Floor Statements

Mr. President, what can you say about a dear friend who has passed away? That he was brilliant? And supremely accomplished? That he loved family and church? And the law? And people from all walks of life?

To say these things does not nearly capture the full measure of the man, the much-beloved lawyer John Cassidy, a wonderful and humble person who rose to the top of his field, who advised Washington dignitaries from Presidents on down, indeed so many in this body; a man who was friends to celebrities, business leaders, and politicians

alike, to busboys, cabbies, and store clerks as well; a man who lived life to the fullest and yet always had a kind word for whomever he encountered in the wide, wide world he so loved to explore.

We lost our friend John Cassidy on October 21. While some might be tempted to say at 88 years John lived a long life--his incredible vigor, his youthful enthusiasm, his passion for life, his ready smile, and the twinkle in his eye--all underscore how the world was robbed by the sudden death of John Cassidy.

And so I wish to pay tribute to John Joseph Cassidy, a writer and painter, a gardener and chef, a legal scholar and mentor to decades of young students, and most of all, a devout family man whose definition of ``family'' embraced so many beyond his cherished wife Cynthia, his daughters Susan Ross Cassidy of Newton, MA, Carrie Elizabeth Goertz of Anchorage, AK, and Alice Madeline Meyre of Richmond, VA, and his six grandchildren John, Ned, Jennifer, Kate, Margaret, and Thomson.

I was proud to be part of that large extended family, and I mourn his loss.

Cassidy--how he invariably identified himself on the phone--was a native Washingtonian, a rarity here in the Nation's Capital. John graduated from Georgetown University and then its law center and maintained a lifelong allegiance to both institutions, including service on the university's board of directors and the law center's board of visitors. That type of unfailing allegiance is vintage John Cassidy, as I came to learn over the decades of our close friendship.

Even as a young lawyer, Cassidy became active in civic affairs, serving as vice chairman of Montgomery County's Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Commission and as chair of the town council of Chevy Chase Section 4. He served in the Army's JAG Corps where, in his typically self-deprecating style, he described his several years in Iceland as time honing his salmon-fishing technique with visiting senior officers.

Upon his return to the United States in the early 1960s, John served as executive assistant to the board of monitors appointed by the court to oversee the Teamsters as part of a Department of Justice settlement with the union concerning charges for corruption. He became a trial attorney in the Justice Department and a trusted aide to Attorneys General Robert Kennedy and Nicholas Katzenbach.

To be with Cassidy was to be with history. I remember once, when I walked him out of the Russell Building by my office in SR-135, he looked out at the Upper Senate Park extending down to where the Teamsters building stood. John gazed over and said, ``Hoffa used to call that the `Trail of Tears' as he came up to testify in the Senate.'' With that, he was off to Constitution Avenue to flag a cab back to his office.

That was what life with Cassidy was like, and I will miss that so much about him.

Indeed, conversations with Cassidy were not ripped from a ``Law & Order'' marathon, a rapid-fire back and forth of case citations. Conversations with Cassidy were a meandering path, filled with history, commentary, a few recipes, jokes, and, yes, gardening tips. Conversations with Cassidy were an experience to be savored and long remembered.

In 1965, Cassidy left Justice, forming the Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin law firm with several of his former colleagues. Bill France, Sr., the founder of NASCAR, a major target of Hoffa's efforts, became one of the firm's anchor clients, a relationship that lasted for decades. Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin became a go-to law firm for public officials and business leaders under investigation for criminal offenses, a cadre that multiplied during the Watergate prosecutions and under the Independent Counsel Act that followed.

Miller Cassidy went on to represent a President, two former Attorneys General, numerous Senators and Representatives, six judges, and dozens of high-ranking executive branch officials.

When former partner Jamie Gorelick was nominated to be Deputy Attorney General in 1994, the Wall Street Journal said of the firm in an editorial that ``among Beltway bigwigs, its phone number is posted right next to 911.''

For a small law firm, a remarkable number of the firm's alumni were confirmed by the Senate to positions in the judicial and executive branches. They include a Deputy Attorney General, a Solicitor General, two Assistant Secretaries of the Treasury for Terrorist Financing, General Counsels of the CIA and Defense Department, three Federal appellate judges, and three U.S. District judges. No fewer than a dozen alumni became deans or professors at prominent law schools. Nearly all were mentored during their careers by John Cassidy.

In 2001, John called to tell me that he and most of the other lawyers from Miller Cassidy were joining the Washington, DC, office of Baker Botts, where he continued to practice until the brief illness that preceded his death. Throughout his career at Miller Cassidy and Baker Botts, John was renowned for how passionately he fought to protect the interests of his clients, many of whom remained friends for decades after their legal matters were resolved.

Former Secretary of Treasury and later Secretary of State James Baker, a senior partner at Baker Botts, said to me about John Cassidy, ``John Cassidy was a great lawyer, but he was also, I think more importantly, a great friend. He had all the tools one would look for in an advocate and an advisor, and he knew how to work both the judicial process and the negotiating table to the benefit of his clients. But John also really cared about your response when he asked 'How are you doing?' He was truly a genuine person, and it seems we are missing too many of his kind of people these days . . . and not only in the legal profession.''

There are so many fond memories I have of life with Cassidy. Indeed, my relationship with him started over a legal matter, but we quickly became friends, and that was true for so many of my colleagues who sought John's capable legal advice to save us from demise.

I remember how John would interrupt tense negotiations with a quick quip or story that changed the room's dynamic and helped bring resolution to the matter at hand. I remember how he would bring to restaurants his famous jams from his carefully tended Berry Farm in Potomac. At Ristorante Tosca, he was often seen bringing his homemade caramels or preserves into the kitchen, insisting the chef and staff partake of his food long before he ever ordered his meal.

I remember Cassidy's love of golf led him to significant charitable work with the Tiger Woods Foundation. John and I were equally skilled as golfers, and that is not a compliment to him or me. While even on our very best days neither of us could threaten to break par, playing golf with John was an experience that ran counter to the title, but fully in the spirit, of Tom Boswell's wryly named book, ``A Good Walk Spoiled.''

Spending time with John was always a treasure.

I remember John's vibrant pastel drawings; he often drew inspiration from his magnificent garden at the Berry Farm--garden with berries and flowers, herbs, and Mr. Stripey tomato plants ten feet high. Such was his bounty.

I rue that I will never be able to pour over his draft memoirs, surely to be one of the most interesting tomes in recent history.

Once, I asked Cassidy when he was planning on retiring. He wasn't sure. Cindy tells me, at 65, he decided to delay the decision 5 years-- at 70, another 5 years--at 75, another 5 years. I have no doubt, at 90, he would have given the same reply.

In a tribute to Cassidy, his nephew, Jim, said, ``John Cassidy was a friend of motorsports, a friend of NASCAR and a friend to just about whoever made his acquaintance. And he was so much more.''

That sums it up. John Cassidy was a friend to this body, a friend to our institution, and a friend to me. His passing is a loss to his family, his many friends and colleagues, and most of all, this country that he loved so much. I will miss him.

Mr. President, on May 14, 2018, the Supreme Court in Murphy v. NCAA, 138 S. Ct. 1461, 2018, struck down the Federal prohibition of State-authorized sports wagering schemes. I was one of four original authors of that prohibition, the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992, Public Law 102-559; 106 Stat. 4227, which found that ``sports gambling conducted pursuant to State law threatens the integrity and character of, and public confidence in, professional and amateur sports, instills inappropriate values in the Nation's youth, misappropriates the goodwill and popularity of professional and amateur sports organizations, and dilutes and tarnishes the service marks of such organizations.''

Today, I joined with Senator Chuck Schumer to introduce the Sports Wagering Market Integrity Act of 2018, a comprehensive legislative response to the Murphy decision. This legislation is the product of nearly one year of discussions with stakeholders on all sides of the issue, the gaming industry, professional and amateur sports leagues, consumer advocates, data providers, law enforcement, and many others.

