PFAS User Fee Act of 2019

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, today, I want to talk about the U.S. trade policy. This is something that affects every one of us. It affects all the families I represent, it affects our economy in a big way, and it affects our relations with other countries in significant ways.

Right now, we are fortunate to have a strong economy. When you look at the numbers, it is very encouraging. The tax reforms that were put in place at the end of 2017 and the pro-growth regulatory relief that has been put in place are actually doing exactly what many of us thought they would do.

When you look at the growth projections before the tax bill and the growth projections now, you will see that we have had a dramatic increase. If you look at the job projections, there is a dramatic increase in jobs. There were almost 2 million more jobs projected after the tax reform bill was passed. Why? It is because the tax reform bill was pro-growth and pro-jobs. It helps middle-class families, but it also helps small businesses, like the ones I visit all across my State of Ohio. They all have told me: You know, this is a nice shot in the arm for us. It gave us the ability to invest more in our equipment, in our people, and in our retirement savings.

Tomorrow, I will see it again. We will have a roundtable discussion at an Ohio manufacturer. This company makes tooling that is used in the aviation industry. They have already told me that they like the tax bill. I am going to ask them tomorrow what I ask all of these companies. I have visited with well over a dozen--several dozen--Ohio small businesses since the tax reform bill was passed. Specifically, I will ask them tomorrow: What happened to your bottom line, and what are you doing with the extra tax savings you are getting? What I think I will hear is what I have heard in other places, which is, We are investing more in people, and we are investing more in equipment. That is great.

The latest jobs report reflects all of this. When you look at the jobs report from last Friday--it was for the January time period--it showed an impressive 300,000 new jobs. That is way beyond expectations--302,000 new jobs in January. It also showed wages going up, which I think is even more impressive. In Ohio, wages have been pretty flat. In fact, for the last decade and a half, on average, wages have not gone above inflation. So when people say they are feeling the squeeze, they are. Expenses are up. Healthcare costs are up. Other expenses are up. Yet wages have been flat. I think that is one reason people feel that despite working hard and doing everything they were asked to do, they were not able to get ahead. Now they can feel they are getting ahead a little bit. If you look at the numbers from Friday, they indicate a 3.2-percent growth in wages for supervisory jobs, and for nonsupervisory jobs--you might think of those as more blue-collar jobs--there was a 3.4-percent increase in wages. That is just what we want. We want to see those wages starting to go up. This is above inflation.

By the way, the wage growth over the past 12 months is the highest it has been since before the great recession a decade ago. Finally, we are sort of climbing out of this great recession, and we are seeing the kinds of numbers we all hoped for.

This is all good news. Again, a lot of it is due to the fact that in this body and in the House, we passed legislation that helped to stimulate more economic growth, more jobs, and higher wages.

What I am concerned about is that we not do something now to jeopardize that economic growth. This is where trade policy is a risk. Some would say it is already putting a damper on what would otherwise be even greater growth. But what I am more concerned about than anything is the possibility that, as a country, we start to put more and more tariffs in place without showing that the imports coming in from other countries are being traded unfairly. That is what our trade laws basically say. They say: OK, if another country doesn't deal with us fairly, we get to level the playing field. So if they are sending their products to us and they are not fair, meaning that they are subsidized by the government, which happens a lot in nonmarket economies particularly--think of China--or they are sold at below their cost, which is called dumping--if they are dumping their products on us, that is not fair, is it? We have trade laws to deal with that.

I believe in trade, but I also believe strongly in trade enforcement. My legislation with Senator Brown called the Level the Playing Field Act has helped us win these trade cases when these countries are dumping. As an example, there is a 269-percent tariff--that is a high tariff--on some products from China, such as rolled steel products. Why? Because we showed that they were, in fact, not following the rules by subsidizing and dumping. We should do that.

There are also parts of our trade law that say: OK, on a temporary basis--temporary relief--we should be able to respond when another country sends a surge of imports into our country and there is material damage to a U.S. industry. So if there is a surge of imports and a U.S. company is materially damaged, we have a way to respond to that too. It is not permanent relief, but it says: Wait a minute. Let's let these companies get back on their feet and let these workers keep their jobs while we deal with the surge of imports and figure this out. That is kind of how our trade policy works, consistent with the international rules. If there is some unfairness, then we are able to respond.

Right now, we are doing this with China. The 301 law is being used to say to China: We are going to increase tariffs on your products because you are not trading fairly with us. You are using nontariff barriers. You are not treating our intellectual property properly. You are forcing our businesses--to be able to work in China, many of them have to have joint ventures or special licenses. That is not fair. We want to level that playing field. That is the purpose of those tariffs.

I think most people get that and understand it and support it. Even those who believe in more of a pure free-trade mentality know that we shouldn't allow cheating and that we should help to level the playing field. The problem is that over the last couple of years, we have started to use a part of our trade law that really is an exception to all of that. That is called the national security exception, which is also called section 232.

Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 has been in place now for 57 years. It has been used only half a dozen times in 57 years. Why? Because it is kind of a dangerous tool.

When you think about it, as Americans, all we have to say is, this is a national security issue, and therefore we are going to put tariffs on your product. You don't have to prove anything, as I talked about earlier. You don't have to prove that an industry has been damaged. You certainly don't have to prove that the other country is sending product that is dumped--sold at below its cost--or that is subsidized. You don't have to show a surge of imports. All you have to do is say ``This is a national security issue for us'' and put your tariffs in place. When you do that, guess what other countries do to you. They put their own tariffs in place because they are looking at this and thinking: Oh my gosh, so the United States is just putting these tariffs in place without demonstrating that this is a trade-enforcement measure because of unfairness or damage to their industries.

Frankly, many of these countries are happy to put more protectionist tariffs in place. It kind of works for them, too, because in many countries, that sort of approach is a more populous approach, in places such as Europe or the Middle East or Asia or Africa. They say: OK. We are going to put tariffs in place.

That is often applauded, but who gets hurt? The consumers in both countries get hurt. Think of that. Everybody has higher costs, higher taxes, higher tariffs on both sides, and eventually you end up building up tariffs to the point that it can be really dangerous for the economy.

That is my concern with section 232, the national security exception to our trade laws. Do I think it is a tool we

ought to have in the toolbox? Absolutely. I think that if there is a true national security concern, we ought to have section 232 there to ensure that we can respond.

As an example, if we are at a time of war and we need to be able to produce tanks in this country and we don't have any steel production here, in my view, it would be appropriate for us to put some tariffs in place and to help a domestic industry be able to provide that steel. Frankly, that is another avenue that other countries would take with us if they had a true national security concern. So there is a sort of level playing field there. That is permitted under the World Trade Organization rules, and other countries would do it as well, but, in my view, the way we have used it in the last couple of years is a little different.

Again, I think trade enforcement is very important. I am a hawk on going after countries that are not treating us fairly. I think with regard to China and its overcapacity of steel, it is a huge issue. That is one reason we have these huge tariffs in place on Chinese steel. Then they transship it through other countries, and we have to be much tougher on that. We have legislation called the ENFORCE Act. Senator Wyden was here on the floor a moment ago. He and I have worked on that together. That is important. Frankly, in my view, we need to do more to enforce that to keep China from going around to a third country and then sending it to the United States, if it is steel that is dumped or subsidized. But to say that with regard to countries that are our allies and countries that we trade with every day, we are going to use this national security exception, the 232, I have to tell you, I think that causes real problems, and we have seen it. Other countries have done what? They have increased their tariffs on us.

