Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to comment on the confirmation of three nominees to the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, often called the PCLOB. The PCLOB is a vital oversight mechanism, empowered by Congress to investigate and write public reports on some of the government's most secretive and controversial programs.

Today, three board member nominees were confirmed to the PCLOB: Edward Felten, a computer science professor at Princeton; Jane Nitze, a former lawyer

at the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel; and Adam Klein, nominated to be chair, who is a fellow at the Center for New American Security.

I have concerns about some of the policy perspectives the Republican nominees hold. In this case, however, a functioning PCLOB with board members who listen to dissenting views is better than the status quo, where the five-member board has only one member. The PCLOB has been dormant for most of the current administration and regrettably--and in contrary to its statutory mission--has not made all of its previously investigated and written reports public. I look forward to working with the new board members to returning the PCLOB to its core mission of public oversight of classified programs.

Additionally, I am particularly grateful for Professor Felten's confirmation. The presence of a true public servant technologist on the PCLOB will hopefully raise awareness and understanding surrounding controversial surveillance programs that use advanced technology.

In the coming weeks and months, I will be working with the new board members on the critical issues of privacy, security, and secret interpretations of public law. It is my sincere hope that the new members share my deeply held belief that the government should not have classified interpretations of public laws that cause the programs to operate differently than the public understands.

Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to honor the 65th anniversary of the Korean War Armistice Agreement, which brought the active hostilities of the Korean war to an end.

Americans don't talk much about the Korean war today. As a result, too many have forgotten or never knew the history, how Kim Il-sung's forces invaded South Korea in June 1950; how the United Nations Security Council condemned the invasion; how American troops made an amphibious landing at Inchon, driving the North Korean forces back and helping shift the war's momentum; how 3 years later, representatives met in Panmunjom where they established a demilitarized zone and ended active hostilities.

Because this history is so often overlooked, American men and women who served in Korea have so rarely been given the recognition they deserve.

These are Americans who answered the call to take up arms again in a foreign country so soon after World War II, Americans who endured the bitter cold and harsh weather up and down the Peninsula and the lack of adequate food, Americans who gave their lives by the thousands on Korea's far-flung shores in service to their country. All told, more than 36,000 Americans perished in the Korean war, including more than 270 Oregonians and at least seven from Umatilla County, OR.

The Korean war is often called the Forgotten War.

Well, it isn't forgotten by me. It isn't forgotten by the U.S. Senate. I am proud to say that it isn't forgotten by the Oregonians I speak with as I travel around our State.

I have never met a Korean war veteran--or a veteran of any conflict-- who walked onto the battlefield seeking personal recognition.

Today I am proud to recognize these brave servicemembers nonetheless.

This year marks the 65th year since the signing of the Korean War Armistice and the end of active hostilities.

As we follow new developments on the Korean Peninsula--and there have been many these past few months--let us reflect on the Americans who fought so bravely and endured so much in service to these United States.

I have always believed that the Federal Government owes these men and women a debt it cannot fully repay. The closest I think we can come is to honor our commitments to them and to do right by their brothers and sisters who continue to wear the uniform.

As we look forward to Veterans Day, let us all take a moment to thank those Korean war veterans still with us and to ensure that their service and their sacrifices are never forgotten.

Mr. President, this November, my hometown of Portland marks a somber occasion: the 30th anniversary of the murder of Mulugeta Seraw, a 28-year-old Ethiopian college student, by racist skinheads. This horrific case galvanized the city, as well as the State of Oregon, to stand up to hate crimes and acts of violence by the neo-Nazi movement in the Pacific Northwest. While this brutal slaying happened 30 years ago, it remains fresh in the minds of many who lived through that time and for people who still experience discrimination and hate today.

Mulugeta's path to our country mirrors those of so many others who came to America. He came to the United States seeking an education. A college student in Portland, he worked multiple jobs and remitted money to Ethiopia to support his son, Henock.

Mulugeta, like many immigrants who come to America, was simply seeking opportunity. His family and friends describe him as a kind, hard- working man. He had friends and family whom he supported and loved. All this was ripped away by evil, cruel racism.

As a result of the cruelty done to Mulugeta, community members, civil rights lawyers, judges, elected officials, and nonprofits came together and demanded justice be served. They succeeded.

The case attracted national attention, and thanks in part to the great effort of the Southern Poverty Law Center, the White Aryan Resistance and its leaders who were behind this heinous crime were bankrupted and jailed. While no prison sentence could bring back Mulugeta, Oregonians stood and stand in solidarity with Mulugeta and his family and friends to make clear we will not let hate crimes and violence take over our communities.

We have to remain vigilant, and we have to continue the fight. We must recognize our own troubling present in Oregon, which unfortunately has an awful history as a home for White supremacists, because to not know our own history dooms us.

In the years since Mulugeta's death, there have been horrific acts of racially charged violence in Oregon. In May of 2017, a self-proclaimed White nationalist verbally attacked two women who were riding Portland's MAX light rail. One of these two women was wearing a hijab. The perpetrator stabbed three men who defended the women against the racist and Islamophobic rant, killing two of them.

There have been horrific racist acts throughout the Nation. The march and murder in Charlottesville is another clear example of how these White supremacist ideals and concepts continue to draw breath in our country. Like Oregonians speaking out in remembrance of Mulugeta Seraw, we must all speak out against hate. It has no place in our country, including in our White House.

This year, as we remember the 30th anniversary of the murder of Mulugeta Seraw and 50th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s assassination, I would like to acknowledge the many organizations in Oregon that fight for peace and justice every day on behalf of marginalized communities. I would like to especially acknowledge members of these communities who are resilient and strong. I stand with them today and every day.

