[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 116 (Wednesday, July 11, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4885-S4889]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                  Immigration and Customs Enforcement

  Mr. President, I wish to very quickly bring attention to something 
about which I think people need to speak up on the other side of the 
issue; that is, this movement now called End ICE, or Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement.
  We have a gubernatorial candidate in New York who said ICE is a 
terrorist organization--not ISIS, which is a terrorist organization, 
but ICE. These men and women in uniform go out every day and put their 
lives on the line to protect the American people.
  Let me tell my colleagues what people who are part of the End ICE 
movement are for. This chart represents what they are for if they are 
for ending ICE. These are 2017 numbers. They are for ending the arrest 
of some 143,000 people who have broken our laws. They are for ending 
the seizure of tons of fentanyl.
  I will give you an idea of what that means in terms of potential risk 
of human life. You are talking about gangs--some 5,000 gang members who 
were arrested last year because they were clearly related to gang 
activity, with MS-13 being one of the first among them. They are for 
ending all of our protections and having all of these activities go 
unchallenged on American soil.
  If you are for ending ICE, you are for ending almost 7,000 pounds of 
heroin seized, and that is only a fraction of what these criminal 
elements are bringing to this country.
  If Members come to this floor and talk about fighting the opioid 
epidemic, I can't imagine anyone who is sincere about fighting the 
opioid epidemic saying that they want more poison on the streets. You 
can't have it both ways. You are either for solving the problem of the 
opioid epidemic, which means that we have to have law enforcement to 
specialize in seizing it, or you are against it. You are for poisoning 
our youth. You are for poisoning people who are addicted to opioids. 
You can't have it both ways. If you want to end ICE, you are for this.
  If you want to end ICE, you are for people who have tattoos that 
clearly indicate that they are part of a gang on the streets. We have 
gangs that, actually, as a part of getting initiated, want you to kill 
or harm somebody to prove that you will when you are asked to. If you 
want to end ICE, you are for more of these folks on the streets--some 
4,800 of them.
  Again, if you want to end ICE, then you want to end the careers of 
people who have such a dangerous job that, oftentimes, when they do 
drug seizures, they have to wear HAZMAT suits because if they touch the 
fentanyl, they could die or go into an overdose. If you want to end 
ICE, you want that poison to be in the hands of a child or someone else 
who, if they touch it, is going to die or have a profound overdose.
  That is what ending ICE means. Just to sum up, if you want to end 
ICE, you want that seizure of a ton of fentanyl coming across our 
border, mainly from Mexico, that has enough potency to kill 500 million 
people.
  Now, I honestly believe that nobody in this body really means that 
they want to end ICE, that they want to cause human traffickers, gun 
traffickers, drug traffickers--more of them. But you can't have it both 
ways. If you want to go on the stump and say you want to end ICE, then 
add this to your stump speech. Add this to the logical consequence of 
what happens when you insult the men and women in uniform in ICE and 
you say you want to end what they are doing, because if you do, the 
negative consequences are clear. All you have to do is look at what ICE 
has done over the last year, and what they would not do this year, if 
you really believe what they say about ending ICE.
  So I think they need to ice the ``end ICE'' narrative and start 
getting smart about making sure that we maybe make changes that we need 
to in any organization. But for people to go to such an extreme, to say 
that they want to end one of the most important law enforcement 
agencies combating illegal immigration and illegal trafficking across 
our border, you had better be honest on the stump. You had better let 
them know what you mean because that is what they mean.
  I think it is important for our Members to step up and let people 
know the consequences of this ridiculous rhetoric and to show the men 
and women in uniform--police officers, ICE agents, and everybody else--
that people like me care about them. People like me respect them for 
what they do.
  We know that their assaults were up by three times last year. It is a 
dangerous job. Many of them don't even know if they are going to come 
home when they leave in the morning.
  It is an insult for anybody in this body to come into this Chamber 
and say that they need to be ended. They