I would urge my soon-to-be former colleagues and other Members of Congress, should they choose to take up this issue, to use the bill I have introduced today as a starting point for their work, but recognize that there is much work to be done, and I would anticipate that any final legislation might look very different from the bill that was introduced today. For example, the degree to which the Department of Justice or other Federal agencies need to be involved in overseeing state sports wagering regimes, the appropriate level of control that sports organizations should have over sports wagering, and the basis for requiring the use of so-called official league data continue to be open questions in my mind. I do not necessarily believe that those and other provisions introduced in the bill today reflect a final decision regarding the appropriate policy. But these provisions do flag many of the difficult issues to be considered as part of the sports wagering discussion. I would urge my colleagues not to be discouraged by the challenges and competing interests, and I look forward to being supportive of future congressional efforts to engage on this issue.

Mr. President, on May 14, 2018, the Supreme Court in Murphy v. NCAA, 138 S. Ct. 1461, 2018, struck down the Federal prohibition of State-authorized sports wagering schemes. I was one of four original authors of that prohibition, the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992, Public Law 102-559; 106 Stat. 4227, which found that ``sports gambling conducted pursuant to State law threatens the integrity and character of, and public confidence in, professional and amateur sports, instills inappropriate values in the Nation's youth, misappropriates the goodwill and popularity of professional and amateur sports organizations, and dilutes and tarnishes the service marks of such organizations.''

Today, I joined with Senator Chuck Schumer to introduce the Sports Wagering Market Integrity Act of 2018, a comprehensive legislative response to the Murphy decision. This legislation is the product of nearly one year of discussions with stakeholders on all sides of the issue, the gaming industry, professional and amateur sports leagues, consumer advocates, data providers, law enforcement, and many others.

I would urge my soon-to-be former colleagues and other Members of Congress, should they choose to take up this issue, to use the bill I have introduced today as a starting point for their work, but recognize that there is much work to be done, and I would anticipate that any final legislation might look very different from the bill that was introduced today. For example, the degree to which the Department of Justice or other Federal agencies need to be involved in overseeing state sports wagering regimes, the appropriate level of control that sports organizations should have over sports wagering, and the basis for requiring the use of so-called official league data continue to be open questions in my mind. I do not necessarily believe that those and other provisions introduced in the bill today reflect a final decision regarding the appropriate policy. But these provisions do flag many of the difficult issues to be considered as part of the sports wagering discussion. I would urge my colleagues not to be discouraged by the challenges and competing interests, and I look forward to being supportive of future congressional efforts to engage on this issue.

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.

Madam President, I am pleased Congress recently passed my bipartisan bill, the Amy, Vicky, and Andy Child Pornography Victim Assistance Act of 2018. This legislation will help provide meaningful assistance for child pornography victims to support their recovery and allow them to reclaim their lives. This is a momentous day and many years in the making. I have introduced similar versions of this bill in the last three Congresses, and I look forward to the President signing it into law.

Nearly 25 years ago, Congress enacted the Violence Against Women Act, which created a process for victims to seek restitution from defendants. For crimes that involve individual defendants who cause specific harm to particular victims, the restitution statute works in a straightforward way.

Child pornography is unlike any other crime. The abuse involved in creating these images profoundly alters the lives of victims, while trafficking in the permanent record of that abuse

perpetuates and expands the harm. As the Supreme Court noted in its 2014 opinion in Paroline v. United States: ``Every viewing of child pornography is a repetition of the victim's abuse.'' Unfortunately, the internet has radically changed the nature of child pornography trafficking by drastically increasing the number of individuals who harm victims while simultaneously making it more difficult to identify the individuals from whom victims can seek restitution.

In its decision in Paroline, the Supreme Court made clear that the current restitution statute cannot provide meaningful compensation for most child pornography victims. The Amy, Vicky, and Andy Act changes that.

The Amy, Vicky, and Andy Act establishes more relevant and useful standards for child pornography victims who seek restitution from defendants, including improved criteria for judges to use when calculating victims' losses and provisions that ensure victims will receive meaningful restitution. Under this legislation, a victim of trafficking in child pornography may choose to seek restitution from defendants or to receive a one-time payment from the Child Pornography Victims Reserve within the federal Crime Victims Fund. The reserve will be supported by an assessment on all child pornography defendants.

Congress understands the concern of the Supreme Court in Paroline that it is difficult to identify a discrete, readily definable incremental loss any one defendant caused any one victim, and so we have determined, after considering a range of options with the specific goal of fully compensating victims of child pornography in a swift and just manner, that it is reasonable, fair, and equitable to fix the minimum restitution amount for trafficking in child pornography at $3,000.

Congress firmly believes that the amounts in the act are consistent with the principle in Hughey v. United States, 495 U.S. 411 (1990), that restitution should reflect the consequences of the defendant's own conduct. Congress finds that $3,000 is the minimum restitution that each individual defendant of trafficking in child pornography crimes should be assessed that comports with a defendant's relative role in the causal process that underlies a victim's general losses. This is fully in accordance with the Supreme Court's decision in Paroline. This amount also upholds Congress's longstanding goal of proportionality in sentencing because it reflects the amount of restitution currently being sought and ordered in district courts throughout the country.

Criminals convicted of child pornography crimes--be they crimes of production, distribution, or possession--are part of a group of wrongdoers who collectively cause harm. Indeed, the profound suffering of victims of child pornography crimes is due in part to their knowledge that, each day, untold numbers of people across the country and around the world are viewing and distributing images of the victims' sexual abuse. Criminals who commit child pornography crimes cannot escape their responsibility to pay restitution by hiding in a crowd.

Another important provision in the bill gives victims access to the images depicting them, which can be important for victim identification, expert testimony, forensic review, and treatment.

The Amy, Vicky, and Andy Act has been endorsed by the National Organization for Victim Assistance, National Association of Attorneys General, National Crime Victims Law Institute, National District Attorneys Association, National Center for Victims of Crime, National Association of VOCA Assistance Administrators, National Crime Victims Bar Association, CHILD USA, RAINN, APSAC in partnership with The New York Foundling, Enough is Enough, Thorn, Academy on Violence and Abuse, DV LEAP, Utah Crime Victims Legal Clinic, Utah Coalition against Sexual Assault, and the Children's Justice Fund. I appreciate all of their support.

Developing and passing this important legislation has truly been a collaborative and years-long effort. There are a number of people I would like to thank who have been vital in this process.

First and foremost, I wish to recognize and thank Amy, Vicky, and Andy, the brave individuals for whom this bill is named. As victims in some of the most widely distributed child pornography series in the world, they represent so many child pornography victims. Amy, Vicky, and Andy strongly support this bill.

Second, I want to thank Amy's lawyer, James Marsh; Vicky's lawyer, Carol Hepburn; Andy's advocates at the Utah Crime Victims Legal Clinic; and Professor Paul Cassell at the University of Utah, who took Amy's case all the way to the Supreme Court. Their assistance with this bill, drawn from their tireless advocacy for victims, has been truly invaluable and much appreciated. Likewise, I must thank the dedicated attorneys at the Department of Justice for their important contributions to this legislation. I would particularly like to thank Alexandra Gelber of the Department of Justice Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section.

Third, I wish to thank the Senators on both sides of the aisle who supported this important legislation, especially the 26 colleagues who co-sponsored this legislation with me. In particular, I wish to thank Ranking Member Feinstein, who joined me in introducing this bill. We have served together for many years, and she has long been a champion for crime victims. I likewise want to express my gratitude to Chairman Chuck Grassley, who also joined me in introducing the bill and who was crucial to getting this important legislation across the finish line. Throughout our Senate service, I have worked with Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein on several bills to protect children, and I thank them for their commitment to ensuring that child victims have the support they need. I must thank members of their staff as well for their outstanding work: Senator Feinstein's counsel, Nicholas Xenakis, her former chief counsel for crime, Peter Hyun, and her former detailee, Sunjeet Randhawa; and Senator Grassley's chief Constitution counsel and crime counsel, Aaron Cummings, and his chief counsel for justice programs, juvenile justice, and violence against women, Evelyn Fortier.

Fourth, I wish to recognize some colleagues in the House of Representatives. I would like to thank Congressman Trey Gowdy, the House sponsor of the bill. He has been a tireless advocate for child pornography victims, and I appreciate his dedicated service. Anna Bartlett in his office was a terrific help. Congressman Matt Cartwright, who represents Amy in the House, has been a champion on this issue and has introduced similar legislation in the last three Congresses.

