace the principles of pluralism. Above all, they call on us to 
strive for unity. Before President Lincoln beckoned us to our better 
angels, he warned that a nation divided against itself cannot stand. 
That warning is especially relevant in our time. Today, our house is as 
divided as at any time since the Civil War.
  Each year, red and blue America drifts further apart. As progressives 
move to the coasts and conservatives retreat to the interior--to the 
center of the country--we are finding that a lot of difficulties have 
arisen, and they are not easy to solve. We increasingly sort ourselves 
by geography. We also sort ourselves by ideology, with media diets 
catered to quiet our cognitive dissonance and confirm our preconceived 
notions. It is a sad consequence of the Information Age that Americans 
can now live in the same city but inhabit completely different worlds.
  Something has to give; the status quo cannot hold. These are, and 
should always be, the United States of America. While that name has 
always been more aspirational than descriptive, it at least gives us an 
ideal to strive for.
  To achieve the unity that is our namesake, we must reject the 
politics of division, starting with identity politics. Identity 
politics is nothing more than dressed-up tribalism. It is the 
deliberate and often unnatural segregation of people into categories 
for political gain. This practice conditions us to define ourselves and 
each other by the groups to which we belong--in other words, the things 
that divide us rather than unite us.
  When institutionalized, identity politics causes us to lose sight of 
our shared values. In time, we come to see each other not as fellow 
Americans united by common purpose but as opposing members of 
increasingly narrow social subgroups, and thus begins the long descent 
into intersectional hell.
  Our better angels call on us to resist identity politics by 
recommitting ourselves to the American idea, the idea that our 
immutable characteristics do not define us. It is the idea that all of 
us--regardless of color, class, or creed--are equal and that we can 
work together to build a more perfect union. When we heed this call, we 
can achieve unity, and ideas--not identity--can resume their rightful 
place in our public discourse.
  This is the last request I will ever make from this lectern--that as 
a Senate and as a nation, we listen to our better angels; that we 
recommit ourselves to comity; that we restore civility to the public 
discourse; that we embrace wholeheartedly the principles of pluralism; 
and that we strive for unity by rejecting the rhetoric of division.
  When we heed our better angels--when we harken to the voices of 
virtue native to our very nature--we can transcend our tribal instincts 
and preserve our democracy for future generations. That we may do so is 
my humble prayer.
  Before I close, let my parting words be words of gratitude. There are 
countless people I personally need to thank, but first and foremost, I 
wish to thank the good people of Utah. Without you, I could have 
accomplished nothing. The landmark reforms that I have helped to pass 
in Congress have always been a joint effort, drafted by me under 
constant guidance from people like you. In that sense, the legislative 
legacy I leave behind is not mine but ours. That goes for my colleagues 
here as well.
  Representing the Beehive State has been the privilege of a lifetime. 
Thank you for allowing me to do so for 42 years. That is a long time--
the longest service of any Republican.
  I likewise wish to thank my family--my dear wife Elaine and our six 
children, who have stood by me through thick and thin.
  Of course, I wish to thank my congressional colleagues, especially 
Leader McConnell and Speaker Ryan, and the countless other public 
servants, including my friends on the Democratic

[[Page S7468]]

side, as well, whom I have had the privilege of working with over the 
years. These are friendships I will treasure forever.
  I also wish to thank my protective detail--the 20-plus men and women 
who have worked day and night to keep me safe over the years. These 
officers are like family to me.
  As all of you know, a Senator is only as good as his staff, which is 
why I need to recognize mine today. My Finance Committee staff is 
unequaled. Led by Jeff Wrase, it has helped me accomplish things I 
never could have accomplished on my own.
  In particular, I wish to thank my personal staff--the countless men 
and women who have served alongside me over the years. Because of you, 
I have been able to pass more bills into law than any legislator alive 
today. Thank you. I love you all.
  Let me take a moment to recognize them personally. Thanks to my chief 
of staff, Matt Sandgren, I am ending this term on a crescendo of 
legislative activity, having introduced more bills this Congress than 
at any other time during my Senate service. In the last 2 years, we 
have also enacted a historic number of bills into law. My staff has not 
let up in the final stretch, not one bit. We have been a legislative 
powerhouse to the very end, and I have to thank Matt Sandgren for his 
efforts in that regard. I have had many chiefs of staff, and I have 
loved all of them, but I think I saved, maybe, the best for last.
  My Utah staff has also played a critical role in my legislative 
success. A huge thank-you goes to Melanie Bowen, Sharon Garn, Annette 
Riley, Heather Barney, Sean Firth, Cloe Nixon, Jessa Reed, Ron Dean, 
Matt Hurst, Nathan Jackson, Courtney Brinkerhoff, and Emily Wilson.
  Here in DC, a huge thank-you goes to Matt Jensen, James Williams, 
Matt Whitlock, Corey Messervy, Ruth Montoya, Celeste Gold, Sam Lyman, 
Chris Bates, Peter Carey, Brendan Chestnut, Kristin McLintock, Jacob 
Olidort, Ally Riding, Dianne Browning, Heather Campbell, Nick Clason, 
Jeff Finegan, Will Holloway, Rick James, Bailee Flitton, Abdul Kalumbi, 
Monique Laing, Karen LaMontagne, Keri Lyn Michalke, Romel Nicholas, 
Lauren Paulos, Jordan Roberts, Margo Robbins, and Samantha Ryals. This 
truly is the best staff on Capitol Hill, in my opinion.
  Last, and perhaps most importantly, I wish to thank my Father in 
Heaven, who has allowed me to serve much longer than my detractors 
would have hoped. Each time I walk into this Chamber, I am humbled by 
the symbolic significance of it all. I am reminded of a passage of 
scripture, one of my favorites: For of him unto whom much is given, 
much is required. Truly, God has given me so much. In return, I have 
tried to give back as much as I could. I hope He will accept my best 
efforts.
  Before I get even more sentimental, I note that this is a final floor 
speech, not a final goodbye. Three weeks from now, I will no longer 
hold office, but I will continue to hold a special place in my heart 
for all of you, for all of my colleagues. I look forward to continuing 
these special friendships even long after I have left the Senate.
  I want to thank everybody in the Senate, all of the staff members, 
all of the law enforcement people, all of the people who have provided 
us with knowledge and ability. I want God to bless all of you.
  May God bless the Senate, and may He bless the United States of 
America.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  (Applause, Senators rising.)
  Thank you very much.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President and colleagues, we have so many waiting to 
speak about our friend Chairman Hatch that I am going to be very brief.
  If you are to talk about the Chairman's record over the last 42 
years, we would be here for months and months on end.
  I wish to say, if you had told this body or the country in the winter 
of 2017 that you would pass in this Congress a bipartisan 10-year 
reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program--we have 
plenty of Finance members here--you would have been charged with 
hallucinating. People would have said: No way; it couldn't possibly 
happen.
  If you had said in the winter of 2017 that you were going to pass a 
major set of reforms on foster care--reforms that Marian Wright Edelman 
of the Children's Defense Fund has been dreaming about for decades--
they would simply have said: That is impossible. It couldn't possibly 
happen. You are hallucinating.
  Colleagues, listen to this. If you had said in the winter of 2017 
that you were going to start a transformation of Medicare with over 50 
million seniors--a transformation from a program that traditionally 
used to be about acute illness and now is largely about chronic 
illness: cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and stroke--if you had said 
in 2017 that you were going to transform Medicare to update the 
Medicare guarantee to help seniors, once again, they would have said: 
Impossible.
  Colleagues, that has happened in this Congress because Chairman Hatch 
was willing to reach across the aisle, and now millions of kids, 
millions of seniors, and families from sea to shining sea for whom the 
foster care system didn't work are now going to be able to have a 
better path.
  I am going to close my remarks--I know so many colleagues want to 
speak--by quoting Senator Kennedy. As you know, Senator Kennedy had a 
long friendship with Orrin Hatch. In 1981, Chairman Hatch took the 
gavel of what was called the Senate Labor and Human Resources 
Committee. And I am telling you--the chairman remembers this--Senator 
Kennedy and Orrin Hatch got down right away to duking it out. They were 
duking it out over labor law and all kinds of things, but they began to 
develop a mutual respect. I am going to close by reading what Senator 
Kennedy said about Orrin Hatch.
  Senator Kennedy said: We are beyond the point where we let our 
differences get in the way of opportunities for progress. We have just 
learned it is a lot easier to work together than it is to fight each 
other.
  Senator Kennedy said:

