Floor Statements

Mr. President, for more than four decades, I have had the distinct privilege of serving in the U.S. Senate, what some have called the world's greatest deliberative body. Speaking on the Senate floor, debating legislation in committee, corralling the support of my colleagues on compromise legislation--these are the moments I will miss. These are the 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. 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 their 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 fairytale but the reality we once knew. Having served as a Senator for nearly 42 years, I can tell you this: Things weren't always as they are now.

I was here when this body was at its best. I was here when 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 certainly 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. 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. The committee process lies in shambles. Regular order is a relic of the past. Compromise--once the guiding credo of this great institution--is now synonymous with surrender.

Since I first came to the Senate in 1978, the culture of this place has shifted fundamentally and not for the better. 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; the next, we would be breaking bread together over family dinner.

My unlikely friendship with the late Senator Kennedy embodied the spirit of goodwill and collegiality that used to thrive here. Teddy and I were a case study in contradictions. He was a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat; I was a resolute Republican. But by choosing friendship over party loyalty, we were able to pass some of the most 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.

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 vilifying 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 our 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. 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.

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. 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, as surely they will be, 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, it is now.

How can we answer Lincoln's call to our better angels? Over the last several months, I have devoted significant time and resources to answering this question. In a series of essays and floor speeches, I have sought to put flesh on the bones of Lincoln's appeal. These writings provide a blueprint for fixing our broken politics. They include: an essay on civility--the indispensable political norm--and how to restore it to the public discourse; a speech entitled ``A Tale of Two Cities,'' which draws from the tragedies of Charlottesville and Houston in the summer of 2017 to issue a call for unity and strength; a well-reasoned critique of identity politics, specifically, the threat it poses to the American experiment and how we can heal age-old divisions by embracing the politics of ideas, not identity; a discourse on the invaluable worth of the individual and how affirming this worth can help us curb the suicide epidemic among LGBTQ youth and create a stronger, more civil society; a proposal to establish Geneva Conventions for the culture wars, a new set of norms that can ease partisan tensions and help us contain the worst excesses of political warfare; and finally, an op-ed on pluralism and how embracing this forgotten virtue can help us overcome tribal tolerance and effect meaningful change.

These writings appeal to the humanity, grace, and inherent goodness in each of us. The purpose of this project is to remind readers of the singularity of the American experiment and how we can preserve this great Nation only by heeding the higher virtues within us.

As a parting gift, I plan to share a copy of this compilation with each of my Senate colleagues, as well as our friends in the House and leaders in the executive branch. I sincerely ask that each of you take the time to study these writings. Please, ponder their words and ask yourself how we can apply these ideas to restore our Nation's civic health.

When we heed our better angels--when we hearken to the voices of civility and reason 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.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 300, H.R. 1551.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my substitute amendment at the desk be considered; that the Alexander amendment to it be agreed to; that my substitute amendment, as amended, be agreed to; and that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time.

Mr. President, I know of no further debate on the bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I thank Senators Alexander, Whitehouse, Grassley, Feinstein, Coons, and Kennedy for all of their hard work on this important bill. I am touched by this gesture. I also thank all of the staffs involved, including those in the cloakroom, and the legislative counsel for their assistance. I feel like we have been really blessed to be able to get this bill through.

Mr. President, I want to thank my dear colleague from Nashville--really, from Tennessee--for his very kind remarks. He covered this really well.

I have had this experience of writing pretty nice songs, mainly because of my cowriters. I have to say that I was shocked that even though hundreds of thousands--even millions--of records have been sold on some of these songs, the songwriters are paid little and in many cases, not paid at all. This will enhance songwriting in America and give songwriters a chance to be able to hopefully make a living, especially the good ones, even some who are not necessarily in Nashville or Hollywood or New York or in any number of other places.

I want to say that we all are very lucky to have Senator Lamar Alexander, who is one of our chief advocates in this area. He understands these problems. He has lived with these problems. He has anguished over them, and he has played a tremendous role in finally getting us to this passed bill.

This is a very important bill. People don't realize it, but they will once this bill is really utilized the way it is allowed.

I can't say that I am a great songwriter, although I do have one platinum and one gold record and some others that will probably go gold and platinum. But I can say this: It has been one of the most enjoyable, productive, and interesting experiences to write songs--for me and for those who write with me.

All I can say is that I feel really, really indebted to everyone in the Senate and the House for doing this to help spur on the music industry in this country and to get people treated properly from a remunerative standpoint.

I am grateful for Lamar Alexander and for the leadership that he has provided. We couldn't have done this without him.

Frankly, it is always a pleasure to work with him. He has such a great sense of humor. He is a tremendous musician himself. He plays the piano as well as anybody I know and, frankly, has done so for a lot of us around here. He has uplifted us with his talents. He is a good guy. I think in Tennessee, and especially in Nashville, they are very lucky to have him as a U.S. Senator.

I am grateful to the Senate for allowing us to get this done. I am grateful for my friends on the Democratic side for opening the door here, and I am grateful for my friends on the Republican side, all of whom realize how important this bill is and how much good it is going to do for America and for the music industry--to enlighten us all, to lift us all during times of difficulty and grief and so forth, and to provide the incentives to do even better in the future than we have done in the past. This is an important bill. I am pleased that I have had a role in helping to pass it.

I am very grateful to Senator Alexander. He is one of my favorite people here. I used to chair the Labor and Human Resources Committee that he now chairs. I understand how difficult that committee has been. This is great and thoughtful legislation, and he has done a tremendous job on that committee. He is one of the great Senators, and I am not just saying that because he has helped me on this particular bill. I just have to say that I am very grateful to him, grateful for his leadership in the Senate, and grateful for my friendship with him and his friendship with me. He is a really wonderful man, and he makes a real difference in this body.

I want to thank everybody in the Senate for allowing this to happen. I am just very, very appreciative and would feel badly if I did not at least make that very clear here today.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on three very important topics: first, today's celebration of Constitution Day; second, the signing of the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill Act; and finally, tonight's vote on the Opioid Crisis Response Act.

Constitution Day

Mr. President, today marks 231 years since the Founding Fathers signed a charter that would forever alter the course of human history: the U.S. Constitution. This document serves as the foundation of our government, and we rightly celebrate its anniversary each year with Constitution Day.

The Constitution establishes guiding principles that have served the American people very well. The separation of powers, the rule of law, and our system of federalism work together toward the goal of preserving liberty. They have worked to secure individual rights against encroachment by the government.

The Framers of the Constitution recognized that the government derived its power from the people themselves. The Constitution overturned the prevailing wisdom that men are made for governments, declaring instead that governments are made for men. These principles and our Nation's dedication to them are core to our American ethos. Today, they set our country apart as a symbol of freedom and prosperity across the globe.

The Constitution is the culmination of centuries of human progress. We have a charge to fulfill its promises. We have a duty to uphold its principles. May we commit ourselves today and every day to defending the truths so eloquently and essentially articulated in the Constitution of our United States.

Miscellaneous Tariff Bill Act of 2018

Mr. President, before I yield the floor, I would like to address the passage of the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill Act of 2018, an important piece of legislation that was signed late last week by the President. Senator Wyden and I introduced the bill on a bipartisan and bicameral basis, and it passed unanimously--a great example of how both parties feel about relieving Americans from the burdens of job-killing tariffs.