I would also like to recognize House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte. I have been fortunate to work with him on several initiatives throughout the years that were enacted into law, most recently the Orrin G. Hatch-Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act. I was pleased to collaborate with him again on the Amy, Vicky, and Andy Act. I would like to thank his chief of staff, Shelley Husband, and his deputy chief of staff and chief counsel, Branden Ritchie, for their excellent job in shepherding this bill through the House. I also need to thank staff on the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations for their great work, chief counsel Robert Parmiter and former counsel Chris Grieco. I would like to give a special shout-out to Crime Subcommittee counsel Margaret Barr, who was an outstanding partner in this effort. They all deserve tremendous credit for this victory.

I would be remiss if I did not thank staff in the cloakroom and Senate legislative counsel for their assistance. Our work in the Senate would not be possible without their dedicated service.

Lastly, I would like to thank those on my staff who assisted me with this bill. Firstly, I would like to thank my former chief counsel and senior nominations counsel, Thomas Jipping, who spearheaded this effort while he was a member of my staff. Next, I need to recognize Matt Sandgren, my chief of staff His tenacity and expertise was invaluable in getting this legislation passed. I am also grateful to my legislative director, Matt Jensen, for his dedicated work on this bill through each step of the legislative process. Finally, I would like to thank Kristin

McLintock, my senior legislative aide, who worked diligently with House staff and stakeholders over the last several months to refine this bill and get it across the finish line. They all deserve immense credit for their work to get this bill enacted into law.

Child pornography is a truly evil crime that has lasting impacts on its victims. The Amy, Vicky, and Andy Child Pornography Victim Assistance Act will help provide victims the assistance they need to put their lives back together. I am honored and extremely pleased this legislation will soon be signed into law.

Mr. President, I want to thank my dear colleague from Iowa. He is one of the greatest Senators I have served with. He is just a wonderful friend and a wonderful Senator. He has worked his tail off the whole time he has been here. I am grateful for his kind words. It means a great deal to me.

Thank you so much.

Mr. President, I thank my dear colleague for his kind remarks. I didn't expect them. I didn't realize this was going on until a few minutes ago. So I am grateful to him. Thanks for that.

Mr. President, I just can't express my gratitude for the kindness of my dear friend from Pennsylvania. This means so much to me. I didn't even realize it was going to happen. I hustled over here, and there it was.

I say to the Senator, I am grateful to you, and I am grateful for the kind remarks you have made. I couldn't have asked for more. It was so decent of you, as you always exhibit. You are a great Senator, and I really appreciate your support here today. Thank you so much.

Mr. President, I am grateful to my colleagues and especially my colleague from Louisiana for his kind remarks on the floor of the U.S. Senate. It means so much to me. I want him to know that.

I want the others to realize how much I appreciated their taking time to come to the floor and expressing their opinions about my service in the Senate.

This is a difficult thing for me because I love the Senate. I love both sides. I love my Democratic colleagues. It is no secret that I have worked with both of them to bring great legislation to the floor of the Senate and to pass it.

I have to say to the colleagues on my side, there isn't one of them I don't respect. Every one of them I have great fondness and affection for. I sure appreciate the Senator from Louisiana and the others who have spoken here today.

I am genuinely touched by the kind words and thoughts from my respected colleagues, Senators Grassley, Portman, Toomey, and of course Cassidy. I say to them, you are all dear friends, excellent Senators, and I am very grateful for your comments. More than that, I am deeply grateful for your friendship and the impact your dedication and patriotism have had on me. Of course, that also holds true for all members of the Finance Committee with whom I have had the honor and privilege of serving.

Recently, in the Finance Committee, we passed comprehensive tax reform, a 10-year CHIP extension, saw a health insurance protection extension, a critical 5-year extension of the highway trust fund, and TPA, along with several other trade bills. I can say with great confidence that most of these accomplishments would not have borne fruit without help from each of the Senators and many of our friends on the committee.

Today marks one of the last times I will have the opportunity of standing before the Senate to speak on my work within the Finance Committee's vast jurisdiction and, of course, the fights and victories I have been a part of.

While we may not have been able to close on many of these achievements until recently, they have all been built on hard work that I, other members of the committee, and the wider Senate have engaged in over the past few decades.

For example, earlier this year, I was very happy to see a 10-year reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP. Ten years, that is the longest CHIP extension in the history of the program, and I am grateful to my colleagues for it. It is a program that provides insurance to over 9 million children in distress a year.

Creating CHIP was a bipartisan model of success. Senator Ted Kennedy and I were only able to pass CHIP the first time because we both were willing to cross the aisle to see this program succeed. This bipartisan work ethic extended to many pieces of legislation I worked on while on the Finance Committee.

In 2015, we were able to renew Trade Promotion Authority, which is one of the most important tools Congress has that allows us to work hand in hand with the executive branch to advance our Nation's trade agenda. TPA helps to ensure our trade agreements are held to the highest standard.

Not every piece of legislation I am proud of has gone through without a fight, though. We can't forget last winter, when I was so proud to be a part of shaping the historic tax reform legislation that is boosting economic growth today, lowering unemployment today, and spurring job creation today. We worked hard in the Finance Committee to fix the broken Tax Code and, by all accounts, it appears we did a pretty good job.

This legislation was built on years and years of work in the Finance Committee, and I am very appreciative of my colleagues. I led the creation of working groups, released opinion papers and recommendations, and held 70 hearings on how to improve the Tax Code since I became the top Republican on the Finance Committee.

As part of tax reform, we were also able to repeal the individual mandate tax, which forced Americans to buy health insurance they did not want or could not afford.

These are just a few of the accomplishments I have been privileged enough to shepherd through during my service, and they are darn few compared to what we have been able to do. While I am proud of these accomplishments, there is always more to be done, which is why, in addition to thanking all my friends, colleagues and mentors throughout the years, I would like to share some parting words of advice that I have picked up through my work on the Finance Committee, and other committees, for those who will remain in this Chamber.

I see these next few years as critical to the future of our country, to the future of our ideals, and to the future of freedom not only here but throughout the world. As such, I have a few suggestions I would like to make to my colleagues.

First, be earnest, be honest, and guard at all times your integrity. If we cannot take the time to think deeply about an issue, to reason it out, and speak honestly among ourselves and our constituents, it will be impossible to enact lasting and meaningful change.

To quote my good friend Senator Kennedy, ``Integrity is the lifeblood of democracy. Deceit is a poison in its veins.''

That means sometimes, often when it is least convenient, we must speak the hard truths. That process will often lead to discord, falling short, or struggling for years to fix vexing problems or disagreements. As Winston Churchill once famously said, ``You have enemies? Good. That means you stood up for something, sometime in your life.''

So have courage and act.

Second, if you don't care who gets the credit, you will be amazed at what you can achieve. In politics, that can be a hard sentiment to swallow, but focusing on taking the credit more often than not undermines outcomes. Most of the pieces of legislation I am most proud of had dozens of cosponsors, were widely seen as bipartisan, and have remained on the books largely because I did not get everything I wanted.

An article of my faith is, ``If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.''

That article speaks only to the results and not at all about taking the credit. The more I learned to focus on that principle, the better off I have been.

Finally, be grateful, be kind, and be quick to forgive. At the end of the day, my friends, we are all people, and people often disagree. Our differences may be as innumerable as our similarities, but if we start with the premise that every Member's intent is to improve our country and the life of its citizens, then our disagreements are logistical, not personal.

I have always truly believed that just about every Member of this body wants to do the right thing for the American people, but they sometimes want to go about it in different ways. What we must never do is question a fellow Senator's dedication to their country; we must never question their dedication to democracy; and we should never disparage them personally when each of us has given so much.

Our job in Congress is the difficult task of aggregating disparate preferences and molding them into laws to make people's lives better. That leads to what many describe as sausage making. The process generates heated debates and sometimes rancor. Yet I have no doubt about the convictions to do good on the part of all of my esteemed colleagues on the Finance Committee and in Congress in general. I have no doubt about how sincere and convicted my good colleagues really are. I have enjoyed everyone here.

I have to say that if you work hard and you study hard and you open your mind to the other person's ideas and ideals and you are willing to make some changes that accommodate others and you are willing to realize that you don't have all the answers, then you can have a great time here, you can be very successful and, in the end, be able to retire, as I am, feeling like I have done good work here.