[[Page S4886]]

need to be thanked. They need to be revered. Agencies always need to be 
improved, but if you believe we should end ICE, you had better own the 
consequences.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate is considering one of the 
most troubling executive branch nominations that this President has 
made to date--the nomination of Brian Benczkowski to lead the Criminal 
Division of the Justice Department.
  For years, I have studied and have been aware of the Criminal 
Division. This is an amazing nomination. I think it is enough to oppose 
Mr. Benczkowski's nomination because he is objectively unqualified for 
this important position, but there are also compelling reasons to 
believe that it would be uniquely reckless to confirm him to this 
position.
  Now, speaking about Mr. Benczkowski's lack of qualifications for this 
role is not meant to denigrate. Many of us know him, as I did, from his 
service in the Judiciary Committee as the staff director for the then 
Ranking Member Jeff Sessions. The fact is, this nominee to head the 
Criminal Division has virtually no criminal law experience. Even at 
this age, he has never tried a case. He has never served as a 
prosecutor. He has almost zero courtroom experience. Instead, his 
experience has been to serve as a political aide to various officials.

  As a former prosecutor, I know there is no substitute for actual 
courtroom experience, actually going into a courtroom and trying a 
criminal case, arguing criminal cases on appeal, determining whether 
you bring a charge or don't bring a charge. These are things an 
experienced prosecutor has to do. For the last several decades, under 
Republican and Democratic administrations, every head of a criminal 
division--which is probably the most important litigating arm of the 
Justice Department--has had substantial prosecutorial experience, with 
the exception of one individual whose nomination I simply could not 
support. This shouldn't be a partisan issue. I voted for nominees in 
Republican administrations and in Democratic administrations because 
they were qualified, and there are countless qualified prosecutors the 
President could select.
  For this reason alone, the Senate should not consent to Mr. 
Benczkowski's nomination. But there are two other reasons, aside from 
the fact that he has absolutely zero qualifications for this important 
position. It is sort of like sending somebody in to do brain surgery 
when their main experience has been clipping hedges. You have to have 
some experience in there, but aside from the fact that he has no 
experience, there are two other reasons he shouldn't be confirmed.
  First, he has demonstrated, at a minimum, exceptionally poor judgment 
when it comes to perhaps our Nation's most critical ongoing national 
security investigation--the Russian Government's attack on our 
democracy. We all know, if we have read the intelligence reports, 
Russia attacked the U.S. democracy and vote in the last election.
  After serving on Mr. Trump's transition team, Mr. Benczkowski 
represented a Putin-connected Russian bank, Alfa-Bank, regarding its 
bizarre server communications with the Trump organization during the 
height of the Presidential campaign. Alfa-Bank was at the very center 
of scrutiny into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, even 
making an appearance in the Steele dossier. Yet Mr. Benczkowski took on 
Alfa-Bank as a client on an issue related to the Russia investigation 
at the same time he was being considered for a senior position in the 
Trump Justice Department, totally blinded to the obvious conflict of 
interest. In fact, he continued to represent Vladimir Putin's connected 
bank until the day he was formally nominated to lead the criminal 
division.
  Now, some have said we should give Mr. Benczkowski the benefit of the 
doubt. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, you have to admit, at least 
demonstrates an embarrassingly poor sense of judgment for someone who 
is nominated to lead the Criminal Division to look into the criminal 
activities of places like Alfa-Bank. Now, we find Mr. Benczkowski has 
refused to recuse himself from matters related to the Russia 
investigation or the Steele dossier.
  You can't make these things up. It is just conflict of interest 101. 
As Senator Durbin and Senator Whitehouse have warned, as head of the 
Criminal Division, Mr. Benczkowski would therefore have visibility and 
be able to look into investigations of individuals related to the Trump 
campaign. He could serve as a conduit of information to the Attorney 
General about these sensitive matters.
  According to the Department of Justice, it is possible Special 
Counsel Mueller's office ``will seek approvals from the Criminal 
Division as required . . . or may simply want to consult with subject-
matter experts in the Criminal Division as appropriate in the normal 
course of department investigations,'' and who would have availability 
to that? Mr. Benczkowski. He could even be in a position to share 
secret grand jury information directly with the President.
  What is also concerning is that if Mr. Benczkowski were to be 
confirmed and Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein were then to be 
removed, the President, under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, could 
simply install Mr. Benczkowski as the Acting Attorney General, with 
respect to the Russia investigation.
  So what do we have? We have Mr. Benczkowski, under those 
circumstances, gaining direct control over the special counsel's 
investigation. He would even have the power to stop the special 
counsel's probe. Gosh, we wonder, could that ever occur to someone at 
the White House; that he could suddenly stop Mr. Mueller from his 
investigations?
  On qualifications, the man who is going to be head of the Criminal 
Division has never tried a case, never handled any criminal matter, 
never had anything to do with criminal matters. He is really 
unqualified for this role by any objective measure. The only apparent 
qualification that Mr. Benczkowski has is his close relationship with, 
and political loyalty to, the Attorney General and the President. In 
fact, that is likely the very reason he was nominated to this critical 
position. That is all the more troubling given his terrible judgment 
with respect to the Russia investigation. We are putting someone in who 
has been involved as an attorney for a bank involved in this Russia 
investigation.
  Many of my fellow Republican Senators, to their credit, have stated 
their commitment to ensuring that Special Counsel Mueller be allowed to 
carry out his investigation independently and without political 
interference. I hope they keep this commitment in mind when considering 
Mr. Benczkowski's nomination. I hope they join me in voting no. 
Apparently, his only qualification is he is going to be put in a 
position where he could stymie Mueller's investigation of Russia.
  I have voted for a lot of nominees, both Republicans and Democrats, 
in this position because of their qualifications--not because of their 
ideology but their qualifications. No President of either party has 
ever nominated somebody for this critical position who is less 
qualified. In fact, it is pretty hard to find anybody in this country 
less qualified.
  Mr. President, I see other Senators on the floor, so I yield to them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.


