Floor Statements

Madam President, I intend to object to any unanimous consent request relating to the nomination of William R. Evanina to be Director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center,

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute as in morning business.

Madam President, when it comes to considering Presidential nominees, I have said in the past that I don't believe in playing by two sets of rules.

If the Democrats insist on rejecting President Trump's Cabinet nominees for petty policy disagreements or insist on rejecting qualified judges based on an ideological litmus test, they can't expect kid-glove treatment for the next Democratic President.

However, I urge Senators to end this arms race now. We can start the disarmament by agreeing to the Blunt-Lankford proposal based on the bipartisan agreement that was worked out with then-Majority Leader Reid in the 113th Congress.

I yield the floor.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, before the Presidents Day recess, I announced that I would introduce legislation if the tax extenders weren't included in the legislation that we passed at that time that would keep government open.

Today I am following through on that promise with a bill that I am introducing with Finance Committee ranking member Senator Wyden of Oregon.

It is fitting that I am taking this step in the same month as Groundhog Day, as the subject of my remarks is something that Congress has had to deal with too many times already.

Next to me is a depiction from the movie ``Groundhog Day,'' which is about a man named Phil who must relive the same day over and over until he gets everything right. While we still need to break the cycle of repetitive short-term extensions, the right thing to do right now is to extend these already-expired provisions for 2018 and 2019.

As I have said before, the tax extenders are a collection of temporary tax

incentives that have required extension on a very regular basis in order to keep them available to the taxpayers. Currently, there are 26 provisions. At one time there were as many as 50-some. We have done away with some of them and made some of those laws permanent, but these 26 provisions expired at the end of 2017. They need to be extended, as well as three others that expired at the end of last year.

Today we are in the middle of filing season for 2018 tax returns, and taxpayers affected by these expired provisions need a resolution so that they can file. I want to stress that I want to find a long-term resolution so that we don't have to have temporary tax policy, but it is critical we make it clear to the taxpayers that these provisions are available for the 2018 filing season and extending them for this year will give us room to take a needed long-term view of this temporary tax policy.

Many of the tax extenders are intended to be incentives, and to be successful, then, these incentives need to be in effect before decisions can be made. That is why we should provide extensions for at least 2 years, to maximize that incentive effect. But it is also important that we extend these provisions for 2018, even though the year has obviously already ended. We have developed a very bad policy and a very bad habit of extending these tax provisions year after year, and people and businesses have come to expect that the extension will happen.

As a result, decisions were made by various businesses in 2018 based upon the expectation of extension, and that is a reasonable expectation because we have done it over decades. In other words, people did what we wanted them to do in their business decisions when these provisions were created. We should not retroactively punish these businesspeople for Congress's inaction.

Today, a diverse group of organizations, including the National Biodiesel Board, the American Trucking Associations, and the National Corn Growers Association, among others, sent a letter to congressional leaders requesting that the expired provisions be extended through 2019 as quickly as possible. I want to quote a few sentences from that letter:

Providing taxpayers with a predictable planning outlook as

it pertains to tax rules is conducive to increased private

sector investment and economic activity. Accordingly, we

respectfully ask that you act to retroactively extend these

expired tax provisions through 2019 on the first appropriate

legislative vehicle.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the complete letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, another very important point I want to make has to do with the question about whether an extender package should be offset or not. Around here, the word ``offset'' means if you have tax provisions that might lose revenue, then do you have other revenue coming in to take its place? The House has decided that is what you should do--pay as you go, or PAYGO, as they might call it. It is a rule of the House.

I have a long record of promoting budget responsibility, and I am as concerned about the deficit and debt as anyone. However, we also have bipartisan precedent for treating the extension of temporary tax policy, like these extenders, just as we treat the extension of annual spending policy. In neither case do we need offset for such extensions. In other words, it is all right to spend more money or continue to spend the same amount of money after a program has expired, and you don't have to offset it when you have tax law that has been on the books for a couple of decades, and it is sunset. Why should you have to sunset that? There are a few people around here who think it is all right to spend money without offsets, but it is wrong to do tax policy unless you have offsets.

There are a few specific items in this legislation that I want to take time to mention. Significant work has already been done to provide long-term solutions on two extenders--the short line railroad tax credit and the biodiesel tax credit.

The bill I am introducing extends those credits at their current levels for 2018 and 2019. I want my colleagues to

know that I still remain committed to enacting the compromises that several of our colleagues and I worked with the stakeholders to achieve.