       We have differences in terms of perhaps how we achieve the 
     objectives, but I don't really feel that I have a difference 
     with Orrin in terms of what the objectives ought to be. If 
     you build upon that kind of understanding and respect, you 
     get a lot of things done.

  Colleagues, I am telling you, if you look at 2017 and 2018, for the 
millions of kids who will benefit from the 10-year Children's Health 
Insurance Program, the scores of families who are going to benefit from 
the foster care dreams Marian Wright Edelman has been dreaming about, 
and the millions of seniors who will benefit from updating the Medicare 
guarantee, that came about because Chairman Hatch looked at Senator 
Kennedy's words, and he has continued that tradition in the Finance 
Committee today. I just want him to know how much we appreciate that 
work.
  It is going to matter, Mr. Chairman, for millions of people from sea 
to shining sea, and I thank you for the opportunity to pursue those 
opportunities with you.
  I yield the floor, and I look forward to hearing from my colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, it is with mixed emotions that I stand today 
to honor my friend, my colleague, and my mentor, the senior Senator, 
the Senator from Utah, Orrin Hatch.
  This year marks the end of an outstanding 42-year tenure serving the 
people of Utah in the U.S. Senate. In that time, Senator Hatch has made 
an indelible mark on our State, on the U.S. Senate, and on this Nation.
  People who follow Washington politics closely know, of course, what 
he has meant to this institution and also to his party, to his State, 
and to the Republic. But for those of us from Utah, Orrin Hatch is more 
than just a prominent name in the news; he is a towering political 
figure, not only of his generation but also of the generations that 
have come along in his wake and that will follow.
  Many Utahns can't remember a time before Orrin Hatch was serving, 
leading, and speaking out for us in Washington. One of the great 
privileges of my young life was the opportunity to serve as his page 
when I was a teenager. He was then, as now, one of the leaders of the 
Senate--not only a political role model but a role model, period; 
outspoken but always thoughtful;

[[Page S7469]]