Think of Canada. When you put tariffs on Canada saying it is a national security concern--even though, by the way, with regard to steel, a product we sell more to Canada than they send to us. We send more steel to them from the United States than they do to us, and yet we are saying: It is a national security concern with your steel from Canada so we are going to slap on a tariff, say, 25 percent. What does Canada do? They turn around and put tariffs on our products.

We have gotten hit on that in Ohio because Canada is our No. 1 trading partner. We send more stuff to Canada than any other country-- much more. Our farmers in Ohio, our manufacturers in Ohio are nervous because they are seeing tariffs going up on their products going to Canada because Canada is retaliating because they don't see this as a fair thing we are doing. They don't think it is a national security threat.

Section 232 was designed, I think properly, to deal with real national security threats. I think it ought to be preserved for that. I think it ought to be used for that. I think we ought to aggressively go after countries that are trading unfairly, and when there is a surge and when there is a proven material damage to a U.S. industry, we ought to respond, but I think we have to be careful as to how we do it. I think we are otherwise inviting this escalation of tariffs on both sides, which is exactly what is happening.

I am pleased to say that yesterday a group of us introduced legislation to try to get back to the original purpose of section 232. It is called the Trade Security Act. I introduced it last year. We reintroduced it again yesterday. I introduced it along with my colleagues Doug Jones, Joni Ernst, Dianne Feinstein, Lamar Alexander, Deb Fischer, Todd Young, Kyrsten Sinema, and Roger Wicker--not a group of Members you would see on every piece of legislation; some on the left, some on the right, some Republican, some Democratic--but a group who all agree, in this case, it is best for us to have some constraints on 232 to take it back to its original purpose, which is really for national security.

With regard to steel and aluminum and the 232 tariffs that were put in place back in 2017--you may know this, but when the administration was asked to opine on it, the Department of Defense said it is not a national security threat. That is now public. The memo from the Department of Defense said: We have enough steel production in this country to take care of our military needs. It is not a national security issue for us.

The Department of Commerce had a different view. Their view was that this is, broadly speaking, a national security threat so we should put these tariffs in place--again, without having to show injury or damage or without having to show unfairness.

Our legislation is a response to that. It doesn't affect what has happened in the past; it is prospective. What it does say is, going forward, we ought to have to prove it is a national security threat.

By the way, one reason this legislation is timely is, the administration has said they are now interested in putting additional 232 tariffs in place, potentially--and I say potentially because I hope they will not--not on steel and aluminum only but also on automobiles and auto parts.

There is a lot of nervousness about that. I talked earlier about our strong economy and working with the administration what we have been able to do on regulatory relief and on tax cuts and tax reforms. That is all good. I would tell you, the trade policy issues on 232 are making a lot of people nervous. There is a lot of uncertainty about what might happen, particularly with regard to autos and auto parts now.

In just a few weeks, the Commerce Department is required to release its report on 232. They will make a recommendation to the President on whether to proceed with 232. A lot of people, including a lot of folks in the U.S. auto industry and suppliers, are very concerned that the Commerce Department might find that auto imports threaten our Nation's security, and they will recommend the President take action. In my view, again, this would be a misuse of our trade tools. This is supposed to be for national security concerns. I don't think minivans from Canada pose a national security threat to the United States of America. I do know it poses a threat to the workers I represent. It is going to be bad for the auto industry and bad for its workers. By the way, all three of the Big Three U.S. auto manufacturers are against extending 232 to automobiles, and that is why they are supportive of our legislation.

I want to see more cars made in Ohio. I am OK if they are made in other States, too, but I want to see them made in America. I don't want to see more cars being made offshore. That is what I am concerned is going to happen if those tariffs go into place. Why? Because it is going to be a lot more expensive to make a car here. These cars are global cars now. The supply chains are all over the place. They end up being made in our States--including in Ohio, where we have a strong auto industry, and we love that, and strong suppliers--but they bring parts in from around the world.

The analysis I have seen shows that if we put 232 on automobiles, it would increase the cost of making a car in the United States by about $2,000--$2,000 a car. For imported vehicles, the cost would likely increase to about $6,000 a car.

Think for a moment about the impact on the families we talked about earlier who are finally seeing their wages begin to creep up. Working families who have played by the rules, have done everything right, are finally seeing this economy be strong enough that there is wage growth happening above inflation, and now they are told: Guess what. You want a new car? It is $2,000 more for your new car. That means that car payment is going to be a lot more. That means, frankly, I think a lot of people will delay buying a car. That is not good for the auto industry. I think it is something we should try to avoid.

Second, compounding these costs is the fact that, guess who is going to be in the crosshairs of retaliation if this happens: the auto industry.

Guess what our No. 1 export is from the United States of America in value, the No. 1 export of any product: cars and auto parts. Automobiles and auto parts are our No. 1 export. It is very likely, if we put in these tariffs on a national security basis, not because of unfairness, not because it is a surge, not because of the domestic industry being materially damaged--which is part of the international rules that people understand--but if we do it because of our national security exception, it is very likely, and I think it is

sure, that we are going to see retaliation, tariffs going up on their side, which again is going to hurt our country because one of every five cars and light trucks built in America is built for export, and we export a lot of auto parts, the No. 1 export. I am worried it is going to put a target on the autoworkers in Ohio and elsewhere if we move forward with this.

The Peterson Institute for International Economics estimates that section 232 auto tariffs would put 195,000 American jobs at risk. They also say, when retaliation is included, that jumps to potentially 624,000 American jobs on the chopping block. That is the Peterson Institute for International Economics. Check out their data on the website and see what you think. It is a big risk. That is the point.

These auto tariffs don't work; they don't work for farmers; they don't work for workers in other industries; they don't work, in my view, for our autoworkers because of this big risk we are talking about. About 25 percent of our State's factory workers are export workers in Ohio. Exports are really important to us. We want more exports. We want people to knock down their barriers to let us send more of our great ``Made in Ohio'' and ``Made in America'' products to them.

About one of every three acres planted in Ohio is planted for export: soybeans, corn, wheat. We want more markets because we want higher prices. Prices are low right now, partly because other countries are retaliating against us on agriculture. We want to open more of those markets to create more jobs and higher prices for our farmers.

Trade jobs, by the way, are good jobs too. These export jobs pay well--on average, 16 percent higher than other jobs. So it is not only more jobs, it is better jobs.

Instead of inviting retaliation and closing off international markets, we want policies that are going to open more markets. Cracking down on unfair trade--yes, absolutely. Cheating should never be acceptable. A level playing field is important, and there is not reciprocity now. We are a more open and free market than most other countries. So, yes, but let's do it based on the rules, based on fairness, and based on the kind of policies that aren't going to invite retaliation.

It is not only that national security is something we ought to use judiciously. When minivans from an ally like Canada are considered a national security threat, something is wrong, but it is also that this could be much broader than just autos.

After the Finance Committee's hearing on section 232 last summer, I asked the Commerce Department a question for the record about whether they believed there was an industry--any industry--in America that could not meet the national security criteria in section 232. Their response indicated they believe potentially every industry in America could meet that criteria. So it could move from autos to other industries, as far as they are concerned, even when, again, there is no sense that industry is under pressure, is materially injured, or where there is unfairness in the trade.

I think that is a huge departure from what this Congress meant 57 years ago when they wrote section 232. It was meant to be for national security. Let's keep it to that. Let's use our other trade laws appropriately and aggressively for other instances.