The Miscellaneous Tariff Bill was designed to help both importers and producers by suspending or reducing burdensome tariffs that unnecessarily increase manufacturing and operating costs for American companies. A Miscellaneous Tariff Bill has not been enacted since 2010, and our businesses and manufacturers have been forced to wait too long for Congress to act.

I am pleased that we were finally able to end that wait. I am also pleased to report that this is the first MTB, or Miscellaneous Tariff Bill, to be enacted in the new process set out in the American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act of 2016. This new process was crafted to provide a robust consultation that is consistent with both House and Senate rules and that would be transparent and open to all.

The International Trade Commission and the Department of Commerce vetted each petition to determine eligibility based on this new criteria. Each of these agencies made great efforts to

evaluate each one of the thousands of petitions against the high standards set out in the AMCA. I would like to thank all of the staff that worked diligently to do so.

Senator Wyden and I also worked closely with our colleagues throughout this entire process to resolve any concerns that they may have had with any of the included products. In the end, I think we crafted a bill that we all can be proud of because it will help American businesses compete around the world.

The passage of the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill Act, in conjunction with the successful implementation of tax reform, will continue to expand the American workforce, improve the American economy, and keep America competitive.

Opioid Epidemic

Finally, Mr. President, I am also here to talk about the passage of an incredibly important bill that will aid individuals, families, and communities confronting an epidemic that is overwhelming our country. This is not the first time I have been talking about the opioid epidemic, and, unfortunately, it will not be my last. But I am happy to say that today's remarks will highlight some very good news.

As part of a coordinated effort with four other committees, the Senate Finance Committee's package will be voted on tonight as a part of the Opioid Crisis Response Act, but before I get to what is in that bill, I want to give some details of the unfortunate reality our country is facing.

Last year, more than 72,000 Americans died from a drug overdose. The majority of these overdoses involved prescription opioids or illicit opioids like heroin or fentanyl. I have spoken to many families who have witnessed the devastating effects of these addictions firsthand, and I have been sadly impressed by the pervasiveness of this rampant epidemic. Truly, I promise you that you have more friends, family, and coworkers who have been affected by this epidemic than you probably realize.

My home State of Utah continues to be hard hit by this crisis. An alarming number of Utahns have undergone hospital stays and emergency room visits due to opioid overdoses. In 2017 alone, over 450 Utahns died from an opioid overdose.

As the Presiding Officer may have noticed, Congress has recognized this problem for some time. While this package is a significant step forward, it isn't the first thing we have done, nor will it be the last thing we do.

Take, for example, the bipartisan Family First Prevention Services Act, which was enacted earlier this year in February. Our committee also worked together to realize a 10-year extension of the Children's Health Insurance Program, which, as a part of its mission, helps moms, babies, children, and teenagers struggling with addiction or its impacts on families across the country.

Our work did not stop there. We proceeded to work on ways that our committee, with its jurisdiction over Medicaid and Medicare, family services, and customs, could work to improve the lives of the millions of Americans who have been impacted by this devastating epidemic.

There are simply too many pieces of this bill to cover them all in one speech, but I wish to give some highlights. The bill will make a real difference in Medicare, a program in which one in three beneficiaries is prescribed an opioid. It will empower patients through information on pain treatment alternatives. It will expand treatment options for patients suffering from addiction, including through increased access to care via telehealth and a pilot program that will allow Medicare to cover methadone and wraparound services to treat addiction for the first time. The bill also increases the ability to track opioid prescriptions to prevent misuse and diversion, while also ensuring that beneficiaries promptly get the medications they need.

We know that many children are in foster care as a result of the opioid epidemic, and this bill supports programs that will help parents complete treatment for opioid addiction and reunite with their children more quickly. It will also increase the availability of family residential treatment programs, allowing more parents to receive help while still caring for their children in a supervised setting.

For the first time since Medicaid became law in 1965, pregnant women can receive Medicaid coverage for prenatal and postnatal care while seeking treatment at institutions for mental disease. New and improved prescription-drug monitoring programs allow States to better understand the full scope of an individual's prescription use across payments and insurers. This bill brings that data into the hands of providers and insurance plans to help them develop care plans for those with substance use disorders.

Additionally, this package is not limited to fixes in the healthcare space. We also worked with Senator Portman to craft the bipartisan STOP Act, which has also been incorporated into this package. That bill sets new requirements for the U.S. Postal Service to obtain advance electronic data that allows for U.S. Customs and Border Protection to effectively target and stop fentanyl and other illegal substances from entering the country through our postal system. Getting our law enforcement this additional data will bolster efforts to stop dangerous opioids at the border and keep them away from American families.

In short, the Finance Committee's portion of this larger effort is an important step forward, but it is made that much more meaningful given the wide-ranging provisions included from the Judiciary, Commerce, Banking, and HELP Committees. Together, this bill will provide the resources, capacities, and direction to State, local, and Federal Governments to better assist those who are in such great need right now.

Additionally, I thank the leader, the chairman, the ranking members, and all other Members of the four other committees who have been involved in this great undertaking. There has been no shortage of effort or genuine concern from both sides of the aisle to address this painful issue that has hurt so many American families. I appreciate this bipartisan push to create a successful piece of legislation. I think this bill represents Congress at its best.

I encourage all of my friends, on both sides of the aisle, to vote for this important piece of legislation tonight, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House to advance a bill that addresses the opioid epidemic to the President's desk.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to complete my remarks here today.

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to an American hero, a powerful leader, and a dear friend, Senator John McCain. After decades of dedicated service to this Nation, John was taken from us over the weekend. The good Senator from Arizona fought his battle with brain cancer as he did every battle in his life, with toughness and tenacity, with grit, and with grace. This week, I join millions in mourning the passing of a beloved patriot. Over a

lifetime of selfless service, John came to embody the very pinnacle of American virtue, courage, commitment, integrity, and sacrifice. These are the precepts he lived by and by which he will always be remembered.

No one is more worthy of the word ``hero'' than John McCain. The Senate--indeed, I should say, the Nation--will miss the steady, guiding presence of a singular statesman.

By now, the biographical details of Senator McCain's life have been covered at length. The son of a four-star Navy admiral, John knew great expectations from an early age. He was to forgo the comforts of civilian life and fight for freedom, which he did.

What is exceptional about John McCain is that he not only met the heavy expectations placed upon him, he far exceeded them. Few have ever risen to the positions of influence that John McCain did. Fewer still have done so and kept their character intact, but Senator John McCain did. Indeed, he never parted from it. As a prisoner of war in Vietnam, John was offered release on multiple occasions. Yet he refused each offer until the POWs incarcerated before him were also released.

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his country, for his friends. John possessed such love, proving time and again his willingness to lay down his life for his brothers in uniform. As a captive, John McCain personified selfless sacrifice, offering himself as a bargaining chip to secure the freedom of his fellow countrymen.

Each day, for more than 2,000 days, he endured horrors that few of us could ever imagine: solitary confinement, forced starvation, repeated beatings, and the constant threat of death. Yet he stayed the course, finding strength in the love he felt for his fellow servicemen--and most of all, the love he felt for his beloved country.