In a few weeks, Oregonians will come together to remember and celebrate the life of Mulugeta Seraw during a 30th year commemoration conference organized by the Urban League of Portland. I am honored to add to this remembrance with this Congressional Record. May Mulugeta and his story never be forgotten, and may we remember, learn, and change.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the sesquicentennial of Lincoln High School in Portland, OR.

One of the oldest and most celebrated public secondary schools west of the Mississippi River, Lincoln was established in 1869, a decade after Oregon's founding. Originally known as Portland High School, it was eventually renamed in honor of President Abraham Lincoln. Currently located in the Goose Hollow neighborhood of Southwest Portland, Lincoln High School has moved four times over the past 150 years and is currently planning a fifth campus to accommodate its growing student body.

Lincoln High School's college preparatory program has graduated generations of Oregon students. Over 60 faculty members oversee and implement a wealth of academic and extracurricular opportunities, including enhanced and advanced coursework in literature, the social sciences, foreign languages, mathematics, and physical and life sciences. Lincoln offers a celebrated international baccalaureate program, in addition to a full Spanish immersion program.

Outside the classroom, Lincoln's Constitution Team has won 23 State championships and six national titles. Its speech and debate team ranks among the top in the State, and its mock trial team competes nationally. The school's student newspaper ``The Cardinal Times'' is the oldest continuously published high school paper on the West Coast. Lincoln's magazine ``Beyond the Flock'' and its Spanish-language magazine ``Puno y Letro'' add to the school's rich and diverse literary tradition. Lincoln's student athletes have brought home 38 State championships in a variety of sports. Seventy-seven student-led clubs and unions serve the larger Portland community and demonstrate Lincoln's commitment to an inclusive, engaged, and diverse student body.

Lincoln students are dedicated to fostering an open and welcoming community for all and have committed to carrying those values forth into 2019, the school's 150th year. For 150 years, Lincoln High School has inspired generations of global thinkers who have bettered their communities in the Cardinal spirit of academic and civic engagement.

I rise to acknowledge the significant contribution of Lincoln High School to the State of Oregon and the Nation as a whole and to offer my congratulations to the students, faculty, and alumni on the occasion of its sesquicentennial.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Wildlife Conservation and Anti-Trafficking Act which will work to protect threatened or endangered species, reduce human rights violations, and limit the illegal operations of international criminal organizations.

This bill is a bipartisan and bicameral effort, sponsored in the House of Representatives by Representative Madeleine Bordallo and Representative Don Young, and I look forward to growing its support in the Senate.

Conservation violations and wildlife trafficking offenses are a global problem threatening biodiversity and animal welfare and facilitating significant criminal operations. Tackling this broad problem is complicated and compounded by insufficient penalties for offenders and the difficulty of maintaining U.S.-oversight on the global level.

This bill proposes to address these concerns by criminalizing elements of wildlife-trafficking operations under Federal racketeering and organized crime statutes. Classifying wildlife-trafficking crimes as ``predicate offenses'' under the Money Laundering Statute, Travel Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act enables prosecutors to administer substantial fines and prison-time for violations.

The bill recognizes the value of whistleblowers' information to direct investigations into wildlife-trafficking violations. It establishes a procedure to secure valuable, useful information from informants and provide sufficient compensation for the risks these individuals make to blow the whistle on illegal operations. To do so, the bill redirects penalty payments from wildlife-trafficking violations to fund whistleblower compensation programs. Monetary rewards to wildlife-crime whistleblowers come from partial share of penalty paid to the U.S. Government, providing no additional expense to American taxpayers.

The bill empowers Federal wildlife agents to operate abroad and provides them with direction to collaborate with local authorities. It instructs the Secretary of the Interior to adopt an International Wildlife Conservation Program consisting of four components: a regional component providing for protection of natural range habitats; a species component focusing conservation on most vulnerable species; an anti- trafficking component to curtail demand and limit poaching; and a convention component to implement the Convention on International Trade in the Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna, CITES.

The legislation seeks to expand the Marine Turtle Act of 2004 by extending the legislation's coverage to include U.S. territories, and increasing the Act's scope to cover marine and freshwater turtles as well as tortoises.

Additionally, the bill proposes to strengthen the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 and the Shark-Finning Measure under the Magnuson-Stevens Act by establishing that fines associated with violating these acts are to be used to benefit the same species that were affected.

Of particular concern to fishermen and women up and down the coasts, the bill addresses illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing violations by considering serious abuses as violations of Federal money laundering laws and therefore subjecting violators to substantial penalties.

Protecting wildlife requires a unified and strategic approach to end poaching worldwide. Congress must aggressively counter the relentless activities of poachers, traffickers, and transnational criminal organizations. The Wildlife Conservation and Anti-Trafficking Act is a strong response to crimes against wildlife; it will provide the necessary tools to curtail these illicit activities.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Wildlife Conservation and Anti-Trafficking Act which will work to protect threatened or endangered species, reduce human rights violations, and limit the illegal operations of international criminal organizations.

This bill is a bipartisan and bicameral effort, sponsored in the House of Representatives by Representative Madeleine Bordallo and Representative Don Young, and I look forward to growing its support in the Senate.

Conservation violations and wildlife trafficking offenses are a global problem threatening biodiversity and animal welfare and facilitating significant criminal operations. Tackling this broad problem is complicated and compounded by insufficient penalties for offenders and the difficulty of maintaining U.S.-oversight on the global level.

This bill proposes to address these concerns by criminalizing elements of wildlife-trafficking operations under Federal racketeering and organized crime statutes. Classifying wildlife-trafficking crimes as ``predicate offenses'' under the Money Laundering Statute, Travel Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act enables prosecutors to administer substantial fines and prison-time for violations.