The bill also includes an extension of a proposal adopted last Congress that would extend the 7.5-percent floor for itemized deductions of medical expenses. Without this provision, the floor on deductions will be 10 percent for 2019. This means that without this provision, individuals with chronic illnesses and high medical expenses would have to pay more for healthcare before that excess can be deducted in the expenses on their 2019 tax returns.

This proposal is a very important priority for one of our best colleagues, Senator Collins. She deserves a lot of credit for getting what has turned into a bipartisan proposal to help many Americans facing catastrophic medical expenses.

Finally, the legislation includes provisions to assist Americans who have been affected by natural disasters in 2018. This package includes proposals that we have adopted in prior years to help Americans recover from natural disasters across our country. For example, the package would allow increased access to retirement funds and relax restrictions around charitable giving. I am sure everyone here would like to help people affected by these natural disasters as soon as we are able to.

I don't want my comments today to imply that each tax extender should be permanently extended, but the right thing to do now is to provide extensions for at least 2018 and 2019. In the long term, Congress needs to decide if these provisions should be allowed to expire or if they should be phased out or if they should be made permanent as current tax policy or modified in some way beyond expiring, phasing out, or being made permanent.

Those decisions need to be made after we resolve the short-term crisis caused by the current lapse. These provisions have support of Members on both sides of the aisle. For people who think that things around here get done only with Republicans fighting Democrats or vice versa, these provisions have wide bipartisan support.

There is a solid foundation for a long-term package consisting of many of these provisions in one form or another. We need to get past today so that we can chart the course for a reliable future for the tax extenders and give business some certainty.

Just as Phil wants to stop living the same day over and over again, I think all of us want to break the cycle of short-term extensions of, in many cases, very popular tax policy. The legislation I introduce today with the ranking member, Senator Wyden of Oregon, is a critical first step toward helping taxpayers complete their 2018 returns and helping us begin work on a long-term solution to temporary tax policy.

I have asked our majority leader to rule XIV this bill onto the calendar, and I urge the House to send us a tax bill to address the extenders without further delay.

Just this morning, I had discussions with Iowa Congressmen of both political parties about this issue to contact the leadership of the House and the leadership of the Ways and Means Committee on the importance of moving legislation since the Constitution doesn't allow the Senate to move tax legislation in the first place.

Mr. President, before the Presidents Day recess, I announced that I would introduce legislation if the tax extenders weren't included in the legislation that we passed at that time that would keep government open.

Today I am following through on that promise with a bill that I am introducing with Finance Committee ranking member Senator Wyden of Oregon.

It is fitting that I am taking this step in the same month as Groundhog Day, as the subject of my remarks is something that Congress has had to deal with too many times already.

Next to me is a depiction from the movie ``Groundhog Day,'' which is about a man named Phil who must relive the same day over and over until he gets everything right. While we still need to break the cycle of repetitive short-term extensions, the right thing to do right now is to extend these already-expired provisions for 2018 and 2019.

As I have said before, the tax extenders are a collection of temporary tax

incentives that have required extension on a very regular basis in order to keep them available to the taxpayers. Currently, there are 26 provisions. At one time there were as many as 50-some. We have done away with some of them and made some of those laws permanent, but these 26 provisions expired at the end of 2017. They need to be extended, as well as three others that expired at the end of last year.

Today we are in the middle of filing season for 2018 tax returns, and taxpayers affected by these expired provisions need a resolution so that they can file. I want to stress that I want to find a long-term resolution so that we don't have to have temporary tax policy, but it is critical we make it clear to the taxpayers that these provisions are available for the 2018 filing season and extending them for this year will give us room to take a needed long-term view of this temporary tax policy.

Many of the tax extenders are intended to be incentives, and to be successful, then, these incentives need to be in effect before decisions can be made. That is why we should provide extensions for at least 2 years, to maximize that incentive effect. But it is also important that we extend these provisions for 2018, even though the year has obviously already ended. We have developed a very bad policy and a very bad habit of extending these tax provisions year after year, and people and businesses have come to expect that the extension will happen.

As a result, decisions were made by various businesses in 2018 based upon the expectation of extension, and that is a reasonable expectation because we have done it over decades. In other words, people did what we wanted them to do in their business decisions when these provisions were created. We should not retroactively punish these businesspeople for Congress's inaction.