honest but always gentle; tough when he had to be and kind even when he 
didn't have to be.
  One of my fondest memories of Senator Hatch was something that 
occurred a couple of years after I was his page. I was maybe 18 years 
old or so. I was in Salt Lake City attending the semiannual General 
Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the 
tabernacle at Temple Square. I happened to be sitting with my family--
with my parents and siblings--just a row behind Senator Hatch and his 
family.
  Toward the end of the meeting, it was time for Senator Hatch to catch 
his plane to go back to Washington, where he was representing our State 
so faithfully. When he turned around and saw me there, he stopped, 
recognizing me. He took the cuff links right off of his shirt--they had 
the seal of the U.S. Senate on them--and he handed them to me as a 
gift. I felt like and was at that moment the luckiest kid in the world. 
I felt just like a rock star had handed me his guitar after a sold-out 
concert. That is how I felt at the conference that day.
  Of course, Orrin Hatch's career stretches back much further than 
that. In 1976, the political landscape of the United States was very 
different than it is today. We were plagued at that time with double-
digit inflation, high interest rates, growing unemployment, and a 
diminishing military. America was still reeling from the war in Vietnam 
and from the Watergate scandal.
  At the same time, Congress was rapidly expanding the Federal budget 
with little or no regard for the future debt it was racking up. 
Washington was governed by the belief that government was the answer to 
every problem and that ordinary Americans could not be trusted to make 
decisions by themselves.
  It was in this environment that Orrin Hatch, without any previous 
political experience, without having held previous political office or, 
according to experts, much chance of success, stepped up, and he 
stepped up in a very big way.
  As he wrote in one of his memoirs, ``I could not escape the powerful 
and persistent belief that my state and country were in serious 
trouble, headed down a dangerous and destructive path, and that if 
given a chance, I could make a difference. I felt it was my duty, my 
responsibility, to run and at least give voice to my concerns and my 
ideas for remedying what was wrong. It was my obligation to give the 
voters another choice.''
  So Orrin--the son of a tradesman, who grew up during the Great 
Depression in a ramshackle house built from recycled lumber--did just 
that. He defied the pundits, and he took the plunge. From his first 
campaign in 1976, Orrin understood that Utahns wanted the country to go 
in a different direction, and he was ready to offer his service and the 
full energy of his heart and devotion to that noble cause. Against all 
odds and with a whole lot of work from Orrin, from his family, and from 
his faithful band of supporters, Hatch beat the incumbent Democrat by a 
solid margin. Thus began his long and now famous career in the Senate 
and his many years of striving to serve the interests of Utah and the 
Nation. For more than four decades, Orrin has not only been engaging in 
the great debates of his time, he has been leading them.
  As I see it, the thread that runs through Senator Hatch's politics is 
trust--his trust in the American people, his trust in the Constitution 
of the United States, his trust in this great institution that is the 
U.S. Senate. That trust of consumers, producers, workers, and families 
is why he is such an effective advocate for the free enterprise 
economy. It is why he sponsored a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. 
Constitution some 17 times and whence his nickname ``Mr. Balanced 
Budget'' from Ronald Reagan originated.
  In shepherding the historic tax reform law we passed last year, 
Senator Hatch adopted an inclusive, open-minded approach that succeeded 
specifically because he trusted his colleagues, because he invited them 
into the process and he allowed them to make their own mark on that 
legislation. He trusted his colleagues, and it worked.
  His work in the 1980s helping to create the modern generic drug 
industry was based on the same principle--trusting the American people 
and the American economy to make good decisions for individuals, for 
families, and for their healthcare.
  We all know the honors and accolades. They include President pro 
tempore and being a recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom. But 
Orrin would be the first to tell you that the real legislative legacy 
he leaves behind is the work of a Senator who has sponsored more bills 
that have become law than any other lawmaker alive today. Look at the 
stamp he leaves on the Senate Judiciary Committee alone, for example. 
Not just landmark legislation like the Religious Freedom Restoration 
Act, which guarantees robust protections for all Americans to live, 
work, and worship according to their beliefs--this legislation itself 
leaves behind a solid, proud legacy, one that will last for 
generations. Just within the Senate Judiciary Committee alone, Senator 
Hatch has also been involved in the selection and confirmation of 
Federal judges not just in Utah but across the country, and every 
current member and many past members of the U.S. Supreme Court. That, 
too, is a legacy which will far outlast his time in the Senate still by 
many, many decades.
  Yet, despite all the history Orrin has made in Washington, his story 
is even more impressive. He has been a loving and devoted husband to 
his wife Elaine for 61 years. Together, they have 6 children, 23 
grandchildren, and 24 great-grandchildren. They are his proudest 
achievements, and he credits their love as his key to success.
  Despite decades at the very pinnacle of American Government, Orrin 
believes the most important years of his life were the two spent 
serving as a missionary in the Great Lakes Mission of the Church of 
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
  As Senator Hatch mentioned in recent remarks, an article of our faith 
is that ``if there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or 
praiseworthy, we seek after these things.'' And this is, indeed, how 
Orrin Hatch has lived his life and the way in which he has faithfully 
served God, family, his country, and his State.
  Utah and the United States of America as a whole are better off for 
his service since he decided to run for the Senate all those years ago. 
I am grateful for all the time he has dedicated to the State of Utah 
and for the personal encouragement he has given me. And from the time 
that I was his page to the past years that I have also been his 
colleague in the U.S. Senate, it has been an honor to serve with him.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have bad news and good news. The bad 
news is that it was suggested to me that there is some type of a rule 
at a time like this where the senior person in the Chamber speaks next, 
and that is me. The good news is that it is short, and the reason is 
because I didn't really think about this until I came down here to 
watch Senator Hatch.
  I remember so well that long before I was in the House--Orrin, long 
before then--you were the guy I always listened to. You would get phone 
calls from some obscure State senator out in Oklahoma who was 
complimenting you. You might even remember one time when you and I put 
something together where we were going to balance the budget and pass 
an amendment that we knew would pass because we were going to confirm 
everything before we got it passed, and that was a brilliant idea that 
didn't work. Nevertheless, we talked quite often about things, and you 
were the one I looked up to.

  The same thing happened. You had a way. When I was in the House, I 
would see you more than anyone else during the annual National Prayer 
Breakfast. You would be active on that from the Senate, and I would be 
from the House. So you kind of had a way of saying things differently, 
the things you have heard many times before that you don't realize you 
have been wrong on all the time. You did it a few minutes ago when you 
talked about Lincoln. You talked about ``the House divided against 
itself'' and drew that relationship to what is happening today.