I love my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I respect my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I love this country with every fiber of my being. I love the Constitution, which gives us freedoms that we all take so much for granted throughout this country. I am grateful for honest, decent people like all of the Senators whom I have served with in the U.S. Senate, both now and in the past. I am grateful for the Senate rules.

I am grateful a little, scrawny U.S. Senator from Utah could lead a fight against an outrageous labor bill that everybody knew was wrong and actually win it on the floor of the Senate because of just guts and the ability to stand here and take the abuse. Labor law reform dramatically changed this country, nearly ruined our country, without really helping the unions.

I was raised in the union movement. I actually held the union card I earned through apprenticeship, my journeyman's license. I am proud of that. I am proud of my union friends, but when you try to take unfair advantage, somebody has to stop it, and I am grateful I was given that assignment early on with this matter, with 62 Democrats and only 38 Republicans. I can still remember a number of Democratic Senators coming up to me and saying: Hey, kid--because I was still pretty young then--hey, kid, you have to win this. This is bad for the country.

And I asked them: Are you going to help me?

And more often than not they would say: Well, I can't help you, but I am with you.

There was a lot of pressure. There was a lot of effort made to try and stop men and women from doing what was right. If we had not won on labor law reform, we would have gone straight to socialism, and it would have been the end of this great country. We have come close a few other times as well.

This is, without question, the greatest country in the world. Without question, this is the greatest deliberative body in the world. Without question, I acknowledge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle as tremendous statesmen and women who really have been here for the right reasons. I am grateful I have had the opportunity of serving in this body, and I am grateful for the 42 years I have put in. I can't say I have enjoyed every one of those years, but looking back on it, I think I have to say that I have really enjoyed being here.

I love my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I respect my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I want this body to continue on and be successful for America, not only for America but for the rest of the world because this is where freedom really exists. This is where freedom can be maintained. This is where freedom can be felt in your guts. I felt it. I know a lot about freedom. I know a lot about the U.S. Senate. I know a lot about my colleagues and the good things about them. I am going to remember the good things; I am not going to remember things that used to irritate me or wrangle me. There weren't many of those compared to the good nature and quality of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

I am grateful for this body. I am going to miss it terribly. I think there comes a time when you really ought to hang it up, not because I can't do this work anymore--I sure can--but because I worked hard to get a worthy successor, and Mitt Romney is going to be that. He is an outstanding human being. He is an honest, decent, morally upright human being. I think he will work hard and be a great asset to the U.S. Senate. He will not have the seniority I have as the most senior Republican in the U.S. Senate, but he has a lot of things going for him, and I suspect he will make a great addition to the U.S. Senate. Knowing that he was willing to run, having chatted with him and talking to him about running, I feel really decent about wrapping it up and saying not goodbye, but I will be watching. I will be praying for you. I will be doing everything in my power to support both Houses of Congress in this, the greatest country in the world, with the greatest set of legal principles the world has ever known and I think with the greatest people we have ever known.

So with that, I express my gratitude to the U.S. Senate, to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, both presently in the Senate and those who have gone on to other worlds. I personally express gratitude to everyone here because virtually everyone has shown me great favor and great kindness.

When I came here, I came here to fight Senator Kennedy because I thought he was too liberal and that he was not a good Senator. I don't think he had passed really any legislation when I got here. I don't think he did until I became chairman of the committee, but he was a great legislator, and he did have an awful lot to say on his side. I think he would be the first, if he were alive today, to say we finally talked it out together, decided to work together, decided to accomplish things together, decided to stand together. When we were in battles, they were really hard-fought battles, but they were battles on principle, for the most part.

I have to say I am grateful for the experiences I have had in the Senate with virtually every Senator who has been in the Senate. In all of my years of being here, I have to say I have love for every one of the Senators who has served here. There are a couple I have less love for, but by and large I even have love for them.

These folks in this Senate are really good people. They care about the country. They care about trying to do what is right. They are willing to fight for their principles, and they can be worked with. I challenge my colleagues to work together with the best interests of this country. If you will, this country is going to go on and be a very, very happy, prosperous, and successful country.

I will end by saying I am so grateful for the privilege of being in this body for 42 years and knowing all of you, including our clerical workers, our stenographers, and, of course, the Parliamentarians, Secretaries, and all of the people affiliated with the U.S. Senate. No wonder it is the greatest deliberative body in the world.

With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the Finance Committee has worked with the Treasury Department to ensure proper responsiveness to committee inquiries. We are continuing to review these matters to determine what further oversight is required.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Traumatic

Brain Injury Program Reauthorization Act of 2018. I want to thank my colleague, Senator Casey, for working with me once again on important legislation to reauthorize the Federal Traumatic Brain Injury program, which is dedicated to improving the delivery and quality of care for persons with traumatic brain injury -- or, TBI.

Each year, millions of Americans suffer TBIs as a result of automobile collisions, falls, recreational accidents, assaults, and other tragic incidents. TBI has also been called a signature wound of recent wars. In 2016, the Department of Defense reported more than 18,000 service members diagnosed with traumatic brain injury. A survivor of a severe brain injury typically faces years of intensive health and rehabilitation services, with estimated lifetime costs in the millions.

In 1996, I worked with my good friend Senator Ted Kennedy on the original TBI Act to help limit the suffering, death, and long-term disability that results from TBI. Our legislation marked the beginning of a multifaceted Federal endeavor to address the needs of persons with TBI and their families. The 1996 TBI law authorized research, not only for the treatment of traumatic brain injury, but also for prevention and awareness programs to help decrease the occurrence of TBI and improve patient outcomes. It was the first Federal legislation to focus on improving education, protection, and state services coordination for

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Traumatic

Brain Injury Program Reauthorization Act of 2018. I want to thank my colleague, Senator Casey, for working with me once again on important legislation to reauthorize the Federal Traumatic Brain Injury program, which is dedicated to improving the delivery and quality of care for persons with traumatic brain injury -- or, TBI.

Each year, millions of Americans suffer TBIs as a result of automobile collisions, falls, recreational accidents, assaults, and other tragic incidents. TBI has also been called a signature wound of recent wars. In 2016, the Department of Defense reported more than 18,000 service members diagnosed with traumatic brain injury. A survivor of a severe brain injury typically faces years of intensive health and rehabilitation services, with estimated lifetime costs in the millions.

In 1996, I worked with my good friend Senator Ted Kennedy on the original TBI Act to help limit the suffering, death, and long-term disability that results from TBI. Our legislation marked the beginning of a multifaceted Federal endeavor to address the needs of persons with TBI and their families. The 1996 TBI law authorized research, not only for the treatment of traumatic brain injury, but also for prevention and awareness programs to help decrease the occurrence of TBI and improve patient outcomes. It was the first Federal legislation to focus on improving education, protection, and state services coordination for

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

Mr. President, nearly 3 months ago, I came to the Senate floor for the first time to support President Trump's nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court. Here is what I had to say at that time:

Judge Kavanaugh is among the most distinguished and most

influential judges in the entire country. The Supreme Court

has adopted the positions in his opinions no less than 11

times. He has authored multiple dissents that ultimately

prevailed in the Supreme Court.

He has taught courses at Harvard, Yale, and Georgetown.

It bears mention, liberal and conservative justices alike

have hired his former clerks, which shows the respect he has

across the ideological spectrum.

Truly, there is no one more qualified and more prepared to

serve on the Supreme Court than Brett Kavanaugh.

A lot has transpired in the last 3 months. We have received and reviewed more documents for Judge Kavanaugh than for any other Supreme Court nominee in our Nation's history. We have had 5 days of public hearings. Judge Kavanaugh has answered more than 1,300 written questions--more questions than all previous Supreme Court nominees combined.

We have had protesters in halls and hearing rooms and elevators. We have even seen the miraculous return of Spartacus, and we have had the lowest, most vile, most dishonest attempt at character assassination I have ever seen in my whole 42 years of service in the Senate.

We may never know who leaked reports of Dr. Ford's allegations to the press. We do know it was someone in the Democratic orbit. This was followed by the most appalling smear campaign imaginable. No accusation was too heinous, no claim too far-fetched.

My Democratic colleagues like to pretend that Judge Kavanaugh's understandable indignation at last week's hearing was a reaction only to Dr. Ford's allegations but, of course, that is not the case. In the days immediately preceding that hearing, Judge Kavanaugh was accused of drugging women, of sexual assault, and even of gang rape.