During the debate over section 232, Representative Cooper from Tennessee, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee--the committee in the House that deals with trade--underscored the importance of the statute as a national security tool. He said:

The [purpose of the] national security exception is to

protect and preserve the national security. That is its sole

purpose. It is not intended to serve as a device to afford

protection to those industries who might claim it.

Don't take the chairman's word for it. I refer you to the Cabinet Task Force on Oil Import Controls report. In 1970, President Richard Nixon directed Secretary of Labor George Shultz--a friend of mine who was later Secretary of State--to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the national security implications of oil imports, and it remains today the best historical resources we have on the proper meaning of section 232. The report states:

No determination under section 232 or its predecessors have

ever been made on the ground of economic impact alone. And in

a generally healthy economy it cannot be presumed that

unrestricted trade in any one sector would by itself impair

the national security.

That was George Shultz. As I see it, with our economic growth and job creation right now, a trade deficit alone in automobile parts would appear insufficient to trigger restrictions based on national security.

With this history in mind, it is worth noting that the 232 statute has been used, again, very infrequently since 1962. We can find only a half dozen cases when it has been used. There have been 26 investigations. Only six times did the President take action. By the way, before this administration took action in 2017, the last one was 33 years ago in 1986. Again, one reason it has hardly ever been used is because it is viewed as an exception to our trade laws. You don't have to show injury to a domestic industry. You don't have to show a surge or unfair trade in any way. You don't have to show that there is something under the international rules that gives you the ability to impose those tariffs that then don't result in retaliation from others.

I remember, after President George W. Bush was elected, there was concern about doing something to help our steel industry at the time. We needed help in the steel industry, and section 232 was looked at. They investigated it at the President's request. In that case, the Commerce Department came back and said it is not a national security issue. So the President used another part of the trade law, an appropriate part, where he had to make some of these showings about material damage to the industry, which is section 201 in the trade laws.

Section 232 has been narrowly defined until now. I think we need to get back to that proper definition. That is exactly why we need this legislation. Misusing section 232 and the national security rationale not only leads to other countries increasing tariffs, but it also, in my view, risks us losing the tool altogether. I think we ought to keep the tool. I think it is an important tool to have as part of our response if there is a true national security--but if you misuse it, I believe what is going to happen is that the World Trade Organization is going to find that we no longer have this ability.

Why do I say that? Because there are already cases in the WTO, the World Trade Organization, against the United States. These cases are saying that 232 has been improperly used. They are saying because they filed these cases against us, they would like to have a decision by the WTO. I think we run a greater risk of losing this tool if the administration moves forward with autos and auto parts, and I think that is a real problem. The WTO could say that the United States can no longer use this national security tool. I would rather use it properly and be able to keep the tool.

Yesterday, when we introduced this legislation. We addressed the misuse of this tool. We said we wanted to preserve it for national security threats. I want to thank, in particular, Chairman Chuck Grassley of the Finance Committee for his very positive comments that he has consistently made about the Trade Security Act, last year and again this year.

This week, he talked about how he would like to work with us to get this proposal done. What does the proposal do?

First, it ensures that the proper experts of the government determine at the outset whether it is a national security threat or not. I mentioned that right now it is housed in the Commerce Department. It should be in the Department of Defense. They are the experts who determine the national security basis for import restrictions. Under our legislation, if the Department of Defense does determine through their research that there is a national security threat, then, it goes to the Commerce Department. The Commerce Department is in charge of the remedy, which is appropriate. By the way, with regard to steel, we know that the Department of Defense said that this is not a national security issue. At the end, of course, the President still makes the decision. But it is a two-step process to get there, which I think is very important.

Second, the bill gives Congress a voice in this. It allows Congress the opportunity to disapprove of a section 232 action by passing a joint resolution. Currently, Congress can disapprove of 232 actions through a joint resolution, but only with regard to oil, because when this was last used back during the oil embargoes, Congress reacted by saying: Well, with regard to oil, you have to have our approval after the fact.

I will tell you that our bill is not the only legislation on this topic. Other legislative approaches go further, and I think they effectively take away the national security tool by saying that instead of a motion of disapproval after the fact, there has to be a motion of approval from Congress to move forward.

I believe that under the Constitution, the congressional article I responsibilities--including commerce between the nations--require us to have a voice in this, but I also believe the administration needs to have the ability to react quickly to a true national security threat and not have to go through Congress, which sometimes, as you may have heard, takes some time. We tend to get tied up in knots up here quite a lot.

I like our approach better. I think it is about protecting auto States and export States from the consequences of misusing 232 in the future, but it does it in the appropriate way. This is about stopping retaliation against our farmers and our workers. It is not retroactive, but it is prospective, saying: Let's get the broadest consensus possible among industry, among Members of Congress, and within the Finance Committee to get something done here that takes us back to the original intent of section 232. Again, when properly used, it can be an important part of our trade enforcement arsenal for real national security concerns. We want to keep it for that. It should not be used inappropriately as it has been, in my view, without showing the national security threat. My hope is that this legislation now can move quickly through the Finance Committee and the Ways and Means Committee so that we can put in place something that makes sense to refocus on the original intent.

Ultimately, I believe the economic and legal case for 232 tariffs on automobiles going forward cannot be made. I believe that is why we need reform.

Let's restore this important tool to Congress's original intentions. Let's be sure section 232 is used appropriately and selectively for genuine national reasons.

The strength of our economy, as I said earlier, comes from the right policies, but, ultimately, it comes from hard-working and innovative Americans in the shops and the plants--as I will see tomorrow in the Ohio plants I mentioned earlier--and the farms around our States that send products all around the globe. We want more of that. They deserve a level playing field. We should give them the chance to compete.

Let's be sure that our trade policy doesn't result in escalating tariffs that hurt those very workers, those very farmers, and families. Let's find the right balance, including restoring important national security tools by not misusing it. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting the Trade Security Act to help do just that.

I yield back my time.

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

Madam President, last week America lost Frank Robinson, a baseball legend and a pioneer for civil rights. Frank Robinson spent much of his career in Ohio. He starred first for the Cincinnati Reds All-Star World Series championship team. They built a team around him in Cincinnati with Vada Pinson and others. Near the end of his career, he went to Cleveland, and he managed for the Cleveland Indians. He was a pioneer for change in baseball.

Larry Doby, whom we honored last year with a Congressional Medal, was the first African-American player in the American League. He played for Cleveland. He came up only several weeks after Jackie Robinson broke the color line.

Then in 1974, Frank Robinson became the Major League's first African- American manager. I was at the game when he--that first game he managed. He hit a home run his first time at bat. He was the DH for the Indians. He was what is called a player-manager.

In the days since his passing, we have heard people say that Frank Robinson was one of the most underappreciated legends of the game, but the same could also be said of his importance to our country. There are few players in baseball who have accomplished anything close--on the field or off the field--to what Frank Robinson did. He is the only person to have won a league MVP in both the American and National Leagues--with the National League for the Reds and with the American League for the Orioles. He was Rookie of the Year with the Reds. He won two World Series championships. He was the World Series' most valuable player. He won the Triple Crown with the Orioles. He was a Gold Glove winner. He was a 14-time all-star. He hit 600 career home runs.