[[Page S7470]]

  You said it. When you talk, you are talking history, and it meant 
something different than anything I had ever seen. The Scripture you 
have quoted, ``To whom much is given, much is expected,'' I didn't 
think about that.
  I just want to tell you, you have been given a lot and a lot was 
expected and you surpassed all expectations.
  I am going to wind up here with an experience I had a week ago today 
that was, I think, a violation of our rules, but I occasionally do that 
anyway. I remember my junior Senator, James Lankford, who said 
something at the conclusion of your remarks a week ago. He said: I have 
been here 3 or 4 years, and I don't remember one time that I have seen 
Orrin Hatch when he didn't encourage me and tell me I was a very 
special person, and I will always remember that.
  When he said that, I began thinking. I have been here about 24 years, 
and I can't think of one time you haven't been encouraging and an 
encouraging voice. I would come to a conclusion that there is a reason 
for this. You reflect, as much as anyone I can think of, the civility 
and love of Jesus, and I can assure you, Jesus is very proud of you 
this morning. I love you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. President. This September, at the height 
of yet another contentious campaign season, Senator Orrin Hatch 
authored an op-ed for Time magazine which we should all read. Its theme 
was reflected in the remarks he delivered today in his farewell address 
to the U.S. Senate and to our country.
  With his combination of eloquence and straightforwardness that has 
enlightened this Chamber for more than four decades, our colleague from 
Utah called upon all Americans to embrace, as he put it, ``the practice 
of true tolerance: respecting others' beliefs even, or perhaps 
especially, when they differ from our own.''
  Senator Hatch reminded us that our system of government, crafted by 
the Founders with great wisdom and understanding of human nature, only 
works when we recognize ``that the majority of our political 
disagreements are not matters of good versus evil but good versus 
good,'' as he put it. He concluded his important essay with these 
words: ``When we embrace these virtues fully, we can heal partisan 
divisions, reinvigorate the public discourse and begin to realize the 
full potential of American democracy.''
  To our friend and colleague Orrin Hatch, those are not just words; 
rather, they have represented his guiding philosophy throughout his 42 
years of service in the U.S. Senate. They are why he is such an admired 
statesman here in Washington, throughout our Nation, and around the 
world.
  They are why he is one of the most effective legislators of modern 
times. As many of my colleagues have already commented, Senator Hatch's 
record of having passed more legislation than any Senator alive today 
is one that demonstrates his commitment to bridging the partisan 
divides to achieve and advance the common good and to improve the lives 
of Americans.
  I have known and admired Orrin Hatch for nearly all of his time in 
the Senate. I was on the staff of Senator Bill Cohen, who joined the 
Senate in 1979, just 2 years after Senator Hatch. I saw from the start, 
as a staffer observing Senator Hatch, that this gentleman from Utah was 
brilliant, he was kind, and he was devoted to his duty to serve others. 
He truly is one who leads by example.
  Senator Hatch has placed careful consideration and compromise above 
partisan politics, time and again. From the landmark legislation to 
create the State Children's Health Insurance Program, during my very 
first year in the Senate, to the recent tax reform law to strengthen 
our economy and grow jobs, I have had the great pleasure to work with 
this remarkable leader.
  In fact, I remember my freshman year in the Senate when Senator Hatch 
came to see me in my office. He told me about his plan to expand health 
insurance for the unserved children of our country. He said he was 
authoring the bill with Ted Kennedy, and I thought, well, that is a 
surprising combination, but then I learned it was not; that he would 
work together with his colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
accomplish the goals he set. He invited me to be one of the early 
cosponsors of that bill, and I was so flattered that this senior Member 
of the U.S. Senate would come to me, a mere freshman, and invite me to 
join in cosponsoring such legislation that has made such a difference 
for millions of American children.
  In addition to his accomplishments as a legislator, Senator Hatch 
holds another record that is unsurpassed. In 32 of his 42 years in the 
Senate, he has been either the chairman or the ranking member of a 
major committee. He is held in very high esteem by his colleagues. The 
Presidential Medal of Freedom that he was awarded in November 
acknowledges the gratitude the American people have for his many 
contributions.
  There is another side of Senator Orrin Hatch. He is also a 
wonderfully talented musician and successful songwriter. The beautiful 
song he cowrote for the 2005 Presidential Inauguration, called ``Heal 
the Land,'' includes this line that describes the mission to which he 
has devoted his life: ``Keep us ever on the path of liberty.''
  Of all of his accomplishments, Senator Hatch is most proud of his 
family, as he mentioned today. He credits their love and support as the 
key to his success, and anyone who has met his wonderful wife Elaine 
will have to concede that Orrin has a point. His wife of more than 60 
years, their 6 children, 23 grandchildren, and 24 great-grandchildren, 
by last count, have much to be proud of as well.
  Orrin Hatch has compiled an extraordinary record on issues ranging 
from tax reform, education, national defense, scientific research, 
criminal justice, and healthcare. In fact, it is difficult to think of 
an issue where he has not left his mark. He is a dedicated advocate of 
our Senate traditions and a fierce defender of our Constitution. His 
wide-ranging accomplishments are united by a commitment to always move 
our country forward.
  Orrin, our Nation is so grateful for your service, and I am so 
grateful for your wise counsel, mentorship, and friendship over the 
years. I offer my best wishes to you and to Elaine for many years to 
come.
  Thank you
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, as this session of Congress draws to a 
close, it provides us with an opportunity to acknowledge and express 
our appreciation to those Members of the Senate who will be retiring in 
just a few weeks. One of those Senators who is retiring and whose 
leadership and institutional knowledge will be missed is my friend 
Orrin Hatch of Utah.
  I have known Orrin since my first days 22 years ago in the Senate, 
and I much appreciated working with him over the years. His mentoring, 
his guidance, his love, and his sharing of his faith have made a 
tremendous difference to me.
  He comes from a State that borders my own. We are neighbors. As a 
western Senator, he has an understanding of what is truly important to 
the people in our neck of the woods and has fought to make this country 
better during his time in the Senate.
  Before I talk about his many accomplishments in public service, I 
want to acknowledge some of the other things about him that have also 
been mentioned, his life and role beyond the Senate.
  So often it is easy to gloss over things that are important to 
Senators personally. Sometimes it is easy to forget the men and women 
we know have their lives that stretch beyond these Halls. Orrin has 
been married to his wife Elaine for more than 60 years. He is a father 
of 6, grandfather of 23, and currently has 24 great-grandchildren. He 
is an author and a man of many talents. It has been mentioned that he 
is a talented composer and musician and has both a gold and platinum 
record from the Recording Industry Association of America. He has been 
instrumental in the musical world and has been awarded an honorary 
Grammy. He has been the main protector of copyrights.
  Orrin has dedicated his life to serving the people of Utah. He has 
always worked for the best interests of Utah, and that includes 
Americans nationwide.
  He has served in the Senate since 1977 and since 2015 has been the 
President

