A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 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".

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.

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?

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

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.

Mr. President, this morning the majority leader announced that the Senate will soon take up a revised version of the FIRST STEP Act, which will provide a number of long-needed reforms to our criminal justice system.

I have long been a supporter of these reforms after I saw the positive impact in my home State of Texas back in 2007. Then, in response to a steadily growing prison population, Texas began enacting reforms to reduce recidivism through programs like job training and vocational education. This, of course, allows prisoners to spend their time in prison preparing themselves for life outside of prison. The results were pretty significant. We saw a reduction in both incarceration and crime rates by double digits at the same time. Let me say that again. We saw a reduction in both incarceration and crime rates by double digits at the same time. Not only does this lead to massive savings of taxpayer dollars, it is an investment in the men and women who are committed to turning their lives around.

What we like to say is that Texas has long been known for being tough on crime. But in 2007, we finally decided to be smart on crime, too, recognizing that people who went to prison almost entirely got out of prison at some point. The question is, How prepared were those who were willing to work to turn their lives around for life on the outside?

For years, I tried to bring this successful Texas model to Washington, DC, and now we have a piece of this legislation before us that will take these reforms nationwide. More than 75 percent of the bill we will be voting on is my prison reform legislation that I originally introduced with Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.

The great thing about the laboratories of democracy known as the States is that we can actually test some of our theories at the State level to see whether they work. In the case of prison reform, when they do work, we can then scale it up so it applies to the entire Nation.

Today, there are more than 180,000 inmates in the Federal criminal justice system. The Federal Bureau of Prison's budget has doubled to approximately $7 billion over the last decade. We have an opportunity to save lives by reducing the crime rate for each of those prisoners who does not recidivate when they get out of prison and conserve tax dollars, as well as to create a criminal justice system that works for, not against, the American people.

Let me be clear. This is not about letting people out of prison who shouldn't be let out of prison; this is about people who have served their time and are going to be leaving prison and making sure that they at least have available to them some of the tools they need in order to transform their own lives. I am not so naive as to think that every person will take advantage of that opportunity, but we know from experience at the State level that there is a significant percentage of offenders who will take advantage of the opportunity to turn their lives around. That is why I was proud to work with the White House and my colleagues here in Congress--especially, as I mentioned, Senator Whitehouse and Congressman Doug Collins in the House of Representatives--to advance these reforms.

Earlier this year, we passed the bill out of the House with strong bipartisan support, and I have worked with my colleagues here in the Senate as the bill has changed and developed--and, I believe, for the better. Unfortunately, some members of the law enforcement community have raised concerns about the bill. Out of my respect for our law enforcement organizations, I spoke with many of my Republican colleagues about the bill. Originally, they said they were unable to support it or were undecided because they wanted to make sure we were doing everything we could to address the concerns raised by law enforcement organizations. So we went to work trying to make improvements in the bill, which I believe we succeeded in doing.

I want to express my gratitude to Senator Durbin, who is the principal Democratic sponsor, Senator Lee, Senator Grassley, and others who worked on this and say how much I appreciate their willingness to try to get to yes and come up with something we can pass with strong bipartisan support.

I also wanted to make sure we talked to the stakeholders--the police officers who patrol the streets, the sheriffs who work in each of our States and counties--about their concerns. I believe we have worked hard and successfully to address many of them. I don't necessarily believe all of them will agree with every single piece in this bill, but I think, on the whole, it does balance the interests of our law enforcement personnel with the needs of our society to better prepare people so that when they come out of prison, they will not likely repeat their mistakes, in every case that is possible.

As I say, I think we made some big improvements. The revised legislation will keep dangerous and violent criminals who use guns to commit crimes from being released from prison early. They will not be eligible for any sort of earned time release. It will also limit the amount of time that offenders can spend on supervised release and ensure that the Bureau of Prisons will revoke prerelease custody for offenders who violate the terms of their supervision.

I appreciate all of the work of our colleagues in the Senate who chose to

roll up their sleeves and get to work rather than just complain about what was or was not in the bill. I am proud to announce that I will cosponsor this new and improved version of the bill, and I encourage all of my colleagues to review it and hopefully join me in supporting this legislation. I look forward to working with everybody in this body, as well as our colleagues in the House, to get this bill over the finish line.