When John was eventually released in the spring of 1973, he came home a living scar of Vietnam. The cartilage in his knees was all but gone, the bones in his body broken by endless beatings. He was a walking testament to the brutalities of torture and the depths of human depravity, but the hell of war was not enough to stop John McCain from being a happy warrior. Upon his return, he continued the same mission he started in Vietnam: looking out for the safety and welfare of his fellow sailors.

Few remember that the time before John was elected to Congress, he was the Navy's Senate liaison. It was in this capacity that he and I first became friends. Even then, John impressed me with his sense of mission, going to incredible lengths to ensure that our service men and women had the resources they needed to keep us safe. He would carry that same commitment with him when he was elected to the House of Representatives in 1982 and 5 years later when he joined us in the Senate.

The Pentagon had no closer ally than John McCain. They also had no fiercer critic. Like an admiral who demanded only the very best of his sailors, John wanted to ensure that our servicemen were living to their full potential, and so he held our Armed Forces to the highest standard, never hesitating to call out bureaucratic complacency and runaway spending in military ranks. Our men and women in uniform were stronger and our Nation more safe because of his efforts. No one commanded more respect than John McCain as the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

John constantly put others before himself as a prisoner of war, and he did the same as a Senator. He was the kind of a friend you could count on for help when you needed it most.

Nearly 20 years ago, Governor Mitt Romney--who at the time had been tasked with salvaging the Salt Lake Winter Olympic Games--came to me with a pressing problem: With only months to go before the opening ceremony, Utah lacked the Federal funding it desperately needed to pull off the Olympic Games.

In our moment of need, we turned to Senator McCain. I took Mitt over to see him. The two of us marched up to Senator McCain's office in the Russell Building. Even though we came unannounced, Senator McCain gladly received us. Together, Mitt and I made the case for emergency funding. Within days, we had secured the resources we needed to move forward with the games, all thanks to Senator John McCain. Were it not for John's quick action, I can honestly say the 2002 Winter Olympics would not have been a success. In fact, it would have been an embarrassment. He was not excited about putting up Federal funds either, but all I had to do was ask, and he said fine.

So esteemed was John by his Republican colleagues that we didn't hesitate to throw our support behind him in the 2008 Presidential election. Senator McCain mounted an admirable campaign, refusing to stoop to the political mudslinging that all too often defines Presidential contests. I agree with the assessment of the late Charles Krauthammer:

McCain ran a valiant race against impossible odds. He will

be--he should be--remembered as the most worthy Presidential

nominee ever to be denied the prize.

That was a wonderful quote.

We will remember John for many things--for his courage as a sailor, for his dedication as a Senator, and for his principle as a statesman. We will also remember how he embodied the best in us. John McCain was a man for all seasons--a voice of temperance in intemperate times and a model of civility and reason. The tragedy of his passing is that we need men like John McCain now more than ever before.

I consider myself incredibly lucky to have known John and even luckier to have called him friend. Here in the Senate and across the Nation, we will miss him dearly.

John, thank you for blessing us with your service and your sacrifice.

Today, my prayers are with the people of Arizona and the McCain family. I differed with John from time to time, but we never had any acrimony between us. He was always open. He would come across and help me when I needed the help here in the Senate, as I would do for him. It was a privilege to serve with him. I feel very deeply about John McCain, and I am very pleased that I can stand here as one of his friends who knew him well and praise him--maybe not as good as I really feel but good enough.

Mr. President, is it appropriate to give a speech at this time?

Mr. President, I wish to begin on the topic of sports betting.

In May, the Supreme Court cleared the way for any State to legalize sports betting, which had been prohibited in all but a handful of States since 1992.

I would like to say upfront, I am not a fan of sports betting. I have grave concerns about gambling in general and sports betting in particular. There is no question that sports betting, like other types of gambling and addictive behavior, has ruined far too many lives. Add to those deleterious social effects the threat sports betting poses to the integrity of the game, and we can see why the prohibition on sports wagering in the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act passed the Senate 88 to 5. I authored this legislation--and fought tooth and nail to get it passed--because I knew that without it, sports gambling would corrupt the integrity of the game.

Despite these views, I am also a realist. With the nearly $5 billion annually in legal sports wagers in Nevada, plus an estimated $150 billion a year in illegal sports wagers in the United States, we can't put the genie back in the bottle. Prohibition is not a possibility or a prudent path forward.

Instead, now that States are free to legalize sports betting, our goal should be to bring that illegal wagering activity into well- regulated, legal markets that can better protect consumers and the integrity of sports. As I wrote in Sports Illustrated earlier this year, ``Sports Betting is Inevitable--Let's Make Sure It's Done Right.''

To do it right, we need to ensure that State regulatory frameworks are not a race to the bottom. I firmly believe we need a set of fundamental Federal standards that will protect the integrity of the game, that will protect consumers and the sports wagering market.

Since the Supreme Court decision in May, sports betting has been conspicuously absent from the public dialogue on Capitol Hill. A hearing on the issue was scheduled by the House Judiciary Committee but then postponed, and I hope it will be rescheduled so Congress can explore what a post-PASPA world would look like.

Sports betting implicates a whole host of complex issues, and I have been diving into those issues as I work toward draft legislation that will establish some much needed guardrails to protect the integrity of the game. I am grateful for all the guidance and insight many stakeholders have provided, and I invite others who are interested to do the same.

Let me pause for a moment to discuss integrity--a word frequently used in the sports betting debate but often left undefined. In the context of sports, integrity is used to describe events that are recognized as honest and genuine competition. There is a reason predetermined outcomes in professional wrestling attract a small fraction of the following enjoyed by baseball, football, basketball, and other sports. The integrity of sport--the sense that the game is a real competition free from outside influence--is what attracts fans and keeps them coming back.

Integrity can be compromised in various ways. Take, for example, the doping scandals in cycling that took down Lance Armstrong and led fans to question whether races were won by the best athlete or the rider on the best drug regimen, but there is no greater threat to sports integrity than match fixing. There is no question a big payoff in the sports betting market is the leading reason criminals and cheaters get involved with match fixing.

This relationship between sports integrity and sports betting, including match fixing, cannot be ignored. In the world of gambling, sports betting is a unique product with unique risks. When a casino patron pulls the handle on a slot machine or rolls the dice at a crap table, money may change hands, but there is little connection to the outside world. When a patron places a sports bet, however, there is the potential--and in far too many cases it has been the reality--that the sports wagering market is being used to profit off match fixing. There is a connection, and not always a positive one, between the bets placed in a casino and the outcome on the field.

The integrity concerns related to sports wagering are nothing new. For years, billions of dollars in bets have been placed on sports each year, presenting these very concerns, but the offshore books where the vast majority of these wagers have been placed are under no obligation to take steps to mitigate the threats to integrity. As States move to legalize sports betting and bring that offshore activity into the regulated market, they should be taking reasonable steps to protect the integrity of sports and the marketplace. We can, and should, expect more from the legal operators than those in the illicit market, and those legal operators are quickly getting in the game. It would be a mistake to think that seeming disinterest in the issue at the Federal level has carried over to the States. States, understandably so, seek legalized sports betting as a way to bring in much needed tax revenue. It is amazing how quickly things get done when money is a motivator.