[[Page S7471]]

pro tempore, where he can be seen presiding during the opening of the 
Senate for daily business probably more than any other President pro 
tempore of the Senate.
  The numbers are in, and they are impressive. He has served under 
seven Presidents, been a part of both the minority and majority, and 
has served the people of Utah and the U.S. Senate for over 40 years. 
Orrin has served in a variety of leadership roles and has helped 
America every step of the way. He has had the opportunity to serve as 
the chairman of three major Senate committees--the Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions Committee; the Judiciary Committee; and most 
recently, the Finance Committee while doing the tax bill. He has run 
for President. He has been considered as a potential nominee for the 
Supreme Court. He has played a role in confirming every Supreme Court 
Justice currently sitting on the bench. Orrin is eminently qualified 
for so many positions, and America has been lucky to have his 
leadership through the years. The people of Utah, our Nation, and 
people of all faiths were fortunate to have him to rely on. Orrin is a 
man of faith, one who defends others' right to worship in peace.
  He has consistently fought to rein in the Federal Government. He has 
been a champion of responsible government spending and a leader of 
States' rights. He authored a constitutional amendment to balance the 
Federal budget that received 66 votes, just one short of what was 
needed to amend the Constitution. One of those votes was somebody who 
had just run for election and said that was the most important thing 
and no matter how many times it came up, he would be voting for it. He 
voted against it, and that was the one vote that was needed. Just by 
virtue of his legislative triumphs, he has helped to author some of the 
most consequential pieces of legislation in our time. Many have been 
mentioned.
  He paved the way for the sale of generic drugs and helped advance 
innovation for patients with rare diseases. He has contributed to the 
protection of children's health and well-being as well as the rights of 
Americans with disabilities. I know one of his proudest accomplishments 
is passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which protects 
individual Americans' right to exercise their religion. Most recently, 
he had the honor of having the Orrin G. Hatch-Bob Goodlatte Music 
Modernization Act named after him, which overhauled musical copyright 
law.

  We both have a strong touch of the West in our hearts, which we 
express every day in what we do. That is why I wasn't surprised last 
year when Orrin announced he would not be running for another term in 
the Senate. He said:

       I've always been a fighter. I was an amateur boxer in my 
     youth . . . but every good fighter knows when to hang up the 
     gloves. . . . I look forward to spending more time with 
     family, especially my sweet wife Elaine, whose unwavering 
     love and support made all of this possible.

  Orrin has been a great source of strength and a great support for our 
party, and he will be missed. My wife Diana joins me in sending our 
best wishes and appreciation to Orrin and Elaine. We wish them all the 
best as they have time to spend with their children, grandchildren, and 
great-grandchildren. Together, they have been great examples of the 
importance of public service, and we wish them the best in whatever 
adventure they choose to pursue next.
  Orrin, it will be said that it was well done, good and faithful 
servant. Happy trails.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). The majority whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I have been sitting here listening to 
all of the accolades being given to our friend Orrin Hatch, and I 
didn't hear a word I disagree with. As a matter of fact, rather than 
offering my prepared remarks, I ask unanimous consent that they be made 
part of the Record following my verbal remarks.
  Let me just spend a couple of minutes talking about the Orrin Hatch 
that I know. I first met Orrin Hatch in 1990, when I was a candidate 
for the Texas Supreme Court. We had an event in Dallas, TX, and, lo and 
behold, who would be the star attraction? It certainly wasn't me. Who 
would be the star attraction of this event? It was Senator Orrin Hatch, 
famous for his work on the Senate Judiciary Committee, having served 
there for virtually his entire career in the Senate. Of course, he lent 
tremendous gravitas to that event, which would otherwise have been 
forgotten, including by me, in a short time. But it was indicative to 
me of the importance that Orrin has always placed on the independent 
Judiciary in our country, and we heard how many judicial nominations he 
has participated in and how many Supreme Court Justices whose 
confirmation proceedings he has participated in.
  What I will always remember about Orrin is his generosity, his 
kindness, and his faithfulness when it comes to the rule of law and the 
role of our independent Judiciary.
  Recently, we had a debate in our conference at one of our lunches. 
Orrin is so famous for encouraging, as we heard from the Senators from 
Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe and Mr. Lankford. He is famous for being an 
encourager. I can't think of any one of us who hasn't had Orrin Hatch 
come up to us at some point during the day and say: You are doing a 
great job. Keep it up.
  Actually, the joke was that Orrin has told so many of us that he 
loved us, that one of our colleagues said: Well, he told me he loves me 
most--hoping we would be jealous, I guess.
  But the truth is, Orrin has a heart as big as all the outdoors. At a 
time when people wonder about the future of our country and the 
character of the people who serve our country and government, he is a 
shining example of exactly what should cause them to keep faith for the 
future of this country. As long as we have men and women of the 
character of Orrin Hatch serving in the U.S. Government, we have 
nothing to worry about.
  Let me just say to my friend Orrin, thank you for being my friend. 
Thank you for being a great example for all of us to emulate. There is 
nothing more powerful in life than a good example, as Orrin has helped 
us realize.
  We wish you and Elaine and your family all the best. As the Scripture 
says: You fought the good fight, you finished the race, and you kept 
the faith. We love you for it.
  Today, I have the difficult task of trying to sum up the work of a 
great Senator, a valued colleague, and a great friend.
  While this is a familiar reality every other December, it doesn't 
make the task any easier--especially when it comes to saying farewell 
to Senator Orrin Hatch. It is rare to find such a combination of wit 
and grace, humor and humility. But we find that in him, and the 
combination works. He is the American Dream personified, a shining 
example of where hard work and determination can get you in life.
  Orrin's story starts in Pittsburgh from humble beginnings with 
parents who worked for every cent they earned. Back then, in his words, 
he had to ``fight for everything,'' and he meant that both literally 
and figuratively. After a bully shoved a young Orrin on the playground, 
he went home, stuffed a duffel bag with sand, and hung it from a tree 
in his yard. He punched that bag for hours, and when it came time to 
stand up to another playground foe, he won.
  As he and his wife Elaine built their young family, he built a home 
for them himself, converting an old chicken coop. Elaine counts their 
time there as some of her happiest memories.
  It is this drive to succeed no matter what the circumstance that lit 
a fire in Orrin and made him a star in the courtroom and later, in this 
chamber. Orrin has served as a mentor to me and to so many others in 
Congress.
  Our friendship goes back before my time in the Senate to when I was 
running for the Texas Supreme Court. Orrin came to Texas to headline an 
event for me and the Chief Justice. It was an outsized act of kindness 
for someone of his stature in the U.S. Senate, and an act I have never 
forgotten.
  We have continued that friendship and partnership on a wide range of 
issue areas, but often on one topic we find increasingly important for 
both our states: trade. I have been fortunate to benefit from Orrin's 
leadership on the Senate Finance Committee as chair of the trade 
subcommittee, especially as we worked to pass Trade Promotion 
Authority. Although these trade agreements are complex, they are not 
faceless: they affect whether or not