Judge Kavanaugh told the committee investigators it was like the twilight zone. I sure wish my Democratic colleagues would stop trying to rewrite history to excise the slew of garbage they unleashed on Judge Kavanaugh and the American people, and I hope they will start talking to their friends on the outside and start acting like Americans again and quit this kind of divisive activity.

I would like to say a word here about Dr. Ford. It is clear now that we will never know what happened 36 years ago. Dr. Ford offered a moving account of what she says happened between her and Judge Kavanaugh back when they were teenagers. Judge Kavanaugh, in turn, offered a forceful, impassioned rebuttal of her claims. Some have criticized Judge Kavanaugh for being too forceful in his response. My gosh, if that were me, I would be even more forceful than he was, to have false accusations like that, especially at this particular time in this process.

Interestingly, almost without exception, these critics had announced their opposition to Judge Kavanaugh even before Dr. Ford's allegations were leaked to the press. So let's not pretend these critics are neutral observers.

In any event, Judge Kavanaugh's indignation at what he clearly believes are false and unjust accusations was both understandable and, in my view, entirely proper.

Dr. Ford's allegations are serious. If true, they should disqualify Judge Kavanaugh from serving on the Supreme Court. But neither Dr. Ford nor her attorneys nor any member of news media has been able to provide any corroboration for her claims. To the contrary, every alleged eyewitness or partygoer she has named has either denied her allegations or failed to corroborate them. This includes her lifelong friend Leland Keyser, whom Dr. Ford says was present at the party that night. Ms. Keyser says that not only does she not remember such a gathering ever taking place but that she does not even know Judge Kavanaugh.

Questions have been raised in recent days about certain elements of Dr. Ford's testimony.

She says she first told others that Judge Kavanaugh had attacked her around the time of a house remodel to add a second front door to her home, but permit records show that the door was added 4 years prior to her first alleged mention of Judge Kavanaugh.

She testified that she had never given advice on how to take a polygraph test. A former boyfriend of hers, however, disputes that statement.

Dr. Ford has also offered inconsistent accounts of when the attack took place and how many people were present at that party.

There are other aspects of her story that are also confusing. She does not remember where or when the attack took place, but she remembers with crystal clarity how much alcohol she had consumed. This appears to be the only fact unrelated to the alleged attack that she is able to recall with certainty.

Dr. Ford also testified that after the attack, she ran out of the party. The location of the party had to be some distance from her home. She was too young to drive, so she would have had to have gotten a ride home, but she does not recall who drove her home. And given that this was long before the era of cell phones, it is unclear how she would have contacted someone to come pick her up after she ran out of the party.

Even more puzzling, her good friend, Ms. Keyser, apparently never asked Dr. Ford why she disappeared from the party.

Given that there is no corroborating evidence for Dr. Ford's claims, all we have to go on is her story. Although not dispositive, the questions and inconsistencies and puzzling aspects that I have just outlined call into question the reliability of her account. This is simply not enough to conclude that Judge Kavanaugh is guilty of the heinous act Dr. Ford alleges. It flies in the face of the life he has lived as a judge and how effective he has been as a judge on the second highest court in the land.

Against the thinness of Dr. Ford's accusations, we have an entire lifetime of good works and honorable public service by Judge Kavanaugh. We have received dozens of letters and hundreds of people attesting to Judge Kavanaugh's good character and unimpeachable credentials. His clerks, students, and former colleagues have all praised him as a man of the highest integrity. He has made the promotion and encouragement of women lawyers a focus of his time on the bench. He volunteers in his community and mentors young athletes. This is a good man. He is a very good man, and he does not deserve this kind of treatment or behavior. What Dr. Ford alleges is entirely out of character with the entire course of Judge Kavanaugh's life.

The recent sideshow stories about his drinking habits in high school--my gosh--and college over 30 years ago from people who never liked him in the first place are just a distraction. That this confirmation process has turned into a feeding frenzy about how nice Judge Kavanaugh was to his freshman roommate is an embarrassment.

That said, the Senate has taken these allegations seriously, as we should. We invited Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh to testify, and they did so. Committee investigators spoke with numerous individuals who said they

had relevant information to share. The committee also took statements under penalty of felony from the alleged witnesses Dr. Ford named.

In addition, the FBI recently completed a supplemental background check of Judge Kavanaugh, and the FBI found no corroborating evidence for any of the recent allegations against Judge Kavanaugh. Let me repeat that. The FBI found no corroborating evidence for any of the recent allegations against him--not a single piece of corroborating evidence.

Now that the FBI has found no corroborating evidence, some of my Democratic colleagues shamefully have taken to calling into question the credibility of the FBI and its investigators. These attacks are irresponsible, to say the least. Indeed, contrary to what my Democratic colleagues have said, the FBI conducted a thorough, professional, and expeditious investigation. The FBI talked to the people it needed to talk to. What agents did not do is talk to someone who says he talked to someone more than 30 years ago who now doesn't remember seeing anything. They didn't investigate whether Judge Kavanaugh was, in fact, spotted near a punch bowl at a high school party, and they were right not to do so. An FBI investigation is not a wild goose chase.

Some of my Democratic colleagues are also complaining that the FBI did not interview Dr. Ford or Judge Kavanaugh during the supplemental investigation. Well, Dr. Ford testified in a public hearing for nearly 3 hours. She told the committee that she had given us all of the information she could remember. The FBI does not need to repeat questions that have already been asked and answered, particularly when a person has already said she shared everything she can remember.

Judge Kavanaugh, likewise, testified publicly at the hearing. He also spent several hours answering questions from committee investigators under penalty of felony on several different occasions. He has been thoroughly interrogated under oath in public and in private about these allegations.

Some of my Senate Judiciary Committee colleagues made the unfortunate choice last night to smear Judge Kavanaugh with yet another piece of innuendo. Eight members of the committee sent a letter in which they incorrectly implied that the six previous background checks on Judge Kavanaugh contained information concerning sexual improprieties or alcohol abuse. In so doing, they took advantage of rules that protect the confidentiality of witnesses to score cheap political points.

Although we should all be disquieted by my colleagues' unscrupulous conduct, the American people can rest assured that no such information exists. If it did, Democrats would have raised it before now. Of that, we can certainly be certain. Indeed, after weeks of nonstop mudslinging and attempted character assassination by Senate Democrats and their media allies, no one--no one--has been able to find any charge against Judge Kavanaugh that sticks. And you can believe they have tried. Boy, can you believe they have tried. This has been the worst example of the Washington smear machine that I have seen in all my 42 years of Senate service.

So we are left back where we were before this whole sordid saga began. Judge Kavanaugh is eminently qualified, unquestionably qualified, to serve on our Nation's highest Court. He is among the most distinguished, influential judges in the entire country. His opinions have received widespread acclaim and have won approval by the Supreme Court on multiple occasions--multiple occasions. The American Bar Association interviewed more than 100 fellow judges and lawyers who know Judge Kavanaugh and who have appeared before him, and they all spoke with virtual unanimity in praising his integrity, his work product, and his judicial temperament.

As somebody who tried cases in Federal court, I would have been happy to have had Judge Kavanaugh, who I know would give a fair shake to both sides. He is the kind of a judge I would have admired in every way, and I do, but I would have admired him in every way as a practicing trial lawyer who had quite significant experience.

I hold the highest rating, the ABA rating from Martindale-Hubbell, which is the rating service that rates attorneys without their knowledge by going to other top lawyers in their area. I have had that highest rating in two States--in Pennsylvania and in Utah. So I take these matters very seriously. I believe in the Federal courts. I think they do a terrific job in this country. I have nothing but admiration for them. There are very few exceptions. And I think it is just a terrible, ridiculous problem that has arisen here because people are playing politics with this judge and this judgeship.

I am sorry that Judge Kavanaugh has had to go through this ordeal. He did not deserve this. He is a good man. He spent decades building a reputation of decency and fairness. His opponents have attempted to destroy it with 3 weeks of smut and unsubstantiated allegations. It makes me sick to see this type of stuff. It certainly does when some of my colleagues buy into it, which they shouldn't. They should not.