I know, when we produce the bill in the House and the Senate, President Trump will sign it. He has encouraged the majority leader, Senator McConnell, to put this bill on the floor even in this short window of time we have during the lameduck session, and the majority leader has accommodated the President's request by saying that we will address this before we go home for Christmas

Funding the Government

Mr. President, on another matter, the clock is ticking, of course, and we are quickly approaching the deadline to fund the Federal Government. My Republican colleagues and I stand ready to advance our remaining appropriations bills, but it really depends on what our Democratic colleagues decide to do.

Seventy-five percent of the government is already funded through bipartisan cooperation on the passage of appropriations bills, and that is something we haven't done for a long time. But there is still critical funding--particularly for the Department of Homeland Security, for the FBI, and for the Department of Justice--that needs to be taken care of before we break for the holidays.

Earlier today, we know that Democratic Leader Senator Schumer and Minority Leader Pelosi met with President Trump to figure out whether there is any room for agreement to resolve the dispute between them. The question is, really, What is the appropriate amount of money in this bill to fund border security? The President said he wants $5 billion. Senator Schumer has said $1.6 billion ought to be enough. Obviously, there is a gap between them.

Some people have said: Well, we ought to just shut down the government over this dispute. I don't see the wisdom in that because when you shut down the government because you are unable to resolve a dispute, when you reopen the government, usually what happens is that same problem is staring you in the face. What we need to do is to work together with the administration to come up with a solution rather than resort to tactics like a government shutdown with all the complications that involves. I don't think shutdowns play well for either Republicans or Democrats, for the White House or the Congress.

The problem, it seems to me, is that our Democratic friends are listening to some of the fringes of their own political party who are now telling them: Don't do anything that President Trump wants. Anything President Trump wants, the answer is no.

Well, that is more about politics than it is about doing our job as legislators trying to solve problems.

It also appears that they seem to think that the continued status quo along our border is good enough, and they are more than willing to gamble with a partial government shutdown than work with the President to ensure that our border is secure.

Somewhere along the way, our friends across the aisle have forgotten that border security should be about protecting the American people from the drugs that come across the border--90-plus percent of the heroin consumed in the United States comes from Mexico--or the children and women who are trafficked for sex or the migrants who come from Central America, up through Mexico, and into the United States, and the cartels charging roughly $8,000 a person. It is a huge moneymaking business, but the people who are getting rich are the transnational criminal organizations and drug cartels.

We have seen before what happens when the government shuts down. It affects millions of people across the country and often yields no different result. We have seen what happens when we fail to secure the border. That is why we need to finish our work funding the government and, by doing that, also recognize the importance of a secure border. This should not be about partisan politics or listening to your political base; this ought to be about doing our job. We had the midterm elections; now is the time to govern.

Just a few weeks ago, our friends across the aisle wanted to magnify the migrant crisis by focusing narrowly on the news coming out of Tijuana, Mexico, across the border from San Diego. Some talked about the crisis as if it were a one-off event, an isolated event.

They wanted us to look at this like we were looking through a soda straw and ignore all of the context and the consequences of failing to secure our border. They wanted to ignore how we find ourselves with this humanitarian crisis in the first place.

The caravans of men, women, and children who left their homes in Central America and made the long, dangerous journey to the United States are sadly symptoms of a far greater problem. Our border has been exploited for years, contributing to this crisis. That is why ensuring additional resources for border security is an essential piece of the puzzle.

My home State of Texas is on the frontline--1,200 miles of common border with Mexico. Texas is home to many vibrant border communities that greatly benefit from having some of the busiest land ports in the country, across which legitimate trade and commerce travels. As I said, we are also on the front row of the many challenges that come along with an unsecured border when it comes to public safety.

Yesterday I talked about some of those challenges: striking a balance between a secure border and a completely closed border. A secure border maintains the flow of legitimate goods and services while deterring cartels from shuttling illegal contraband across our borders. A closed border would cut off trade and commerce that is the lifeblood of our economy, which brings me to another challenge--something that I think in Washington there is simply not enough awareness of; that is, the cartels, gangs, and the transnational criminal organizations that get rich exploiting our porous borders.

