Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. 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. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. 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. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. 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.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. 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.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. 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.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. 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.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. 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.

Mr. HATCH

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. 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. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. 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.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the latest efforts to derail the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to be Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. I would like to focus today on a few areas where attacks have come up. Judge Kavanaugh's critics, faced with an exceptionally well- qualified, baseball-loving, carpool-driving nominee, are struggling to find anything that might slow or even stop his confirmation. Let me focus today on a few areas where their attacks have come up short. It seems that some folks can't mention Judge Kavanaugh without suggesting in the same breath that his confirmation would somehow be the death knell of Special Counsel Mueller's investigation. It can be difficult to keep straight critics' dizzying array of claims on these separation of powers issues, but it is worth taking a closer look to set the record straight. It was hard to miss the headline, ``Brett Kavanaugh Once Argued That a Sitting President Is Above the Law,'' or the article that suggested Judge Kavanaugh ``has been an open advocate for precisely the sort of imperial presidency that the founders of the American experiment feared.'' Democrats soon piled on, but never in the law review article that spurred this hysteria did Judge Kavanaugh suggest that a President would be immune from civil or criminal liability. Rather, he suggested that, as a policy matter, it might be wise for Congress to enact a law that would defer such litigation until the President leaves office, and, of course, Congress could accelerate that timeline through impeachment. Judge Kavanaugh's law review article represents an interesting policy proposal--and one, it is worth noting, that he offered while a Democrat was in the White House. The critics' attempts to equate his policy recommendations with his views on the constitutional limitations on prosecutions of sitting Presidents are simply wrong. If anything, Judge Kavanaugh's recommendation that Congress enact a law suggests that in the absence of any such legislation, a sitting President can be investigated and perhaps even prosecuted. Then there was the hoopla over Judge Kavanaugh's statement that he would ``put the final nail'' in the ruling that upheld the constitutionality of independent counsels; never mind the fact that the independent counsel statute expired nearly two decades ago and was described by Eric Holder as ``too flawed to be renewed.'' Today, special counsels, such as Robert Mueller, are appointed pursuant to Department of Justice regulations. They do not represent the same constitutional concerns as the independent counsel statute. By conflating independent counsels and special counsels, Judge Kavanaugh's critics ignore his own record on the matter. In a dissenting opinion he wrote last year, Judge Kavanaugh himself observed: ``The independent counsel is, of course, distinct from the traditional special counsels who are appointed by the Attorney General for particular matters.'' But Democrats just figure that the average American will gloss over the distinction between independent counsels and special counsels and tune out legal experts who say that Judge Kavanaugh's views on the independent counsel law have absolutely nothing to do with the Mueller investigation. By the time we are on to them, Democrats will have already moved on to a new line of attack. The latest was the minority leader's suggestion that Judge Kavanaugh ``would have let Nixon off the hook'' based on comments Judge Kavanaugh once made about the Supreme Court's unanimous decision in the United States v. Nixon. They forced President Nixon to turn over the Watergate tapes, but those comments--read by some who would suggest that Judge Kavanaugh thinks the case was wrongly decided--ignores the context of those specific remarks and the mountain of evidence that Judge Kavanaugh agrees with the Court's ruling in Nixon. There is the law review article in which Judge Kavanaugh wrote that there was ``no need to revisit'' Nixon and that the case ``reflects the proper balance of the President's need for confidentiality and the government's interest in obtaining all relevant evidence for criminal proceedings.'' More recently, he has cited Nixon as one of ``the greatest moments in American judicial history . . . when judges stood up to the other branches, were not cowed, and enforced the law.'' Those sure don't sound like the words of a judge who is critical of the Court's decision in Nixon, much less a judge who would vote to overrule it, but this more fulsome look at Judge Kavanaugh's writings on the issue is at odds with the Democrats' campaign to paint Judge Kavanaugh as an existential threat to the Mueller investigation. So they are content to cherry-pick and mischaracterize Judge Kavanaugh's record. On the subject of Judge Kavanaugh's record, I would also like to talk about the Democrats' fixation on the issue of Judge Kavanaugh's documents from his years of service in the executive branch. It has only been 2 weeks since President Trump nominated Judge Kavanaugh, and yet Democrats seem more interested in using their time talking about documents they do not yet have rather than carefully reviewing the unprecedented number of documents that are already available to the Senate and the American public. Specifically, we aren't hearing much from Democrats about the more than 300 opinions Judge Kavanaugh has authored during his time on the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. In these opinions, Judge Kavanaugh has addressed a vast array of hot-button issues Democrats claim to be so interested in: separation of powers, administrative law, national security, religious liberty, immigration, and so many more. Something Judge Kavanaugh told me when I met with him recently really stuck with me. He told me, he hoped people would actually read his opinions, not just articles about his opinions but actually read the opinions themselves. So I would urge my Senate colleagues to indulge Judge Kavanaugh on this point. These opinions are gold for any Senator making an honest effort to evaluate Judge Kavanaugh's judicial philosophy. Judge Kavanaugh has spent the past 12 years in public service and as a Federal appellate judge. Now, he has been nominated to be--you guessed it--a Federal appellate judge. I can think of no better evidence of Judge Kavanaugh's judicial philosophy or his qualifications to serve on our Nation's highest Court than the thousands of pages and opinions he authored during his time on what is arguably our Nation's second highest Court. If Democrats actually took the time to follow Judge Kavanaugh's advice and read his opinions--not just articles about them or summaries prepared by staff--they might be disappointed to learn that there is nothing to suggest that people will die if he is confirmed, and they might actually learn how Judge Kavanaugh interprets the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress. Isn't that what all of this commotion is about? It is about documents. Isn't that really what it is about? I suggest Judge Kavanaugh's opinions should be more than enough to assess his qualifications and judicial temperament, not to mention the thousands of pages from his time in the executive branch that are already publicly available. I understand this represents just a fraction of the documents the Senate will ultimately receive--likely to be far more than those received for any other Supreme Court nominee in history. Senator Grassley has pledged that relevant records will be made available through a fair and thorough process, but, for some, it is never enough. We have heard Democrats claim they are not demanding every scrap of paper that crosses Judge Kavanaugh's White House desk, but they have also said the standard for determining what is relevant and subject to production should be whatever Senators--in other words, Democrats--think is relevant. Some have even claimed that all the documents are ``extremely relevant.'' Well, if Democrats think the standard for