                              Section 232

  Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I rise to talk about my opposition to the 
section 232 motion which will be voted on later today.
  I have utmost respect for my colleagues who are bringing this motion. 
I totally understand their logic, and I respect their point of view on 
this and many other issues. One of the great things about this 
deliberative body is that we deliberate. Unfortunately, I just don't 
understand why this body continues to try to tie the hands of this 
President at every turn.
  We all know that enacting tariffs on imports is not the goal here. 
This

[[Page S4887]]

President is committed to creating a more level playing field for our 
workers and our companies here at home that compete on the unlevel 
playing field which exists in the trade world we know of today. We need 
to give this President, and every future President, frankly, room to 
negotiate.
  The 1962 Trade Expansion Act was passed by Congress to give the 
executive branch the authority and flexibility to negotiate on trade. 
It was this authority that paved the way for negotiations on the 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade--GATT--which helped reduce 
global trade barriers.
  Most of my career, I have dealt within the GATT restrictions and 
opportunities we have to trade across borders internationally. I think, 
more than anybody else in this body, I have actually transacted 
products across borders internationally. I am very concerned, in this 
era of entrenchment in Congress, where we are so paralyzed that we 
can't even fulfill our most basic constitutional function of funding 
the government on time--which we have only done four times in 44 
years--in that environment, if we get the authority on trade back, that 
we will not be able to even hold a vote and have a debate and will 
hamstring any administration's negotiating efforts.
  Credibility in negotiating trade terms is absolutely critical. 
Imagine a head of state in another part of the world dealing with our 
head of state, knowing that before he can make any deal, he has to wait 
on us in this body to act. I have been waiting 3 years to see this body 
act on healthcare. We haven't been able to find a way to even solve one 
of the most near crises we all know exists today. So imagine what a 
world would look like if we are trying to do that in the trade 
environment.
  Like me, President Trump is an outsider to this political process. He 
is a business guy who has seen the impact of unfair trade practices in 
the real world. For years, he has seen how America has often been 
treated unfairly when it comes to trade. I know, and most people who 
have traded internationally in the last four decades know, these rules 
were written by us. We wrote these rules. It created an unlevel playing 
field that allowed the rest of the world to develop, but guess what. In 
the last 40 years, we have seen global poverty be reduced by almost 
two-thirds, while our poverty rate in the United States, since the 
Great Society was signed into law, has not been reduced one iota. That 
is partly a function of our trade practices.
  This President has made it a priority to restore fairness and balance 
to this trade imbalance with our trading partners around the world. He 
needs credibility and he needs flexibility in order to achieve that.
  Looking at what we are up against today, it is easy to see why the 
President is insisting on getting America a better deal. Today, Canada 
has a 270-percent tariff on U.S. milk; the EU keeps a 10-percent tariff 
on American autos; Brazil bans U.S. fresh, frozen, and processed pork 
products; China has a 15-percent tariff on American cars; the EU has a 
tariff of up to 26 percent on U.S. seafood; and you cannot sell fresh 
American potatoes in most of Mexico. I could do this all day.
  We know there is an imbalance in trade around the world. This is 
about making sure America is treated fairly and is in the best place to 
do business in the world. It is about making America more competitive 
and secure. It is about ensuring our economic and national security for 
the next 100 years.
  The President is taking a different approach, sometimes 
controversial, but I believe he is a pragmatist, and I believe he only 
wants one thing for America; that is, results and a level playing field 
with the rest of the world.
  I believe we ought to give the executive branch--just like the 1962 
act did--space to negotiate. We need to give him space to succeed for 
American workers and for American companies here at home.