At the beginning of May, full-scale sports betting was available only in Nevada. Today you can also place sports wagers in Delaware, New Jersey, and Mississippi. Sports betting in West Virginia will officially launch on September 1. Pennsylvania and Rhode Island may have sports betting by the end of the year, and more than a dozen other States have taken steps to move toward legalization. All of this is progress in just the past 3 months.

Watching this flurry of activity in the States has only underscored for me the need for some consistent, minimum standards to protect the integrity of sports and the sports wagering market.

Let's look at a specific example. Who should be allowed to place a sports wager? Imagine if players or referees were able to place wagers on games in which they were participating. They certainly have the ability to influence the outcome, and if players or referees were betting on the game, there could be reason to question their actions on the field. How could fans have faith that the outcome is the result of honest competition and not an intentional effort to get the biggest payout?

I suspect there is a fairly broad consensus that certain categories of folks should not be able to place bets on certain events. For instance, players should not be allowed to place bets, and certainly not referees. But the

West Virginia sports-betting regulations approved in June don't say that. In fact, they leave it to each sports book to decide whose participation in sports betting might undermine the integrity of a sports event.

It is odd that this decision would be left to the sports books, such that an individual may be prohibited from placing the bet at one sports book in the State but would be permitted to do so at another. The decision to leave this integrity decision to the sports books is even more concerning when you consider the potential conflict in the duties and motivation of the sports books.

Operators certainly want to protect integrity so that they are not accepting wagers on fixed games, but the West Virginia sports-betting law also requires sports book operators to ``assist the commission in maximizing sports wagering revenues.'' How many folks will they really be turning away to protect the integrity of the game if they are also under a statutory mandate to maximize the amount of money coming in the door?

Other States have been more specific on this point but still leave open questions. Mississippi prohibits only coaches or participants from betting on a particular event. What is a participant? Does it include referees? Maybe they are a participant because they are on the field. But what about an athletic trainer or league executives? While Mississippi law does not answer that question, New Jersey put in place robust laws that specifically prohibit athletic trainers and members of a sport's governing body from placing wagers.

There is nothing wrong with there being differences among the States. That is the beauty of our Federal system. But it does seem that when it comes to protecting the integrity of the game and sports-betting market, there should be some consensus--at least some minimum standards--about who can place a wager. If States are allowed to fall behind, those looking to illegally profit off sports betting will simply migrate to where there are the fewest restrictions.

Protecting the integrity of sports from the dark side of sports betting is not a theoretical exercise. We are all familiar with the fixing of the 1919 World Series, Pete Rose's expulsion from baseball, and points shaving at Boston college. More recently, NBA referee Tim Donaghy both bet on games that he officiated and passed along tips to bookies. The qualifying match for this year's World Cup had to be replayed after the referee was found to have fixed the match. Just last month, there were signs of possible match fixing in a men's doubles match at Wimbledon.

As States move to legalize sports wagering, we must seize the opportunity to put in place world-class measures to protect the integrity of our sporting events and the sports-betting market. To that end, an important part of the legislation I will be proposing is improvements to monitoring and enforcement that will benefit all of the stakeholders--sports books, regulators, governing bodies, and consumers.

These are complex issues, but I am happy to announce that much progress is being made. I look forward to continuing engagement with stakeholders and in the coming weeks releasing a legislative proposal to kick-start the much needed sports-betting discussion on Capitol Hill.

Now I would like to pivot to what would ordinarily be a subject unrelated to sports--the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court--but this is no ordinary nomination. Not only is Judge Kavanaugh an avid sports fan, he also moonlighted as a sports reporter for the Yale Daily News.

For Democrats looking to evaluate Judge Kavanaugh on the basis of documents other than his judicial record, his writings about college sports are apparently a gold mine. Take, for example, Kavanaugh's account of a midseason game between Yale and Cornell: ``In basketball, as in few other team sports, it is possible for one person to completely dominate a game.''

Prominent legal scholar Laurence Tribe, a Harvard law professor and adviser to Barack Obama--a friend of mine, actually--strained to make a connection between this casual observation and Judge Kavanaugh's judicial philosophy. He noted: ``Kavanaugh's seeming fascination with single-player domination might be a muscular view of executive power.'' I had a good laugh at this. The idea that Judge Kavanaugh's observations about basketball somehow reveal his views about Executive power is beyond absurd.

What is next? What other hidden insights into the nominee's character can we glean from the most obscure sources? Should we do a deep dive on Judge Kavanaugh's zodiac sign to see what it might say about his judicial temperament? He is an Aquarius, by the way, and Mars is in retrograde. So we all know what that means: Judge Kavanaugh is going to destroy America. He is going to burn down the Capitol, coronate himself King, and make confetti of the Constitution. The stars are literally aligned for this man to usher in Armageddon. The real question is, How am I the only one seeing this? Why hasn't The New Yorker written a think piece about it already?

It should go without saying that if you really want to understand Judge Kavanaugh's view on the constitutional separation of powers, you won't find it by reading sports articles from a college newspaper, and you won't find it by reading his wife's work emails; you will find it by reading Judge Kavanaugh's actual opinions as a Federal judge. Of course, Democrats know this, but like a kid procrastinating his homework--playing video games and microwaving Bagel Bites--they are looking for any distraction at all to avoid actually analyzing Judge Kavanaugh's judicial record. That is because Democrats know what they will find when they do: a nominee who is indisputably qualified for the Supreme Court.

When my friends on the other side of the aisle decide they are done procrastinating and actually want to examine his judicial record on separation of powers issues, I would point them to Judge Kavanaugh's opinions in three cases I highlighted here on the Senate floor earlier this month: Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Oversight Board, Loving v. Internal Revenue Service, and PHH Corporation v. CFPB.

Once you have gone through Judge Kavanaugh's highly regarded opinions and sterling record and concluded, as I have, that he is eminently qualified and possesses the judicial temperament and ability to be a great Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, you will by all means turn to his college sports writing for a little light reading. You are sure to walk away with insight into the championship prospect of Yale's basketball and football teams in the 1980s; I just wouldn't hold out for any insight into his judicial philosophy.

While we are on the subject of documents outside his judicial record, I am surprised Democrats have yet to mention Professor Kavanaugh's student evaluations. The evaluations may not predict how Judge Kavanaugh would rule on hot-button issues, but they do add actual substance to the mountain of evidence that Judge Kavanaugh is, as 80 of his former students described him, ``a rigorous thinker, a devoted teacher, and a gracious person.'' Notably, the evaluations reveal that Judge Kavanaugh was fair and balanced in the classroom--the opposite of the partisan hack some are now trying to make him out to be. One student wrote that ``Judge Kavanaugh's presentation seemed very evenhanded.'' Another said that he ``presented the other side quite well, even though he likely shared most of those conservative views,'' adding that ``many of the Harvard Law School professors could learn from his acceptance of views across the political spectrum.''

I am looking forward to Judge Kavanaugh's public confirmation hearings--now just 12 days away--where his judicial record on substantive legal issues will take center stage. That is what matters. But those things that are not front and center, be they his student evaluations or college sports reports, remind us that there is more to Judge Kavanaugh than his professional record and accomplishments, and they remind us that he is exactly the kind of standup person we should want on the Supreme Court.