[[Page S7472]]

an American family can put food on their table.
  Orrin recognized that TPA is an integral trade tool to ensure 
American workers and businesses get the best deal possible in pending 
trade agreements. And passing it was a true team effort.
  Nearly everything I have done with Chairman Hatch on the Finance 
Committee has been to help American families, and that is something 
Orrin keeps at the forefront of his mind with each vote we take in 
committee or here on the floor. It drove his work during our efforts on 
tax reform, his most historic achievement to date. He led the entire 
conference masterfully, providing steady guidance and keeping our goal 
of putting more money back in the pockets of hard working Americans in 
mind.
  Orrin has also served as the Chairman of the Judiciary and HELP 
Committees and has had over 800 bills signed into law--more than any 
living Senator. He has not let party lines stop him from getting things 
done. He joined with Senator Ted Kennedy on the Children's Health 
Insurance Program. He worked to lower the price of prescription drugs. 
He pushed the Americans with Disabilities Act over the finish line.
  A lot of his ideas for legislation come from his deeply held 
convictions and his passions in life. A devout Mormon and believer that 
all Americans should be able to practice the religion of their choice, 
he worked across the aisle to pass the Religious Freedom Restoration 
Act.
  His love of music led him to partner with fellow musician Senator 
Lamar Alexander on the Music Modernization Act, now law. It was the 
first sweeping update of our music copyright laws in 20 years, and it 
allows artists to get the royalties they are due.
  Orrin, a prolific songwriter, has had hits included in movies and his 
songs range from the serious, like a tribute to his brother Jesse who 
died in World War II, to the patriotic, like his ballad, ``America 
Rocks!'' Through all of his work, Orrin has been driven by a belief 
that he would make a difference in the lives of Americans. It is this 
service mentality--guided by his strong faithk--that continues to be an 
inspiration to us all.
  Although he attributes his success to hard work, he also knows he has 
been given special talents by his Maker. Orrin once said, ``There's no 
question that God has helped me throughout my life, and I don't want to 
let him down.'' I believe our colleagues would join me in saying that 
Orrin, you have not let him down.
  I challenge my colleagues to outwork Orrin Hatch. I am not sure it 
can be done, but we would be a better Chamber for it.
  I think it is safe to say that my colleagues and I will miss the 
laughter and wisdom of this man, and we are beyond grateful for his 
countless contributions to this country, this institution, and to his 
beloved state over an outstanding career.
  I want to thank him for his service and bid him farewell. Senator 
Hatch's legacy will live on through our work, we will make sure of it.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I just had the honor of presiding over 
Senator Hatch's farewell address to the Senate and to the country. I 
think for everybody who saw this--whether it is our colleagues on the 
Senate floor or, hopefully, millions of Americans--in his speech, they 
saw and heard, not only in his remarks but in the remarks that have 
followed from Democrats and Republicans who have served with him for 
many years, why he is so revered in this body as a statesman and as an 
example for all of the Senate. You just heard the accolades: civility, 
class, competence, effectiveness, patriot, kind, statesman. We could go 
on and on here.
  I want to thank him for his example. As an Alaska Senator, I also 
want to thank him for being such a great friend to Alaska, my State. In 
my 4 years in the Senate, as so many others have said, he was always 
encouraging me but always asking me: What can I do to help, Dan? What 
can I do to help Alaska?
  Orrin, I want to thank you so much for that encouragement, for your 
exceptional example to all of us, for your exceptional example to 
America, for your exceptional service not only to the people of Utah 
but to the entire Nation. It has been a great honor to serve with you, 
sir.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.