The bill recognizes the value of whistleblowers' information to direct investigations into wildlife-trafficking violations. It establishes a procedure to secure valuable, useful information from informants and provide sufficient compensation for the risks these individuals make to blow the whistle on illegal operations. To do so, the bill redirects penalty payments from wildlife-trafficking violations to fund whistleblower compensation programs. Monetary rewards to wildlife-crime whistleblowers come from partial share of penalty paid to the U.S. Government, providing no additional expense to American taxpayers.

The bill empowers Federal wildlife agents to operate abroad and provides them with direction to collaborate with local authorities. It instructs the Secretary of the Interior to adopt an International Wildlife Conservation Program consisting of four components: a regional component providing for protection of natural range habitats; a species component focusing conservation on most vulnerable species; an anti- trafficking component to curtail demand and limit poaching; and a convention component to implement the Convention on International Trade in the Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna, CITES.

The legislation seeks to expand the Marine Turtle Act of 2004 by extending the legislation's coverage to include U.S. territories, and increasing the Act's scope to cover marine and freshwater turtles as well as tortoises.

Additionally, the bill proposes to strengthen the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 and the Shark-Finning Measure under the Magnuson-Stevens Act by establishing that fines associated with violating these acts are to be used to benefit the same species that were affected.

Of particular concern to fishermen and women up and down the coasts, the bill addresses illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing violations by considering serious abuses as violations of Federal money laundering laws and therefore subjecting violators to substantial penalties.

Protecting wildlife requires a unified and strategic approach to end poaching worldwide. Congress must aggressively counter the relentless activities of poachers, traffickers, and transnational criminal organizations. The Wildlife Conservation and Anti-Trafficking Act is a strong response to crimes against wildlife; it will provide the necessary tools to curtail these illicit activities.

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

Mr. President, while it is perhaps not in line with official and genuine Senate protocol, I also want to use this opportunity to congratulate my good friend in the Chair on the wonderful events of last weekend for his family.

Mr. President, I have come to the floor to discuss my colleague Senator

Baldwin's resolution that would protect the millions of Americans in Wisconsin and Oregon and all across the land who are faced with preexisting health conditions.

This has been an area I have focused on since my days as codirector of the Oregon Gray Panthers because preexisting conditions is kind of fancy lingo that people talk about as it relates to healthcare policy, but really what it is all about is, if you have cancer or diabetes or heart disease or asthma or any one of a score of healthcare conditions, before the Affordable Care Act, you were just in a world of hurt, literally and figuratively. In effect, the healthcare system then was for the healthy and the wealthy. If you were healthy, there was nothing to worry about--no preexisting condition. If you were wealthy, you just paid the bills, but if you had preexisting conditions, as millions and millions of Americans have, then you were really out of luck.

So then, along came the Affordable Care Act. I had written a piece of legislation, the Healthy Americans Act, with seven Democrats and seven Republicans as cosponsors. It had airtight, loophole-free protection for Americans against discrimination if they had preexisting conditions. That provision from the Healthy Americans Act, to a very great extent, made its way into the Affordable Care Act. That is why millions of Americans were able to go to bed at night with a sense of comfort and a sense that if they did have healthcare conditions, the insurance companies wouldn't be able to just clobber them with higher costs. Unfortunately, we have the Trump administration's wanting to bring back the days when healthcare was for the healthy and wealthy and allow discrimination against people with preexisting conditions.

The flip side of the preexisting condition coin is junk insurance-- selling junk insurance that really isn't worth a whole lot more than the paper it is written on. Boy, do I know something about junk insurance because that is how I started my time in public service, when senior citizens were sold 15 to 20 policies. Again, the rip-offs were built in. Back then, if you had one policy and you had another policy that offered similar coverage, they canceled each other out, and the senior got nothing. It was junk insurance. If we go back to the days when they discriminated against people with preexisting conditions, we are going to have junk insurance all over again.

I am going to begin with the Trump administration's record on this.

First of all, if you are a scam artist who is peddling junk plans, the Trump administration has your back. If you are a person with a preexisting condition, the Trump administration is advancing policies that will make both your health and your wallet in far worse shape. Now, the Trump officials get up and talk about the benefits of short- term plans. They will use buzz words like ``flexibility'' and ``patient-centered care,'' but I want everybody to be clear that it is junk insurance, plain and simple. It is putting a whole lot of lipstick on a frog.

These junk insurance plans the Trump administration has revived represent the very worst of industry tricks and abuses. They punish Americans who really need healthcare. If you are young, if you are healthy, and if you are wealthy, as I have said, there is nothing to worry about. With junk plans, you have a glide path to put scams on those with preexisting conditions like heart disease, cancer, and mental illness. They exist to prey on older Americans--on women, on the less fortunate--particularly a group that I have thought was the heart of where healthcare reform ought to go--to the folks between 55 and 65.

As I have indicated, junk plans are not new. Congress and the American people have rejected them before. I mentioned my history with the Oregon Gray Panthers. Big, thick stacks of legalese that nobody could understand were always hyped to the seniors. They were going to fill the gaps in Medicare. It was called Medigap. Back then, it was really just A and B. It didn't have D and Medicare Advantage and all kinds of other things. It was just A and B.

You had seniors frightened that the gaps in Medicare were going to consume any savings they might have. So every time a fast-talking salesperson came through, a senior would buy a policy. When I was the director of the Gray Panthers, it was common to go to seniors' homes, and they would actually go to a closet and pull out a shoebox full of these worthless policies. I really fear we are looking at going back to those days.

The fact is that Congress finally cracked down on those Medigap rip- offs. I had an opportunity to be a part of that effort as a Member of the other body, the House, but a lot of people got hurt in the process.

Junk insurance was not just a problem for seniors. A few years ago, the Affordable Care Act was designed, as I mentioned, in terms of the Healthy Americans Act, to make sure that junk insurance would be eliminated across the board. Across the board, we would say in our country, we are going to have ironclad, loophole-free guarantees that no American would ever face discrimination over a preexisting condition.