document production should be whatever Senators think is relevant--and they think everything is relevant--then it sure sounds like they are asking for every scrap of paper. Now, it is true that Republicans sought White House documents for Justice Kagan's nomination, but these two nominations--Kagan and Kavanaugh--are hardly comparable. At the time of her nomination, Justice Kagan had no judicial record to speak of whatsoever, having never served as a judge at any level. She had no written opinions. There was almost nothing we could use to assess her judicial philosophy. The White House record was among the very limited information we had to gauge her fitness to serve, so, of course, we asked to see it. By contrast, Judge Kavanaugh has 12 years of experience on the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the second highest Court in this country, and that is not even to mention over 300 opinions. Again, thousands of pages have been written clearly outlining Judge Kavanaugh's views on the Constitution. If Judge Kavanaugh's extensive record is not enough to paint a clear picture of judicial philosophy, then what is? What more do Democrats need to know that this is a man who is eminently qualified to serve on our Nation's highest Court? I can only think of one reason a Senator would need every scrap of paper to evaluate the qualifications of a judicial nominee--any nominee, for that matter--that is, if they are going on a never-ending fishing expedition, which is clearly what the Democrats have been doing since the day Judge Kavanaugh's nomination was announced. I urge my colleagues to follow Judge Kavanaugh's advice. Read his opinions. You undoubtedly will learn something about how Judge Kavanaugh interprets the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress. Then, by all means, continue your fishing expedition, but at least you will have consulted the record that matters the most. All I can say is, this man has an excellent record. There are plenty of things to look at. The more you look at them, the more you realize this fellow does really belong on the Supreme Court, and he will make a difference in the future. Pioneer Day Mr. President, on another matter, I wish to speak today in celebration of Pioneer Day, a holiday my home State of Utah observes each July 24 to commemorate the arrival of the Mormon pioneers to the Great Salt Lake Valley. On this special day, Utah and communities in other States remember the extraordinary history of the Mormon pioneers who endured tremendous hardship in search of religious freedom in this great country that is set up for religious freedom, but they were mistreated and fought against from day one. In honor of Pioneer Day, I submitted a Senate resolution recognizing the sacrifices of the Mormon pioneers in their pursuit of religious liberty and their invaluable contributions to the settlement of the American West. I hope the Senate will join me in commending the pioneers for their example of courage, industry, and faith that continues to inspire people throughout the world. In the years following the establishment of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1830, the Latter-day Saints--or Mormons as they are more commonly known--encountered much religious persecution in this freest of all lands. They suffered physical assault, threats of violence, death, in some cases, and war, prison, rape, and murder. Violent mobs damaged their houses and businesses, stole their property, and drove them from their homes. Especially devastating was the martyrdom of their leader and beloved prophet, Joseph Smith, who was shot and killed with his brother as well, by an armed mob. Despite the discrimination and abuse they endured--sometimes at the hands of government officials who should have protected them from violence and injustice--the Latter-day Saints remained a patriotic people who loved and revered the Constitution of the United States. Still, they recognized they would need to seek refuge in an unknown territory to live in safety and practice their religion free from hostility and abuse. In search of such a haven, the Mormon pioneers fled Illinois in the winter of 1846 and proceeded westward on a journey that would cover more than 1,300 miles of wilderness, across arid deserts, jagged mountains, and turbulent rivers. Along the way, the Mormon pioneers erected bridges, built ferries, and cleared trails to assist those who would follow their path. They established communities, planted crops, and expanded trade posts that provided the crucial supplies necessary to survive expeditions onward. They learned how to irrigate and make the desert blossom as a rose, and their irrigation principles have been followed all over the world. They set up trail markers and charted maps that guided thousands of settlers westward. The United States certainly owes a debt of gratitude to those pioneers for their contributions to our Nation's settlement of the West. Their service to our country did not come without significant personal cost. Throughout the arduous trek, the pioneers battled harsh climates, illness, hunger, and exhaustion. Many lost their children, spouses, parents, and friends to exposure, disease, and starvation. Yet they confronted crippling sorrow and hardship with incredible grace and a steadfast trust in their Heavenly Father. They expressed gratitude for the strength to surmount each challenge and gloried in life's daily miracles. What could have broken their spirit only fortified their convictions and drew them closer to the Divine. Upon entering Utah's Great Salt Lake Valley on July 24, 1847, their new leader, Brigham Young announced: ``This is the right place.'' This prophetic declaration foretold how the valley would become home to many Latter-day Saints and their posterity. Unfamiliar with the area and with few resources at their disposal, the pioneers worked together to plant their crops, irrigate fields, and build houses and businesses, thus transforming the barren desert into a thriving set of communities. Two years later, on July 24, the Latter-day Saints first commemorated their arrival to their new home with a procession to Salt Lake City's Temple Square for a special devotional followed by a feast of thanksgiving. Today, Pioneer Day is one of the largest regional celebrations in the United States, where we remember the early settlers with parades, flag ceremonies, reenactments, devotionals, sporting events, feasts, dances, concerts, festivals, rodeos, and fireworks. The rich heritage of the pioneers is shared not only by Utahns and those of the Mormon faith but with people throughout the world, regardless of religious affiliation. These pioneers demonstrated what can be accomplished when industrious and resilient people stand together as one to build a brighter future. Their determination and ingenuity encourages our own pioneer spirit, calling on us to strive toward further progress and innovation. Their example of courage empowers us to triumph over adversity and inspires us to press forward with unconquerable faith and undaunted hope. On Pioneer Day this July 24, I hope we not only remember these remarkable pioneers but reflect on what we can do to follow in their footsteps and ensure their legacy lives on in us and in future generations. I am proud to be a descendant of these pioneers. My family was part of the pioneers. Yes, I was born in Pittsburgh, but I couldn't wait to move to Utah. I love Pittsburgh, but I love Utah more. I have to say, part of that is because of my pioneer heritage and my desire to see that Utah continually improves itself and continually makes its case on how important these pioneers really were and are to us even today. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today to discuss the confirmation process for Brett Kavanaugh. By any honest measure, President Trump's nominee, Judge Kavanaugh, is exceptionally well qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. When he was nominated to the DC Circuit, he already had stellar credentials, a keen intellect, and an impressive knowledge of the law. He was confirmed to the DC Circuit Court in 2006, following years of Democratic obstruction. I have followed his work closely on that court for over a decade. His judicial record never ceases to impress. A nominee with such a sterling reputation should receive wide bipartisan support. But over the years, I have seen firsthand the deterioration of the judicial confirmation process. When Justice Kennedy announced his retirement, I knew the Democrats would, again, play politics with the Supreme Court. It is what they have done for more than three decades. It is a matter of grave concern to me, especially with an eminently qualified nominee. They are casting about looking for something--really, anything--to stop Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation. Because Democrats want political judges, they politicize the confirmation process. This is what they did to oppose Justice Neil Gorsuch when he was nominated. They took a few cases out of the thousands he had decided and distorted what he had said. They attacked him as being unfit to serve. They said he was unqualified to be a Justice, but Justice Gorsuch had an unassailable record as a principled jurist on the Federal bench. We fought back against the misrepresentations, the caricatures, and the exaggerations, and the American people saw through the Democrats' ruse. They saw the kind of Justice Neil Gorsuch would be--a Justice who says what the law is, not what he wants it to be, a Justice who respects the separation of powers, a Justice who will stand up to the executive and legislative branches when they overreach. I believe the American people will see the same thing when they look at Judge Kavanaugh. The debate over Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation should be a debate over his qualifications. Does he understand the proper role of a judge under our Constitution? Does he have the experience needed? Will he respect our Constitution and the rule of law? With hundreds of opinions, Judge Kavanaugh has built a reputation as being one of the most respected and influential judges in the entire country. His incisive reasoning has led the Supreme Court to adopt his positions in at least 12 cases. Fidelity to the Constitution and to the rule of law are hallmarks of his opinions. Importantly, his vast body of work shows a deep commitment to the separation of powers. His opinions demonstrate his commitment to the principle that judges should interpret the law, not make it. Judge Kavanaugh should be asked questions about his rulings and his approach to the law. As a judge, he has developed a reputation for his preparation in court. I have no doubt that he can stand up under the most rigorous questioning. Yet what we have seen so far is a mix of hyperbole, mudslinging, and distortion. Attacks aimed at Judge Kavanaugh have not focused on whether he is qualified to serve. They have not focused on whether he understands the role of a judge. They have not focused on how he will interpret the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress. When it comes to what we should be asking about a nominee, what we have seen so far is not even in the ballpark. After scouring Judge Kavanaugh's financial disclosure, progressives thought they had struck gold with a shocking revelation that would, surely, turn public opinion against him. So what salacious scandal did they uncover? What damning evidence did they find that would dash all hopes of confirmation? The Presiding Officer is not going to believe this, but they discovered that Judge Kavanaugh enjoys America's pastime. That is right. Judge Kavanaugh loves baseball--horrors. Honestly, I couldn't believe it either. But wait. It gets worse. Not only does Judge Kavanaugh love baseball, but he was once a season ticket holder at Nationals Park. OK, but here is the real kicker. Judge Kavanaugh bought those season tickets with a credit card--with a credit card of all things. As was the Presiding Officer, I was speechless too. I have been racking my brain all week trying to figure out how a credit card-using baseball fan could slip through the cracks of the White House's vetting process. Now, I am being facetious to prove a point. We are only 9 days into the confirmation process, and progressive opposition is already beyond parody. Of course, this is nothing new. Everything we have seen so far comes directly from the Democrats' playbook. Throw every rumor, half-truth, and exaggeration at the nominee, and just see what sticks. When nothing sticks, double down on partisan attacks, take past statements out of context, mischaracterize his positions, and lob a hyperbolic Hail Mary if you have to. Do everything you can to denigrate, disparage, and dehumanize the nominee no matter his qualifications or character. If Democrats continue down this path, we are going to lose all ability to debate matters of public importance. We cannot expect that all debate will be well reasoned, but opposition should, at the very least, be rational. It should never be hysterical. The rhetoric used to oppose Judge Kavanaugh crosses that line. Just last week, when speaking about Judge Kavanaugh's impressive resume, I said you could not knock Yale, Harvard, or Georgetown. Maybe I spoke too soon. Shortly after the announcement that Judge Kavanaugh would be the nominee, Yale Law School released a statement with praise of Judge Kavanaugh from professors and administrators. One professor even noted that ``politics have deeply harmed our Supreme Court nomination process,'' but she lauded Judge Kavanaugh as being a ``true intellectual,'' an ``incomparable mentor,'' and a ``fair-minded jurist who believes in the rule of law.'' She went on to say that ``he is humble, collegial, and cares deeply about the federal courts.'' The response from some Yale Law School students, staff, and alumni was swift, forceful, uncompromising, and completely ridiculous: ``People will die if he is confirmed.'' As these Yale alumni were feverishly opposing the nomination, Judge Kavanaugh was spotted volunteering his time with a local charity to distribute food to the poor. His decision to keep his commitment to volunteer the week he was nominated to the Supreme Court says more about Judge Kavanaugh than any letter could. This overwrought reaction, sadly, comes as no surprise. Crying wolf is the left's trademark strategy in attempts to sabotage Republican nominees. Back in 1990, a group that opposed then-nominee David Souter warned that he was a threat to the ``lives, health and livelihoods of millions of women and their families.'' It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now. I hope that the Senate can raise the level of debate as we consider the nomination. In doing so, we should focus on whether Judge Kavanaugh is qualified. I hope my Democratic colleagues can resist the temptation to politicize this nomination as they have with others in the past. Some of what we are seeing now has me worried. We have also heard a lot from Democrats about how important transparency is to the confirmation process. Because of Judge Kavanaugh's long record of public service to our Nation, the executive branch has been asked to produce a large number of documents. Democrats have been demanding that they be given access to these documents as quickly as possible. Some of my colleagues have expressed shock that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein requested that assistant U.S. attorneys help to review these documents. The truth is that the Office of Legal Policy at the Justice Department always assists with nominations, and that Office is composed mostly of career attorneys. It is not uncommon for attorneys from other offices in the Justice Department to help with the review of nominations. The government attorneys at the Department of Justice who work on nominations are extraordinarily thorough. Given the reportedly large number of documents, it makes sense that to facilitate this process, the DOJ would seek extra help. When we spoke last week, Judge Kavanaugh said he was proud of his opinions, and he hoped people would actually read them rather than just read about them. I think those who do that will be just as impressed by Judge Kavanaugh's work as I am. I hope Senators will take the time to sit down with him. Judge Kavanaugh has spent more than 23 years in public service. As a good man, a decent man, and an honest man, Judge Kavanaugh is the type of person we should all hope is nominated to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. That is why I am so pleased that President Trump nominated Judge Kavanaugh. I intend to do everything I can to support his nomination, and I hope that all other Senators will do the same. We have to quit this mudslinging and mischaracterizing of people's characters. Judge Kavanaugh is one of the finest people I know. He is also one of the smartest. He is conservative--no question about that-- but he is honest. To me, these are some of the most important keys to these judgeship positions. I hope we get rid of the unjust representations against the judge. I hope we will start treating the Senate like the great deliberative body it really is. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I particularly enjoyed the remarks of my distinguished friend from Texas, a good man, who makes a real difference around here. I rise today to speak on the administration's recent actions regarding global tariff policy. I am one of the President's strongest supporters in most matters. I have been steadfast in working with President Trump on our shared economic agenda, especially passage of the most important piece of tax reform legislation in a generation. Tax reform is already providing significant relief to families and businesses, large and small. Businesses across the country are now more globally competitive and are investing in their workforce through wage hikes, bonuses, and increased 401(k) contributions that are benefiting American workers, families, and their communities. But this roaring economy, which we worked together to build for American workers and businesses, is at risk because of the President's trade policies. Tariffs against our allies and partners in Europe, Canada, Mexico, and around the world are already harming American farmers and manufacturers and raising costs for American families. If this continues, our economy will suffer. I have long advocated for implementing enforceable international rules to level the playing field for American businesses, innovators, and entrepreneurs, and I have consistently fought to protect U.S. intellectual property rights around the globe. I have also been committed to advancing a trade agenda that serves the American people. But the administration's recent actions are misguided and will harm, rather than protect, the American people. The administration has implemented or threatened global tariffs on approximately $500 billion of goods. Pure and simple, tariffs are attacks on American businesses and consumers. These actions put American families and businesses at risk and threaten to undermine the success of tax reform. Furthermore, they are closing off international markets that our farmers, ranchers, and other exporters depend on. I have heard from businesses from my home State of Utah that have already been hurt by the imposition of steel and aluminum tariffs. Utah manufacturers are struggling with higher steel and aluminum costs and, as a result, are struggling to compete with foreign manufacturers. I have also been hearing from U.S. auto manufacturers and share their deep concerns about the consequences of raising tariffs on cars, trucks, and automotive parts. A decision to raise auto tariffs would lead to a net job loss and lower capital investment in the U.S. auto sector by increasing costs and reducing choice. The result will be lower demand for cars in the United States and lower auto sales and production. While I share the administration's goal of strengthening American manufacturing, tariffs on cars and auto parts would directly injure one of our country's most important manufacturing sectors. Some of my colleagues have been pressing the need for legislation to restrict the trade authorities that Congress has delegated to the President, and I have been sympathetic to their efforts. If the administration continues forward with its misguided and reckless reliance on tariffs, I will work to advance trade legislation to curtail Presidential trade authority. I am discussing legislative options with colleagues both on and off the Finance Committee, and I will continue to do so. However, I would much rather work with the administration to advance a trade agenda that serves the interests of the American people and job creators. I want the President to hold our trading partners accountable. I want him to negotiate strong deals that help our U.S. companies and workers compete around the globe. In particular, I agree with the President that China utilizes mercantilist trade policies to benefit state-owned and Communist Party- controlled firms, harming American companies and workers. We have to help U.S. businesses, innovators, farmers, and ranchers compete globally, and that means we have to confront the challenges posed by China. That is why I have recommended to the President that it is time to engage in negotiations with China, using a target of strategy to address their unfair trade practices. While those efforts are under way, the administration should not impose further tariffs on our allies and partners, particularly on autos and auto parts. In that way, the President can safeguard the economic growth we have worked so hard to achieve and give himself a strong negotiating position with China. The administration's actions on trade have hurt American manufacturers, farmers, ranchers, workers, and families. The President has asked all of those groups to endure losses so that he can negotiate winning trade agreements. All are watching to see what the President will achieve at the negotiating table in return for their sacrifice. However, now is the time for the President to undertake that effort. I believe that I will support him if he does undertake that effort, and I hope he will. I care a great deal for the President. I want him to be a success. These approaches are not successful. They are not the way to go. I want to help the President to get around those and do the things that he ought to be doing to strengthen our economy and to strengthen our workers and our businesses. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I enjoyed listening to the minority leader and disagree with almost everything he said. I do believe he is one of the great Senators here, and I care for him. He has a job to do, I suppose. It seems strange that every time a Supreme Court nominee comes from the Republicans, there is every reason in the world not to confirm that nominee in the eyes of the current Democrats. Even without the first day of hearings, we are getting that type of situation. It is hard to believe. It is really hard to believe. I rise today in strong support of the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. I have known Brett for quite a while. He is a terrific human being. He is honest, decent, and a good family man. He is everything you would want on the Bench. He is fair. He is considerate. He is knowledgeable. He is intelligent. He understands the law, and when he doesn't understand the law, he will search it until he does. President Trump has made an outstanding choice. He has kept his commitment to the American people. He has selected a nominee with deep experience in the law and an understanding of the proper role of a judge under our Constitution. I first met Brett Kavanaugh 14 years ago when he came before the Judiciary Committee for his first confirmation hearing to the DC Circuit. I was the chair of the Judiciary Committee at that time. I was impressed at that time by Brett's sterling credentials, his broad knowledge of the law, and his demeanor. At only 39 years of age, he knew more about the law than most lawyers who have practiced a lifetime. I think anybody who is fair would acknowledge that. Brett was confirmed to the DC Circuit in 2006 following years of obstruction by Senate Democrats. I was pleased and proud to support Brett's nomination to the DC Circuit. I have followed his work on that court the last dozen years with great interest. He spent a dozen years on that court, the second greatest court in our country, without criticism, by the way--or at least, I should say, without fair criticism. He has been a true intellectual leader, authoring landmark opinions on the separation of powers, administrative law, and national security. It is no overstatement to say that Judge Kavanaugh is among the most distinguished and most influential judges in the entire country. The Supreme Court has adopted his positions and his opinions no less than 11 times. He has authored multiple dissents that ultimately prevailed in the Supreme Court. That ought to be complimented, not condemned. He has taught courses at Harvard, Yale, and Georgetown. I would have preferred if he had taught some courses at Brigham Young University and the University of Utah, but that was too far west, I guess. But you can't knock Harvard, Yale, and Georgetown. It bears mention that liberal and conservative Justices alike have hired his former clerks, which shows the respect he has across the ideological spectrum. Truly, there is no one more qualified and more prepared to serve on the Supreme Court than Brett Kavanaugh. The funny thing is most people know that, including my friends on the other side. That is one reason they are afraid to have him on the Court. I speak from experience on this. I am the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee. I have participated in the confirmation of more Federal judges than any Senator in our Nation's history--more than half of all Federal judges ever confirmed. I have participated in the last 14 Supreme Court confirmation battles, including the confirmations of all current members of the Court. I know a good nominee when I see one. Brett Kavanaugh is not just a good nominee; Brett Kavanaugh is an exceptional nominee, and any fair person has to admit it. It has been a little over a year since we last considered a nominee to the Supreme Court. That nominee was Neil Gorsuch. I have to say, President Trump hit a home run with Justice Gorsuch. I came to this floor nearly a dozen times in support of Justice Gorsuch's nomination because I knew Neil Gorsuch, and I knew what kind of a Justice he would be. I knew he would interpret the Constitution according to its original meaning, not according to the pet theories of liberal law professors or progressive activists. I knew he would give effect to the plain text of statutes rather than roaming around to find bits and pieces of legislative history to support his preferred