                        Congressional Review Act

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, we will soon be voting in this Chamber 
on S. Res. 64, which is a Congressional Review Act resolution looking 
at a Treasury Department rule that I believe will promote dark money in 
politics.
  Since the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United, our political 
system has been flooded--absolutely flooded--with money from special 
interest groups. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, 
independent expenditures on campaigns went from $203 million in 2010 to 
$1.48 billion less than 10 years later, in 2016. So it went from $203 
million in 2010, after the Citizens United decision, to $1.48 billion 
in 2016.
  This massive influx of money into our elections undermines the 
confidence of the American people in our political system. It creates 
an environment that is ripe for corruption and inappropriate influence. 
It sows further disenchantment among the electorate and impacts 
participation in our democracy. It allows voters to believe that their 
votes are less important than businesses with a bigger checkbook.
  That is why it is so important that we ensure transparency and 
accountability in campaign financing through robust disclosure 
requirements and oversight.
  Unfortunately, instead of making it easier to identify individuals 
and organizations who are funding campaigns, the Treasury Department 
has issued a rule that will increase the amount of dark money in the 
political process. That is money that comes in, and we have no idea 
where it comes from and who is behind it. This ill-advised rule change 
from the Treasury Department will eliminate the requirement that social 
welfare organizations, or 501(c)(4)s, and business leagues, or 
501(c)(6)s, report donor information to the IRS. That basically gives a 
blank check for anyone to come in and spend any amount of money, and we 
are not going to know who it is or who is behind the money.
  The change risks impeding law enforcement efforts to track money 
laundering in our political system, and it makes it more likely that 
foreign money will illegally influence our elections. Under this new 
rule, organizations that made over $197 million in independent 
expenditures during the 2016 election cycle would now be totally exempt 
from disclosing who those donors were to the IRS.
  The door will now be open to hundreds of millions more in dark money 
from secret groups with hidden agendas, trying to buy an election with 
money and influence. These dark money groups have increased in size and 
scope since the Citizens United decision, as they recognize the 
opportunity to influence elections with no accountability.
  Malicious actors at home and abroad will likely exploit the increased 
secrecy in this process, and the proliferation of these dark money 
groups will further influence our political system.
  This Congress has a duty to ensure the integrity and security of our 
electoral process. We have to eliminate dark money contributions as we 
do this. Dark money has a corrosive influence on our Democratic process 
because it erodes trust in our institutions, it distorts the motives of 
our elected representatives, and, perhaps most importantly, the 
American people have a right to know if the candidates they choose to 
represent them are supported by foreign groups and shady special 
interests.
  For these reasons, I strongly support attempts to stop the Trump 
administration's misguided attempt to allow more dark money into our 
political process, and I urge my colleagues to support the resolution 
that will be coming up shortly.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to complete my remarks and

[[Page S7473]]

Senator Tester be recognized at the conclusion of my remarks for up to 
5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Tribute to Orrin Hatch

  Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, before I begin addressing my opposition 
to the CRA, I want to spend a brief moment agreeing with all of the 
tributes and all of the accolades of Senator Hatch.
  I wasn't able to get down here on the floor because I couldn't get 
down here in time--he started a little bit early--but I watched the 
entire speech from my office. It just showed the integrity, the 
patriotism, and the goodwill of this good man.
  Like so many of my other colleagues, I don't know another Senator who 
offers more encouragement and more kind words to all of us than Senator 
Hatch. Again, I wish him and Elaine well in their retirement. I wish 
them the best.
  God bless Senator Hatch for all of his faithful service.


                        Congressional Review Act

  Madam President, I rise to discuss the Congressional Review Act 
challenge put forward by the senior Senators from Oregon and Montana.
  The CRA has been proposed in response to guidance on a revenue 
procedure recently announced by the Internal Revenue Service. As 
chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, I 
have written to the IRS twice asking them to take the very actions this 
CRA seeks to overturn.
  Let me begin by reviewing some basic facts about the guidance--facts 
that are irrefutable, but facts that are apparently being ignored by 
those supporting this measure.
  First, I want to make it clear that the guidance in question mirrors 
a proposal that was crafted under the Obama administration. While that 
proposal was never fully implemented, the fact that it was first 
proposed by the Obama administration proves its bipartisan nature.
  Essentially, the guidance makes clear that personal identifying 
information of donors for certain tax-exempt organizations does not 
need to be filed on a form with the IRS. However, these organizations 
will still be required to keep that donor information on file. Simply 
put, the guidance is merely a change in where the information is 
warehoused.
  In the past, it was kept on a form at the IRS, as well as in the 
records of each organization. Now, it will only be kept in the records 
of each organization.
  It is important to note that the officials in the Obama 
administration said that the reporting of such information is no longer 
necessary for the efficient administration of the internal revenue 
laws. I am not actually sure it ever was required.
  The one change being implemented that differs from the Obama proposal 
is that the IRS also included in its new guidance needed privacy 
protections in response to recent government leaks and breaches. In 
order to protect taxpayer privacy, under this new guidance, the donor 
information in question is prohibited from being made public by the 
government no matter where it is warehoused.
  So let me summarize. The donor information in question is not used by 
the IRS for the efficient administration of the internal revenue laws, 
as was noted by the previous administration. The information is 
required to be kept on file and on the books of the organization and to 
be available to the IRS or law enforcement, if needed, which was also 
as proposed by the previous administration. Finally, the information, 
no matter where it is housed, shall not be made public by the 
government.
  These are clear and concise reasons for a simple change that was 
made--and let me reemphasize this point--in order to protect taxpayer 
privacy. Unfortunately, such protection is necessary because, when the 
IRS required that donor information be reported on a form to the IRS, 
there had been numerous times during which the returns of tax-exempt 
organizations were inappropriately and possibly illegally disclosed, 
whether through administrative sloppiness, carelessness, breaches, or 
other potentially nefarious or partisan reasons.
  The reason tax-exempt organizations' donors may wish to remain 
anonymous is best illustrated in the 1958 Supreme Court case of the 
NAACP v. Alabama. The State of Alabama was attempting to force the 
disclosure of the members of the NAACP. The concern those members had 
in having their names revealed should be obvious. Fortunately, the 
Supreme Court decided unanimously to protect the identities of the 
NAACP's members.
  Today, tax-exempt organizations that span the political spectrum and 
the supporters of those organizations deserve the same consideration 
and protection as the NAACP had. They deserve to remain anonymous so 
that they cannot be targeted by their political opponents.
  A similar threat does exist today from the compelled disclosure of 
donor information that is held by tax-exempt organizations, including 
501(c)(4) social welfare groups. If information about donors to these 
groups becomes publicly available, the information could be used in a 
way that would chill future speech and association--a basic First 
Amendment right.
  Donor information is also susceptible to abuse by the Federal 
Government itself. In one egregious example in 2010, the IRS sent 1.1 
million pages of tax-exempt return information, including donor 
information in some cases, to the Justice Department for potential 
prosecutions relating to political speech. More recently, some States 
have sought to compel the disclosure of donor information from schedule 
B. The disclosure of donor information has led to the harassment of 
donors in some very well-documented cases.
  In a court brief that was filed in January of 2017 in Americans for 
Prosperity Foundation v. Becerra, the NAACP warned against States' 
compelling the disclosure of donor information:

       Forcing an organization to release [organizational 
     membership and/or donor lists] to the State not only divulges 
     the First Amendment activities of individual members and 
     donors, but may also deter such activities in the first 
     place. Specifically, individuals may legitimately fear of any 
     number of negative consequences from disclosure, including 
     harassment by the public, adverse government action, and 
     reprisals by a union or employer.