By the way, that used to be a bipartisan proposition. The fact is that still serving in this body are a number of my colleagues on the Republican side who are cosponsors of the Healthy Americans Act, with that ironclad, loophole-free protection for those with preexisting conditions. So it is not as if somebody just kind of brought this up as a partisan issue. It was bipartisan then. Republican Members of this body, distinguished colleagues, were cosponsors of that Healthy Americans Act proposition. Now the Trump administration is trying to turn back the clock. It wants to make junk plans great again--a forced march back to those days that I described that were only for the healthy and the wealthy.

The open enrollment plan for health insurance is coming up very quickly. The Trump administration has cut it in half so that it is going to last only a few weeks this year. That means, during the holidays, when Americans are traveling, shopping, and spending time with family, they will also have to make some judgments about health insurance. Because of the Trump administration's actions, these junk insurance policies are going to be peddled at the same time as insurance that would actually cover, meaningfully, the healthcare that our people need.

What they are going to be doing with these Trump changes is making life easy for the scam artists but a nightmare for so many Americans who, day in and day out, walk an economic tightrope just trying to pay for essentials. These rip-off artists under the Trump plan are going to have a green light to steal the money Americans pay in premiums and for other expenses. According to a recent study, sometimes as much as $2 out of every $3 is wasted on overhead with these administrative costs and junk insurance profits in these flawed policies that the Trump administration wants to foist off on Americans.

The disastrous effects of junk insurance aren't limited to those who get conned into buying it. By bringing junk plans back, the Trump administration, in effect, goes out and swings a wrecking ball into the private health insurance markets in our country. It raises costs across the board, and Americans waste their hard-earned dollars.

Senator Baldwin has a resolution, and I commend my colleague from Wisconsin on her effort on this. She came and talked with me about this early on, as the ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee. We have jurisdiction over something like $1 trillion worth of health spending. I really appreciate the expertise and the passion that Senator Baldwin has brought to this issue, and we saw it in her very first presentation on what she wanted to do. Her resolution is the Senate's best opportunity to put a stop to the scams that I have described. It would throw the Trump administration's junk insurance rules out, and with Senator Baldwin's proposal, it would restore the protections that millions of Americans count on each day.

The Democrats in the Senate are going to stand up for Americans with preexisting conditions, and I hope colleagues on the other side will join us. I recognize that the Trump administration will not, but my hope is that we will have colleagues on the other side supporting us for Senator Baldwin's resolution.

In addition, as if this were not enough of an injury foisted on vulnerable Americans, the Trump administration has put forward a nominee for a seat on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals who made healthcare sabotage one of his top priorities at the Trump Justice Department. Chad Readler, currently the Deputy Assistant Attorney General, in my view, is the wrong choice to be a Federal judge.

Earlier this year, the Trump administration decided it just wanted to get out of the business of enforcing the rules that protect Americans with preexisting conditions. In fact, it had to argue in court that it could abandon that essential part of the Affordable Care Act, which was still the law of the land the last time I looked. Who did the administration turn to when it needed to cook up a dubious legal argument that it had no obligation to enforce the law of the land? Chad Readler. In fact, three career attorneys from the Department of Justice looked at his argument, and they actually withdrew from the case. Three career lawyers from the Department of Justice refused to participate.

The Judiciary Committee held a hearing on Mr. Readler's nomination earlier this month. His nomination could be sent to the floor of the Senate in the coming weeks, but it ought to be clear that this is a nominee who is not an impartial individual who has the judicial temperament Americans expect. He is not somebody who ought to be handed a seat on the Federal bench and have the power to sign off on the Trump administration's agenda of healthcare sabotage.

I close with this. The Senate has an opportunity to stand up this week for the millions of vulnerable Americans who have these preexisting conditions, for the millions of Americans who under the Affordable Care Act can go to bed at night knowing that if they have preexisting conditions, they are not going to lose everything. I am serious when I talk about losing everything. Once you go back to discriminating against people with preexisting conditions, you are going to go back to job lock and all of the problems we saw associated with discrimination. If you were in Montana or if you were in Oregon and had a preexisting condition and you got offered a better job on the other side of town, you couldn't go get it because you would not be able to get coverage because there was discrimination against people with preexisting conditions.

This week the Senate is going to have an opportunity to stand up to the Trump administration and go to bat for the millions and millions of Americans who are watching this debate who have preexisting conditions and who are just counting on this body not to turn back the clock and leave them vulnerable again. Senator Baldwin's resolution would prevent the Trump administration from bringing back the worst abuses of junk insurance. If it doesn't pass this week, this will be an issue that, in my view, will come up again and again and again until it is fixed.

Finally, the Readler nomination, in my view, ought to be stopped in its tracks. The Senate ought to tell the administration that it is not going to rubberstamp judicial nominees who have proven, demonstrable track records of twisting the law in a way that harms the most vulnerable of our citizens.

I note that the majority leader is here.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the deeply misguided vote to move forward on Brett Kavanaugh's nomination has taken the Senate a step closer to a moment that will cause enormous pain for millions of Americans, particularly women and survivors of assault.

Some may say that the Senate is rolling back the clock on women in America by confirming Brett Kavanaugh. After seeing what has happened to the women who have spoken out and talking to women in Oregon, I question how much the clock ever ticked forward. Indeed, this process has shone a spotlight on the double standard women across this country face just so they will be believed.

On the other hand, Dr. Ford never wanted any of this. The way she has been treated by Republicans in the Senate and the President of the United States is inexcusable. In one of the most un-Presidential speeches I have ever seen or heard, the President belittled a survivor in front of a crowd of thousands.

Dr. Ford came to us as a citizen who was doing her civic duty to provide the Senate with crucial information about a nominee before us. She called the front desk of her Congressperson; she didn't run to the news media or the cable shows or try to sell a book. She volunteered to tell her story under oath. She recounted the details of her assault in 18 minutes of testimony that will not soon be forgotten. It was heartbreaking to watch. At times, it was just excruciating.

What did Dr. Ford get for her courage? She was put on trial by the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, who actually hired an experienced prosecutor to grill her. The questioning was clearly designed to tar Dr. Ford as a political pawn. It attempted to delegitimize the trauma caused by her assault. It attempted to paint her as a liar.

It was stunning how little of the questioning Republicans subjected her to was focused on what Brett Kavanaugh did on the night in question. It is clear now that the focus was on undermining Dr. Ford's story and destroying her credibility. But Dr. Ford's credibility held up. I have said that I can't imagine a more credible witness, nor can I imagine how difficult it must have been for her to relive that experience and maintain such extraordinary composure. What she did took unknowable strength. Her testimony, delivered under what amounted to prosecution, was unforgettable. She is trained in psychology. She was even forced to act as the expert witness in her own trial, diagnosing the lifelong effects of her own trauma. She explained to the committee how memories of traumatic events implant themselves on the brain.

At one point, she described what she remembered most about the assault by Mr. Kavanaugh and Mark Judge. She answered, delivering on her training, that ``indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter.''

I believe Dr. Ford when she says she was assaulted in that room in 1982. I believe Dr. Ford when she says that her attackers locked the door, a hand was pressed over her mouth, and she feared for her life. I believe her when she says she remembers them laughing.

For all the grueling prosecution the Republicans put Dr. Ford through, it is important to compare that to the treatment of Brett Kavanaugh. When it was Kavanaugh's turn to deliver testimony, he was seething. He was raging in a manner completely unbecoming a Federal judge. He behaved in a manner that directly contradicted what Brett Kavanaugh said in a widely publicized speech a judge should be all about. In his own words, Mr. Kavanaugh said judges need to keep their emotions in check, to be calm amidst the storm. Mr. Kavanaugh failed his own test--his own test--last week. He offered the most partisan testimony I can recall when he talked about the Clintons and said ``what goes around comes around.''

Imagine if a female nominee had snapped at a male Senator about his drinking habits. The President of the Senate is an experienced judge and prosecutor. I am telling you, if a female nominee had done that, game over right there--right there. There again, you have the double standard.

When a few questions posed by the Republican prosecutor actually got to relevant questions, the majority side of the committee told her to just take off.

For that to be the only hearing on these allegations I think is just plain disgraceful. The committee should not have moved on to the vote. The allegations brought forward demanded a robust investigation. Yet the Senate has ended up light-years away from that. What kind of investigation looks to settle matters and doesn't interview the accuser and the accused? That just doesn't pass the smell test.

This is not about tarnishing Brett Kavanaugh's reputation or digging up salacious details from his high school days. The accusations against Mr. Kavanaugh and the possibility of perjury--both of which he denies-- relate directly to his binge drinking and sexual behavior. That is why the FBI background check should have been a robust inquiry into those matters. It is clear now that didn't happen. You ask yourself, why not? It is hard to find an explanation other than the investigation was handcuffed to predetermine the outcome.

Dr. Ford has said publicly that the FBI didn't talk to her, and they didn't look at the therapy notes she offered to turn over. They didn't talk to Mr. Kavanaugh. They didn't talk to the dozens of individuals who Deborah Ramirez said could potentially corroborate her story. They closed the investigation a full day ahead of the arbitrary deadline, and it is not clear why.

Based on that, in my view, this investigation was a whitewash. It was not legitimate. It was the product of intense political meddling, in my view, by the Trump administration. That means, if Brett Kavanaugh's nomination is confirmed, there are going to be questions about his legitimacy looming large for years to come.

I believe Dr. Ford. I have heard the Presiding Officer discussing this this morning on television. I respectfully would say I know the Presiding Officer doesn't share my view. But I felt that Brett Kavanaugh's behavior before the Senate last week ought to be disqualifying on its own. If you compare what he said last week to what he wrote ought to be the requirements for how a judge behaves, there is a very large gap between what Brett Kavanaugh said ought to be expected of a judge's behavior and what we saw last week when he testified.

From the time his nomination was announced, Kavanaugh portrayed himself as a trustworthy individual who had the kind of levelheaded temperament Americans expect and deserve from members of the judiciary. My view was that appearance last week before the committee my colleague serves on was a textbook case of raw partisanship.

In his afternoon testimony last week, Brett Kavanaugh was disdainful and sarcastic toward the Democratic Senators who questioned him. Brett Kavanaugh responded to what he considered to be unsubstantiated allegations by making truly unsubstantiated allegations of his own. Without any evidence, he declared the credible accusations that had been brought forward a ``calculated and orchestrated political hit'' by the Democrats. He pushed these baseless, conspiratorial comments about how this was all just revenge for the Clintons. And in a tone that just struck me as dripping with menace, he just said: ``What goes around comes around.''

If you look last week at how he presented himself to the chairman of the Senate's committee, I think you have to ask yourself: How can anybody expect that Brett Kavanaugh would offer a fair hearing in a politically charged case?

My conclusion, based on what I have described, is pretty simple. You just do not get to behave the way Brett Kavanaugh behaved last week and get to serve on the United States Supreme Court.

Finally, my concerns go further than the temper tantrum we saw last week. There is hard evidence that shows that Brett Kavanaugh lied repeatedly and on a variety of subjects. For example, just yesterday, there was new evidence in scores of emails that the nominee lied about his involvement in government wiretapping programs.

The Presiding Officer of the Senate has been very gracious over the years in talking to me about these issues. He knows I care deeply, as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, about government wiretapping programs. I am here this afternoon to say I am not alone. Millions of Americans care about this issue. As I have said in my conversations with the Presiding Officer of the Senate, security and liberty are not mutually exclusive. You can have both.