The championships, the awards, and the records alone don't define who Frank Robinson was or what his success meant to so many people. The Reds signed him right out of high school. He still strove for more. He took courses at Cincinnati's Xavier University at the beginning of his rookie season. He knew that the courses wouldn't count toward any degree; yet he persevered. He was traded to the Orioles in 1966. He witnessed redlining and segregation that prevented him and his wife from finding housing. Here was one of the best players in the Major Leagues, and he couldn't find housing in Baltimore in the 1960s. Here was the city's star baseball player, but because of our country's racist housing policies, realtors wouldn't sell him a home.

Parenthetically, I would also point out that today some of those racist housing policies continue and that we have an administration and housing regulators who simply seem too busy to want to enforce fair housing laws. My wife and I live in ZIP Code 44105 in Cleveland, OH. Our ZIP Code had more foreclosures in the first half of 2007 than any other ZIP Code in the United States. And don't think that some of these housing problems and segregated housing in this country aren't because of some of the actions of this administration and prior to that.

Frank Robinson didn't stay silent. He joined the NAACP and became a voice for the civil rights movement. As I said, he was traded to the Cleveland Indians in 1974. The Indians made him manager. As I said, he was the first African-American manager in the history of Major League Baseball. It took exactly 27 years after Jackie Robinson broke the color line for the owners of Major League Baseball to actually hire a Black manager--27 years.

That accomplishment meant so much to so many. He proved what never should have been in question--that African Americans belong not just on the field but that they are leaders, just like any other American. That accomplishment resonated not only among baseball fans but, in fact, in schools and offices around the country. He was a symbol to so many young Americans that these roles of authority and leadership aren't just roles that only certain kids whose skin was a certain color could dream of; these dreams are for everyone. It was a powerful message that paved the way for so many great leaders on and off the baseball field.

The Cleveland Indians unveiled a statue of Frank Robinson 2 years ago in my hometown of Cleveland at Progressive Field. Mr. Robinson spoke at the unveiling. He talked about how far we have come, and then he said:

There are people out there in the minor leagues and at the

big-league level as coaches, and they have earned their way

up. But they just don't seem to be able to break that barrier

as often. All I can tell them--don't give up. Do not give up.

We still don't see nearly as many African-American managers as there should be.

As we celebrate Black History Month, we as a nation need to heed Frank Robinson's words. We cannot give up on his dream of breaking down the institutional barriers that are set up for people of color in baseball and throughout our society. We don't just honor Black trailblazers; we need to continue our country's unfinished work.

Hard work isn't paying off for far too many people in this country. Hard work doesn't pay off for far too many workers, and women and people of color have even greater challenges. It is even harder to get ahead no matter how hard they work. We know that this country doesn't respect work, it doesn't respect the dignity of work, and it doesn't honor work. As I said, we know that as much as this country doesn't compensate people for the work they do, it is, again, even harder for women and people of color. Let's honor Frank Robinson's memory. Let's honor the legacy of Black Americans not just with words but with actions to change that.

Parkland High School Shooting

Madam President, this Thursday will mark 1 year since 17 Americans were tragically and brutally murdered at Parkland High School. Seventeen families lost daughters, sons, brothers, and sisters, 17 more were wounded, and hundreds of students and teachers joined the ranks of survivors of mass shootings.

Those injured and those families will never be the same. One of the country's greatest strengths is that out of the greatest tragedies, Americans channel their outreach in grief into action.

The young people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School launched an incredible movement for change in this country. These were high school students, many not even old enough to vote, dealing with pain that most of us can't imagine. They were able to do what so many, shall I say, grown politicians have been unable or unwilling to do--something that so many Members in this body are afraid or unwilling to do.

These kids stood up to the gun lobby--if only we saw that kind of courage among politicians who take money from the gun lobby year after year after year. These kids stood up to the gun lobby. They organized and forced their government to listen.

A month after that awful day, more than a million Americans joined the March for Our Lives and marches for our lives across the country. They had a pretty simple demand: The people who represent them should protect them from gun violence.

This body, again, did virtually nothing. They demand that we stop ignoring the millions of Americans who want reasonable gun safety measures. They demand that we stop doing the bidding of special interest gun lobbyists.

We can't say we are doing what it takes to keep our country safe until we are finally willing to pass commonsense laws to protect all Americans from gun violence. Many of us have tried.

I supported the original Federal assault weapons ban in 1994. I joined many of my colleagues to try to renew it after the Sandy Hook grade school massacre. Weapons of war don't belong on our streets. They certainly don't belong in our classrooms.

We tried to pass legislation to close loopholes in our background check system. After the tragedy at the Pulse nightclub in Florida, we tried to pass legislation to prevent people on the terrorist watch list from buying guns.

Imagine this, if you are on the terrorist watch list and you go up to the John Glenn Airport in Columbus, OH, you can't get on a plane, but you can buy an assault weapon. You can't get on a plane if you are on a terrorist watch list. That is Federal law. But because of the power of the gun lobby in

this body and in this room, you can buy an assault weapon.

That is why the gun lobby, again, stood in the way. It is why the movement that these students launched matters. They showed the country that the gun lobby may have the money, but we have energy on our side, and we have voters on our side.

Look what happened last fall. So many new voters--many of them young, many of them women--were elected to this Congress promising, finally-- finally--to stand up to the gun lobby and finally to say no to the National Rifle Association.

Creating change is never easy. It often requires going up against powerful special interests, but from the Women's March to the airport rallies, to the activism to protect people's rights under the Affordable Care Act, Americans prove over and over the power of activism.

The students at Parkland clearly aren't quitting. The millions of Americans inspired by them give me hope for the future. I hope my colleagues in this body finally stand up to the gun lobby and demand change.

Remembering Bill Brewer

Madam President, on Friday, Ohio laid to rest a dedicated public servant, Detective Bill Brewer.

Detective Brewer devoted two decades of his life to the police force and made the ultimate sacrifice to keep his fellow Ohioans safe. He laid down his life while doing his job responding to a desperate 911 call with fellow Clermont County officers in southwest Cincinnati, working to protect the people he served in Pierce Township.

In the days since Detective Brewer's passing, we have heard stories of his unselfish service to his community and his family.

Last Sunday, officers from all over southwest Ohio joined the procession escorting Detective Brewer home to Clermont County. In his home of Amelia, OH, his community lined the route, paying tribute to their fallen hero. Hundreds attended a memorial service on Friday, while hundreds more watched on video. It is a fitting recognition of the sacrifice this man made to keep the people of his community safe.

Detective Brewer was a proud son of Williamsburg, OH, and a star high school athlete and a family man. Our hearts break for his wife of 13 years, Jamie, and his 5-year-old son, Braxton. As they mourn this incredible loss, we hope they take comfort in the outpouring of support and honor for the husband and father.

To his fellow officers, he was a devoted friend. He was a mentor. One of them told the press that Detective Brewer was always fair and kindhearted, that he would give the shirt off his back for anyone in need. Detective Brewer's legacy will live on through the many lives he touched.

In times of tragedy, Ohioans rise to the occasion, as do citizens in Clermont County. We witnessed an outpouring of community support in the days since he was taken from us. No gesture, of course, ever repays him or his loved ones. Today we honor this hero's memory. We lift up the entire Clermont County community.

Tax Reform

Madam President, what we have seen in the last few days is that more and more Americans are filing their tax returns and getting their tax refunds, and they realize that the President's tax law was a bit of a sham. They haven't seen the raises that the President promised.

I heard the President in the Cabinet Room say to a group of us: People will get a $4,000 raise, on average. Some will get as much as a $9,000 raise with the tax bill.

Call it an empty promise or call it a lie. Either way, the President's words were empty and meaningless.