Of course, you wouldn't guess that judging by the way Democrats and the media have treated him over the past few weeks. For example, earlier this week, one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said she would cancel her meeting with the nominee, which, of course, she is free to do. What media reports ignored was that this same Senator had announced her resolute opposition before any nominee was even announced. Talk about jumping the gun.

In an effort to stir up social media controversy, another colleague of mine suggested in dark and gloomy terms that the Judiciary chairman's use of committee confidentiality was some nefarious tool to hide salacious details about the nominee. In doing so, he neglected to inform the tens of thousands who retweeted his misleading message that committee confidentiality is, in fact, a common practice that has been used by past chairmen from both parties.

Before our friends in the media report these disingenuous claims, they should apply rigorous fact-checking to see if Democrats are telling the truth or simply crying wolf to whip up their base.

Finally, I would like to say just a few words about criminal justice reform. We have been at an impasse since the Judiciary Committee took up the issue earlier this year, but recent reports suggest that negotiations with the White House may soon lead to a compromise. I have not been a part of those negotiations, and I understand that they are still ongoing and there is no final proposal on the table, but I am concerned that there is no mention of mens rea reform being included in that deal.

Sentencing and prison reform can do only so much if we continue to allow individuals to be sent to prison for conduct they did not know was unlawful, even when Congress does not specify that their crimes should be strict liability offenses.

Sentencing and prison reform must be paired with a solution that addresses the root problem of criminalization, which includes the lack of clear mens rea requirements in much of our criminal law. My Mens Rea Reform Act of 2018, which I introduced earlier this summer with Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, provides that solution. It is supported by a broad range of groups from across the ideological spectrum, from the American Conservative Union to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

To be honest, I am troubled that the bill is not part of the current negotiations. I am likewise troubled that we have not heard any discussion of a legislative fix for the Armed Career Criminal Act to ensure that dangerous, repeat offenders receive appropriately long prison sentences. Real criminal justice reform should be about getting the policy right. That means we cannot be looking just to ratchet back prison sentences, but we must also be looking to close loopholes that prematurely let armed, dangerous criminals back on the streets.

Comprehensive criminal justice reform is long overdue, and I am pleased to hear that negotiations are continuing. I look forward to working with my colleagues to address those concerns.

I apologize to the leader for taking so long on these remarks.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I rise to discuss the confirmation process for Judge Brett Kavanaugh. For the last few weeks, Democrats have complained endlessly about documents. First, they said there weren't enough documents. Then, when the Judiciary Committee released a recordbreaking number of documents, Democrats complained there wasn't enough time to review them all. They then complained that the documents were not public. When we made the documents public, the Democrats were disappointed to find they contained no smoking gun. There has been much ado about documents, but in the end it is much ado about nothing.

One thing I have heard many of my colleagues say is, because we reviewed all of Justice Elena Kagan's records from her time in the executive branch, we must review every last scrap of paper that crossed Judge Kavanaugh's desk while he was in the executive branch. That just isn't so.

When Justice Kagan was nominated, the Senate did not ask for, nor did it receive, all of her records from her time in the Obama administration. In fact, the Senate never requested, and the Obama administration never provided, any of Justice Kagan's records from her time as Solicitor General.

They certainly didn't ask for every document from the Solicitor General's Office that contained a mere reference to Justice Kagan ``by name, initials, or title.''

Producing sensitive internal deliberations and other documents from the Solicitor General's Office would have been extraordinarily inappropriate and even damaging to the executive branch, which is exactly why the Senate did not ask for Justice Kagan's records. This decision was especially difficult because Justice Kagan had no judicial records to review.

By contrast, we have over 12 years of Judge Kavanaugh's rulings on the DC Circuit. These rulings, which my Democratic colleagues are reluctant to even acknowledge, let alone talk about, are the most relevant documents for evaluating what type of Justice Judge Kavanaugh will be.

Judge Kavanaugh's court decisions are highly relevant to understanding his legal reasoning. The same can't be said of his White House documents, which more accurately reflect the conveyor belt process for Presidential decision making.

Those who argue they need every document that even mentions Judge Kavanaugh are only now realizing the absurdity of this argument. At this point, Democrats are simply stalling for time. They made no effort to make their proposals any less unreasonable, and Senator Grassley rightly rejected them.

By now, Americans are starting to see through the ruse. The real objective of these ridiculous demands is to delay--delay Judge Kavanaugh's hearing to delay his inevitable confirmation.

Last week, Senator Grassley announced that the hearing for Judge Kavanaugh would start on September 4. Immediately, Democrats insisted that the committee is rushing to hold Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing, but the hearings for the last three nominees--Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Neil Gorsuch--were all held 48 or 49 days after the President announced their nominations. By comparison, Judge Kavanaugh's hearing will start 57 days after his nomination was announced. Apparently, the Judiciary Committee is in such a rush that it has given Senators an extra week to review the nominee's record. The left is pushing a false narrative that Republicans are rushing to hold Judge Kavanaugh's hearing. Progressives are doing this in an attempt to muddy the waters. They are hoping people will focus on spurious process arguments rather than diving into Kavanaugh's judicial record, which is all but unassailable.

Last week, a number of my colleagues tried to make hay out of the fact that the Judiciary Committee received some documents about Judge Kavanaugh on a confidential basis. These colleagues said it was a travesty that they were not being made public, but they knew then that these documents were being reviewed so important information like Social Security numbers and other similar personal information could be redacted and removed. In the meantime, the Senators and their staff were given access to the documents right away so they could review them for the upcoming hearing. In any event, the criticism that documents were being kept confidential was quickly blown apart.

Chairman Grassley recently made public more than 103,000 pages of materials from Judge Kavanaugh's time in the executive branch, and more materials are on the way. Most laughable of all, some on the left are now claiming that because there is no smoking gun in the documents, surely the production process must be nefarious.

Maybe the huge number of documents is just too boring for Judge Kavanaugh's opponents to sift through or maybe they have looked through the documents already and know the American people have nothing to complain about.

Consider the damning evidence already uncovered in these documents: Judge Kavanaugh goes to church on Sunday morning. He appreciates pizza when he is working late. He thought the last play of the Redskins game was ``a total disgrace.'' If these mendacities aren't grounds for disqualification, then what is? What more do we have to learn about Judge Kavanaugh before we can see him for what he truly is: Joseph Stalin without the moustache or, as one of my colleagues so calmly put it, a man who will ``pave the path to tyranny.''

If I could tell the American people one thing today, it would be this: Judge Kavanaugh may seem like the human incarnation of a vanilla ice cream cone, but he is actually something far more sinister. Judging by the rhetoric from the left, I am convinced that this minivan-driving carpool dad is actually the second coming of Genghis Khan. Now, I have no evidence for this assertion--not right now, anyway, but if Chairman Grassley will just give us a few more years to read over each and every one of Judge Kavanaugh's work emails and maybe even every handwritten note he passed in grade school, I am sure they will find something because there is no way Democrats are just making this stuff up. I hope this isn't too much to ask.

Naturally, I am being facetious only to prove a point. We have more than we need to determine Judge Kavanaugh's fitness for the Supreme Court. Based on the number of documents alone, this will be the most thorough vetting of a Supreme Court nominee in our Nation's history. I have only been here for 42 years, but I can tell you this is the most thorough vetting of a Supreme Court nominee in our Nation's history.