What these emails--scores of them yesterday--prove is there is new evidence that Brett Kavanaugh did not tell the truth about his involvement in government wiretapping programs. There is hard evidence that shows he lied about using stolen documents, hard evidence that shows he lied about his involvement in the confirmation process of certain Bush nominees, hard evidence about the statements made by the other individuals who were present at the party where Dr. Ford was assaulted, hard evidence the nominee lied about when he learned of the second set of allegations made against him. The nominee even lied about small stuff. When you can't trust somebody to tell the truth, they don't belong on the Supreme Court.

It is important, before I wrap this up, to take a hard look at what has happened to the Court over the last few years. In 2016, Senate Republicans blocked a mainstream nominee to the Court--an individual who many Republicans had praised extensively--extensively--in the past. They held a Supreme Court seat open for nearly a year until a Republican President picked someone to their liking.

In 2018, the Trump White House interfered with the vetting of a second nominee, hiding key information from the Senate and the American people.

The floor debate on this nomination is going to be cut off before all the questions about sexual misconduct can be answered and before the statements I have outlined here today--ones where there is hard evidence--can be examined for perjury. These actions by the Republicans and the Trump White House, in my view, are taking a sledgehammer to the public's trust in the Court as an institution.

The Court used to have a healthy separation from the partisan battles that take place here in the Congress. I heard my colleague talking about that this morning on television. That healthy separation doesn't exist today. I just say, we have a lot of heavy lifting to do in the U.S. Senate to revive the vision of the Supreme Court held by the Founding Fathers after what has happened.

I am going to close by going back to the question of whether anything has changed since 1991 and the tragedy of Professor Hill. When Professor Hill testified in 1991, she was dragged through the mud. She was called a scorned woman. Perhaps you can say it represents some measure of progress that Dr. Ford wasn't slandered and insulted in quite the same way. But I don't know how much that matters if this nominee is confirmed.

The language used during the debate might sound different, but the outcome is the same. The failure by my colleagues on the other side to step back, suspend the partisan warfare, and recognize the seriousness and legitimacy of this information, in my view, will go down over time as a historic disappointment.

This was never a smear campaign. It wasn't a political hit job. Dr. Ford came forward out of a sense of civic duty. She knew the sacrifice she faced, and she wondered to herself if it would really make a difference. Why suffer through annihilation if it will not matter, she asked. Over and over again, she told us she only wanted to be helpful. I have never seen a witness--like my colleague presiding today, I have seen a lot of witnesses. She was a textbook case of being courteous, always saying: What can I do to be helpful?

Senators ought to consider the dangerous signal being sent to survivors of assault and to young people across the country from this debate. Dr. Ford wasn't on trial; nonetheless, she was prosecuted by the majority party. She got smeared as a political pawn, a liar, belittled, with her accusations dismissed by many almost immediately.

I made notion of how, a few days ago, the President mocked Dr. Ford, mocked her in front of thousands. What a cruel and un-Presidential moment. If the mockery and dismissiveness are not bad enough--if they weren't bad enough, there is the return of the sickening old notion that boys will be boys, what happened in the bedroom was ``roughhousing,'' and what happened was just too long ago. Today, survivors from sea to shining sea are asking: How are we going to be heard? How will we find justice?

I fear many survivors are going to conclude that coming forward with their story is going to be pointless, and there is very little likelihood of justice--very little likelihood of justice. Even if you are strong, composed, and constantly courteous, it will not help.

On the other hand, the signal to boys is this: Even if you engage in violence against women and lie about your conduct, the power structure is going to step up and protect you. The Senate has to be better than this.

I hope Senators are going to recognize that it is time to take these horribly outdated attitudes towards women and sweep them out like the cobwebs from an abandoned theater stage and start over. It can begin by rejecting this nomination today.

I will be voting no.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, when it comes to Medicaid, there is no question the program is front and center in the fight against the opioid epidemic. Medicaid is the single largest payer of substance use disorder services in the Nation, paying for a third of all medication- assisted treatment across the country and covering millions of Americans currently suffering; yet gaps in the system still exist.

The SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act includes a number of policies that will help fill some of these gaps both within Medicaid and across the healthcare system. One such provision focuses on providing States with additional flexibility around Medicaid's so- called IMD exclusion related to inpatient and residential treatment. I view this provision as one piece of a larger approach focused on ensuring patients have access to the care and services they need across the entire continuum of care. It includes early prevention, access to critical outpatient and community-based services, residential and inpatient care when needed, and essential step-down care so individuals can successfully transition back into the community.

However, I want to take a moment to note my concern about this particular provision that will leave gaps for young adults seeking care and treatment. Specifically, I am particularly worried about young adults who may not be able to access quality residential substance use disorder treatment services in the same settings as older individuals. Under the Medicaid statute, the IMD exclusion applies to all individuals under the age of 65 with limited exceptions for individuals under age 21 for inpatient psychiatric hospital services. As a result, I am concerned that, because the provision in this bill only applies to those age 21 and older, younger adults below the age of 21 may not have access to the full array of residential substance use disorder treatment options, settings that may be closer to home, closer to support networks, and that more appropriately serve their needs.

I am hopeful that my colleagues across the aisle will work with me to address this and other yet to be addressed gaps in our healthcare system to better meet the needs of the millions of Americans, young and old, suffering from the scourge that is the opioid epidemic.

Mr. President, today the Senate passed a preconferenced Federal Aviation Authority bill without amendment offered or accepted by myself or my colleagues. I voted against this bill primarily for three reasons.

First, this FAA reauthorization does not include a critical and necessary consumer protection bill, the FAIR Fees Act. The FAIR Fees Act would have limited the amount that airlines could gouge consumers when they wanted to change flights. Now, without this provision, working Oregonians will still have to pay absurd prices, such as $200, to change a simple $80 flight.