Then they expected a huge tax cut because the President told them it was hundreds and thousands of dollars. They are not seeing that either. Then, to top it all off, there is a provision in this new tax law that says if a company shuts down in Orange Town, OH, as GM did, and then moves to Mexico, as GM is building again in Mexico, they actually get 50 percent off. They get a 50-percent-off coupon on their taxes.

What does that mean? That means that they are paying a 21-percent tax rate in Ohio--Federal tax rate--but then they go to Mexico, and they pay 10.5 percent. Believe it or not, under the President's tax law, they get a 50-percent-off coupon if they move overseas--exactly the opposite.

The President went to Youngstown, and he said: We are going to bring more jobs back. We are going to have more jobs. Don't sell your homes if it looks like there are layoffs coming because we are going to bring more jobs back. We are going to build new factories.

None of that happened. The opposite happened. Again, they shut down production in Lordstown, OH. GM did. They are laying off 5,000 people. They are moving to Mexico, and they get a 50-percent-off coupon, thanks to President Trump, thanks to the Members of this body and all Republicans who voted for this disastrous tax bill.

Now, here is what we need to do. We need to throw out the Trump tax law--just throw out the Trump tax law--and we should rewrite the Tax Code, amazingly, to put people first.

Here is what we should do. We should first pass the Patriot Corporation Act. The Patriot Corporation Act is really simple. It simply says that if you pay decent wages, if you provide decent benefits--health benefits, healthcare, and pensions or 401(k)--and if you do your production in the United States of America, you get a lower tax rate.

In other words, if you are a patriotic corporation, if you are good citizen, then, you have earned a lower tax rate.

But the other side of that is that if you are a big company where the executives are making millions--sometimes tens of millions of dollars-- and you pay your employees--if you have hundreds of employees or thousands--$10 or $12 an hour, then you are in a different category. Here is how that works. If you are making $10 or $12 an hour and you are working for one of these big companies, you are eligible for food stamps often, you are eligible for Medicaid often, you are eligible for section 8 housing tax credits often, and you are eligible for the earned income tax credit. In other words, these employees that are making $10 or $12 an hour get all of these Federal benefits, even though they are working full time. So what our bill does is what is called the ``corporate freeloader fee.'' As for these companies that pay their executives millions and pay their workers $8 and $10 and $12 an hour and those workers end up getting subsidies from taxpayers, they pay a corporate freeloader fee. They pay the government. They reimburse taxpayers for the subsidies that they give their employees.

I mean, why should all the people in the Gallery here, why should the staff working here, who are paying Federal taxes, why should their taxes go to an employer where the company is making millions and they are paying their workers such low wages that they are eligible for food stamps or section 8 housing vouchers or Medicaid or the earned income tax credit?

The last two bills that we should pass, as we throw out the President's tax law, is the earned income tax credit. If we double the credit, we make millions more people eligible. It would mean thousands of dollars in the pockets of tens of millions of Americans. It would make a difference in their lives.

Instead of giving tax breaks to rich people, which is what Senate Republicans and President Trump always want to do--the White House looks like a retreat for Wall Street executives--and instead of giving millions in tax breaks--actually, billions to the wealthiest people in this country--why don't we make the tax system fair and put money in the pockets of people making $20,000, $30,000, $40,000, or $50,000 a year.

That is what our earned income tax credit expansion would do, and at the same time, we should expand the child tax credit. Experts have said that plan would cut child poverty in half. That gives kids who grow up in my ZIP code, 44105, who are struggling, who live in homes with high levels of toxic lead in the walls--kids who don't have the breaks in their lives that my kids have--a fighting chance. It would lift half of these kids out of child poverty.

Taken together, the Patriot Corporation Act, the corporate freeloader fee, the earned income tax credit, and the child tax credit would create a Tax Code that puts money in the pockets of working people, would create opportunity for people to aspire to and join the middle class, would raise wages,

and, equally importantly, would keep jobs in the United States of America.

Why should this Congress keep passing legislation, as the President asked, that would encourage the shutdown of plants here and moves overseas? Why don't we reward companies that do the right thing? Why don't we give kids opportunities and families opportunities so they can get ahead? Why don't we put money in the pockets of working people, raise wages, and keep jobs in the United States of America?

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I call up substitute amendment No. 111, as modified, with changes at the desk.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, we are now on S. 47, our lands package bill, and as we have heard, Senator Lankford's amendment has just been called up. I am happy to speak to that, but I understand he is in the process of coming back to the Hill. We will wait for his arrival, and he can speak directly to his amendment.

I want to take just a couple of minutes, right off the top, and speak to some of the broader provisions in this bill that I view as significant. Interestingly, I was just visiting with our President pro tempore, and he thanked me. He said thank you because we have a provision that helps Council Bluffs, IA. It is something we have been working on for a long time, and now it appears it will be finally resolved through this legislation.

That is a prime example of what we have put together with this 100- plus package of land and water bills--bills that help sports men and women, bills that help us with measures on conservation. It is a very wide and broad effort, and yet so many of these provisions are very local and very parochial. However, local issues can help with economic development in a region, and I want to highlight how this package does create economic opportunities in our communities across the country.

For example, when this bill is signed into law, Fannin County, in rural Texas, will gain local control over the Lake Fannin Recreation Area from the Forest Service. This recreation area right now, we are told, is rundown. It has been closed to the public for many years. The county is looking forward to actually taking ownership so it can transform Lake Fannin into a multiuse recreation area, complete with trails, playgrounds, and water recreation, allowing and encouraging people to come and visit and enjoy.

We also include a provision for La Paz County in Arizona. This conveys a parcel of Federal land to facilitate the development of a large-scale solar project. It will also allow for a link to an electric transmission line. This is going to be creating local jobs and is going to be bringing renewable energy online to power many of our communities. There is a great benefit there.

In Tucson, AZ, we removed bureaucratic obstacles to allow for the city to operate a park. They have done this, apparently, for dozens of years without the control of a Federal Agency. So when the local citizens want to operate, perhaps, a farmer's market, they are not going to have to jump over hurdles or be subjected to the whims of Federal officials there. Instead, they are able to make these local decisions. For heaven's sake, if they want to put a little farmer's market in there, they shouldn't have to come to Congress to ask for permission.

Another example--I mentioned this one before--is in South Dakota, in Custer County. This is a conveyance that will allow the county to have full ownership of all the lands on which it operates its airport. It will allow the county to expand the airport so a little bit larger aircraft can get into the airport.

Again, you want to think about economic opportunity. If you can't bring more folks into your community, into your region, you are limited. Conveyances like this--small-scale acreage that can allow for that expansion of opportunity--are strong and are important. This is yet another reminder as to the opportunities that we create for our local communities.

We are also expanding and designating new areas of off-highway vehicle recreation in the Mojave Desert, which is out in San Bernardino County in California. The OHV recreation is a growing sector in the outdoor recreation economy. It is so important to a lot of our communities.

We also encourage Agencies to look for new opportunities for fishing, for

hunting, and for recreation on our Federal lands. Again, this is a very, very significant sector in our economy as consumer spending by hunters and anglers and target shooters supports over 1.6 million jobs and about $71.8 billion in salaries per year. Of course, there is that ripple effect then to the larger communities when you are able to bring in folks to enjoy these areas. This is just a further example of how we really work to create new economic opportunities and why this lands package is so important.