Today, a diverse group of organizations, including the National Biodiesel Board, the American Trucking Associations, and the National Corn Growers Association, among others, sent a letter to congressional leaders requesting that the expired provisions be extended through 2019 as quickly as possible. I want to quote a few sentences from that letter:

Providing taxpayers with a predictable planning outlook as

it pertains to tax rules is conducive to increased private

sector investment and economic activity. Accordingly, we

respectfully ask that you act to retroactively extend these

expired tax provisions through 2019 on the first appropriate

legislative vehicle.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the complete letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, another very important point I want to make has to do with the question about whether an extender package should be offset or not. Around here, the word ``offset'' means if you have tax provisions that might lose revenue, then do you have other revenue coming in to take its place? The House has decided that is what you should do--pay as you go, or PAYGO, as they might call it. It is a rule of the House.

I have a long record of promoting budget responsibility, and I am as concerned about the deficit and debt as anyone. However, we also have bipartisan precedent for treating the extension of temporary tax policy, like these extenders, just as we treat the extension of annual spending policy. In neither case do we need offset for such extensions. In other words, it is all right to spend more money or continue to spend the same amount of money after a program has expired, and you don't have to offset it when you have tax law that has been on the books for a couple of decades, and it is sunset. Why should you have to sunset that? There are a few people around here who think it is all right to spend money without offsets, but it is wrong to do tax policy unless you have offsets.

There are a few specific items in this legislation that I want to take time to mention. Significant work has already been done to provide long-term solutions on two extenders--the short line railroad tax credit and the biodiesel tax credit.

The bill I am introducing extends those credits at their current levels for 2018 and 2019. I want my colleagues to

know that I still remain committed to enacting the compromises that several of our colleagues and I worked with the stakeholders to achieve.

The bill also includes an extension of a proposal adopted last Congress that would extend the 7.5-percent floor for itemized deductions of medical expenses. Without this provision, the floor on deductions will be 10 percent for 2019. This means that without this provision, individuals with chronic illnesses and high medical expenses would have to pay more for healthcare before that excess can be deducted in the expenses on their 2019 tax returns.

This proposal is a very important priority for one of our best colleagues, Senator Collins. She deserves a lot of credit for getting what has turned into a bipartisan proposal to help many Americans facing catastrophic medical expenses.

Finally, the legislation includes provisions to assist Americans who have been affected by natural disasters in 2018. This package includes proposals that we have adopted in prior years to help Americans recover from natural disasters across our country. For example, the package would allow increased access to retirement funds and relax restrictions around charitable giving. I am sure everyone here would like to help people affected by these natural disasters as soon as we are able to.

I don't want my comments today to imply that each tax extender should be permanently extended, but the right thing to do now is to provide extensions for at least 2018 and 2019. In the long term, Congress needs to decide if these provisions should be allowed to expire or if they should be phased out or if they should be made permanent as current tax policy or modified in some way beyond expiring, phasing out, or being made permanent.

Those decisions need to be made after we resolve the short-term crisis caused by the current lapse. These provisions have support of Members on both sides of the aisle. For people who think that things around here get done only with Republicans fighting Democrats or vice versa, these provisions have wide bipartisan support.

There is a solid foundation for a long-term package consisting of many of these provisions in one form or another. We need to get past today so that we can chart the course for a reliable future for the tax extenders and give business some certainty.

Just as Phil wants to stop living the same day over and over again, I think all of us want to break the cycle of short-term extensions of, in many cases, very popular tax policy. The legislation I introduce today with the ranking member, Senator Wyden of Oregon, is a critical first step toward helping taxpayers complete their 2018 returns and helping us begin work on a long-term solution to temporary tax policy.

I have asked our majority leader to rule XIV this bill onto the calendar, and I urge the House to send us a tax bill to address the extenders without further delay.

Just this morning, I had discussions with Iowa Congressmen of both political parties about this issue to contact the leadership of the House and the leadership of the Ways and Means Committee on the importance of moving legislation since the Constitution doesn't allow the Senate to move tax legislation in the first place.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about the IRS and tax issues and the tax bill last year, but following on what Senator Perdue said, I want to, first of all, compliment him for not only this speech but several times he has talked about how the Senate has stalled time after time on nominees.

I want to bring to my colleagues' attention that at one time, there was a lot of concern by President Obama that his nominees were not being confirmed fast enough. We started hearing that in January 2013. All of a sudden, there was a feeling that we ought to have a bipartisan solution to this issue to speed along President Obama's nominees. At one time, the Democratic leader then was talking about using a nuclear option to accomplish a change in rules. Both Republicans and Democrats thought that wasn't a very good idea, so Republicans and Democrats got together and agreed to reduce postcloture debate time for the rest of the 113th Congress, although, before that Congress ended, Senator Reid decided to use the nuclear option anyway, and he did that at a later time.