  With that, I urge my colleagues to oppose this motion.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Corker-Toomey-
Flake motion that we are going to be voting on soon. Let me be clear. 
This is a motion that simply would reflect--if it is adopted--the 
consensus of the Senate that Congress should have a role in determining 
the use of section 232 to impose tariffs.
  Let me give a little bit of context. First of all, I want to be very 
clear that free trade is enormously constructive, enormously helpful 
for our economy and our standard of living. The United States has been 
a leader in promoting free trade around the world for many decades, and 
that is part of the reason we are the most affluent society on the 
globe by far, consistently outperforming the rest of the world. What it 
does is it provides our consumers with many choices and lower costs and 
therefore a more affordable standard of living, and it provides our 
workers with foreign markets.
  Ninety-five percent of the world's population lives somewhere else. I 
want to sell to them, and we do that through an environment of free 
trade. Take NAFTA, for instance. Since NAFTA was enacted in 1994, 
Pennsylvanians have seen exports to Mexico increase by more than 500 
percent. That is what happened because of the reduction in the barriers 
to trade that existed prior to NAFTA. Of course, it also encourages 
investment in the United States--new plants, factories, and all the 
jobs that come with that.
  Tariffs and quotas and other obstacles to trade do the exact 
opposite. They reduce our consumers' choices. They raise costs. They 
limit our opportunity to sell our products, whether it is agricultural 
products or manufactured products. They reduce the opportunities to 
sell these abroad. Of course, inevitably, the imposition of these 
barriers involves the government's deciding which sectors and which 
industries will be winners and losers because very seldom are these 
broadly and uniformly applied. Individual sectors are usually selected.
  So where are we today? It has been 16 weeks since the President 
invoked section 232 of our trade law to impose tariffs on imported 
steel and aluminum. First and foremost, I have to say this is a misuse 
of section 232 of our trade law.
  Section 232 is supposed to be invoked when there is a specific threat 
to America's national security. Well, let's consider the case of steel. 
The United States produces domestically 75 percent of all the steel we 
consume. Our defense needs consume 3 percent of total steel 
consumption. How could one possibly make the case that we don't have a 
plentiful abundance of domestically produced steel to satisfy our 
defense needs? But it is not only that. Where are the biggest sources 
for the 25 percent of steel that we consume but we don't produce 
ourselves? Well, that would be Mexico and Canada. Those are the two 
countries that provide the most steel. With both of those countries, we 
have a surplus of trade in steel. The Canadians actually buy more steel 
from us than we buy from them, and so do the Mexicans.
  Where is the security threat to America when my constituents choose 
to buy some portion of the steel we consume from Canada? We know the 
answer. There is no security threat from Canada and Mexico, and the 
fact that they provide a modest percentage of our steel needs does not 
constitute a national security threat, and we know it doesn't. Yet the 
administration invoked section 232 to impose this tax on American 
consumers when we choose to buy steel and aluminum from Canada and 
Mexico and the European Union, by the way, for that matter.
  The harmful effects we have feared have already begun. We have 
increased prices on U.S. consumers and a real threat to workers and 
businesses. I have heard from many Pennsylvania manufacturers that 
happen to rely, for some portion of their products, on imported steel, 
and now their products are no longer competitive because they, alone in 
the world, are being forced to pay this additional tax when they import 
this steel.
  I have to say this is part of what looks like a pattern to me--and 
this is one of my concerns--of this administration moving away from 
support for free trade. First, there was a sugar deal negotiated with 
Mexico which is designed to artificially inflate the price American 
consumers have to pay for sugar. It works out very well if you are one 
of the handful of people who produce sugar in the United States, but it 
is a terrible deal for everyone else. Then we had tariffs applied to 
solar panels and washing machines under a