We are creating economic opportunities, but we also fix a lot of problems. That is one of the things that we try to do on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Sometimes problems are created because you just didn't even know that it was actually your Federal Government or your land disposition that was causing any form of impediment, but we really do work with a number of these provisions to help to solve real problems with Federal land management.

There is one example that, I think, my friends from Louisiana will appreciate, and this relates to the situation at Lake Bistineau--I hope I am pronouncing that right--sponsored by Senator Cassidy.

Back in 2017, there were a couple of residents who wrote to Senator Cassidy. They were outlining their problem, and they wrote: Look, our family purchased our land, our minerals, our home, in the subject section over 13 years ago after we retired.

They go on to write: We have lived in our home on the land ever since. There were no contrary claims or clouds on the title to the property when we purchased it. Therefore, we were disturbed to discover that the government felt it had a claim to our title.

That would be kind of a bummer of a letter to receive when you have been living there for over a dozen years, and now you find out, well, maybe you don't have a clear title there.

Lake Bistineau has a long and a very complicated history with the Federal Government. The land in question was conveyed by the Federal Government to the local levee district in 1901. Then it was subsequently deeded to private individuals. Yet, in the 1960s, the BLM resurveyed the land, and then it realized the boundary line was incorrect. That survey led to the determination that about 200 acres of land that were currently held privately were actually Federal land. That is a real problem, of course.

As the letter to Senator Cassidy went on, they wrote: Just a few years ago, we had the property listed for sale. Once a suggested claim was made by the BLM in its 2013 letter, the potential contract on the property fell through.

Again, this is a situation of people who had been living happily in their home for a period of time and decided that they were going to be moving on but now were limited--handcuffed. They had no idea that this was a problem that they had to deal with.

It is not just they. There were more than 100 private landowners in Louisiana who were impacted by this. This is regarding land that has been held under a private title for over a century now--places where people have built their homes, their businesses, their lives--and now it is unclear where exactly everybody stands. In the case of Lake Bistineau, our bill clarifies ownership of the land and prevents the Federal Government from ever claiming it in the future.

I think, as people go through this to look at individual bills that we have included, that these are the types of things that really help people. They help improve people's lives, and they help improve our local economies. Unfortunately, sometimes it literally takes an act of Congress to clear up whether these are problems or impediments to our opportunities. Again, what we have managed to address within the structure of this bill is very, very important.

I want to address the issue that will be before us this afternoon, and that is a conversation about the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

As I mentioned, Senator Lankford's amendment is before us, and I wanted to kind of put in context what it is that we have done within our lands package proposal and the title that relates to the LWCF, as we call it. This is in title III. Effectively, what the Land and Water Conservation Fund establishes and what our provision does is to make permanent the authorization within the LWCF. So we deposit oil and gas receipts into the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

Also within our bill, we make some commonsense reforms to the LWCF Act. This is something that, in my view, has been a long time in coming. We have had good collaboration going back and forth as to how we can make these reforms and also allow for this important conservation fund to be authorized permanently going forward.

There is a little bit of history here. The LWCF was enacted to help to preserve, to develop, and to assure access to outdoor recreation resources. It is kind of a paper trust fund that accumulates revenues from the Federal motorboat fuel tax and surplus property sales and then to supplement these sources to reach the annualized level of $900 million, which is what the authorized figure is. It is not a figure that we have reached historically. That is for sure. The fund also accumulates revenue from oil and gas leases from the Outer Continental Shelf, or the OCS. As we see those revenues come in, those revenues from the fossil fuel then go to fund an account, if you will--the LWCF fund--to help with conservation, and whether States are moving forward with conservation efforts or Federal entities are, it helps to fund that.

The authorization to deposit oil and gas receipts into the LWCF expired on September 30, 2018, at the end of this past fiscal year. We have to make sure that those LWCF funds are moved, are made available, but the moneys in the fund are only available if they are appropriated by Congress. Currently, we have an unappropriated balance of just over $20 billion in the LWCF. So some have said: Oh, my gosh. The authorization expired in September, and nothing is happening within the

Madam President, for the awareness of Senators, they should expect a vote in relation to the Lankford amendment No. 158 sometime around 1:30 this afternoon--so just in a little bit here. Then, next in the queue will be Senator Lee's amendment No. 162. We hope to have a vote on that amendment around 2 o'clock. There is a lengthy Judiciary hearing that is still underway, and we want to accommodate that.

Both of these amendments are related to the Land and Water Conservation Fund I just spoke about a few moments ago. I just wanted to give Members a heads-up.

Mr. President, we have before us now the pending amendment. This is the Lankford amendment regarding the use of LWCF funds for deferred maintenance. This amendment acknowledges and, I think, attempts to address what we are dealing with in a deferred maintenance backlog. We all recognize that it is an issue and a problem. What Senator Lankford has done is specifically to direct 5 percent of funds distributed from LCWF to deferred maintenance. It also requires that any new Federal lands acquisitions allow for maintenance needs at the time of acquisition.

I think we would all agree that we have a very real problem with deferred maintenance on our Nation's public lands. We think about the National Park Service most often, which has an $11.6 billion backlog, and it is not just the National Park Service. It is the National Wildlife Refuge, BLM, and the Forest Service. So this is an issue, and we have been working within the committee to address this. There have been numerous bills that have come before our committee. We are working with the administration, and we know we have to address it.

This proposed amendment is clearly an effort to do that, and I appreciate what Senator Lankford has done in focusing our attention on this significant maintenance backlog and the need to plan for routine and ongoing maintenance in any new acquisition.

So I am standing before our colleagues saying: I understand where Senator Lankford wants to take us, I appreciate it, I agree with him, but given where we are right now with this package and how it has come together, knowing that we will have, I think, significant opposition, whether it is on the other side or in the other body, it is viewed as detrimental to what we have put together.

So I am reluctantly going to be opposing the Lankford amendment, but, again, I want to make sure that we all take this on as an issue to address in a way that is rational, sound, and reasonable going forward into the future.

Mr. President, I move to table the Lankford amendment No. 158, and I request the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I stand to object to the amendment of my friend from Utah.

We recognize the significance and importance of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. There has been an effort for reauthorization back and forth over the years.

Within this measure before us, we have not only permanently authorized LWCF, but we have included significant reforms--reforms that I believe are necessary and reforms that I think the Senator from Utah would agree are good in terms of getting more resources to the State side and making sure that there are better ways to account for the funds.

I now have an opportunity to move to table the Lee amendment No. 162 and would encourage Members to vote on this tabling motion in the affirmative.

What we have collaborated to build at this point in time is a necessary fix to address the continuation of the LWCF, and I ask for Members' support.

Mr. President, I move to table Lee amendment 162.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask for the yeas and nays on the substitute amendment No. 111.

Mr. President, I call up Murkowski amendment No. 112.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

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

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

Madam President, this Friday is our deadline to fund 25 percent of the Federal Government, which remains unfunded as a result of the short-term continuing resolution that was passed to keep it open until February 15, pending negotiations to deal with border security measures.

During the last shutdown, for 35 days, we know that 800,000 Federal workers were not paid, including some 36,000 Texans. During that time, we heard about families who could not afford to buy the necessities of life, whether they be medicines or providing the funding to run the heat in their homes and to keep their utility bills low--families who went from donating food at food banks to then being a recipient of food at those food banks.

Even though this all began as a battle over border security, the impact was much bigger. Employees from the Coast Guard, the Transportation Security Administration--the folks in the blue shirts who usher us through security at airports--NASA, or the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the IRS, and a whole host of other Federal Agencies were caught up in the crosshairs of our disagreements here and forced to deal with financial uncertainty for weeks on end.