  This potential harm exists across the political spectrum regardless 
of donors' ideological beliefs.
  Needless to say, the Congressional Review Act challenge to the recent 
IRS guidance on where to house private donor information is troubling, 
and its motivation is highly suspect. For anyone who truly cares about 
privacy and ensuring that the Federal Government does not use the tax 
system as a political targeting machine, a vote against the 
Congressional Review Act challenge is the obvious choice. I urge my 
colleagues to vote no
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. TESTER. Madam President, before I start, I thank Senator Hatch 
for his decades of service to this body, and I wish him well in 
retirement.
  This CR is about one thing--transparency, sunlight, and making sure 
people know what is going on with their government. I rise on behalf of 
the millions of Americans who are tired of seeing their democracy 
undermined by mega-donors as they hide in the shadows. As my friend 
from Maine said, it would be like going to a public meeting with a bag 
over your head. That is what this is about. Take the bag off. Take them 
out of the shadows.
  Since the Supreme Court's ruling in 2010 in a case called Citizens 
United, we have had our democracy and our elections for sale. Over the 
past 8 years, billions of dollars have been spent to influence our 
elections. Nobody knows where this money comes from. It could be coming 
from foreign countries.
  Just 3 years after the unpopular Citizens United decision, these 
wealthy families once again used the Supreme Court to chip away at our 
democracy with the McCutcheon ruling. A handful of our Nation's 
wealthiest families have used this court ruling to hide behind 
political action committees with stoic names so they can build 
pipelines of cash to push their own agendas.
  While we are still tallying the totals from this past election 5 
weeks ago, we know that dark money groups in 2016 spent $1.4 billion in 
that single election.
  If we don't take an aggressive approach, more dark money is going to

[[Page S7474]]

flood our elections. It is going to mislead voters and turn people away 
from our elections, our democracy, and, quite frankly, will put our 
democracy at risk.
  This is a very important joint resolution, and it is not the first 
time we have been here. During the Gilded era of the Copper Kings, this 
Nation's wealthy openly exercised their power over our democracy. Once 
again, they tried to buy it. In fact, in my home State of Montana, 
Copper King William Clark's solicitation for bribes during his campaign 
for the U.S. Senate was so blatant that Mark Twain called him ``as 
rotten a human being as can be found anywhere under the flag.'' Today, 
I am concerned that the days of the Copper Kings have returned and are 
being ushered in, in part, by policies from this administration.
  Back in July, the Treasury Department and the IRS took an 
unprecedented step and eliminated the requirements for certain tax-
exempt organizations to report to the IRS the identities of their major 
donors.
  I will say one thing about the Senator from Wisconsin's remarks--the 
Obama administration's view on this was that it opposed it because it 
would constrain the IRS in enforcing its tax laws. This 
administration's policy through the Treasury, through the IRS, created 
another safe haven for this country's wealthiest donors to hide in the 
shadows while they pulled the levers of power in our democracy.
  Just like ordinary Americans took control of our government at the 
end of the days of the Copper Kings, when Senate seats were openly for 
sale--they acted--we have to act today. Today's vote will overturn that 
rule and shed more light on the folks who are trying to buy our 
elections.
  In my reelection campaign over the past 2 years, over $40 million of 
outside money was spent to influence just 500,000 voters. We will never 
know who those folks were. These out-of-State fat cats didn't know the 
State of Montana; they just wanted to write the large checks to try to 
influence and buy our State, just like the Copper Kings did 100 years 
ago. I guarantee that a lot of those dollars came from the same dark 
money groups that are opposing this vote here today. They don't want to 
see this joint resolution pass because it undermines their efforts to 
anonymously influence our elections--once again, taking away from the 
transparency of our government.
  In addition to these wealthy few who are trying to buy our elections, 
these dark money policies open the door to foreign contributions to 
House, Senate, and Presidential campaigns. Of course, it is illegal for 
a foreign national to contribute to our Federal candidates for office, 
but when you do not know who is contributing the money, how do we know 
that it is not the Russians or that it is not the Saudis or other 
nations that are infiltrating our elections? Our adversaries are always 
looking for the weakest link to try to destroy our country and destroy 
our democracy. One of our weak links today is our broken campaign 
finance system.
  It is time to pass this bill, shore up the election infrastructure, 
and take a step toward eliminating the ability of our enemies to choose 
leaders in Washington, DC.
  I thank the senior Senator from Oregon for his leadership and for 
helping to force a vote on this important legislation. Senator Wyden 
and more than 30 Members of this body cosigned our discharge petition, 
and 35 Members of this body cosponsored this joint resolution of 
disapproval under the Congressional Review Act to force today's vote.
  The public needs to know where the Senators stand. Do they stand on 
the side of transparency and accountability, or do they side with the 
dark money special interests who flood our elections with television 
ads and our mailboxes with misleading ads? It is past time to wrestle 
our country back from the wealthy few who are fighting to drown out the 
voices of regular folks. I urge the support of this joint resolution of 
disapproval so as to help take our country back.
  I will close with one thing, and then I will be quiet--and thank you 
for your tolerance. This is about transparency. Tell me one time when 
transparency has not been a good thing. It is the antiseptic for good 
government.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the title of the joint 
resolution for the third time.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading 
and was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the joint resolution 
having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the joint 
resolution pass?
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 260 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Donnelly
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Jones
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--49

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kyl
     Lankford
     Lee
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Tillis
       
  The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 64) was passed
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.

                          ____________________