Some like to think of these organizations as a ``them, not us'' problem because they have taken control over large parts of Central America and even Mexico, but the business of these groups does not stay there. What happens in Central America, what happens in Mexico does not stay in Central America and Mexico. It comes flooding across our borders.

These gangs and cartels are very shrewd and adapt to changing circumstances. They found, the more our borders and ports of entry are clogged with migrants and migrant families, the easier it is to traffic people, drugs, and contraband into the United States. That has a reciprocal effect, too, causing legitimate trade, travel, and commerce to slow significantly at our ports of entry.

It is not only exploitation of our border that poses a threat, it is the violence and the instability caused by the cartels and gangs. That makes it not just a border security issue but a national security issue as well.

My friend and fellow Texan, Representative Henry Cuellar--a true blue dog Democrat, as he says--has a great saying for how we should think about this. He likes to say that border security starts in Central America and ends at our border. I think that is exactly right. In other words, you don't mount a goal line defense at a football game. You actually start contesting the game farther down the field. In this case, the game needs to be contested in the places where these migrants and the drugs emanate, from where they start.

We are going to have to work more closely in partnership with Mexico and other Central American governments to address the violence these groups spread by restoring public trust in law enforcement and stabilizing the economy and these countries.

I spoke with my friend, the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein. She represents a border State. She and I have partnered on a number of national security law enforcement matters. She said she was interested in working together in a bipartisan way to address the challenges presented by Central America and Mexico. I said: Absolutely. Sign me up.

Representing a border State, as you might suspect, I make it a point to talk to those who live and work in our

border communities. It is a unique part of the United States. I like to say, the concept that people in Washington, DC, have about the borders has been learned from movies and novels; it is not from talking to people or visiting with the communities along the border. That is not a criticism. That is just a fact of life.

When I hear from people like Manny Padilla, who is the Border Patrol's sector chief for the Rio Grande Valley, I can better understand how much is required to maintain situational awareness and operational control of the border, not to mention personal safety of the Border Patrol, who more and more are frequently assaulted with rocks and other makeshift weapons that endanger their safety and their lives.

For those who may not be at the border every day, it is hard to grasp the range of topography across the 1,200-mile border that Texas shares with Mexico. It can be hard to imagine how many resources are actually needed. In some places, there are high mountains and cliffs and others, there is thick brush. In the urban areas that surround our ports of entry, there is plenty of opportunity to race across the border and blend in, never to be heard from again.

There will be places where physical infrastructure will make the most sense. In some places, technology or personnel is more effective than a fence. The point is, the border security is complex. Better enforcement of our border will require a combination of infrastructure, technology, and personnel. That begins with ensuring we have the resources we need to implement a border enforcement strategy. That is what this issue is all about--the discussion Ms. Pelosi, Senator Schumer, and President Trump had today.

My question for our Democratic colleagues is, Why will you not help us secure the border? Are you satisfied with the status quo of drugs coming across the border through these transnational criminal organizations? Are you satisfied with the status quo of these caravans--thousands of migrants from Central America trying to storm our ports of entry and literally closing them down so legitimate trade and commerce cannot occur?

Securing our border and protecting our country should not be a partisan issue; it is something we ought to be able to work out and agree on. We know the challenges our friend Senator Schumer has--the Democratic leader on the other side. He has a cadre of people auditioning for the Presidential nomination in 2020, and they are trying to outdo each other in their impending runs for President. I think, in many ways, his hands are tied. Like every leader, he has to decide when to say yes and when to say no to the people in your conference.

Minority Leader Pelosi has a delicate task of trying to cajole her new and emboldened Members of the far-left wing of her caucus. They are both trying to fend off outside groups that think that even talking to President Trump on this issue may mean it will be subject for the next attack or perhaps a primary campaign. I don't envy the spot they are in, but it is a game of political chicken, and they are playing it among themselves.

The reality is, President Trump is in the White House, and our Democratic colleagues need to work with him and us to try to move the country forward, to try solve these problems, as hard as they may be. The American people are the losers when their elected officials decide their political image and their political aspirations matter more than the people they represent in their respective States.