If Republicans and Democrats could get together in the 113th Congress to speed up the time and have less postcloture debate time, why can't we do it now? The problem, of course, is for the Trump nominees being held up in the Senate, the time is far worse than it was under President Obama or, for that matter, any other President before that.

It seems to me, as we are talking about changing the post-debate time again--because there is a resolution out of our Rules Committee--I think it is about time that we think that what is good for the goose is good for the gander, and we ought to reinstate that bipartisan agreement. I hope we can get the support of Democrats to do that like they had the support of Republicans to do that when we had a Democratic President.

I thank Senator Perdue for what he spoke about on a longer basis than I just did, but I want to back him up fully.

Mr. President, today I want my colleagues to listen to some ideas that I have about tariffs, generally, and where we are on tariffs and where we might be on tariffs in a couple of weeks, depending on what the Secretary of Commerce says, because in a few days, that Secretary is expected to provide the President a report.

This report will detail his Department's findings in the investigation of whether imports of automobiles and auto parts pose a national threat to the United States. Common sense tells me it doesn't. Let me repeat that because I think it is important for us to understand whether the cars that everyday Americans rely on to get to work, to drive their children to schools, to visit their families--whether or not the importation of those automobiles threatens national security.

Now, having said that, you might think that I disagree with the President--and I don't--that we must have fair and enforceable trade agreements that benefit Americans. Sometimes we have to make hard decisions in order to get and have fair and enforceable agreements. I do not agree that we should alienate our allies or jeopardize the health of our economy to achieve the good outcomes of fair and enforceable agreements.

The Tax Foundation has found that a 25-percent tariff on auto imports would amount to roughly a $73.1 billion tax increase. According to the Center for Automotive Research, a 25-percent tariff on auto imports would also result in the loss of 700,000 jobs and raise the price of an average car by nearly $7,000.

Dealers would see a decline in annual sales by as many as 2 million vehicles. Consumers would face up to a 10-percent increase in the cost of repairs and replacement parts. In short, raising tariffs on cars and parts would be a huge tax on consumers who buy or service their cars, whether those cars are imported or domestically produced. Make no mistake, Americans will be paying those taxes.

Tariffs are a tax paid at the time of import. Historically, they have been a protectionist tool intended to prop up domestically produced goods by making foreign goods more expensive. Tariffs are not a long- term solution, and nobody wins with the producing of tariffs.

While they may provide short-term protection for domestic industries, they do so at the expense of ordinary consumers and industries increasingly dependent on a complex global supply chain. On the whole, I think this all adds up to damaging the economy. For an administration, including this Senator and most Republicans on this side of the aisle, who have been crowing about the benefits of the tax bill of late 2017 and the jobs it has created and the good it has done for workers, why would you want to put on a $73 billion tax increase through tariffs that would undo a lot of good that we say and the President says the tax bill has done. Let me repeat it again. On a whole, this is going to be damaging to the economy.

A 2018 study by the International Monetary Fund reviewed tariff changes across 151 countries between the decades of the 1960s to 2014. The International Monetary Fund found that tariff increases led to less output and less productivity, and, then, you know what happens. There is more unemployment, and when you have more unemployment, you get greater inequality.

The recent U.S. tariff increases have invited tariff retaliation from our trading partners. I know because Iowans are bearing the brunt of this retaliation. Imposing tariffs on auto parts will inevitably invite more retaliation, and we simply can't afford more of that.

The United States must continue to lead the world on trade and economic issues, as we have for at least the period of time since World War II. We have benefitted from one of the most open markets in the world, and we must continue to lead the world by providing a good example. We have led to a better world since World War II, and the results have been these. Several decades ago, 50 percent of the world's population was in poverty. Today, it is less than 10 percent. Recently, in two or three references I have seen, the fact is that right now or next year, as for major middle class status in the various countries around the world and in different ways around the world, half of the world is middle class. President Trump is right to hold our trading partners accountable. So I don't find fault with him there.

We can't take benefits we have received from international trade for granted. International trade has been a tremendous benefit to farmers and businesses in my State of Iowa and across the country. We are better off because we can sell our products around the world.

Our farmers say they don't want aid from the Federal Treasury. They want markets. They want to trade. You develop those markets and you keep those markets. Tariffs and retaliation send a signal to other countries that you might not be a reliable supplier, and they go elsewhere to create relationships that they can depend on. America ought to be able to be depended upon any place in the world from the standpoint of trade.

