A resolution congratulating the Plastics Industry Association on its 80th anniversary.

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, 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, 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.

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

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 following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).

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;

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.