I know Brett Kavanaugh. I know him well. He is a man of great resilience and firm conviction. He is going to be a great Justice-- perhaps one of the greatest we have ever had. He will bring to the Supreme Court the integrity, honor, and intellectual rigor he has demonstrated throughout his entire career. And soon enough, he will have rebuilt his reputation. He will earn the respect of his colleagues and the American people through his writings and his decisions--of that, I have no doubt.

I will vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh. He is unquestionably qualified. He has gone through the most thorough vetting process I have ever seen. It has been a miserable, retched process in some respects, but he has come through, and we all give him credit for that. Hundreds of thousands of documents produced. Five days of hearings. Seven FBI background checks. We know what we need to know. The American people know what they need to know.

It is time to vote. It is time to confirm this good man to the U.S. Supreme Court, and I hope this body will get to that decision-making process as soon as it can. It is time to end this charade. It is time to back this really good man. I predict he will make one of the great Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court.

I am grateful to my colleagues who have given him the benefit of the doubt and who know him and know these things are not true. I am grateful for the privilege of serving in the Senate. I sure hate to end my service with further smears to a good man like Judge Kavanaugh.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to enter a few remarks into the Record

regarding section 103(a) of the Music Modernization Act, which the Senate recently passed.

By striking current sections 114(f)(1) and (2) of title 17 and substituting a new section 114(f)(1) based on current section 114(f)(2), section 103(a) of the bill creates a uniform ``willing buyer/willing seller'' rate standard in section 114. This fair standard requires that performing artists and copyright owners be appropriately compensated for the use of their works under the statutory license because rates under this standard are to be set at a level that best approximates the rates that artists and copyright owners would have been able to negotiate in a free market. It has long been a goal of Congress to move toward a free market standard for the statutory license and to move away from the 801(b) standard that permits the copyright royalty judges to set a nonmarket rate for satellite digital audio radio services, (SDARS), and preexisting subscription services, (PSS). Discounted nonmarket rates harm artists and copyright owners, as well as the competitors of SDARS and PSS. As a transitional matter, however, the bill amends section 804(b)(3)(B) of the Copyright Act to continue, through 2027, 2018-2022 statutory royalty rates for PSS that are finally determined in the rate proceeding currently pending before the copyright royalty judges.

The bill also continues through 2027 the statutory royalty rates for SDARS set forth by the copyright royalty judges on December 14, 2017, in their initial determination for the rate period ending on December 31, 2022. The remainder of my statement today will address the PSS category.

After 2027, the PSS will remain a distinct category of service under section 114. We have chosen to retain the PSS category as a distinct category because, over the last 20 years, the PSS have been treated distinctly from other types of services for purposes other than the rate standard, such as in the statutory license reporting regulations in 37 C.F.R. 370.3. We express no view as to the merits of those particular provisions or as to whether it makes sense to continue to treat the PSS differently from other types of services as to reporting requirements or any other matter besides the rate standard.

One consequence of retaining the PSS category after 2027 is that, so long as there continue to be PSS in operation, statutory royalty rates for PSS will continue to be set in proceedings separate from those in which rates are set for similar ``new subscription services'' that also provide music channels delivered over cable and satellite networks as part of cable and satellite subscription packages. Statutory royalty rates for such new subscription services have always been subject to the willing buyer/willing seller rate standard and are currently found at 37 C.F.R. part 383. The difference in the timing of rate proceedings for PSS and similar new subscription services is simply the result of keeping each service on the same 5-year cycle of rate-setting proceedings that has applied to the service in the past and does not reflect a judgment that the royalty rates for PSS and similar new subscription services should be different. The intent of this legislation is to eliminate the rate-setting preference that the PSS and SDARS previously enjoyed under section 114(f)(1) and require all services to pay statutory royalties reflecting the fair market value of the recordings they use without regard to regulatory categories or the schedule of rate-setting proceedings. We expect that similar services will pay similar market rates.

During the period through 2027, when the PSS may continue to pay statutory royalty rates that have been set at below-market levels depending on the outcome of the pending rate proceeding--eligibility for the PSS rates will continue to be limited to the category of services eligible for grandfathering under the old rate standard when the PSS category was created, so as to protect pre-1998 investments in the particular service offerings at issue.

Mr. President, I now wish to enter into the Record a few remarks regarding section 105 of the Music Modernization Act, or MMA, which the Senate recently passed.

An important policy objective of the MMA is to bring legal certainty to areas of the music licensing marketplace where it is lacking today in order to benefit songwriters, recording artists, music users, and ultimately listeners. In the market for the public performance of musical works, where no governing statutory framework exists, that certainty has long been provided by the Department of Justice, DOJ, consent decrees with ASCAP and BMI.

To ensure that certainty remains in that market, section 105 of the MMA creates a process that will enable Congress to exercise an ongoing oversight role over decisions by DOJ to review, modify, or terminate the ASCAP or BMI consent decree. Terminating either of these decrees without a viable legislative alternative in place would create the very market uncertainty that the MMA seeks to remedy.

For that reason, in the event DOJ elects to undertake a review of the ASCAP or BMI consent decree, the MMA instructs DOJ to consult with and report to Congress throughout that review. Such a process will enable Congress to act on any needed legislative improvements or replacement of the consent decree framework as a precursor to DOJ action to terminate the decrees.

Importantly, in the event that DOJ decides to move to terminate either the ASCAP or BMI consent decree, including through a motion to sunset the decree after a specified period of time, the MMA requires DOJ to notify the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary of its intent to file such a motion ``a reasonable time before'' filing the motion. The purpose of this provision is to provide adequate time for congressional consultation and any legislative action that may be necessary as the result of a motion to terminate the decree. The bill's sponsors believe that such notification is required under section 105 and that ``a reasonable time'' means at least 90 days before a motion to terminate is filed, in order to provide adequate notice to Congress.

Mr. President, this week, the House of Representatives will pass and send to the President the most important copyright reform in decades. The name of the bill, which passed this body by unanimous vote last week, is the Orrin G. Hatch-Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act.

As the Senate was considering the bill, my good friend from Tennessee, Senator Alexander, asked to rename the bill in my honor. I was touched by this kind gesture from my good friend and by the willingness of my colleagues to agree to this suggestion. It wasn't necessary though.

We are also adding to the bill the name of the retiring House Judiciary Committee chairman, Bob Goodlatte, in recognition of all he has done to get this bill across the finish line and to improve our Nation's copyright laws.

The Music Modernization Act was years in the making. It was the result of countless hours of hard work and many late nights by staff, stakeholders, and Members of this body. My friend from Tennessee, Senator Alexander, did an outstanding job last week here on the floor explaining the need for the bill and how it will improve the music marketplace. I will provide a brief summary at this time.

Our current music licensing laws are badly out of date. Too often, songwriters don't get paid when their songs get played, and even when they do get paid, they don't get paid at a fair market rate. This has made it increasingly difficult for songwriters to make a living doing what they love and has harmed our entire music industry. Some have even left the field of writing songs. They have given up, and I really lament that.

Songwriters are the lifeblood of American music. In order to have a great single or a great album, you first have to have a great song. You need the music. You need the lyrics. And you need them to fit together in a way that makes you feel something, that tugs at your heart and your heartstrings, that makes you feel excited or peaceful or nostalgic.

Songwriting is an art. I know this because I have done it myself. I have written dozens of songs over the years, and I even earned a gold and a platinum record. I know firsthand how small the royalties are, even when your song is a success. It is time to change that. The Music Modernization Act will do so.

The heart of the bill is the creation of a mechanical licensing collective to administer reproduction and distribution rights for digital music. One of the driving forces in recent years of the decline in songwriter royalties has been the transition to digital music. This may seem a bit surprising as one might think that the availability of millions of songs at the click of a mouse will lead to more royalties, given that more music than ever before is now available instantaneously.

The problem is that these big digital music companies, like Pandora and Spotify, with their catalogs of millions of songs, simply don't have the capability to find every single songwriter for every single one of the songs they play. Tracking down the recording artist--that is, the singer--usually can be done, but finding songwriters is a different story.

The bill creates a mechanical licensing collective that is tasked with identifying songwriters, matching them to sound recordings, and then ensuring that a songwriter actually gets paid as he or she should. Importantly, this collective will be run by songwriters themselves and by their representatives in the publishing community.