When you talk about America and Iowa exporting products, these are some of the best products in the world. In this vein, then, I hope the President will heed my call to forego the auto tariffs and instead focus on opening up new markets.

The U.S. auto industry is a major driver of our economy, supporting nearly 10 million American jobs and accounting for 3 percent of the gross domestic product. Without question, any tariffs that are imposed will have a negative effect on the U.S. auto industry and our economy.

Our focus, instead, should be on strengthening our relationships with our allies, while targeting China's harmful trade practices and policies. Tariffs on autos and auto parts will not help us achieve these critical priorities.

On another subject, I would like to, as I did yesterday, remind my colleagues about some of the benefits of tax policy. This is speaking about tax policy that I thought would be adopted as part of the upcoming appropriation bill to make sure we don't shut down government.

For several months now, we have been working to extend a set of tax provisions that expired at the end of 2017. Around here we commonly refer to these as ``tax extenders.'' We have also been working to enact bipartisan disaster tax relief to help families and businesses that continue to recover from the disasters that occurred across the country in 2018, and I thought that, too, would be in the bill we are going to vote on later today.

The best and most timely option to advance these provisions is with the government funding deal being worked on this week, but that isn't going to happen. There have been press reports stating that if the extenders aren't part of the funding bill, they are dead, and I reject that conclusion.

Regardless of what happens on the bill to keep the government open, I will continue to fight to get the extenders enacted and to work toward a longer term resolution. Since the House has failed to send us a government funding bill that includes the tax extenders and disaster tax relief provisions, look for me to introduce a bill addressing these tax matters here in the Senate, and I would ask my colleagues on the Finance Committee to join me in that effort.

When these provisions were extended early last year, the tax extenders had been expired for more than a year already. Now we are back in the very same place, with these tax incentives now expired for more than a year, again.

It seems to me that the right thing to do now is to extend these provisions for 2018 and 2019. Some people are saying you ought to do it longer. Why 2 years?

First, we need to provide clarity for taxpayers trying to file their 2018 returns, which are due in just over eight weeks. Even though the year has obviously ended, a repeated extension of many of these provisions has led individuals and businesses to assume that we will do so again.

These business people relied on last year to make business decisions. In other words, people did what we wanted them to do when these provisions were created. We shouldn't retroactively punish them now for making those decisions that we wanted them to make.

Second, we should provide certainty for this year to give room to take a long-term view on all of the tax extenders. I want to stress that I want to find a long-term resolution of these provisions so that we can stop repeated extensions of temporary tax policy, but while we work on that, these extenders are intended to be incentives, and, to be successful, they need to be in effect when individuals and businesses are considering whether to make the investments required to take advantage of these particular tax extenders.

I want to go into more detail on what the tax extenders are. The numbers have changed over time, but there are now currently around 26 temporary tax provisions that expired at the end of 2017. At one time we were dealing with 50 to 55 such tax extenders, so we have reduced the number considerably. What we are dealing with now include provisions incentivizing alternative fuels, electric vehicles, and the construction of energy-efficient homes. These are provisions that incentivize the production of coal on Indian lands, provide an exclusion from income of the discharge of indebtedness on a principal residence, and provide a deduction for tuition and related expenses. Within these 26 provisions there is probably something that is very important to all 100 Senators, whether you are Republican or Democrat.

I want to focus on two of them in particular. The first is the railroad track maintenance credit, otherwise known as the short line credit. This provision provides short line railroads a credit equal to a percentage of the capital they invest to maintain and improve their tracks.

Short line railroads are small business railroads that are vital to keeping rural and small town America connected to the national economy. They are a particularly important part of our transportation system for getting agricultural and other products to market across the country and, hopefully, abroad.

For example, the Iowa Interstate Railroad, which operates between Council Bluffs and Chicago, connects Iowa companies such as the Elite Octane ethanol plant in Atlantic, IA, to the world market.

According to the American Short Line and Regional Rail Association, short line railroads operate more than 47,500 miles of track and make up 29 percent of the freight rail network of our Nation.

In a report prepared by PWC last year, it was noted that the short line industry directly provided more than 17,000 jobs in the United States in 2016 and supported more than 61,000 jobs overall. This credit has been extended many times since it was first enacted on a temporary basis in 2004. Legislation introduced in the last Congress would have made the short line credit permanent, and the bill had 56 cosponsors in the Senate. The bill is led by Senators Crapo and Wyden and has already been reintroduced for this Congress.