I personally believe that we were sent here to govern, not to preside over shutdowns, and that we make tough decisions every day here by negotiation and compromise. That is the way the Constitution contemplates how the legislative branch will act.

None of us are dictators. None of us can dictate 100 percent of what we want on any given occasion, so that means we have to negotiate. We have to compromise, and obviously a shutdown represents a failure to compromise.

I have to say that compromise and negotiation require good faith. They require a desire on the part of all parties to actually solve a problem, not to play ``gotcha'' and point score when it comes to politics.

Unfortunately, this last shutdown was a result of some outlandish positions taken by the Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi, and the Democratic leader here in the Senate, Mr. Schumer. They said, for example, ``Let's be crystal clear. There will be no additional appropriations to pay for the border wall. It is done.'' That was the Democratic leader Senator Schumer.

Then Ms. Pelosi said, ``A wall, in my view, is an immorality.'' She said it is immoral.

I agree with President Trump when he said what is immoral is allowing the poison that is imported across our borders from the South, which has contributed to the 70,000 drug overdose deaths we saw last year as monitored and reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; that is immoral--not doing anything about that, not dealing with the human trafficking, the sex slavery, and the involuntary servitude of young women and children. That is immoral.

I realize we have gotten caught up in this silly game of semantics. Some people call a wall a fence, and others call a fence a wall. But we all know what we are talking about are physical barriers that form a necessary part of border security.

Again, I go back to the experts. I come from a border State with 1,200 miles of common border with Mexico. I look to the Border Patrol and the Department of Homeland Security to answer this most basic question. My question to them is this: What do you need in order to accomplish the mission we have asked you to accomplish?

What the experts have always told me is that they need a combination of three things. They need physical barriers in some locations that are hard to control. They need technology to scan the trucks and the cars that come over the ports of entry; they need ground sensors and radar in the places between the ports of entry. Then they need the boots on the ground; they need the Border Patrol, the law enforcement agents, in order to detain people who come across the border.

I really find this debate over this one component of border security, this physical barrier component, surreal. It really is hard work to try to avoid a solution where the solution is staring you right in the face, where we know that if people of good will were willing to talk and to work through them, we could solve these problems, just as we do so many other problems every day.

I was glad to learn that last night the negotiators on the conference committee reached at least an agreement in principle to fund the remaining Departments and Agencies of the Federal Government. I know we are all eager to see the final details of the agreement and to learn exactly what was included, and I understand, based on reports we heard at lunch, it will probably be tomorrow before we can see the language and make sure the language reflects what we see reported in the press.

As I said, again, I hope this agreement takes into account what we have reportedly heard from the experts--that smart border security is a combination of barriers, technology, and personnel.

I also hope it includes funding for our ports of entry to promote the legal movement of goods and people across the border without compromising security.

I think we all know that a lot of the high-end drugs--what I am talking about are heroin, fentanyl, methamphetamine, and the like--that come across the ports of entry are secreted within compartments in trucks and cars, and what we need is to have the scanning devices to be able to locate those places within those vehicles so that we can find those drugs and hold the people smuggling them accountable. But that means that at our ports of entry we are going to need the personnel and the technology in order to do that. So I hope the negotiators on the conference committee have provided adequate funds for that, in addition to the physical barrier.

For my constituents in Texas, a secure border is not just a political talking point, it is a vital part of their lives. Our communities depend on Customs and Border Protection to stop both dangerous people and goods from crossing illegally. But they also depend on Customs and Border Protection to facilitate legitimate trade and travel, which fuels our economy. About $300 billion of goods were transported both to and from Texas ports of entry along the border last year alone. So I hope this agreement includes funding to strengthen our border and to protect our people.

I want to thank all of our colleagues who have been engaged in these negotiations for their continued commitment to finding a solution that everybody can support, and I plan to review the text as soon as possible.

I happened to come back from El Paso last night with President Trump, who was reviewing the bare bones of this proposal, and he has not yet said whether he will sign it, but I want to make a couple of points.

First of all, if this agreement does, as I believe it is reported to do, provide for 55 miles of additional physical barriers along the border, then the President has won, and Ms. Pelosi has lost because she said not one penny more--I am sorry, that was Senator Schumer--for border walls or border barriers. Ms. Pelosi called them immoral.

But if Democrats on the negotiating committee have now agreed to 55 miles of additional physical barriers, it sounds to me as though they are not in the same place Ms. Pelosi is. I don't say that to try to blow up the deal because, frankly, I believe a shutdown would be a mistake. But what I would encourage the President to do is to count his victory here and then to build on that. He has additional authorities, particularly under the Defense authorization bill, on a nonemergency basis, to reprogram money that has been appropriated already for the Department of Defense.

There are other areas that Congress has already approved the President's reprogramming money through previously passed legislation, so I would encourage the President to bank the win and then to build on that and to do what is necessary to protect our country and to secure our border.

Nomination of William Barr

Madam President, on another matter, this week the Senate will vote on the nomination of William Barr to serve as Attorney General of the United States.

It is hard for me to imagine a better qualified person for that job. It is particularly impressive to me that some 27 years after he last held the job as Attorney General, he would be willing to step forward and accept the responsibilities of that job once again. But that is exactly what he has done.

More than two decades ago, he was nominated and unanimously confirmed for three incredibly important positions at the Department of Justice, culminating in the very position he is being considered for right now.

Since he first held the job of Attorney General, times have changed-- something he acknowledged during his hearing. But his steadfast commitment to the rule of law has not shifted. That is undoubtedly why Mr. Barr has received the endorsement of former Attorneys General, Department of Justice alumni, State attorneys general, and several important law enforcement groups.

He has also received support from some of the toughest critics in Washington: the editorial boards of some of the newspapers. Following his hearing, the USA Today editorial board wrote a piece called ``Confirm William Barr as attorney general,'' and that says it all, although they went on to say:

There are times for Democrats to confront President Trump

and times not to. The nomination of William Barr to be

attorney general, pending before the Senate Judiciary

Committee, is an example of the latter.

In that piece, the editorial board discussed something that was a major focus during Mr. Barr's hearing--the Mueller investigation. Our Democratic colleagues were eager to hear him say that he would allow the special counsel to continue his investigation without intervention, which he did repeatedly.

At one point, Mr. Barr said: ``I believe it is in the best interest of everyone--the President, the Congress, and, most importantly, the American people--that this matter be resolved by allowing the special counsel to complete his work.'' I agree with that, and I agree with the conclusion of USA Today's editorial board that the sooner he is on the job the better.

We saw, I would note, pieces from the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, and the New York Daily News to the same effect. Even the Washington Post believes that Democrats should vote for William Barr. They wrote that he ``came across as a highly qualified person and committed to the traditions, procedures and mores of the Justice Department.''

Good for them. The headline of that editorial was ``Confirm William Barr--and hold him to his pledge of independence.''

I have said before, and I will say it again, that being Attorney General is probably the most difficult job of the President's Cabinet because not only are you the chief law enforcement officer for the country, you are really a political appointee of the President. But I am satisfied that Mr. Barr can balance those two responsibilities in a responsible and ethical sort of way. I believe he will bring the same independent voice to the DOJ that he did more than two decades ago and will continue his longstanding reputation of being an unwavering defender of the rule of law.

I hope our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will judge this nominee based on his qualifications, not on the person who nominated him.

It has been common, it seems these days, that anyone or anything that President Trump is for, our Democratic colleagues reflexively oppose without thinking about the issue at hand or the qualifications, in this case, of the nominee.

I hope, rather than a reflexive, partisan rejection of President Trump's nominee to be Attorney General, that our colleagues will give him the fair

consideration that he is due and will provide, as the Constitution provides, advice and consent on this nomination, and join me in consenting to this nomination, and confirm William Barr as the next Attorney General of the United States.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee are meeting to advance a number of judicial nominees and the President's choice for Attorney General here to the Senate floor.

In Bill Barr, President Trump has nominated a tried-and-true public servant and a proven professional to lead the men and women of the Department of Justice.

Testifying before the committee last month, Mr. Barr expressed his unwavering commitment to the rule of law, the Constitution, and the American people.

My colleagues don't have to take his word for it. Having served as Attorney General once before, Mr. Barr's qualifications and job performance speak for themselves.

In 1991, this body saw fit to confirm him to head DOJ by a voice vote. That was the third time he had earned Senate confirmation without opposition. On both sides of the aisle, Senators were vocal in their praise for the ``independent voice'' of an ``honorable guy,'' William Barr.

Today, the job description remains exactly the same as it was years ago, and before us is a nominee who remains eminently well qualified to discharge these duties. The Senate needs to act quickly to put Bill Barr back to work at the Justice Department. I hope and expect he will be confirmed next week.

Natural Resources Management Act

Today, the Senate officially turned to the Natural Resources Management Act, a broad bipartisan package of 100-plus distinct land bills with importance to nearly every Member of this body. I am certainly one of them.

This comprehensive legislation includes two initiatives I introduced with my House colleagues Andy Barr and Hal Rogers. They will incorporate two Civil War sites in Kentucky as part of the National Park System, Camp Nelson and Mill Springs Battlefield. By designating these two sites as national monuments, we will ensure that their rich history will be preserved for the education and service of future generations.

Camp Nelson was established in 1863 in Jessamine County. It would become arguably Kentucky's top recruiting station and training facility for the Union's African-American soldiers. In later years, those seeking freedom from slavery fled to the camp. This historic site helped expedite the destruction of slavery in Kentucky.

My other proposal would protect Mills Springs Battlefield, the site of an 1862 battle that historians remember as the Union's first significant victory in the West, and one of its earliest major victories in the whole Civil War.

Preserving these sites isn't the only way Kentucky will benefit from this sweeping lands package. The bill will help historically Black colleges and universities like Kentucky State University preserve their distinguished contributions to our communities; it extends the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail into Kentucky; and it bolsters our critical efforts to combat invasive species like the dangerous Asian carp that clog up Western Kentucky waterways. These are just examples in my home State.

Across the whole country, communities will benefit from more flexibility for economic development, more commonsense approaches to conservation, and more access to our country's Federal lands. It is no wonder that nearly 300 expert groups and advocacy organizations publicly support the contents of this bill, from economic development organizations to natural resources nonprofits to cultural organizations and prominent historians.

Chairman Murkowski and all of our colleagues on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee deserve credit for getting us to this point. Senators Gardner and Daines have been particularly effective advocates for this legislation. I look forward to passing it soon.

Elections

Madam President, on one final matter, in the days since House Democrats began arguing for a massive takeover of America's elections, we have heard a lot of dramatic claims about the state of American democracy.

Speaker Pelosi has denounced ``devious vote-suppression schemes.'' The Democrats' response to the State of the Union on Tuesday night warned of ``threats to democracy'' and ``efforts to undermine our right to vote.''

If you listened only to Democrats, you might actually think there is a widespread voting crisis in this country. If you took Democrats' rhetoric at face value, you certainly wouldn't guess that 2018 saw the highest midterm turnout rate in half a century or that 2016 hit an all- time record for Presidential ballots cast and the third highest Presidential turnout rate in 50 years. If you believed the Democrats' rhetoric, you would be shocked--shocked--to see the freedom, openness,

and availability of the electoral franchise across the country in the year 2019.

Let's start with voter registration. Current Federal law provides all Americans the option to register to vote when they apply for an identification card at their local DMV. In many cases, registering is as simple as checking a box on a completed form. If that is not enough, voter registration is available at Agencies that provide social services or disability services. It is available in places like military recruitment centers, post offices, hunting and fishing license offices, and courthouses. Voter registration is even available online in many places, and in places where it isn't, detailed instructions are available to anyone who goes looking.

You will find voter registration drives on college campuses, in high schools, or outside the subways or train stations. You will find them at church and other civic organizations. You will find voter registration drives while you are walking down the street, visiting a grocery store, or many other public places. Heck, many campaigns and advocacy groups will come door to door to register voters.

So what about once voters are registered? To hear these Democrats tell it, all of the polling places across America are staffed-- staffed--by malevolent people who set out to deny the franchise to as many of their neighbors as possible.

But beneath the rhetoric, the procedures they are trying to attack actually could not be more reasonable.

We are talking about things like making sure voters are in the right precinct or even the right county so that they have the opportunity to vote for their local leaders--things like requiring any form of identification to verify that voters are who they claim to be, things like making sure there is enough time between voter registration and election day for officials to verify what district and precinct voters live in or that they are eligible to vote in that State in the first place.

These are simple, commonsense practices. They have worked just fine in communities across the country, in areas overseen by Democratic elected officials and Republican elected officials alike. But now-- now--Democrats have decided these standard processes are so unfair or so immoral that the Federal Government must snatch the reins away from the people and their local representatives. Now Washington Democrats have decided we need them--them--to determine how we elect our leaders.

Once again, the plain facts disprove all of the hyperventilating. After last year's election, the Pew Research Center surveyed Americans about their voting experience, asking: How do you feel about voting?

Ninety-two percent said their voting experience was easy--92 percent--easy. Only 1 percent of voters found their experience ``very difficult.'' One percent? That could be the result of practically any inconvenience: full parking lots maybe, long lines, bad traffic, a forgotten ID. You name it. But more than 9 of 10 voters indicated they had no trouble whatsoever, so it is more than a little suspicious--more than a little suspicious--that Washington Democrats are trying to invent crises to justify a huge power grab for themselves.

This fact-free rhetoric is being used to push legislation that would override the decisions of Americans' democratically chosen local leaders and replace them with one-size-fits-all prescriptions authored by a small handful of politicians, like Speaker Pelosi, Congressman Sarbanes, and a few others whom the vast majority of Americans do not elect and have no way to hold accountable. These prescriptions largely seem designed to help Democrats and their DC attorneys contest rules after election day. I call this 500-plus-page doorstop the Democratic Politician Protection Act for a reason.

Let me be abundantly clear. Every eligible American voter should be completely free to exercise their right to vote at every opportunity and cast a ballot, period. There is no question about that. Every single valid vote should be counted. Opposing the Democratic Politician Protection Act is not opposing those basic tenets.

But the way to honor these basic propositions is to let States and localities take simple, necessary steps to protect our elections and ensure that valid votes are not diluted; to have procedures in place to make sure that voters are casting ballots in the right places; to make sure that the American people are the ones who determine how we elect our leaders.

The real threat to American democracy is staring us in the face-- right in the face: an invented crisis, inaccurate rhetoric, all to justify an unprecedented intrusion by Washington, DC, Democrats into the way States run their elections.

Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk for the bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call be waived.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to move to proceed to Executive Calendar No. 14 during today's session of the Senate.