Second, Senator Merkley and I had introduced legislation to qualify the Crater Lake-Klamath Regional Airport to receive Essential Air Service funding, and despite our attempts to include it to this 5-year FAA authorization, the legislation was excluded. The airport near Klamath Falls is currently without commercial air service, and Essential Air Service funding would help them recruit an airline to return commercial air service to the region. I was disappointed this important provision was not included by either the House or the Senate because it would have increased economic development and tourism for the Klamath region. I will continue to pursue any and all avenues to help restore commercial air service to the Crater Lake-Klamath Regional Airport, a must for quality of life and economic development in the Klamath Falls area.

Third, this bill includes the Preventing Emerging Threats Act, legislation aimed at empowering Federal agents to prevent drone-based crime.

This legislation confronts a clear need and represents careful--but incomplete--efforts to create a narrow program with appropriate congressional oversight. Specifically, this bill allows for broad carveouts to the Wiretap Act, and it is not clear this broad authority is necessary. Additionally, the privacy protections could be interpreted as applying only to information gathered between the drone and the drone operator and not applying to additional information gathered, collected, stored, or analyzed while initially detecting drones. Interpreted this way, the bill represents a massive expansion of the government's warrantless wiretapping authority.

I have received assurances from the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and my colleagues from the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to work together to address my concerns. Despite that, I voted against this bill while looking forward to remedying this quickly in perfecting legislation. Similarly, I am looking forward to published guidance from the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security making clear that all information gathered, stored, analyzed, or collected under this act are subject to the privacy protections.

Mr. President, the Senate has just cleared the most sweeping package of bills to address the opioid epidemic to date. These fresh policies will make a difference on the ground. In my view, there are promising ideas dealing with some key important priorities: helping people steer clear of addiction from the get-go and knocking down barriers that prevent people from getting help when they need it.

These policies were crafted on a bipartisan basis in practically half of the committees in Congress. The Finance Committee passed its own bill in June with more than two dozen policies that at least one member from each side of the aisle sponsored.

For example, Senator Bennet led the way on a provision that will help root out fraud by requiring prescriptions to be sent electronically from doctors to pharmacies. It is too easy to fake a script on old- fashioned paper and get a bottle of pills, so this policy would make electronic prescriptions the norm in Medicare's drug program.

Senators Brown and Stabenow have important provisions that will help make sure new mothers and infants have access to the care and treatment they need. Senator Menendez and Senator Scott worked on provisions that will help parents get treatment and find smart, safe ways to reunify families.

Since homelessness and addiction often go hand-in-hand, Senator Cardin and I have worked on a bipartisan provision that is about uncovering innovative opportunities in Medicaid to provide housing- related supports and services to individuals struggling with substance use disorders including for those transitioning out of residential treatment and for those who are experiencing homelessness.

Senators Warner, Cardin, and Thune have also brought forward an important provision that would expand access to telehealth services in Medicare for older Americans struggling with substance use disorders. That will expand this promising technology so seniors who don't live in rural areas can also remotely connect with their doctors to get substance use disorder treatment. When it comes to ensuring a substance use disorder is being correctly managed, frequent and convenient check- ups can make all the difference in the world.

These are only a few of the ideas the Finance Committee has been able to bring forward in this bipartisan package.

This legislation represents a measured but important step towards ensuring Federal and State policies are working towards a resolution of this crisis, not making it worse. I view this legislation as an early step in dealing with the epidemic. Nearly 70,000 Americans are dying every year due to drug overdoses. This is one of the most serious issues of our time, and the work will need to continue, especially when it comes to identifying how the crisis began in the first place and holding those responsible accountable.

Congress is going to keep at it until pain policy in this country is back on track. I think of how this has progressed as a ``prescription pendulum.'' Years ago, when I was the director of the Oregon Grey Panthers, I would get calls from the families of older people coping with pain. They would say, ``My dad is 93 years old, he's in agony, but he can't get a prescription because they say he'll get addicted.''

More recently, the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. If you broke a bone, came down with a bout of back pain, or had a root canal, getting a script for a bottle of opioids became routine. Millions of Americans got hooked. No community has been spared from the consequences--mothers, fathers, babies, sons, daughters, grandmothers, relatives, friends, coworkers--I would challenge any American to claim someone in their social network has not felt the effects that opioid addiction have had.

Congress has a responsibility to stay on this issue until no family is torn apart just because of a misused or inappropriate prescription after an accident, until no parent has to spend day after day wondering if they will receive a call that their child has overdosed again, until no baby has to spend days or even weeks after they are born recovering from opioid withdrawal. The bill before the Senate today will start to turn the tide, and I am proud so many of my colleagues supported it.

Mr. President, through the Wilderness Act of 1965, Congress reserves the authority to designate as Wilderness Areas certain Federal lands with remarkable natural and ecological values. Over the last 53 years, the Wilderness Act has been referred to as the gold standard of conservation, providing the highest level of protections for some of America's most treasured public lands. In addition to congressionally designated Wilderness Areas, the Wilderness Act gave the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to study and evaluate the wilderness characteristics of public lands under their respective jurisdictions. Once identified, the Forest Service manages lands with wilderness potential as an ``inventoried roadless area,'' and the Bureau of Land Management manages lands with wilderness potential as ``wilderness study areas.'' These designations are not always without controversy but are critical in providing a measure of interim protection for wilderness-quality lands while Congress deliberates on further, permanent protections.

The Crooked River Ranch Fire Protection Act, which the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee reported yesterday, adjusts the boundaries of the Deschutes Canyon-Steelhead Falls Wilderness Study Area in Central Oregon, removing over 600 acres of land from interim protection under the Wilderness Act. The Deschutes Canyon-Steelhead Falls Wilderness Study Areas contains cultural and historical artifacts, provides drinking water for thousands of Oregonians, and provides critical habitat for fish and wildlife species, some of which are threatened or endangered.