[[Page S4888]]

different provision. Now we have an ongoing and apparently escalating 
trade war with China. This motion has absolutely nothing to do with 
China; I am just presenting that as a matter of context. And we are 
hearing that the administration is threatening now to again misuse 
section 232, in my view, to impose new taxes on Americans who choose to 
buy automobiles that originate in Europe. That would be terrible for 
our economy and for our consumers. It would be a bad idea, but we are 
told that is under active consideration.
  My view is that it is about time Congress restores to Congress the 
constitutional responsibility we have to establish tariffs. The 
Constitution is completely unambiguous about this. Article I, section 
8, clause 1, states that ``the Congress shall have Power To lay and 
collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.'' Clause 3 says that ``the 
Congress shall have the power . . . to regulate Commerce with foreign 
Nations.'' We made a mistake in recent decades when we ceded this 
constitutional responsibility to the executive branch. I think that was 
a mistake, and I have argued that for a long time. Now we are seeing a 
price being paid as the administration, I think, is misusing this 
important tool.
  What our motion does is it would simply take a step in the direction 
of restoring this responsibility the Constitution assigns to us in the 
first place. This does not tie the President's hands at all. The 
President is free to negotiate better trade agreements if he can, and I 
think he should. What it does say, though, is that if he wants to 
invoke national security as the reason for imposing taxes on Americans 
when they buy foreign products--when he wants to do that, Congress 
ought to have a role. That is all it says. That is what this motion to 
instruct says.
  I am very pleased to be working with Senator Corker from Tennessee 
and Senator Flake from Arizona. I think this is a very modest step. It 
takes us in a direction that would be very constructive, which is to 
restore the constitutional responsibility we have been shirking. I am 
pleased there is bipartisan support for this. I hope this motion to 
instruct our conferees will be adopted by a wide margin.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the same topic on which 
my friend from Pennsylvania just spoke. I want to thank him for laying 
out the rationale for this vote. I also thank Senator Flake for his 
efforts. I know Senator Alexander, the senior Senator from Tennessee 
and my friend, will speak on this topic in just a few moments. I do 
hope we will have an overwhelming vote for this motion to instruct. It 
is just a step in the direction that we would like to go relative to 
Congress's role.
  Section 232 of the Trade Act was never intended to be used the way 
this administration is using it. The Senator from Pennsylvania laid out 
the fact that this certainly is not being imposed for national security 
reasons. As a matter of fact, the White House has said loosely on many 
occasions that they are only using section 232 in order to try to 
create some kind of leverage on NAFTA. I don't understand how putting 
tariffs in place on our allies in Europe has anything to do with NAFTA. 
I don't understand how putting tariffs on our neighbors has anything to 
do with combating what China is doing in stealing our intellectual 
property, and I know the Presiding Officer knows full well what is 
happening there. We do need to counter that kind of activity, and I 
don't know if we are doing it in the best way now.
  This is an abuse of Presidential authority. It is an abuse of 
Presidential authority. What I hope is going to happen today is that, 
in a bipartisan way, in an overwhelming vote, we are going to pass this 
motion to instruct, moving Congress into its rightful role as it 
relates to this issue.
  The reason the President, by the way--for those of you who may not be 
following this closely--is invoking section 232 is that under 232, no 
one has really an ability to oppose it. I mean, with the China 
tariffs--and this has nothing to do with the China tariffs that are 
being imposed today and that were recently imposed. They go under 
different sections of the Trade Act where you have to actually make a 
case for what you are doing. In January, the President used section 201 
of the Trade Act, but he has to make a case to be successful there. He 
recently used section 301 on China tariffs. Again, this particular 
motion has nothing to do with China tariffs, but he has to make a case 
