Chronic Wasting Disease Transmission in Cervidae Study Act

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, the first tax filing season under President Trump's mess of a tax law is upon us, and it looks like a whole lot of chickens are coming home to roost.

Republicans jammed their tax bill through Congress at record speed-- pile driver legislating. The Trump tax bill was signed into law with a whopping 9 days to go before the 2018 tax year was set to begin, and after all of that land speed record timing, there were bound to be serious problems. There is a big one now that lots of Americans are reportedly waking up to, and they are

waking up now that the tax filing season has arrived. The big tax refunds that Americans have gotten used to could be goners now that Trump's tax changes are the law of the land and many Americans might owe the government money.

As the ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, I am very troubled about the prospect of what is ahead, and I want to lay out my concerns. Here is what this is all about.

Most Americans have their taxes withheld from each paycheck, and the Treasury redoes the math on withholding every year. Obviously, the math gets more complicated when Congress passes legislation like President Trump's tax law, which, in effect, triggers a tax policy earthquake. The outcome of these decisions about how much to take out of everybody's paycheck is clearly going to have a big impact.

Here is where it looks like things went wrong, where it looks like the Trump team decided to score short-term political wins instead of to protect Americans from financial harm.

In election year 2018, the Trump Treasury Department had a shiny, new tax law on its hands, and there is no question it wanted it to impress. It sure looks like, back in December 2017, the Trump administration decided to put politics first--to lowball the estimates of how much tax should be withheld from everybody's paycheck and lure Americans into a false sense of security that they had gotten big tax cuts that were courtesy of Donald Trump.

The prospect of the Trump administration's buying American taxpayers off with their own money is what you are talking about here. It is as if the Trump administration figured, when the other shoe dropped and people were to be hit with penalties for underpayment, well, it would be springtime 2019, and the 2018 election would be behind us. It could cause a lot of hurt this spring when people who typically get big refunds suddenly learn that they owe the government a check. Americans, understandably, want their taxes to be simple and straightforward and routine. Whether it is a few hundred or a few thousand dollars, you can understand why people would count on getting refunds when they have gotten the same amount back for years and years.

I have talked to folks all over my State about this. I have townhall meetings in every county--90 minutes, open to everybody. I don't give any speeches. I am just there to let people tell me what their takes are with respect to what is going on back here and what they think we ought to be doing. Oregonians are asking about the issue of whether or not they are going to owe money. The first thing they say is that it is their money, that these are refunds on taxes that have been taken out of their paychecks. We are talking about middle-class folks, working families, who use their refunds to pay the bills, to help cover tuition for a child, or to put a downpayment on a new car one has been needing for ages.

Here is the truth. The Trump administration did not need to put anybody in this situation. It had the option of delaying these withholding changes by a year to make sure nobody took a hit.

While it was making this decision in January of 2018--just days after the law was enacted--the Democrats in this body and in the other body were sounding the alarm on what sort of danger was possible this spring. I and Chairman Neal, of the House Ways and Means Committee, wrote to the Government Accountability Office. In representing the Democrats in this body and in the House, the two of us asked what kind of impact this rush job was going to have on working Americans who have their income taxes withheld from every paycheck. The Government Accountability Office responded to Chairman Neal and me 7 months later.

According to the Government Accountability Office's analysis, after the Trump tax law enactment, nearly 30 million Americans will find that they will have underpaid their taxes in 2018. That is millions more Americans than before the new tax law, which is way out of line with numbers that you would typically see. Those are the Americans who are in line for a shock when they file their tax returns this year.

Here is what the Treasury Department is going to say. It will claim it chose the withholding figures that would do the least amount of harm. Yet that just doesn't pass the smell test, not when it chose numbers that underwithheld taxes at far higher rates than usual. You are potentially talking about millions and millions of Americans--way more than is normal--finding out that the government has been goosing their paychecks with tax trickery, and now they are going to get hit with big tax bills. The Treasury Department, I am sure, is going to say it updated the official IRS--Internal Revenue Service--withholding calculator and sent out new withholding forms for employers, but none of that was released until February 28--2 months into the new tax year.