This is an enormous victory for songwriters. For the first time in history, songwriters and their representatives will be in charge of making sure they get paid when their songs get played.

This is not the only thing the bill does, not by a long shot. It also changes the rate standard for reproduction and distribution rights to ensure that songwriters get paid a fair market rate, and it provides important protections to digital music companies. It creates a blanket digital license for companies like Pandora and Spotify so that they can have certainty that they will not be sued when they offer songs for download or interactive streaming. It also provides a liability shield against past infringement, provided certain conditions are met--again, so that digital music companies can have certainty in going forward.

The Music Modernization Act also makes important changes to performance rights. It creates a Federal performance right for pre-1972 sound recordings and moves our licensing laws away from the patchwork of inconsistent State laws and toward a more uniform, coherent Federal standard. It ends the rate carve-out that legacy cable and satellite providers have enjoyed for two decades that has allowed them to pay below-market rates and stave off meaningful competition. This will result in fairer rates for recording artists and create a more level playing field for new market entrants.

The bill also provides that rate proceedings for performance rights will rotate among judges and that judges may consider sound recording royalty rates when setting corresponding rates for musical works, and it makes a clear statement that the Department of Justice should work with Congress to ensure there is a proper framework in place to administer performance rights for musical works in the event the Department decides it is time to sunset the ASCAP and BMI consent decrees.

Lastly, the bill puts in place a formal process for producers, sound engineers, and other behind-the-scenes players to receive a share of the performance royalties. This will help to ensure that all of the participants in the music-making process are fairly compensated for their contributions.

As one can see, the Orrin G. Hatch-Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act is a comprehensive piece of legislation that will have wide-ranging impacts across the music landscape. It touches all sectors of the music industry and makes important reforms to ensure that songwriters, musicians, and other key contributors to American music are treated fairly.

There is a reason this bill passed the Senate unanimously and why it will pass the House with overwhelming support, which is that all sides of the music industry came together to find a way to make our music laws better, to make them function properly, and to update them for the digital age. No side got everything it wanted, but everyone got something. At the end of the day, we have a piece of legislation we can all be proud of.

Now, the fact that this bill passed unanimously does not mean that it was an easy lift--not by any means. This was an extraordinarily complex, multifaceted piece of legislation with dozens of moving parts and cross-cutting issues that impacted stakeholders in varying ways. Each component of the bill was crucial to its passage, which made negotiating and revising the legislative text an exceedingly delicate process. There were numerous unexpected developments along the way, each of which had to be handled in a manner that did not upset the bill's careful balance. So I need to spend some time today in thanking everyone who made it possible for us to get to this point. How often does the Senate pass a 186-page bill unanimously? Almost never. That alone tells you how well the bill's sponsors and their staffs managed this process.

I first need to thank Senator Alexander, my dear friend from Tennessee. He has been by my side throughout the entire process. Senator Alexander is a tireless advocate for songwriters in his State and for music in general in his State. This bill would not be on its way to the President's desk in short order without all of his hard work. I acknowledge it and compliment him in every way for it.

Senator Alexander's staff has been outstanding as well. In particular, I need to recognize David Cleary, his chief of staff; Lindsay Garcia, his general counsel; and Paul McKernan, his former legislative assistant. They were wonderful to work with and deserve tremendous credit for this victory.

I next need to thank Senator Whitehouse, who has been with me throughout this entire journey as well. His chief counsel, Lara Quint, has been a terrific help and an important liaison with my Democratic colleagues.

I need to thank Chairman Grassley, who shepherded this bill through the committee and made important contributions to the bill's oversight and transparency provisions. His deputy staff director and chief civil counsel, Rita Lari, put a lot of work into this bill and into the accompanying committee report. Her determination and dedication made this bill better and helped to bring us to this point today.

Ranking Member Feinstein deserves significant credit as does her counsel, Anant Raut. They helped to make this bill a bipartisan success.

Senator Coons played a pivotal role in this legislation. He was a champion of title II, the CLASSICS Act, which creates a Federal performance right for pre-1972 sound recordings. Special recognition goes to Jamie Simpson, in his office, who led us through some challenging negotiations and made sure we came out all right.

Senator Kennedy was the Republican lead on the CLASSICS Act, and I am glad to have had this opportunity to work with him and with Nick Hawatmeh and Brittany Sadler from his staff.

I also need to recognize two House colleagues. The first is Representative Doug Collins, who has fought tirelessly for this bill. He and his staff have been unstoppable. Every obstacle, every hurdle they have worked to overcome. Even after the bill passed the House, they did not let up. They were 100 percent committed to this legislation, and I cannot thank them enough for everything they have done. Brendan Belair, Representative Collins' chief of staff, and Sally Rose Larson, his legislative director, have been absolutely outstanding.

The other House colleague I need to recognize is my good friend Bob Goodlatte, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Like me, Bob is retiring this year. He has been a wonderful chairman. I have had the privilege of working with him on a number of initiatives that have become law--a whole raft of them. I am so glad to have had the opportunity to work with him on this legislation before we leave office, and I am so pleased to share my name with his on the bill.

I would like to give a special shout-out to his chief counsel for intellectual property, Joe Keeley, who played a crucial role in shepherding this bill through the House.

Now I need to turn to the industry stakeholders who came together to make the compromises that made this bill possible and who did a superb job of educating Congress on the need for this bill and how it is going to make a difference for songwriters and musicians.

The first are the Nashville Songwriters Association International and Songwriters of North America, which helped me and my colleagues to understand how our current laws are hurting songwriters and what we needed to do to help them. Next is the National Music Publishers Association, which refused to give up on this bill even when the path forward looked murky at best. ASCAP and BMI were also crucial players that helped to energize tens of thousands of songwriters to support this effort.

I next need to thank the Recording Industry Association of America, as well as SoundExchange and the Recording Academy, for their work on behalf of recording artists and their willingness to make the necessary compromises to get this bill through.

The Digital Media Association and its member companies, including Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Pandora, Rhapsody, Spotify, and YouTube, also deserve special recognition. They were essential in helping me and my colleagues to understand the uncertainties of the current digital music marketplace and why the reforms in the Music Modernization Act are necessary to the continued growth and success of the digital music ecosystem. The Internet Association similarly played an important educative function, and I thank the association and its members for their support.

The final industry stakeholder I would like to thank is the National Association of Broadcasters. In particular, I would like to thank the association for its willingness to compromise and for the support it lent to later stages of the legislative process. The 50-State support that the NAB gave to the bill made an important difference to a number of my colleagues, and I thank the NAB for its advocacy.

The final thanks I need to offer is to my staff. This bill would not have happened without them and their tireless dedication.

I would first like to highlight my communications team, Matt Whitlock and Ally Riding. They did a terrific job in putting together materials to help other offices and the public understand this bill and its importance. They also showed some pretty serious video production chops.

I would next like to thank my legislative director, Matt Jensen. Matt worked diligently behind the scenes to identify the proper vehicle and offset for the bill. He reviewed just about every fund and fee in the entire Federal Government and would not give up.

Next up is my chief of staff, Matt Sandgren. Matt has been with me now for 15 years. He is one of the finest aides I have ever had. He spent years as my go-to intellectual property counsel before becoming my chief of staff and has been an essential part of this process. He had the foresight and strategic

know-how to get this bill across the finish line. No last-minute obstacle was going to stop him.

Finally, I would like to thank my chief counsel, Chris Bates. Chris oversaw this bill from start to finish--from the very first stakeholder meetings, where we talked about broad outlines, to last week, when he sat next to me here on the floor while the Senate passed the bill by voice vote. For well over a year now, he has dealt expertly with dozens of stakeholders and 100 Senate offices. He has had the judgment to know when to strike deals and when to push forward. As the careful lawyer that he is, he has made sure, at every step along the way, that the bill's text has been precise, accurate, and tightly drafted.

This bill has been as complicated an endeavor as any bill I have done during my 42 years in the Senate, and Chris deserves immense credit for the way he has seen this bill through to enactment.

Let me just say that this bill means so much to me. It was a number of years ago that a wonderful woman songwriter named Janice Kapp Perry came to me and said: You write poetry. I would like you to write some songs with me.

I thought that was a really nice offer. So I sat down and wrote 10 songs that weekend, all of which were put into recorded form, and we have written a lot of songs ever since.