We should call this hubbub about documents for what it really is--a naked partisan ploy, a red herring meant to distract the American people from Judge Kavanaugh's indisputable credentials. Watching this confirmation unfold is like watching the tortured last moments of a blowout basketball game. Democrats are down 30 with 10 seconds left, but they keep fouling to stop the shot clock in an attempt to avoid their inevitable defeat. Enough already.

It is time Democrats come home from their fishing trip. We could spend eons angling for scandal in the river of documents the Judiciary Committee provided us, but nothing will bite because there is nothing there. Democrats know this by now, and it is time they admit it to the American people. The longer they wait, the more desperate they look.

To my progressive colleagues--and I have to laugh at the word ``progressive.'' They are anything but progressive; they are regressive, but I will call them progressives today. To my progressive colleagues, I will say this: Let's not waste any more time. By now, it is evident to even the most committed partisans that Judge Kavanaugh is supremely qualified for the Supreme Court. So stop playing politics and join us in supporting his confirmation.

Madam President, on another matter, I would like to thank those who have worked with me on the important issue of mental health and suicide prevention. This week, President Trump signed into law my National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act, a bill that stands to save thousands of lives.

This legislation becoming law is the high point of an effort that began in December 2016, when I held a roundtable discussion at East High School in Salt Lake about the growing issue of teen suicide. A theme from that roundtable, and many other subsequent conversations, was the need for greater access to help--simply finding someone to talk to.

Too many Americans who are struggling with mental illness or see their friends or family members suffering do not know where to turn for help. By making resources like the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline system more accessible and user-friendly, we can truly save thousands of lives.

I thank all of those who helped get this bill across the finish line, including Utah State Senator Daniel Thatcher and Representative Steve Eliason, and of course Congressman Chris Stewart, who introduced the bill in the House. Most important, though, were the voices of so many Utahns who have felt the tragic effects of the suicide epidemic. I am heartbroken by their loss, but hopeful this law and their continued advocacy will turn the tide in the campaign against this epidemic. This is important, and I hope we will all get behind this and do what is right.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, as some of my colleagues have been doing today.

President Trump has chosen a superbly qualified nominee to the Supreme Court--and believe me, I know what is good and what isn't good. Judge Kavanaugh is one of the most widely respected judges in the country. He has authored 300 opinions during his 12 years on the bench in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals--the second highest court in the country. The Supreme Court has adopted the positions in his opinions a dozen times. He has written multiple dissents that have carried the day in the Supreme Court. He has authored articles in the Harvard Law Review, the Yale Law Journal, and the Georgetown Law Journal. He has also taught courses at Harvard, Yale, and Georgetown. None other than Elena Kagan, in fact, hired him to teach at Harvard.

I would like to take some time today to focus on a subject on which Judge Kavanaugh has really made his mark as a jurist. I want to talk about substance. I want to talk about what Judge Kavanaugh has written in his opinions and how he has been a true intellectual leader on the court. I hope my colleagues on both sides listen to this because we haven't had a nominee like him in a long time.

So much of the discussion about Judge Kavanaugh, so far, has been substance-free. Democrats have hurled accusation after accusation that has been divorced from reality. They say those who support Judge Kavanaugh are complicit and evil. They say his nomination threatens the destruction of the Constitution. They say people will die if he is confirmed. Lost in all of this is any actual discussion of Judge Kavanaugh's written opinions, of the way he approaches cases.

When Judge Kavanaugh met with me last month, he said he hoped my colleagues would read his opinions. That is how they can learn what kind of a judge he is. That is how they can learn how he thinks. That is how they can learn why he is so respected by Democrats and Republicans alike who are on the circuit courts of appeals and who hold other judgeships.

Regrettably, my Democratic colleagues have been too busy one-upping each other's apocalyptic rhetoric to take a look at what Judge Kavanaugh has actually written, so I would like to take some time to do that today. I would like to focus in particular on the subject on which Judge Kavanaugh has arguably had his greatest influence as a judge--the separation of powers.

The separation of powers is a core component of our Constitution. It is, in fact, the first and the most important way the Constitution protects our liberty.

Justice Scalia was fond of saying that ``the genius of the American constitutional system is the dispersal of

power.'' By separating authority among competing branches of government and then further dividing it between the Federal Government and the States, the Constitution makes it extremely difficult--indeed, nearly impossible--for any one individual or faction to consolidate enough power to truly threaten liberty. The side effect, of course, is a degree of inefficiency because you must get so many people with so many divergent interests to agree in order to enact lasting changes.

Policymaking can be a messy, slow process, but that was the point. By creating multiple power centers, the Founders ensured that no one person or group could exercise too much power.

Sometimes we forget that the purpose of the separation of powers is to protect liberty. We get frustrated with the slow pace of legislation, and so we want to give more power to the executive branch because the President can act more quickly than a large, multimember body like Congress. Yet we do not want to give the executive branch too much power because the President might not always be of our same party. So we create these weird hybrids called agencies that, like Congress, create rules for people to follow but that, like the President, are able to act quickly when necessary. Also, like the President, these agencies decide when and how to enforce the law. They decide when to bring suit or when to levy penalties for violations of agency rules. They exercise significant power over our lives, and they don't fit neatly within the constitutional design because they partake of all three branches of government.

Judge Kavanaugh sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, often called the second highest court in the land. The DC Circuit enjoys this esteemed position because it hears many of the cases that involve these agencies that I have just described.

Federal agencies have significant power over many aspects of our lives, and the DC Circuit has authority to review the actions of nearly every Federal agency--important parties, important court.

Judge Kavanaugh's central contribution to separation of powers jurisprudence has been his commitment to upholding the structure of our constitutional design against misguided efforts to insulate agencies from political accountability.

I described earlier how agencies are these weird hybrids. Like Congress, they make laws in the form of regulations. Like the President, they enforce those laws. Like the judiciary, they adjudicate disputes that arise under those laws, the very same laws they wrote in the first place. It is a recipe for abuse if not kept under control. That is why Judge Kavanaugh has been so careful to scrutinize agency design and agency decision making to ensure that officials have the necessary accountability. Accountability is what keeps these agencies in check, given that the traditional separation of powers, which is what keeps our three branches of government in check, does not apply.

In only his second term on the DC Circuit, Judge Kavanaugh authored a masterful dissent in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board was a newfangled agency that Congress created in 2002 in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The Board has broad authority to regulate audits of public companies and oversees the registration and inspection of audit firms. It also sets audit standards and brings enforcement actions against violators. It is, in short, a very important agency.

The problem with the Board was that Congress had chosen to completely insulate it from political accountability. Board members are not chosen by the President. They are chosen by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which is, in turn, chosen by the President. Board members cannot be removed by the President. They can be removed only by the SEC, which, in turn, can be removed by the President.

The rub was that Congress had placed strict limits on the SEC's ability to remove Board members and strict limits on the President's ability to remove SEC Commissioners. The Securities and Exchange Commission could remove a Board member only for ``good cause shown,'' and the President could remove an SEC Commissioner only for ``inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.'' So not only could the President not remove a Board member who was doing a bad job, but he also could not remove an SEC Commissioner for refusing to remove a Board member who was doing a bad job unless he could somehow show that the SEC Commissioner's failure to remove the Board member was a neglect of duty.