view. I knew he would hold the administrative state to task and help check the unrestrained growth of the unelected, unaccountable fourth branch of government. Justice Gorsuch has done all of that and more. He has shown himself to be an independent thinker who faithfully applies the text of the Constitution and the text of statutes. He has shown that he is perfectly comfortable disagreeing with the administration when the administration advances what he believes is a wrongheaded argument. Most of all, he has shown that he understands deeply that under our Constitution, political power lies with the people and their elected representatives, not nine Justices in Washington, DC. In all the ways Neil Gorsuch has been a home run, Brett Kavanaugh will be one too. In his dozen years on the DC Circuit, Judge Kavanaugh has been an independent, fair-minded jurist who is deeply committed to the Constitution and the rule of law. He has made his mark especially in cases involving the separation of powers and agency decision making. He is serious about ensuring that the branches of government stay within their proper spheres and that agency officials have sufficient political accountability. He has also shown a commitment to our First and Second Amendment freedoms. In all this, he has been a true intellectual leader. And like Justice Gorsuch, Judge Kavanaugh has demonstrated that he understands that in our system of government, judges interpret the law. They don't make the laws; they interpret them. Policymaking is for the other branches of government. In a rational world, Judge Kavanaugh's nomination would be confirmed by the Senate overwhelmingly. I don't think there is any question about that. His qualifications are unquestionable. His integrity is beyond reproach. He is respected throughout the country as one of our Nation's leading jurists. Sadly, however, sometimes we don't live in a rational world, at least not when it comes to the Supreme Court. We saw this last year. My Democratic colleagues attacked Justice Gorsuch as unfit and unqualified. They said he had not sided often enough with the right sort of causes and that he would not do enough to protect the ``little guy'' when deciding cases. Democrats' objection, at root, was that they did not think Neil Gorsuch would rule the way they wanted. They did not think he would reach liberal enough outcomes. Of course they couldn't say that directly, as that would have given the whole game away and shown that their opposition was really just about politics, which is exactly what it was. So they latched on to a couple of cases, blew them entirely out of proportion, and misrepresented what then-Judge Gorsuch had actually said. They asked him questions about cases likely to come before the Supreme Court that neither he nor any other nominee could answer without violating the canons of judicial ethics. He could not answer without violating the canons of judicial ethics. Yet they asked these questions anyway. I guess they expected an answer, but no self- respecting nominee would have given an answer. They claimed he would be some sort of rubberstamp for the administration, when there was nothing in his record at all to suggest he had ever been a rubberstamp for anything. My Democratic colleagues could not with a straight face oppose Neil Gorsuch or Neil Gorsuch's nomination on the merits, so they kicked up a cloud of half-truths and misrepresentations and used those to justify their opposition. Fortunately, the majority of my colleagues saw these desperate tactics for what they were--complete baloney, and that is putting it mildly. Now we are about to replay the same game. In the coming weeks, my Democratic colleagues are going to throw everything they have at Judge Kavanaugh. We are going to see Judge Kavanaugh's opponents twist his words, misrepresent his opinions, and do everything they can to make him into some sort of a monster, a judicial monster. They will call him a rubberstamp for the rich and powerful and warn that his confirmation will mean the end of liberty and civil rights. That is trash talk, but that is what we are used to around here when they are afraid of the nominations that come from the Republican side. There is no reason to be afraid; these are people who are going to abide by the law, live in accordance with the law, and decide cases the way the law demands and dictates. This is the same playbook we have seen before. It is the same playbook we saw last year with Neil Gorsuch. It is the same playbook we would have seen no matter whom the President nominated because the opposition will not be about Judge Kavanaugh's credentials or his qualifications; it will be about politics, straight and simple. My Democratic colleagues want a Justice who will reach the outcomes they want, who will use the Constitution to make policy, but Judge Kavanaugh is not that kind of a judge. He interprets the Constitution as written. He interprets our laws as written. He follows the separation of powers and leaves policymaking to the political branches. Brett Kavanaugh is one of the most respected judges in our country for good reason--because he is a real judge. He has been an intellectual leader on one of our Nation's most important courts for over a decade. He has heard thousands of cases and issued hundreds of opinions. He is a great thinker, a powerful writer, and, I might add as somebody who knows him well, a kind and humble man. I cannot think of a better person to fill Justice Kennedy's seat on the Supreme Court than his former clerk because Justice Kennedy is a kind and humble man, and he is excited about having this nominee take his place. After all the kicking and screaming last year, after all the obfuscations and misrepresentations, we confirmed Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. We did so because he was unquestionably qualified and because he had demonstrated a firm understanding of the judge's proper role under the Constitution. Like Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh is unquestionably qualified. Like Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh has shown a commitment to the Constitution and to the principle that judges are to interpret the law, not make it up. Like Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh will be confirmed. I have confidence in my colleagues that he will be confirmed. He is a good man. I know him personally. I have known him for a long time. He is a good man. He is a brilliant man and a man whose nomination I am honored to support. I intend to do everything in my power to see Judge Kavanaugh confirmed to the Supreme Court. I could not be more pleased that one of my final acts here in the U.S. Senate will be to help shepherd through one last nominee to our Nation's highest Court. I could not be more pleased that this nominee is Judge Brett Kavanaugh. I know Judge Kavanaugh. I know what a great Justice he will make. I know that he will be fair. I know that he will live in accordance with the law. I also know that he has courage and conviction and that he will do what Justices have to do; that is, interpret the Constitution and our statutes in this country in ways that will please the vast majority of all Americans. That is about all we can ask for. I know he will do that because I know the man. I know his family. I know his parents. All I can say is that I am very pleased that our President has decided to nominate him as a Justice on the United States Supreme Court. I would caution my colleagues to pay attention to his record because you can't keep voting against people just because politically they are not on your team. I think you can if they are not qualified, but he is qualified. I think you can if they are not willing to abide by the law as written, but he is and has proven that. I could go on and on. All I can say is that he is a good nominee. I hope all of my colleagues will support him. I hope my friends on the Democratic side will do the right thing. The right thing will help propel the confirmation process along. Who knows who the next President is going to be. It could be a Democrat, and I would hope that Brett Kavanaugh would be an example to Republicans, if they are in the minority, to do what is right--make your case, but don't slander people or libel them, and certainly don't stop decent, honorable candidates from holding these positions on the Federal bench. I wish Judge Kavanaugh well because I think he will make a great Justice on the Court. I think he will be the type of Justice who will make everybody proud, even those with whom he disagrees. He is a decent man. He is an honorable man. He is a family man. He is brilliant. He is exactly like the person our Founding Fathers would like to have on the Supreme Court Bench. I believe that if we give him a chance, he will do a very good job. He is not going to always please me. He is not going to always please the Republicans. He will do what is right. I hope my colleagues on the other side will understand that and will not make this another cause celebre. Be that as it may, we are going to push as hard as we can, and hopefully he will become our next Justice on the United States Supreme Court. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I come to this lectern to speak on a subject of perennial importance. It is a subject I know a little something about--one that will not only influence the Senate agenda in the near term but will determine the direction of our democracy for decades to come. I speak, of course, on the future of the Supreme Court. Yesterday, Justice Anthony Kennedy--a great friend of mine and a wonderful Justice on the Court--announced his intention to step down, effective July 31. Justice Kennedy has served this Nation with the highest distinction. Over the course of his tenure, he has exercised outsized influence on the Supreme Court and has played a pivotal role in some of the most consequential Court decisions of modern times--from McDonald v. City of Chicago to Citizens United v. FEC. As a testament to his independence, he rightly gained a reputation as the Supreme Court's swing vote. Sometimes he sided with the Court's liberal wing. At other times, he sided with the conservatives. Yet he always sided with what he believed to be the correct interpretation of the law. What more could we ask from a judge? Throughout his public service, Justice Kennedy has mentored a generation of jurists who went on to become luminaries in their own right. Not the least among them is Justice Neil Gorsuch, a former Kennedy clerk who now serves as his equal on the Supreme Court. With his onetime pupil now working alongside him--and with dozens of former clerks now serving on the Federal bench--Justice Kennedy leaves behind a legal legacy that is almost without equal. Although he will be stepping down next month, his influence on our judicial system will be felt for generations to come. With Justice Kennedy's impending retirement, the responsibility now falls on us to confirm an able replacement. In the coming weeks, the President will announce his nominee to fill Justice Kennedy's seat. In doing so, he will seek the advice and consent of the Senate, which is a process that entails confirmation hearings and extended hours of debate in order to fully vet the qualifications of the President's nominee. The questions we should ask during this confirmation hearing should focus solely on the judge's qualifications: Does he or she have the requisite experience to adjudicate wisely from the bench? Does he or she understand the proper role of a judge under the Constitution? Does he or she respect our Constitution? Is he or she committed to upholding its principles no matter the consequence? This process should be simple, straightforward, and, most importantly, nonpolitical, but it rarely is. That is because we already know the Democrats will do everything they can to politicize a process that should not be politicized. We already know that many of them will ask questions of the nominee and will have an ulterior motive in mind-- to divine his or her partisan leanings rather than to evaluate the quality of his or her jurisprudence. How do we know the Democrats will do this? It is because we have seen them do it time and again. It started with the character assassination of Robert Bork, and it culminated in the unholy inquisition of Clarence Thomas. Tensions seemed to subside for a time, but then came the unprecedented filibuster of Samuel Alito and, most recently, the public flagellation of Neil Gorsuch. In every case, the nominee in question possessed indisputable credentials and an airtight judicial record, but in every case, my colleagues sought to drag these men into the partisan gutter--asking questions designed to parse their political positions rather than their legal philosophies. In my 42 years of Senate service, I have witnessed the gradual deterioration of the judicial confirmation process. As the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee and now as its longest serving Republican member, I have taken an active role in the confirmation of every Justice who is currently sitting on the Supreme Court and in the confirmations of a number who have retired. Moreover, I have participated in the confirmations of half of all article III judges who have ever served. Throughout this process, I have met some of the brightest legal minds this world has had to offer, and I have watched in disgust as my friends on the Democratic side have sought to undo these men and women for political gain. Judicial obstruction is a serious issue in its own right, but it is merely a symptom of a much larger problem--the politicization of our courts. In today's America, Republicans and Democrats espouse two vastly different visions for the judicial branch. On the right, we believe in the judiciary as it is outlined in the Constitution--an integral but necessarily limited branch of government that interprets laws but doesn't make them. We believe in a judiciary that is filled with sober-minded judges who are committed to upholding the Constitution as written, not to molding it to fit their political preferences. On the left, you have a starkly different vision. The left believes the judiciary should assume an activist role and step in to fill the gaps of legislation when Congress fails. In doing so, the judiciary becomes its own quasi legislative body--a Congress 2.0 of sorts--that is filled with hundreds of judges who are unelected and therefore unaccountable to the American people. This conception of judicial power is inherently anti-democratic. It undermines the principle of representative government and cedes lawmaking power to a cadre of black-robed philosopher kings--a cloistered group of men and women who have no constitutional authority to make legislation but seek to do so anyway through its opinions. Given the left's radical vision of judicial power, it is no wonder the confirmation wars have escalated over the years, and it is no wonder the Democrats have made a circus of confirmation hearings. They seek to politicize the process because ultimately they seek political judges. As usual, what the left wants is not what America needs. America doesn't need political judges. It doesn't need an army of super legislators who tell us what to do. It certainly doesn't need a second Congress that makes laws on a whim. Isn't the one we have dysfunctional enough? No. What is best for America is wholly different from what the left envisions. America needs a judiciary that is insulated from the corrupting influence of politics. Accordingly, we need principled judges who put the law before any partisan concern. As opposed to political judges, we need impartial judges--judges who understand their limited role under the Constitution, judges who are content to say what the law is, not what they want it to be, judges who act as umpires, calling balls and strikes instead of swinging at every pitch that comes their way. In short, we need judges who will interpret the Constitution, not remake it in their own image. In taking Justice Gorsuch as an example, I have every confidence that the President's nominee to the Supreme Court will be qualified, competent, and impartial in every way. If the Democrats' treatment of Justice Gorsuch is any indication of things to come, then I have every reason to believe they will again do everything in their power to politicize this important confirmation process. They will do everything they can to malign the nominee, no matter his or her background or credentials, and will depict his or her as an extremist who is outside the mainstream. They will press, prod, and pry in an attempt to unearth a political agenda where none is to be found. They will bring all resources to bear in an effort to prevent a principled, constitutionalist judge from taking Justice Kennedy's seat. They will pull out all the stops to accelerate the politicization of the Supreme Court, but we will not let them. It is up to us to preserve the integrity of the judicial branch. We can begin by confirming a Supreme Court nominee who is committed to upholding the principles of the Constitution at all costs--a nominee who understands that the lawmaking power lies with Congress, not with the courts. I look forward to working with my colleagues in this endeavor in the weeks to come. Yet I have to say I have seen a lot of abuse in the area of picking judges and in confirming judges throughout the years. Both sides have been complicit in some ways, but I have never seen more of a politicization of the courts than that which has come from the other side. I hope they will not do that this time. I don't know who the President is going to pick. I have a pretty good idea of the list of people from which he is going to pick. I know he will chat with me about it, as he will with others, but I can guarantee you this: He is going to pick somebody who has the ability to go on that Court and do the job from the beginning. It is not going to be pleasing, perhaps, to some of my Democratic colleagues, and it may not be pleasing to some of my Republican colleagues. The fact is, I think we can rely on this President to pick an excellent person to fulfill this responsibility. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, allow me to say a few words on the passing of a dear friend, Charles Krauthammer. Charles was a giant in the conservative intellectual movement and community. With his passing, we have lost not only a first-rate political mind but a model of civility. As testament to his decency, leaders on both sides of the aisle paid tribute to Charles over the weekend. Today, I know I speak for people of all political stripes when I say we will miss him dearly. Few were as formidable in debate as Charles Krauthammer. Although his body was confined to a wheelchair, his intellect was boundless. With even keel and gentle voice, he could carefully deconstruct the views of his opponents, expressing his own ideas with preternatural eloquence. In a political landscape marked by anger and acrimony, Charles stood for reason and respect. Indeed, he was a voice of temperance in intemperate times. While he never backed down in debate, he was also well practiced in the subtle art of disagreeing without being disagreeable. In so many ways, Charles showed us how political discourse should be: balanced and rational, measured and informed, with emphasis on facts over feeling. I think we can all agree that civility took a beating this weekend, but perhaps the biggest blow was losing Charles Krauthammer--a man who embodied civility in his very being. At different times throughout our history, we have been called upon to heed the better angels of our nature. Charles was one of those better angels. He represented what we could be if we listened to our better selves and if we listened to each other. As a nation, we have much to learn from the example of Charles Krauthammer. In celebrating the life of an extraordinary man, we must do more than pay lipservice to his legacy; we must honor it through our actions. We can do so by being strong in our convictions but soft with our words, by being principled in our positions but respectful of other views in this world. In a word, we can be more civil. Open the newspaper, scroll through Twitter, or simply turn on the TV, and you will see that this Nation suffers from a deficit of civility quite unlike anything I have ever seen. The problem is bad. It is getting worse, and both sides are to blame. Both sides are at fault for escalating the rhetoric to irresponsible levels. I have said this many times before, but it bears repeating: Our words have consequences, and in an age of retweets, viral videos, and shareable content, those words often echo well beyond their intended audience and context. It is incumbent upon all of us--from the President, to Congress, on down--to be responsible for our speech. With that, I ask my colleagues, is there a better way to honor the life of Charles Krauthammer than to follow the example of civility he leaves behind? May we all, then, recommit ourselves to civility by living as Charles lived. May his memory be a blessing to us all. My wife is a wonderful person. She is a farm girl. She grew up on a farm and really has earned everything she has ever had. She had a brother named Ramon. Ramon was an athlete when he got struck--right before the solutions to his illness were arrived at--and he became crippled. Ramon was one of the finest men I ever met in my life. He was very hurt by this malady that came upon him, but I can remember what a decent, honorable, kind person he was and how he went on and got his master's degree. He went all the way through undergraduate and got a master's degree at Utah State University and then became a major electrical engineer in Las Vegas. I remember one time carrying him--he was so light--in my arms through the Los Angeles Temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He was one of the finest men I have ever known at any time, anywhere. That is one reason why I recognize Charles so well. Charles Krauthammer is one of the finest men I have known too. He and Ramon were heroes of mine, people who took on the ramifications and difficulties of life and beat them. We are going to miss Charles Krauthammer. Not only was he brilliant, but he was somebody who made sense. He was somebody who really could relate to everybody. He was a really good person, just like my brother- in-law, Ramon, was as good a person as you could have ever thought. I think we all should stop and think about these two lives and recommit ourselves to being more reasonable to our colleagues. We might all realize there is more to this Earth than just fighting, finding fault, and advancing our own cause. I believe this is the greatest of all legislative bodies. We have come close to doing that--to doing what is right, to showing respect for each other--but we don't always get there. I am not sure you can always get there. Sometimes you really have to speak out and you have to speak bluntly. I just want to remind people that Charles Krauthammer and my brother- in-law, Ramon Hansen, were two people who literally lived very good lives, set very good examples, and overcame the challenges of being crippled and terribly hurt to rise above and to do things that really made a difference in this world. I wish the Krauthammer family the very best. I care for them. I hope they come and visit once in a while. We lost a great person this weekend; I just wanted to say a few words about it. This is a great body. We have great people on both sides. I would like to see us work better together and accomplish more together in the best interest of the greatest country on Earth. If we do that, I think we will all, when the time comes, leave this place knowing we had done our best. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a man who was a loyal and diligent staffer on the Senate Finance Committee for nearly three decades--Mark Prater. Mark began as a tax counsel with the committee in January of 1990. During his 28-year tenure with the committee, Mark has been a shining example of a bipartisan policy staffer. He is a proud Portlander, where he graduated with his accounting degree from Portland State University. He went on to receive his law degree from Willamette University and then his LLM in taxation from the University of Florida. After practicing law for a few years in Portland, Mark thought he would take a 2-year break from practice to work in public service, but after he started working for his home State Senator, Bob Packwood, Mark became consumed by the work on the Finance Committee, which was easy to do but especially for somebody like Mark. This was a time when America had a Republican President and both the Senate and House were controlled by Democrats. Yet the tax staff, including a fresh-faced counsel from Oregon, found ways to get bills across the finish line. Some of those bills included significant budget and energy deals that helped jump-start the economy in the early 1990s. After a few years, Mark was promoted to chief tax counsel in October of 1993--a post that became synonymous with Mark Prater for nearly 25 years. In 2007, Mark was named deputy staff director of the Senate Finance Committee. For the next decade, Mark's legislative management and institutional knowledge were crucial in virtually every bill that was passed out of the Senate Finance Committee--and there have been a lot of them--but Mark's impact in Congress did not end there. In 2011, Mark was appointed as the staff director of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, or the Super Committee, as it was more commonly known. As many of us remember, September of 2011 was a trying time for America and Washington. Just about any stray statement or suggestion seemed to throw spark on the dry kindling of political frustrations. The Super Committee was created to find a solution to America's debt crisis but also to act as an example of bipartisan and bicameral cooperation. The first step was selecting a director who would be able to handle an immense workload while also dealing with unknown forces and Members of Congress who were unfamiliar with those forces. Mark was the man for the job and shepherded the committee through a process that resulted in many work products that would be used over the next several years. But my personal work with Mark is when I really learned to trust and appreciate him the most, although I trusted and appreciated him before. From the moment I became the ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee and even more so after I became chairman in 2015, I leaned on Mark to help develop and negotiate a reform to our long outdated and broken Tax Code. The result was the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act--the largest and most comprehensive overhaul of the U.S. Tax Code in 36 years. In the end, I think we can safely say this is one of the greatest legislative achievements in recent memory, and it all happened in large part due to Mark's efforts, influence, and expertise. I relied on him, and I have to say my reliance was well-placed. Perhaps more than anyone else, Mark can testify that the process for tax reform was years in the making. Contrary to what Democrats may tout, this was not a 6-month, 1 year, or even 2-year effort; tax reform had been debated and individual pieces had been negotiated and proposed in some form or another for years, with the Senate Finance Committee producing bipartisan working papers and holding hearings on dozens of occasions throughout the last decade. Rather than a last-second rush job, I think the facts and history indicate that the process actually began in earnest thanks to Mark's work at the Super Committee. That was when several of the major bipartisan conversations about improving innovation, returning to normal GDP growth, and improving fairness while broadening the base became earnest bipartisan conversations. As we continued to develop tax reform, much of the work between Senators, their staff, the Big 6, Treasury, constituents, and stakeholders was at least in part facilitated by Mark Prater, who was always there to listen and politely make suggestions and answer questions. He did not always like what he heard, but he was willing to negotiate and try to find common ground just to get the football another inch down the field. Tax reform had many bipartisan ideas: Provide relief for middle-class families, broaden the base, bring the corporate rate down, and fix the broken international tax regime. As anyone who has worked in tax before knows, there are 1,000 levers to pull and knobs to twist to get to an end result. But all of this has to happen while walking a difficult political tightrope--a tightrope I am not sure we would have balanced upon without Mark. His absolute mastery of the Tax Code, his compassion, his patience, his sense of humor, and his creative solutions to difficult problems were a key part of the process and the substance of the final product. I am and will be forever grateful to Mark for his sacrifices and commitments to making tax reform a reality. I would be remiss not to also thank his wife Lori and his son James for their support and sacrifice as well. He loves both of them, and really, they are lucky to have him and his love. I am glad to see them all here today, especially so that we can finally celebrate the Stanley Cup coming to Washington. As most of us know, Mark is an avid hockey fan, and his diligent support in that sphere has paid off as well. In sum, losing Mark has been a terribly sad day for all of us here in the Senate, but I am confident that his legacy, the tax reform that owes much to him, and the example Mark set for all of us will be remembered and cherished for years to come. I have had hundreds of staff people work with me over the years, all of whom I have regard for, revere our friendships, have learned from, and have pushed and shoved as hard as I could. I have had some really wonderful people with me, and they have all been dedicated. They have all given of themselves to help this country. But I have never had anybody any more dedicated or giving than Mark Prater. Mark Prater deserves the recognition that I am trying to give him here today and much more. I have such a regard for him, such a regard for what he stands for, what a decent, honorable, kind, and hard- working young man he is. We have been very lucky to have him in the Senate, on the Senate staff, and on the Finance Committee staff. His efforts and his work are going to be around and understood by many of us for many years to come. I want to thank him personally for the work he has done, the friendship he has given, and the hard work he has performed for all of us here. I wish him and his family the very, very best. On top of all that, I just want him to know that we love him and appreciate him. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise in celebration of the 6-month anniversary of passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. I know there were a lot of remarks about the benefits of tax cuts right out of the gate, but many of the benefits from the reform of the old, broken, and outdated Tax Code will accumulate over the long run. I rise to talk about some of the benefits from the new Tax Code that can be witnessed by hard-working families right now. For example, the typical family of four making the median family income of around $75,000 a year is right in the middle of the first year of our cuts. Those typical families are going to see their taxes cut by more than half. We also doubled the child tax credit and expanded its refundability to benefit more working families. The Tax Code also makes filing taxes easier and more straightforward for the typical middle-class family. That is because the standard deduction was nearly doubled. Taken all together, provisions like these are the reason the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation found that the overall distribution of the new tax bill is directed toward the middle class. This is happening everywhere. Take my home State of Utah, for example. According to some recent numbers from the Tax Foundation, citizens of Utah can expect, on average, a tax cut of nearly $1,500, or 2.4 percent of their income. Take advantage of those hundreds of dollars and start paying off your car a little sooner. Maybe go out to see a baseball game or take your family on a road trip to see some of the beautiful national parks around our country and especially throughout the State of Utah. All of those things are now that much more possible because of our tax reform. Those direct tax cuts are just a part of the larger picture ushered in by tax reform. More broadly, tax reform has provided a shot in the arm to a long-ailing economy. After cutting the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent, businesses have been able to reinvest, build new facilities, hire new workers, and start innovating now more than ever. Recent polls by the National Association of Manufacturers, the Business Roundtable, Gallup, and the National Federation of Businesses show that optimism, and plans to expand hiring and growth for businesses of all sorts and sizes are at alltime highs. This optimism, along with lower costs of increasing investments and doing business, has already started to result in real changes for the middle class. Take, for example, the list of more than 100 different utility companies that have cut their rates across the country. According to one compilation, the American people are on track to pocket more than $2.8 billion just this year off those savings. Some might also argue that this is a normal period of expansion and growth in the economy. As one journalist recently noted, tax reform has poured ``jet fuel'' on a growing economy. According to the most recent reports in June, the total number of workers receiving unemployment benefits is running at the lowest levels in 44 years, and that is just in terms of numbers of people drawing unemployment benefits, not even taking into account the massive population growth since December 1973. For the first time since record-keeping began in 2000, the number of available positions exceeded the number of job seekers, according to the information from the Department of Labor. This is just the initial boost. I tend to think positive economic outcomes are most often created by hard work and good policy, like our tax reform package. That is why activity in the labor market has been especially robust, with more than 1 million jobs already created in this year alone. That is why wage growth has been trending upward, and that is why business investment has been robust. More Americans now have access to more of their own hard-earned money. As Republicans predicted, we are already seeing the middle class and the economy generally benefit. Mark my words, there is a lot more growth we should anticipate coming down the pike as more and more people start to realize how much tax reform actually does, and will, affect their families, their businesses, their communities, and our country as a whole. As business investment and productivity pick up due to higher expected aftertax returns from investment, wage growth, too, will continue to pick up. All told, these changes are creating a paradigm shift. More than ever before, Americans can expect things to be better tomorrow than they are today. Personally, I am more excited than ever for my great-grandchildren, my grandchildren, and my children. I am grateful to everyone who has made this possible. After all, major tax reform like this is truly a once-in-a-generation opportunity for all of us. Just 6 months in, we have seen so many positive results from the tax reform that the list is too long to cover in just one speech. Make no mistake, the list of positives from tax reform for American families and businesses will continue to grow larger and longer. With that, I yield the floor.