Another tax extender that is very important, particularly for Iowa, is the biodiesel tax credit. Generally, this provision provides a tax credit of $1 per gallon for biodiesel and renewable diesel. This credit helps provide for a more sustainable future by reducing our dependency on fossil fuels and promoting a renewable domestic resource.

Plans for promoting environmental efficiency have been in the news lately, and an extension of the biodiesel tax credit is needed to keep more people working at their jobs in this industry. For example, I have learned that Western Iowa Energy in Wall Lake, IA, has reduced runtime forecasts by 60 percent, consequently running at 40 percent capacity. They are also putting capital improvement projects on hold.

In Wall Lake, this reduction in runtimes means that there are 26 trucks per day that are not operating, and potential layoffs are on the horizon if the tax credit is not extended as soon as possible.

According to the National Biodiesel Board, the U.S. biodiesel industry supports more than 60,000 jobs and generates more than 11 billion in economic impact.

A group of renewable energy stakeholders wrote to congressional leaders last week. Their letter reads in part: ``Allowing these tax incentives to lapse has created uncertainty for investors and the industry--``

``jeopardizing the long-term investments necessary for the development of these biofuels.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters to Congress regarding tax extenders from biofuel and biodiesel businesses and associations across the United States.

Mr. President, I hope the next time I have a chance to have the floor, I will not be interrupted.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor for two reasons: No. 1, to speak about the tax bill of 1 year ago, and then, for a longer period of time, to address the issue before the Senate, which is the nomination of Mr. Barr.

The tax filing season began just over 2 weeks ago. Despite the disruption of the temporary partial government shutdown, the IRS is reporting to the Nation that all systems are go. Tax returns are being processed as normal, and refunds are being sent out. While there are lingering effects from the shutdown, overall, the IRS and Treasury have done a pretty good job of minimizing the effects of the shutdown on tax filers.

This season is receiving additional scrutiny as it is the very first time that tax filers are filing under the tax cuts and reforms enacted last year. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle and some in the media appear to be obsessed with finding anything they can manufacture to declare the filing season under the new law a failure. Of course, that is after only 2 weeks of tax filing--not a long enough period of time to draw too many conclusions.

Case in point: Last week the IRS released preliminary filing data covering the first weeks of the filing season. Immediately, naysayers began focusing on data that suggests that tax refunds in the first week were down slightly over last year, as well as focusing on anecdotal social media posts. Never mind that the current refund numbers are based on only a few days of data, or that refund statistics can vary widely from one week to the next. Never mind that most of the social media posts are unverified. Many have the markings of a coordinated effort by liberal activists who have regularly used hashtag ``GOP tax scam'' to attack the law on Twitter, despite a vast majority of taxpayers paying less in taxes.

Yet our journalists, who are well educated and ought to know better, fall for it--hook, line, and sinker--including such tweets in articles with no questions asked or verifying the veracity of these claims.

To be fair, oftentimes buried deep in such articles, well below a sensational headline, is an attempt to demonstrate some semblance of unbiased reports, noting that under the tax law, most taxpayers will see tax cuts. That is right. Most taxpayers will see tax cuts. You most assuredly wouldn't know this from the headlines bemoaning a reduction in tax refunds, but the vast majority of taxpayers experienced a tax cut last year, and will this year, as well.

Every analysis--from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation to the right-leaning Tax Foundation, to the liberal Tax Policy Center-- demonstrates that taxpayers are sending less of their hard-earned money to Washington this year.

As an example, an Iowa family of four with the State's family median income of around $75,000 stands to see their tax bill cut by more than half, or about $2,100 in savings. This is real tax relief that began appearing in many taxpayers' paychecks at the start of 2018. That is a very important point. The government could have chosen to deprive this taxpayer of this extra $2,100 last year until they filed their taxes during this tax season.

This may have been the best thing to do if you are someone who starts with the assumption that their money would be better off in the hands of the government interest-free. But I do not believe that is the best thing to do.

I believe taxpayers know better how to spend their hard-earned money than Washington does. It should be up to the individual taxpayer whether it is in his or her interest to put that extra $2,100--or about $175 a month--in a savings account or spend it on buying school supplies for their children or maybe even making a car payment. That is a decision 157 million taxpayers can make and not 535 Members of Congress or the bureaucrats who are out spending the money.

In early 2018, Treasury and the IRS implemented updated withholding tables to give taxpayers that option of deciding whether to save or spend and what to spend it on or how to save it.

A chief priority for the new withholding tables was accuracy. The IRS' goal was to help taxpayers get the right amount withheld from their paycheck. However, common sense ought to tell us that no withholding table will ever be perfect--at least not perfect for 157 million different taxpayers. If they were, there would be no need for tax refunds. Only what was necessary to satisfy a taxpayer's tax obligation would need to be taken from their paychecks.

But that is unlikely. Every taxpayer is affected a little differently under the Tax Code based on their personal circumstances, and some taxpayers' incomes may fluctuate throughout the year. This makes exact withholding based on general tables nearly impossible. As a result, the amount of a taxpayers' refund is unlikely to be exactly the same as it was under the old law compared to our new law. Yes, some taxpayers may see a smaller refund, but others may see a larger refund. The size of one's refund tells you nothing about whether a specific taxpayer benefited from last year's tax law.

Given this fact, the best way for any taxpayer to see how tax reform affected their bottom line is to compare this year's tax return with last year's tax return, rather than making that judgment based upon what the refund is.

Tax preparers and tax return software often will provide an analysis comparing the current and previous year's tax return. I encourage taxpayers to compare the total amount of taxes paid this year with the total taxes paid last year, or, if your income materially changed from last year, compare your effective tax rate. That is the taxes paid as a percentage of your adjusted gross income. If your tax preparer does not already provide you with this information, simply ask them for that information.

If taxpayers take this approach, the vast majority will see that their tax bill has gone down. This is what matters, not the size of their refund. The size of the refund tells you nothing beyond the degree to which a taxpayer has overpaid their taxes over the course of the year. I hope Americans will take the time to check so they know the real effects that last year's tax cuts had on their lives and their family.

Mr. President, I do not object to the nomination of Donald W. Washington, PN202.

Madam President, today I wish to acknowledge Emilia DiSanto, an outstanding civil servant who is retiring after almost 36 years of distinguished service in the Federal Government, 16 of which were here on Capitol Hill.

Emilia is a proud New Yorker, who graduated from Fordham Law School. She served in the Department of Energy, at the Legal Services Corporation, in both the House and Senate, and she worked for inspectors general.

Emilia is the ultimate civil servant who worked in both the executive and legislative branches of government. During her 16-year career on Capitol Hill, Emilia worked for, among others, Speaker Newt Gingrich and former-Representative Bill Goodling, Henry Hyde, Bill McCollum, and Ambassador Pete Hoekstra. In the Senate, Emilia served as staff director for the Small Business Committee for Senator Kit Bond and, later, Senator Olympia Snow.

I had the pleasure of having Emilia on my staff in two different capacities. First, as the chief investigative counsel for the Special Committee on Aging where she conducted oversight of the nursing and funeral home industries. Emilia later served on the Finance Committee as my chief investigative counsel and special counsel and tackled such issues as drug and device safety, medical conflicts of interest, and other healthcare issues. She is known to be trustworthy, bold, honest, and bipartisan. Emilia has boundless energy and good judgment, and she is deeply committed to the interests of the American people. The American people are better off because of her public service.

Mr. President, due to the actions of the Department of Justice, I have placed a hold on Donald Washington to be Director of the U.S. Marshals Service. This hold does not reflect any misgivings I may have

against Mr. Washington. I believe he is a man of great integrity, and his previous role as a U.S. Attorney has prepared him for the post he has been nominated to. Mr. Washington is an excellent candidate, and I look forward to supporting his nomination. However, I cannot allow his nomination to proceed at this time due to the actions of the Department of Justice.

On December 10, 2018, the Department of Justice agreed to provide my staff with a briefing on the Marshals' apparent misuse of the Assets Forfeiture Fund. Then on January 7, 2019, less than 24 hours before the briefing was set to take place, the Department cancelled on account that I was no longer the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

As I have explained several times, it is the constitutional duty of every Member of Congress to conduct oversight. Furthermore, at the time that the Department communicated their cancellation, I was still chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

I am placing this hold on Mr. Washington, a Department of Justice nominee, until the Department of Justice fulfills the promise to provide my staff with a briefing of the Assets Forfeiture Fund.

Madam President, I call up the Lankford amendment No. 158 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, I want to express my strong concern about various countries and a lot of places in the world potentially implementing discriminatory tax laws. These laws that they are thinking about target U.S.-based multinational companies operating particularly in the high-tech or the digital industry.