As Judge Kavanaugh explained:

The President's power to remove is critical to the

President's power to control the Executive Branch and perform

his Article II responsibilities. Yet under this statute, the

President is two levels of [removal limitations] away from

Board members. . . . This structure effectively eliminates

any Presidential power to control the [Board],

notwithstanding that the Board performs numerous regulatory

and law-enforcement functions at the core of executive power.

Judge Kavanaugh's logic was inescapable: The President cannot do his job if he cannot control his subordinates, and he cannot control his subordinates if he cannot remove them from office. The structure of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board made it immune from Presidential control and, thus, immune from political accountability. Here, you had an agency exercising executive power with no oversight from the Chief Executive himself. This is contrary to the separation of powers, which vests executive authority in the President precisely because the President is a politically accountable actor.

As Justice Jackson memorably taught, the power to enforce the law is among the most awesome of powers granted to government. By cutting off the exercise of executive power from Presidential oversight, the Board's structure violated the Constitution.

Although Judge Kavanaugh's position was the minority view among his DC Circuit colleagues, his position ultimately prevailed at the Supreme Court. It was a significant victory for a young judge and a sign of things to come.

Over the next decade, Judge Kavanaugh continued to uphold the separation of powers in a range of cases that called on him to interpret the scope of agency authority. He brought a discerning eye to these cases, always careful to ensure that agencies did not act beyond the powers Congress had granted them.

In Loving v. Internal Revenue Service, for example, he rejected an effort by the IRS to stretch the words of a statute authorizing the IRS to regulate the practice of ``representatives of persons before the Department of the Treasury'' to include the authority to regulate tax preparers.

Similarly, in White Stallion Energy Center v. EPA, Judge Kavanaugh concluded that the EPA contravened the Clean Air Act when it refused to consider costs in setting air quality regulations. This was yet another case in which Judge Kavanaugh's position ultimately prevailed at the Supreme Court itself.

Of course, Judge Kavanaugh's searching review doesn't mean that agencies always lose. In American Trucking Association v. EPA, for instance, he upheld the EPA decision to authorize a State emissions rule over a vigorous dissent because he concluded the Agency had met the statutory requirements in rendering its decision.

The key is that Judge Kavanaugh reviews agency action carefully to ensure that it conforms to Congress's commands. This is an essential aspect of the separation of powers. Congress determines the limits of agency authority. Congress sets the rules for when agencies may and may not act and for what they may and may not do. That is the very essence of legislative power--the power to set the rules that others must follow.

When agencies transgress the bounds Congress has laid down, they exercise power that no one has granted them, power that Congress alone can give.

Judge Kavanaugh returned to the theme of agency accountability and the separation of powers in another powerful dissent earlier this year. The case is PHH Corporation v. CFPB, and it is another tour de force for Judge Kavanaugh.

At issue in the case is the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection

Bureau, or CFPB. The CFPB is an incredibly powerful agency with vast authority over American life. Its jurisdiction includes banks, credit unions, securities firms, payday lenders, mortgage servicers, and an array of other financial services companies.

When Congress created the CFPB in the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, it placed strict limits on the President's ability to remove the agency's head. Specifically, Congress provided that the President may remove the CFPB Director only for ``inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance.''

You may recall that language from my discussion of the Free Enterprise Fund case. It is the same restriction that Congress placed on the President's ability to remove SEC Commissioners, but there is a significant difference between the SEC and the CFPB.

The SEC is a multimember body. It cannot act without the agreement of a majority of Commissioners. The CFPB, by contrast, is a unitary body. It has a single Director. The only person the CFPB Director has to agree with is himself. Coupled with the fact that the CFPB is an incredibly powerful agency whose funding isn't even directly controlled by Congress, this raises serious separation of powers concerns.

An agency head who can do virtually whatever he wants without fear of Presidential reprimand, and who can do it on his own without having to get the consent of fellow Commissioners, is accountable to no one. The President cannot check him. His colleagues cannot check him. In a very real sense, he is a law unto himself.

Judge Kavanaugh's dissent confronts this problem head-on in its very opening lines:

This is a case about executive power and individual

liberty. To prevent tyranny and protect individual liberty,

the Framers of the Constitution separated the legislative,

executive, and judicial powers of the new national

government. To further safeguard liberty, the Framers

insisted upon accountability for the exercise of executive

power. The Framers lodged full responsibility for the

executive power in a President of the United States who is

elected by and accountable to the people.

Judge Kavanaugh then eloquently explains how the CFPB's structure and limits on Presidential oversight violates these core principles. He said:

The Director of the CFPB wields enormous power over

American businesses, American consumers, and the overall U.S.

economy. . . . The Director alone may decide what rules to

issue. The Director alone may decide how to enforce, when to

enforce, and against whom to enforce the law. The Director

alone may decide whether an individual or entity has violated

the law. The Director alone may decide what sanctions and

penalties to impose on violators of the law. Because the CFPB

is an independent agency headed by a single Director and not

by a multi-member commission, the Director of the CFPB

possesses more unilateral authority--that is, authority to

take action on one's own, subject to no check--than any

single commissioner or board member in any other independent

agency in the U.S. Government.

And then Judge Kavanaugh drops the hammer. He said:

[O]ther than the President, the Director enjoys more

unilateral authority than any other official in any of the

three branches of the U.S. Government. That combination--

power that is massive in scope, concentrated in a single

person, and unaccountable to the President--triggers the

important constitutional question at issue in this case.

Judge Kavanaugh eloquently explains how the CFPB's structure, coupled with the agency's complete lack of accountability, poses a threat to individual liberty. The CFPB wields enormous power and yet is accountable to no one--not the President, not the Congress, not the American people.

The central purpose of the separation of powers is to prevent any one individual group from wielding too much power. It does this by dispersing authority and by playing the branches off of each other. But the CFPB's structure does not disperse power. It consolidates power, and it does so in a single individual who has no superior. This is a textbook violation of the separation of powers and one that I fully expect the Supreme Court to correct if it hears this particular case.

I have spoken at length today about Judge Kavanaugh's writing and jurisprudence. I focused on actual cases that he has decided and on his important contributions to constitutional law.

In short, I have done what Judge Kavanaugh asked me to do. I have reviewed his opinions and considered his analyses. I have done what all of my colleagues should be doing. We should be reading what Judge Kavanaugh has actually written. We should be looking at his judicial philosophy and how he decides cases.

Judge Kavanaugh is an outstanding choice for the Supreme Court. His opinions are cogent, his writing eloquent, and his reasoning ironclad. He understands that the purpose of the Constitution is to preserve liberty and that the Constitution does so both through the substantive guarantees in the Bill of Rights and reconstruction amendments, and through the structural protections in articles I, II, and III of the Constitution.

Congress may from time to time experiment with new ways of delegating authority or structuring agencies, but it cannot do so in ways that violate our Constitution's separation of powers. Individuals who exercise Executive power must be accountable to the President. Agency officials cannot be fully insulated from Presidential oversight. A person who has power to regulate broad swaths of our Nation's economy must have some checks on his or her authority. This is a requirement for our system of government. It is a requirement of our Constitution, and it is essential to the preservation of liberty.