As I said, so far, the Congress has worked together in a bipartisan manner to pass roughly 75 percent of the government funding. We shouldn't let that bipartisan spirit fail us now. Finishing our work and securing our border shouldn't be an occasion to turn the end of the year into a political sideshow. I think the American people do not need any more sideshows and circuses in Washington, DC. They want results, and they want us to own up to our responsibility and do our duty.

Border security is an issue where we should be able to find common ground, and funding the government is, of course, one of our most basic responsibilities. The point should be made that we have already found common ground on many of these issues before. Several of our colleagues on the other side who are still serving in this Chamber, including Senator Schumer, supported passage of the Secure Fence Act in 2006. How that is different from what President Trump is requesting now is lost on me, when they agreed that 700 miles of border should be secured by a fence.

I should also note that the Secure Fence Act was also supported by then-Senators Obama, Biden, and Clinton. This should not be a partisan issue. I hope all of our colleagues will choose to get to work, roll up our sleeves, and do our duty. Not only do we have the chance to fund the government and keep the lights on but we also have a chance to put ourselves that much closer to a secure border and helping end the migrant crisis.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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.

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

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.

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.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I am submitting two letters into the Congressional Record in order to clarify the application of the Congressional Review Act, CRA, to the recent rule Rev. Proc. 2018-38, issued by the Treasury Department and the IRS, to dramatically weaken the disclosure rules for large contributions to certain tax-exempt organizations, including many that engage in political activity, what I and others call the dark money rule. In doing so, I also want to take the opportunity to comment on the rule itself and on the inappropriate and irresponsible approach that the administration is taking to the application of the CRA to the dark money rule.

By way of background, in 1971, as part of a general effort to improve the ability of the IRS to assure that tax-exempt organizations are complying with the tax and election laws, the Treasury Department promulgated a legislative regulation requiring certain tax-exempt organizations to disclose to the IRS, as part of their annual filing, the identity of those who contribute $5,000 or more to the organization. This information is not made available to the public, except in certain cases, but it is can be used by the IRS, State tax administrators, and other Federal agencies.

In recent years, this disclosure requirement has become controversial. Some, particularly conservative groups, have called for the rule to be repealed in an attempt to keep donor information out of the hands of State tax administrators and law enforcement. Others have urged that the disclosure rules be strengthened. I am one of them. Following the 2010 Citizens United decision, more and more dark money has flooded into secretive tax-exempt organizations and into election campaigns in the form of such things as anonymous ``issue ads.'' I have urged that the contributor information be made available to the public and, further, that the IRS improve its application of the rules designed to prevent tax-exempt organizations from engaging in excessive political campaign activity under false pretenses of ``social welfare.'' For example, I have been particularly concerned about reports that a group that is tax exempt under Tax Code section 501(c)(4) that is associated with the National Rifle Association, which has engaged in extensive political activity, may have received large contributions from foreign sources.

In the midst of all of this controversy, on July 16, without any public notice and comment or any consultation with me as ranking Democratic member of the Finance Committee, the Treasury Department and the IRS issued Rev. Proc. 2018-38, which invokes a narrow provision that allows the Treasury Secretary to waive particular reporting requirements in appropriate situations, to effectively repeal the entire 1971 regulation requiring the disclosure of large contributions. Perhaps coincidentally and certainly ironically, this was done late in the evening of the day in which the Justice Department arrested an alleged Russian agent, Maria Butina, for attempting to influence American political discourse through a ``gun rights organization,'' later revealed to be the National Rifle Association, a 501(c)(4) dark money political organization.

This was an outrage. It was terrible policy and a terrible process. As I said at the time, the political brazenness of this action shocks the conscience. At a time when the U.S. intelligence community is warning that foreign actors are actively working to interfere in American elections, the Trump administration has decided to tie the hands of the only Federal agency with visibility into financial flows of foreign funds into dark money political organizations.