Let me be clear right from the outset. These countries--mostly in Europe--should immediately cease any unilateral actions that target U.S.-based multinationals. Instead, these countries should focus their energy and their efforts on the multilateral solutions that are being developed by the global community operating as the OECD.

I will provide a bit of background for those who haven't been following this issue closely.

Recently, the European Commission proposed a 3-percent digital services tax on the revenues of multinational companies that provide certain digital services to users based in Europe. The tax would not be on profits but, instead, on revenues. By its design, this proposal would specifically target U.S.-based multinational companies.

Implementing such a discriminatory proposal would have required the unanimous approval of the European Union member states. Fortunately, for American companies, the European Union did not go ahead with that proposal.

However, some of the European Union nations see a large pot of money that they can extract from U.S.-based multinationals. They are currently taking unilateral steps to implement new digital taxes that are the same as or are similar to those proposed by the European Commission that the European Commission has decided not to move forward with. To be clear, these types of taxes are discriminatory. They target U.S.-based multinationals. They will likely result in double taxation, and they will create a new transatlantic trade barrier. These effects will then come just as we head into negotiations for a new trade agreement with the European Union. This is the exact opposite direction in which our transatlantic trading relationship should be going.

Last October, then-Finance Committee Chairman Hatch and Ranking Member Wyden sent a letter to the Presidents of the European Council and the European Commission. Hatch and Wyden expressed strong concerns about these indefinite and discriminatory digital services taxes targeting U.S.-based multinational companies. The Senators called on the European Union to abandon the proposal and for member states to delay implementing any similar type of digital services tax. Instead, the Senators argued that the EU member states should refocus their efforts on reaching consensus on a multilateral solution at the OECD.

I happen to concur with the sentiments of those Senators and echo the concerns that Hatch and Wyden raised in that letter. In fact, I reinforced those concerns in a letter with Ranking Member Wyden that we sent to Treasury Secretary Mnuchin just last week. We encouraged the U.S. Treasury Department to stay closely engaged with the OECD and the negotiations that are going on in that organization. Wyden and I also urged the U.S. Treasury Department to encourage its counterparts at the OECD to abandon any unilateral action and to work together on a consensus solution.

OECD members, for years, have recognized tax challenges surrounding the so-called digitalization of the economy. The issues played a significant role in the OECD's tax base erosion and profit-shifting project, and that happened several years ago. It was also prominent in the 2018 interim report on the tax challenges of the digitalization of the broader economy. Just last week, the OECD released a document that outlined at a very high level the timeline for the multilateral consideration of the issues and potential paths forward regarding the tax challenges arising from digitalization.

I look forward to the Treasury Department's participation in this very important negotiation. It would probably be doing it anyway, but we want to reinforce, as members and leaders of the Finance Committee, our interest in the Treasury Department's not letting that slip.

I also encourage nations around the world to participate and allow this process to play out. The alternative is not acceptable because it is discriminatory unilateral action, double taxation, and has potentially negative trade implications. The results are no good outcomes for countries that impose the taxes and no good outcomes for companies that are the subjects of the taxes--mainly this country, the United States.

In our letter last week, Ranking Member Wyden and I encouraged Treasury Department officials and their counterparts to reach a consensus on a measured and comprehensive approach to this issue. We also asked the Treasury Department to keep us informed of the solutions that are being developed and of the progress being made at the OECD. Since he is tasked with leading our trade negotiations with the European Union, we also shared this letter with Ambassador Robert Lighthizer.

Given that the Finance Committee has jurisdiction over tax and trade matters, my colleagues and I will have views on the position taken by the United States in the OECD negotiations. We all want to see a good outcome for both the U.S.-based multinational companies and for the tax base of the United States. We must avoid international tax chaos where significant double taxation is the norm. This is in the interest of the United States. I hope other countries around the world will reach the conclusion that it is in their interests as well.

Other countries should not view the participation of the United States in this OECD exercise simply as academic or a delay tactic. On the contrary, the United States has shown that it takes action on multilateral initiatives. Limitations on interest deductibility and anti-hybrid rules are just a few examples of the items enacted into U.S. tax law, and the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service took regulatory action on various other initiatives.

I think it is worth reiterating that I am invested in this process and in reaching a viable, long-term, multilateral solution. I look forward to staying in close contact with the Treasury Department as the negotiations progress. I also intend to bring up in the Finance Committee issues related to this OECD negotiation and the Treasury Department's positions. If appropriate, we will look into legislative or other actions to address solutions reached at the OECD as well as unilateral actions that are taken by other countries.

I yield the floor.