Proponents of this legislation argue that the release of the acres from interim protection under the wilderness study area designation is necessary. According to the proponents, the ``release'' language was necessary to allow Federal land managers greater flexibility in conducting hazardous fuels reduction projects to better protect the adjacent community, Crooked River Ranch, from the threat of wildfires. In truth, hazardous fuels reduction projects technically could have taken place under existing land designations.

Adding insult to injury, the Crooked River Fire Protection Act originally gave no direction on how the BLM should manage the released lands. In addition, the original bill fell short in addressing the wildfire concerns while allowing for the release of wilderness study area acreage from interim protection without any corresponding lands protections. This is just a lost opportunity for compromise and comity. In an attempt to provide local landowners some measure of certainty over how the released lands will be managed, I worked to clarify that the released lands will be managed in a way that improves fire resiliency and forest health, while preventing off-road recreational vehicle use, which could actually increase the risk of wildfires.

While these changes do not address the future management of the entire Deschutes Canyon-Steelhead Falls Wilderness Study Area, it does provide management direction for the released lands and pushes the BLM to meet the goals of the legislation: to promote fire resiliency and forest health. I am committed to finding a path forward for a solution for the entire wilderness study area in line with the traditions of compromise and doing things the Oregon way.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, another giant has fallen. I rise today to recognize the passing of James William Ratzlaff.

As a conservationist, an avid outdoorsman, a philanthropist, and, most of all, a dear friend, Jim was one of Oregon's great civic leaders. He passed away on August 26 at home on his beloved ranch surrounded by love. Jim is survived by Jane, his loving wife of 54 years, and their children, Jim, Jr., and Susan, as well as Jim, Jr.'s wife Leinani and her sons, Lowell and Larkin, and Susan's son, Marcus James.

For decades, Jim and Jane have exemplified and renewed our sense of what it means to be outstanding community leaders: patiently listening and learning, actively seeking equitable solutions, and, above all, leading by example.

Jim's legacy of good deeds extends far beyond mere philanthropy. He threw himself headlong into the complex challenges facing communities in and well beyond his home in Roseburg, OR. His abiding love for nature and healthy watersheds always went hand-in-hand with his deep concern for the well-being of our communities. Jim always believed and worked to prove that community health, ecology, and economy are inseparable and that, together, we can strengthen all three.

Jim's notable success in business served merely as a means to an end much bigger than himself. Those that knew him well would agree that he saw his good fortune as a blessing allowing him to expand his ability to do good in the world. Always with humility, always with deference, always true to his core values, Jim taught us once again how to lead by example.

Jim and Jane moved to Oregon, to the beauty of Crane Creek Ranch, and exercised their good fortune to make the world a better place. Through his work with the Oregon Community Foundation and service on boards across the Pacific Northwest--including Pacific Rivers Council, Wild Salmon Center, the North Umpqua Foundation, Oregon Public Broadcasting, and Mercy Medical Center--Jim was tireless in his efforts to maintain healthy forests and rivers and to elevate the lives of those around him.

Jim's great love of his family and the land stood as an inspiration to everyone around him. While, yes, a giant has fallen, a forest will rise in his place, growing from all those whose lives he has touched with his love, friendship, generosity, wisdom, and lifelong commitment to building a better future.

Mr. President, this year marks the 50th anniversary of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Throughout its half century, this landmark conservation law has played a critical role in maintaining the natural, free-flowing qualities that make the country's wild and scenic rivers so special.

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, signed October 2, 1968, by President Lyndon B. Johnson, has protected rivers across the United States for recreation, salmon and fish habitat, important geology and cultural values, and countless other important benefits. This bedrock environmental law is especially important for Oregon where, in 1968, the remarkable wild Rogue River received protection as part of the first eight rivers protected by the Act.

Since then, Congress extended Wild and Scenic designations to many of Oregon's most iconic rivers, including important segments of the Chetco, the Deschutes, the Elk, the John Day, the Lostine, the Owyhee, and over 50 other rivers and streams in every corner of my State. In total, Oregon has more river segments designated than any other State in the Union, with over 1,900 miles in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

A free-flowing, unencumbered river is truly a sight to behold, which is why I am working now to add even more miles to Oregon's already impressive list of Wild and Scenic rivers through passage of the Oregon Wildlands Act. The Oregon Wildlands Act adds a total of nearly 200 miles, including many of the important tributaries to the Rogue River and the Elk River--home to one of North America's healthiest salmon, steelhead, and cutthroat trout populations along the Pacific Coast--and the Molalla River, to name a few.

Over the last 50 years, Congress designated 209 units of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, totaling nearly 12,600 miles of Wild and Scenic rivers and streams in 40 States and Puerto Rico to protect and provide remarkable habitat for endangered salmon and steelhead, drinking water for millions of Americans, and recreation opportunities for countless recreation enthusiasts who come from all over the world.

This is precisely what makes the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act so important after all these years as a tool to protect, for this and future generations, the very qualities that make America's and Oregon's natural treasures so unique and wonderful.

As Henry David Thoreau noted in his book, ``A Week on the Concord and Merrimack Rivers,'' ``He who hears the rippling of rivers in these degenerate days will not utterly despair.'' Fifty years ago, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act started as a novel idea to protect and enhance the Nation's waterways from pollution, dams, and construction that could interrupt their free-flowing condition. By 2018, it has become a remarkable success story deserving of celebration and commemoration.

As climate change and other environmental factors continue to threaten the health of America's rivers, it is important to build on the successes of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and continue to protect rivers across the county. It is in our best interest to do so, and I remain committed to continuing the legacy of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and to work to further its protections throughout the Nation.