When the administration proposed the dark money rule, it submitted the rule to Congress for review under the CRA, which allows Congress to disapprove rules after they have been issued. The administration's submission to Congress explicitly states it was a ``Submission of Federal Rules under the Congressional Review Act.'' Senator Tester and I were determined to invoke this process in order to overturn the dark money rule.

There was, however, a procedural problem. The CRA includes a ``clock,'' limiting the period for challenging a new rule, and, under the terms of the CRA, that clock begins on the later of the date the rule is submitted to Congress, and the date it is published in the Federal Register, ``if so published.'' In this case, apparently for the first time, we were dealing with a rule that had been submitted to Congress for review under the CRA but not published in the Federal Register because this is the sort of material that the IRS publishes in the Internal Revenue Bulletin IRB, rather than in the Federal Register. This created a technical question about how to apply the CRA time clock to the IRS rule. To be clear, the question was not whether the CRA applied to the dark money rule, but rather, when the clock for congressional review began.

After consulting with the Parliamentarian, who advised that the CRA process would be clarified if the IRS would confirm, in writing, that the rule would not be published in the Federal Register, I sent Acting IRS Commissioner David Kautter a brief letter asking him to do so. This seemed to me to be a very straightforward request. The IRS's own internal procedure manual makes clear that matters that are issued as ``revenue procedures'' are published in the IRB rather than the Federal Register. Further, an IRS official had informally confirmed by email that would be the case here. On top of that, the dark money rule was in fact published in the IRB on July 30.

I ask unanimous consent that my August 21, 2018, letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, my letter went unanswered for almost 5 weeks. Eventually, the Parliamentarian indicated to both Democratic and Republican staff that she was prepared to allow Senator Tester and me to move forward with a disapproval resolution under the CRA without an IRS response to my letter, so that we would not lose our right to challenge the rule on a timely basis. Based on this, on Monday, September 24, Senator Tester and I submitted our disapproval resolution, S.J. Res. 64. That same day, I finally received a reply from Acting Commissioner Kautter. In it, he confirmed, at long last, the elementary proposition that the dark money rule would not be published in the Federal Register. In addition, he went on to discuss an issue I had not raised in my original letter. He stated that, despite the fact that the administration had formally submitted the rule to the House and Senate for review under the CRA, understanding now that Senator Tester and I intended to challenge the rule under the CRA, the Treasury Department intended to reverse its previous decision and argue that Rev. Proc. 2018-38 was somehow not subject to congressional review.

Mr. President, acting Commissioner Kautter's response is deeply troubling, for several reasons.

First, why did it take so long? Every bureaucracy has its problems, but almost 5 weeks, on a time-sensitive matter, the answer to which should be clear in 5 minutes? As I said on the Senate floor last week: ``It looks to me like the administration has a policy on their hands that they know is corrupt--that they know is undemocratic. And so they're playing hide the ball. Because the more the public hears about this dark money rule, the less they like it.''

Further, the argument Acting Commissioner Kautter makes in the letter is utter nonsense. In the first place, he mischaracterizes the CRA, in a way that would render the entire law unworkable. For over 20 years, here is how the CRA has worked: If the administration submits something to Congress under the CRA, that is that; it is subject to congressional review under the terms of the CRA. In the Senate, that means the clock starts, and the period for the consideration of a disapproval resolution begins. If, on the other hand, the administration does not submit a matter under the CRA, but a Senator or Representative believes that the matter nevertheless should be subject to the CRA, that Senator or Congressman can ask the Government Accountability Office to review whether the CRA applies. This has happened about 20 times since 1996. Congress has never required the GAO to opine on the applicability of the CRA to a rule formally submitted by an agency to the Congress for review under the CRA. In Acting Commissioner Kautter's letter, he fabricates out of whole cloth a new requirement for congressional review, which runs counter to precedent established over the past two decades.

Acting Commissioner Kautter takes the position that the administration's submission of the rule under the CRA is not dispositive. It is, instead, just a starting point, to, as he writes, ``allow[ ] Congress to consider whether a revenue procedure is subject to the CRA by requesting advice from GAO.'' This is unprecedented because all previous requests to GAO related to matters that had not been submitted under the CRA. It is inconsistent with the plain text of the CRA and with longstanding practice, in which we only resort to a GAO opinion for matters that have not already been submitted under the CRA. It also is completely unworkable because it would require GAO to review every rule submitted under the CRA, to confirm that it is indeed subject to the CRA. Said another way, it would require the Senate to look behind all 4,271 rules submitted by agencies to the Senate in this Congress under the CRA to determine if the CRA, in fact, applied. We cannot have ``do-overs'' here.

Second, Acting Commissioner Kautter's position is inconsistent with administration practice. In submitting the dark money rule to the Senate, the administration was not simply trying to be courteous and transparent, making sure the Senate was aware of the latest developments at the IRS. It was, instead, complying with the CRA, based on a determination that the rule was subject to the CRA.

This is reflected in the process established in the Internal Revenue Manual, IRM. One section of the IRM relates to ``Congressional Review of Rules.'' After describing the CRA general rule and three exceptions, the IRM says, ``Revenue rulings, revenue procedures, notices, and announcements that are rules under the [CRA] must be submitted for congressional review before they can become effective. Whether a revenue ruling, revenue procedure, notice, or announcement is considered a

rule subject to reporting is determined on a case-by-case basis. Ministerial revenue rulings and revenue procedures; notices and announcements relating to error corrections, personnel matters, or proposed rules; and press releases generally will not be considered rules under [the CRA].''

Thus, the IRS's own process requires the agency to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether a document issued by the IRS constitutes a rule for purpose of the CRA. The IRS in fact exercises judgment about whether to submit a revenue procedure as a rule under the CRA: As of September 10, the IRS had issued 45 revenue procedures in 2018, only 27 of which were submitted to the Senate. Specifically, in this case, on July 26, over the signature of the Chief of the IRS Publications and Regulations Branch, the IRS and the Treasury Department submitted, to Vice President Pence, as President of the Senate, a copy of Rev. Proc. 2018-38, entitled a Submission of Federal Rules under the Congressional Review Act. The submission was docketed in the Senate as EC-6097, and it was referred to the Finance Committee.

Finally, even if the administration had not submitted the dark money rule under the CRA, there is no question the rule is subject to the CRA. The CRA applies to rules as defined under the Administrative Procedure Act, which states in relevant part that a rule is ``the whole or part of an agency statement of general . . . applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy,'' with three exceptions: rules of particular applicability; rules relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of nonagency parties.

The dark money rule is clearly a statement of general applicability and future effect. The only real question, then, is whether it is subject to one of the exceptions, particularly the exception for ``rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that [do] not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties.''

Here, it is clear that the rule has a substantial effect on nonagency parties. Under the provisions of IRC section 6103, State tax administrators may obtain from IRS tax-exempt donor information for State tax administration purposes. As a result of Rev. Proc. 2018-38, State tax administrators will no longer have the right to obtain donor information from the IRS, undermining States' ability to enforce tax- exempt rules on organizations operating within their borders. Further, as the Treasury Department clearly stated in a July 16 press release, Rev. Proc. 2018-38 will reduce the burden of disclosure and filing obligations of tax-exempt organizations because they no longer will be required to disclose the identifies of large donors. This is a big deal. It will significantly inhibit IRS enforcement efforts, and it will make it easier for dark money to continue to flood in. Indeed, that is why so many groups have been urging that the disclosure requirement be repealed.

As a final note, the IRS may argue that repeal of the disclosure rule is insignificant because the IRS doesn't systematically cross-check this data against other sources of tax information. This is a large part of the problem of IRS failing to enforce existing laws relating to political activity of tax-exempt organizations. To my mind, the IRS should be using this information in order to maintain the integrity of our tax-exempt rules and election laws. If, for example, an organization named Russian Oligarchs, LLC made large contributions to a tax-exempt organization, it seems to me that this is something the IRS should want to know. At a time when foreign actors are actively attempting to interfere in American elections, law enforcement, the IRS, and State tax administrators need to have visibility into the financial flows of political nonprofits. The argument that we should no longer collect this information because the IRS is failing to use the information to enforce the law gets things precisely backward.

I urge my colleagues to support Senator Tester and me as we work to overturn this outrageous dark money rule.

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.

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.''

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.