Furthermore, let's be realistic about the prospect of Americans flocking to the Internal Revenue Service's withholding calculator. The taxpayers who will be potentially affected by this underwithholding issue will be parents with jobs to do and kids to look after. How can you expect those people to have spent a whole lot of time doing tax math at the beginning of 2018 in order to head off a problem they didn't know anything about and that might show up in a filing season more than a year later? Our working families have lives to lead. They are not spending the first weeks of a new year crunching the numbers on tax withholding.

That is why I wrote to the Internal Revenue Service's Commissioner, Mr. Rettig, before anybody up here had really begun to see the challenge. I encouraged the Commissioner to waive penalties for 2018, to waive tax penalties for this year. I made the case that it was the first year of a new tax law--he was not involved in writing it--that was jammed through the Congress and enacted in way too precipitous a manner. Hard-working families should not suffer the harmful consequences of political gamesmanship on taxes. Instead of replying and working with me to find a solution, Commissioner Retting went ahead and said that the best the Internal Revenue Service could do is adjust the threshold where penalties kick in. Instead of penalizing those who paid less than 90 percent of what they owed in 2018, he decided that they would penalize those who paid less than 85 percent. There is no question that is a modest step in the right direction, but it is my judgment that the Internal Revenue Service ought to do more and keep it simple.

As we look at the events of the upcoming weeks, here is my bottom line: I believe it is time for the Trump administration to say that nobody will be penalized for the Trump administration's mistakes on tax withholding, change the penalty thresholds, extend the safe harbor--do whatever it takes to make sure that our people are held harmless with respect to what could otherwise be penalties for the Trump administration's mistakes on tax withholding.

Down at the Treasury Department, there are a lot of people with expensive degrees hanging on their office walls. I would like to see them put some of that brain power to work now helping to protect middle-class families.

My bottom line is that nobody ought to be penalized for the Trump administration's mistakes on tax withholding.

After Republicans and this administration teamed up on a $2 trillion tax giveaway that overwhelmingly benefits multinational corporations and those at the very top, those who are particularly powerful in America, protecting our working families from tax policies is the least the government can do. Otherwise, it sure looks like a lot of middle- class families are going to be justifiably outraged. I know, because they are coming up to me. They are coming up to me here in this city, and I know that when I have town meetings next week at home in Oregon, I am going to hear a lot about this. I believe that a lot of middle- class families are going to be justifiably outraged. I wouldn't blame them.

I want it understood that I believe the next step is for the Trump administration to move to make sure that nobody is penalized for the Trump administration's mistakes on tax withholding.

With that, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I want to congratulate the Senator from Alaska on doing a wonderful job pulling together pieces of legislation that have been lingering around here for a long time. They have gone through the committee process and have been vetted--sometimes multiple times--but have never ultimately made it across the finish line. We have an opportunity here, when we get a chance to vote, to complete that work and to do something that will be very meaningful for Senators on both sides of the aisle who represent a wide swath of our country.

As the Senator from Alaska pointed out, she and her staff were very helpful to us. We have a little issue in Custer, SD. The city of Custer wants to have an airport--to expand their airport operations, and the Forest Service wants to transfer some of the land in order for them to do that, and it takes action by Congress to make that happen. So we are grateful to Senator Murkowski and her team for all they have done to advance this legislation and to give us an opportunity, once and for all, to get a number of things across the finish line that have been waiting for a long time.

The Economy

Madam President, Democrats like to present themselves as the party of working Americans, but if that were ever true, it is certainly not true anymore. You don't have to look any further than recent Democratic policy to see how disconnected the Democratic Party is and has become from ordinary Americans.

Let's take the so-called Green New Deal. This proposal, which would require that all U.S. energy production be renewable, could raise electricity bills for families by more than $3,000 per year--$3,000 per year.