Judge Kavanaugh understands this. He understands the Constitution. He understands the proper role of a judge. He is one of the most brilliant and most distinguished legal thinkers in our country today. I am proud to support his nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, and I urge all of my colleagues to support him as well.

We have to get away from the politics of the Supreme Court. When we have someone who has the qualities, the ability, the reputation, and the historicity of doing what is right on the bench, we should give that person an opportunity to serve.

Judge Kavanaugh deserves an opportunity to serve. He has more than adequately proved that he deserves it. We are going to be lucky to have him on the U.S. Supreme Court.

I am not sure that he is always going to rule the way I want him to rule, either, but nobody does, and from time to time, we may be disappointed. But the fact is that I know one thing: He is going to apply the best of legal knowledge to the opinions that he writes, and he will be a force on the Court who will get along with the other Justices by showing mutual respect for them and receiving mutual respect back from them.

Judge Kavanaugh is the type of guy who really will make a tremendous difference for our country. He deserves this appointment. We need to sustain him and support him, and we need to get the politics out of this nomination.

We are lucky that he is willing to serve. I believe that almost everyone in this body will henceforth, once he is confirmed, come to the conclusion that we are really lucky to have him as a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, last week, the Finance Committee met to consider the nomination of Charles Rettig to be the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service. Charles Rettig is a highly qualified man whom I have long believed had near universal support from the members of the committee.

I suppose it should not be surprising, but my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were finally able to find an excuse for why they couldn't support this well-qualified practitioner. My friends on the other side, including Ranking Member Wyden, announced a newfound opposition to Mr. Rettig, based not on anything he has done, nor on anything he hasn't done. Instead, they decided to broadly oppose Mr. Rettig because of a recent regulatory change at the Treasury Department.

Now, some of you may be scratching your heads wondering how, if he hasn't been confirmed yet, does he have anything to do with this new regulatory change? I know it is puzzling. When you get into the weeds, it becomes clear that my friends have just been looking for an excuse to keep this well-qualified practitioner from heading up the IRS when our country needs him the most.

Democrats also raised extraneous news reports of a Russian person allegedly infiltrating the NRA and potentially infusing domestic organizations with so-called ``dark money.''

Interestingly, though, they seem not to be at all concerned with the subsequent revelations that the very same person had meetings with at least one Federal Reserve official and at least one high-level official in the Treasury Department during the Obama administration. Evidently, for Democrats, when it comes to activities that are quite concerning, the concerns vanish when the activities involve officials in a Democratic administration.

The point is, none of the Democrats' concerns or opposition have anything to do with Mr. Rettig, and as his nomination moves forward, I will continue to talk about his incredible qualifications to be our IRS Commissioner as we move through his nomination process.

Today, I want to take a minute to address the Treasury Department's actions. By way of background, the Treasury Department changed an outdated Nixon administration rule that required certain tax-exempt organizations to report the names and addresses of taxpayers who made substantial donations. This requirement did not arise out of a current statute, it isn't useful for tax administration, and it unnecessarily puts taxpayer information at risk. Cognizant of these issues, the Treasury Department changed that rule. Not such a dramatic change, but to hear my Democratic colleagues react, you would think the Department repealed the Bill of Rights or sold our democracy down the river.

That is why I think it is critical to note that, despite the rule change, the IRS still has access to this information should the agency need it. Of course, you would never know that when listening to my friends on the other side of the aisle as they cherry-pick their facts, but for the rest of us, I think we should all take a step back, take a deep breath, and consider what has actually taken place.

Back in 1969, Congress amended the Internal Revenue Code requiring 501(c)(3) charities to file an annual return that includes the names and addresses of substantial contributors. This rule makes perfect sense. After all, taxpayers receive a tax deduction for these donations, so the IRS needs to be able to verify that individual taxpayer has actually donated what they said they did. It is a great tax fraud prevention tool.

However, this taxpayer information is extremely sensitive and must be safeguarded from a data breach or other improper revelation. That is why Congress chose to prohibit public disclosure of this information.

Then, 2 years later, in 1971, President Nixon's Treasury Department issued further regulations extending this requirement to contributions made to 501(c)(4), (5), and (6) organizations.

For those who don't stay up late at night reading the Tax Code for fun, these organizations include social welfare, labor, and agricultural organizations, as well as chambers of commerce.

This regulation went beyond what is required by the statute and, thus, beyond what Congress wrote when requiring noncharity, tax-exempt organizations to disclose personally identifiable taxpayer information; namely, the names, addresses and donations for anyone who contributed $5,000 or more to that particular social welfare organization. Remember, these contributions are not tax deductible, so the IRS has less need for this information. It is key to remember that the law generally requires the returns of tax-exempt organizations be made publicly available.

Taken together, this means the IRS has been forcing the collection of information it doesn't need that can easily get leaked out and cause problems for the IRS, the organizations, the individual donors, and the American people generally. As such, and in order to avoid these important privacy issues, the IRS has had to spend very precious time and resources redacting this information; again, information the agency did not need to collect in the first place and that does no good in helping thwart tax evasion or fraud. In the end, this process has turned into a disproportionate amount of work and expense of taxpayer dollars with few benefits in return.

All of that, while not the most exciting topic for a dinner conversation, is what brings us to today. All of that is why the IRS has been looking at changing this requirement during and since the Obama administration.

The IRS has broadly noted three reasons for this change: First, as I mentioned, the IRS doesn't need the personally identifiable information of these donors to carry out its mission. While this information was helpful to administering the gift tax in 2015, the Congress changed the law on the application of the gift tax, so it is no longer relevant here, and that change was broadly bipartisan.

Second, requiring the reporting of donor information consumes a lot of time and money both at the IRS as well as the tax-exempt organizations. This directly conflicts with our goal of making the IRS more efficient and helpful for American taxpayers.

Third, schedule B returns with personally identifiable information of donors have a tendency to leak. This poses a risk to taxpayer privacy, it creates a liability for the IRS, and it erodes the trust of the American people in our tax collection agency. This risk is very real. Since 2010, the IRS is aware of at least 14 breaches that resulted in the unauthorized disclosure of this type of information. Mind you, those are cases we know of.

That is why, earlier this month, the Trump administration listened to the agency's concerns, contemplated the facts, and did what any sane government should do. It enacted changes that would help the IRS focus on what is important instead of needlessly risking resources and private taxpayer information.

The administration was wise enough to accept the idea that arose out of the Obama administration. That is just good government. Yet, if you have listened to my Democratic colleagues these past few days, you would think democracy, as we know it, has been destroyed. You might even think the IRS and the Trump administration have been bought and paid for by this nebulous so-called dark money.

The truth is, these attacks are just a partisan stunt because even if you believe in intricate weaving of a conspiracy theory, it ignores the plain fact that the IRS actually still has access to donor information if it wants it. Nothing is being deleted.

Instead, leaks of sensitive taxpayer information will be less common, the IRS is less likely to become a political beach ball smacked back and forth across the aisle, and this administration had the common sense to take up a Democratic President's work to eliminate pointless busy work for the IRS and tax-exempt organizations.

Honestly, if this isn't good government, I don't know what is. Let's ignore this pointless obstruction and get back to work. After all, there is a lot to do.