Then, all of a sudden, I had people from all over the country come to me and say: I want to write some music with you. I have had artists and songwriters and just good people come and really help me to learn this business and learn what to do. It has been one of the great joys of my life because I love music.

When I was a kid, my mother had an old violin, and I learned to play that violin all the way through grade school, high school, and even in college. I also had piano lessons--6 months of them. I have been able to play most of the popular music on the piano ever since. I am not an accomplished pianist like Senator Alexander, but I certainly enjoy plinking on the keys.

Then, I had others on my staff who really helped me to understand that music is a tremendously wonderful thing for people. It is uplifting. It is inspiring. It can be humorous. There are so many things it can be.

I have also enjoyed writing the lyrics for well over 100 songs. I have one gold and one platinum record and a number of others that are on their way, and I just feel really good that I have had the help of all of these people to be able to do something that really brings me a great deal of joy.

I thank Senator Alexander. He has been an inspiration to me. He is a wonderful leader for his State and for Nashville. They couldn't have a better leader in Senator Alexander, plus his being a wonderful person too. He has been a great aide to me--a great help to me--throughout this process, and I care for him a great deal.

There are others, of course, I would like to mention, but I will do that separately at a later date.

I am grateful for music in my life. I am grateful I have had this privilege of writing songs, some of which have been heralded and acclaimed. I am grateful for those who have had the patience to work with me. I am grateful the Mormon Tabernacle Choir has sung a number of my songs--and they don't sing junk, let me tell you. You have to really make the grade to have your song sung by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. They have done a few of my songs, and I am grateful for that.

There are so many others I would like to compliment at this time. Let me say this. I have taken enough time, but I am very grateful for this privilege of learning how to write music and having written a number of songs that are really popular today. I am grateful for my friends in the Senate who have tolerated me. I am grateful for the poetry in my life, which I have written since I was a kid. I am just grateful to God for the many blessings I have had.

I am grateful to be a U.S. Senator. I am very grateful for the privilege of associating with all of these wonderful people and for those in the past who have served with us as well.

I would like to say more, but I will yield the floor.

Mr. President, I appreciate the majority leader's remarks in a wide variety of ways. What a great leader he is. We all should pay very strict attention to the way he handles himself and his seriousness about our U.S. Senate.

Last night, Senate Democrats continued their smear campaign against Judge Brett Kavanaugh with a thinly sourced article that accuses Judge Kavanaugh of conduct that no eyewitness can even corroborate. Rather than having brought the matter to the attention of committee investigators, Democrats coordinated with the members of the media to drop the story in the most dramatic and damaging way possible. This continues the Senate Democrats' pattern of playing hide the ball--after having spent 6 weeks sitting on a letter regarding alleged conduct while Judge Kavanaugh was in high school--before leaking it to the press.

Senate Democrats will stop at nothing to prevent Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation. As reported by the author of last night's article, the individual in the piece came forward only because Senate Democrats ``came looking.'' Even then, the individual went on the record only after ``six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney''--a former Democratic elected official. The New York Times, which declined to publish the allegations when approached, reported that it had interviewed ``several dozen people . . . in an attempt to corroborate the story'' and could find ``no one with firsthand knowledge.'' The Times further reported that the individual in the story had herself contacted former classmates in an effort to corroborate the story and had ``told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.''

Unsurprisingly, Senate Democrats are now using last night's article as an excuse to call for further delays. This follows the same approach they have taken since Judge Kavanaugh's nomination had first been announced. No innuendo has been too low, no insinuation too dirty. Everything is an excuse for delay no matter how unsubstantiated. It does not matter that no other eyewitness can even confirm that Judge Kavanaugh was at the party in question. It does not matter that every other individual alleged to be present denies any memory of the event. The goal is to delay--nothing new to most of us. It should be clear now to all Americans that Democrats are engaged in a coordinated effort to stop Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation by any means possible.

As I have said before, every accuser deserves to be heard. Moreover, a person who has committed sexual assault should not serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. Yet the way my Democratic colleagues have approached these allegations makes clear that the driving objective here is not the truth but is politics. Rather than having worked with Republican colleagues to investigate Dr. Ford's allegations, they sat on them for 6 weeks until the eve of Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation vote and then leaked them to the press. Rather than having brought last night's allegations to the attention of committee investigators, they back- channeled them to the media and then denied any involvement. Such underhanded tactics are not fair to Judge Kavanaugh, are not fair to the individuals in the stories, and are not fair to the American people.

Senate Democrats are demeaning both the Senate and the Supreme Court through their partisan games and transparent attempts at character assassination. As planned, we will hear and should hear from Dr. Ford on Thursday. Then we should vote, and there should be no frivolous approaches toward the U.S. Senate or toward this confirmation process.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I wish to speak about legislation to reauthorize the Emergency Medical Services for Children program administered by the Health Resources and Services Administration's Maternal and Child Health Bureau. I want to thank my fellow bill sponsors, Senators Casey and Schatz, for their dedication to improving children's health and for working with me to extend this important program once again.

I am honored to have helped create the EMSC program with Senator Daniel Inouye in 1984, and I take great pride in the work that I have done since then to reauthorize it over the years. As we near the 35th anniversary of EMSC, we can look back on the great progress we have made. Indeed, we have made significant strides in assuring that emergency medical personnel and systems are trained to effectively treat pediatric patients while in transport to a medical facility.

As we have said time and time again, children are not just small adults. They have different medical needs, presenting special challenges for emergency and trauma care providers. From smaller-sized medical equipment to different dosage requirements for medicines, pediatric patients have important physical, mental, and developmental differences from adults. It is the EMSC program that ensures state-of- the-art emergency medical care for all sick or injured children and adolescents across the entire spectrum of care.

My home State of Utah has played such an influential role with EMSC in advancing the level of emergency medical care for children. The University of Utah is home to the EMSC program's National Emergency Medical Services for Children Data Analysis Resource Center, which is critical to helping States to evaluate EMS system effectiveness and pediatric patient care. Also housed at the University of Utah is the Central Data Management Coordinating Center for the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network. The DCC serves as the central data repository for the PECARN, which conducts high-priority, multi- institutional research on the prevention and management of acute illnesses and injuries in youth of all ages.

Throughout its history, EMSC has received overwhelming bipartisan support. The program makes a large impact with a relatively small budget, aiding all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories in improving their EMS systems, and developing improved procedures and protocols for treating children. I urge my colleagues to support our reauthorization bill so that the EMSC program will continue to improve emergency medical care for children in the United States.

Mr. President, today I wish to speak about legislation to reauthorize the Emergency Medical Services for Children program administered by the Health Resources and Services Administration's Maternal and Child Health Bureau. I want to thank my fellow bill sponsors, Senators Casey and Schatz, for their dedication to improving children's health and for working with me to extend this important program once again.

I am honored to have helped create the EMSC program with Senator Daniel Inouye in 1984, and I take great pride in the work that I have done since then to reauthorize it over the years. As we near the 35th anniversary of EMSC, we can look back on the great progress we have made. Indeed, we have made significant strides in assuring that emergency medical personnel and systems are trained to effectively treat pediatric patients while in transport to a medical facility.

As we have said time and time again, children are not just small adults. They have different medical needs, presenting special challenges for emergency and trauma care providers. From smaller-sized medical equipment to different dosage requirements for medicines, pediatric patients have important physical, mental, and developmental differences from adults. It is the EMSC program that ensures state-of- the-art emergency medical care for all sick or injured children and adolescents across the entire spectrum of care.

My home State of Utah has played such an influential role with EMSC in advancing the level of emergency medical care for children. The University of Utah is home to the EMSC program's National Emergency Medical Services for Children Data Analysis Resource Center, which is critical to helping States to evaluate EMS system effectiveness and pediatric patient care. Also housed at the University of Utah is the Central Data Management Coordinating Center for the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network. The DCC serves as the central data repository for the PECARN, which conducts high-priority, multi- institutional research on the prevention and management of acute illnesses and injuries in youth of all ages.

Throughout its history, EMSC has received overwhelming bipartisan support. The program makes a large impact with a relatively small budget, aiding all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories in improving their EMS systems, and developing improved procedures and protocols for treating children. I urge my colleagues to support our reauthorization bill so that the EMSC program will continue to improve emergency medical care for children in the United States.