It is difficult to see how anyone who understands the challenges faced by working families would propose adding $3,000 per year to their electricity bills. When I am home in South Dakota, I regularly hear from South Dakotan families who are working hard to make ends meet. I can think of few families in my State--or anywhere else, for that matter--who could easily absorb an additional $3,000 a year in energy costs. With last week's polar vortex or even the average cold winters we get on the Great Plains, it is frightening to think about how many people would be at risk if it weren't for reliable and affordable energy.

Then, of course, there is the Democrats' Medicare for All proposal. This sounds like a simple solution--who doesn't want to increase access to healthcare?--until you hear the price tag. The so-called Medicare for All would cost an estimated $32 trillion over 10 years. That is equivalent to the entire Federal discretionary budget more than two times over.

Democrats like to present the fiction of free healthcare. Well, that is precisely what it is--fiction. There is just no such thing as a free lunch, and there is certainly no such thing as free healthcare. Nurses have to be paid. Lab technicians have to be paid. MRI and x ray technicians have to be paid. The people who cook for patients and keep our hospitals clean have to be paid. Pharmacists have to be paid. Medical supplies have to be purchased. Someone has to pay all those costs.

Under the government-run healthcare plan of the Senator from Vermont, the government would be paying all the healthcare bills. So the government would pay all those costs, but the government is going to have to get all that money from somewhere. Where is that money going to come from? Well, it is going to come from the American people, and the government would need a lot more money from ordinary Americans to cover the cost of Medicare for All. Doubling the amount of individual and corporate income tax collected would still not be enough to pay for the mammoth costs of this plan.

Make no mistake--this is not a plan that would be paid for solely from the coffers of the rich; the so-called Medicare for All would be paid for on the backs of middle-class Americans.

Americans would see stratospheric tax hikes, to say nothing of the loss of their employer-sponsored health insurance. Under Medicare for All, if you like your health insurance, you will not be able to keep it because Medicare for All would do away with all employer-sponsored insurance. One hundred and seventy-five million Americans would lose their healthcare coverage and be forced into a government-run replacement--a replacement where the government sets the prices and makes the decisions about what gets covered. So you will still be paying for your healthcare via new and higher taxes, but the government will have the final say.

I could go on. I could talk about other Democratic proposals, such as the proposal to raise the top marginal tax rate to 70 percent--a rate we haven't seen since 1965--which would be a tax hike not only on individuals but on small and medium-sized businesses as well. Then there is the House Democrats' proposal to substantially increase the corporate tax rate even though lowering it to make American businesses more competitive globally has helped grow our economy. It has helped keep businesses and jobs in the United States, and it has produced new benefits and opportunities for American workers.

Suffice it to say that the Democratic agenda is not an agenda for the middle class. It is an agenda crafted by and for elites and far-left special interest groups. It is an agenda for people who don't have to worry about the size of their energy bill or a hike in their taxes. It is not an agenda for working families.

Republicans know that working families had a tough time in recent years. Years of economic stagnation during the Obama administration left wages essentially flat, and jobs and opportunities were few and far between. For too many families, getting ahead has been replaced with getting by.

Since Republicans took office 2 years ago, we have made huge progress at turning the economy around. Tax reform has made life better for ordinary Americans. It has put more money in their pockets and in their paychecks. It has reduced utility bills. It has expanded the jobs and opportunities available to workers.

Today, the economy is growing, unemployment is low, and wages are rising at the best pace in a decade. But there is still more work to be done, and Republicans are committed to accomplishing that work. We want to expand the benefits of tax reform even further. We want to lower the cost of living. We want to make healthcare more affordable. We want to help Americans save for their children's education and for their retirement. We intend to do it all while leaving Americans in charge of their own decisions. We know that Americans are the best judge of what they and their families need and where their money should go, and Republicans are committed to keeping Americans in charge of their own destinies.

We have made a lot of progress so far for American families, and we are committed to making a lot more. We will oppose every attempt by Democrats to advance an agenda that will result in fewer jobs, lower paychecks, and increased burdens for American families.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy).