[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.

____________________