for that. He has to deal with the World Trade Organization and ITC.
  Section 232--basically, he can just wake up and decide he is going to 
use section 232, the way it is now written. It has never been used in 
this manner by any President ever, but if we have a situation where we 
set up a rules-based society in dealing with trade, and any executive 
officer of a country can wake up and one day decide they have a 
national security issue and have to make no case, then, in effect, 
treaties relative to trade have no effect. You move into a place of not 
using rules to implement trade.
  Now, as the Senator from Pennsylvania mentioned, our country has 
benefited greatly from trade. The State of Tennessee is one of the 
destinations for foreign direct investment in our country. It is a 
place where we export all around the world. And what the President is 
doing is shaking the very regime by not being able to even articulate 
where he is going.
  The Senator from Georgia is my friend, and he has worked all around 
the world, and I am surprised that he would oppose Congress having a 
role only when section 232 is utilized. But the fact is that Congress 
should have a role.
  We gave this authority away in the 1960s and again in 1974. It was a 
mistake for us to have done that. We never expected the President of 
the United States to use 232 in the way it is being utilized today. 
This is a vote for Congress to assume its rightful role. It is a baby 
step.
  I hope to have legislation coming behind us where 15 Senators--
Republicans, Democrats, and an Independent--have come together on a 
piece of legislation to absolutely ensure that Congress has a role. 
This is just a motion to instruct to say that we agree that Congress 
should have a role when 232 is invoked. We will decide what that role 
is down the road.
  I urge all Senators to support this motion.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I join my colleagues today. I thank Senator 
Toomey from Pennsylvania and Senator Corker from Tennessee especially 
for working this out.
  Let's be clear. This is a rebuke of the President's abuse of trade 
authority. The President has abused section 232 to impose tariffs on 
steel and aluminum, impacting our allies, such as Canada, Mexico, and 
countries in the EU. Can you imagine being in Canada and being told 
that your steel and aluminum exports to the United States represent a 
national security threat? Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau 
rightfully called the President's recent tariffs an ``affront to the 
longstanding security partnership between Canada and the United 
States'' and, he continued, ``kind of insulting.''
  Canada is the largest consumer of U.S. goods. It buys more goods from 
the United States than China, Japan, and the UK combined. Canadian 
companies operating in the United States directly employ 500,000 
Americans. Canada and the United States share more than 5,500 miles of 
a peaceful border. Close to 400,000 people cross that shared border 
each day for business, pleasure, or to maintain family ties. Canada has 
been our partner in the War on Terrorism since 2001. More than 40,000 
Canadian Armed Forces members served alongside us in Afghanistan 
between 2001 and 2014. Canada has been our ally, our partner, and our 
friend, and now they are told that their steel and aluminum exports to 
us represent a national security threat. That is an abuse of section 
232 of the Trade Act.
  I am so glad that Congress is finally pushing back on this. We have 
neglected our constitutional role. We gave the President authority 
years ago, under the 1962 act, to exempt from that act imports that 
represent a true national security threat. These imports do not. This 
is an abuse of that authority, and that is why Congress needs to speak 
up today.

[[Page S4889]]

  This is a nonbinding resolution. This will not have an effect that 
will actually get to the President in legislation. That is the next 
step, and we need to go there. We have to go there. Those voting on 
this today need to know that is where we will go. We have to rein in an 
abuse of Presidential authority and to restore Congress's 
constitutional authority in this regard.

  I thank my colleagues for bringing this to the floor. I urge all of 
my colleagues to support it--not just that, but once we go from here, 
taking this symbolic step, this nonbinding resolution, to take actual 
steps on legislation that will return the actual authority to Congress 
once again to impose or to manage tariffs.
  With that, I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.