Sherrod Brown

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, in the fall of 2016, just 4 years ago, I heard Candidate Trump repeatedly promise to get rid of the North American Free Trade Agreement--to pull out of it, to renegotiate it, or to fix it so that it worked better than it did. I didn't support Donald Trump for President. I think he has been a less than honest President with whom I disagree in terms of his character and in terms of his work product, but that is really not the point. The point was that I liked what he said about getting out of NAFTA. I know what NAFTA did to the Presiding Officer's home State of Indiana. I know what it did to Dayton, OH; to Cleveland, OH; to Canton, OH; to Youngstown, Toledo, Mansfield, Springfield, Zanesville, and to almost every community in my State. So I welcomed the President's saying that. The reason I thought these trade agreements were so bad for our country was that these trade agreements were always written by corporate interests to serve the needs of the executives and the major stockholders of the corporations. In fact, they not only were not written for workers, but they undermined workers. I have never voted for a trade agreement. I voted against NAFTA, and I voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement. I voted against permanent normal trade relations with China--one after another after another--because I saw that these trade agreements were written for corporate interests and that they betrayed workers. What happened is that companies would shut down production in Canton or in Niles or in Bryan or in Lima, and they would move overseas, build factories there, and sell those products back into the United States. That was what happened with these trade agreements. Corporations liked them because they could exploit low-income workers. They liked them because their profits could be greater. They liked them because they had no responsibility to their workers when they would move overseas and sell the products back. That was their mission. That was the way these companies did business. So I welcomed the President's doing that. Then, about a year ago, the President presented the new NAFTA. He called it the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, the USMCA. When he presented it to the Congress, it was more of the same. It was almost exactly the same. It had a few little tweaks, but fundamentally the President again betrayed the workers, as all of these trade agreements do. The President's bill, the President's USMCA, was again a giveaway to corporate interests. In fact, there was a provision in there for the drug companies that was maybe worse than I had ever seen in a trade agreement. The White House, I admit, does look like an executive retreat for drug company executives except on Tuesdays and Fridays, when it looks like a retreat for Wall Street executives. The President presented this USMCA to us, and it was the same ol, same ol. It fundamentally would mean more jobs would be outsourced, more profits for corporations, and more exploitation of low-wage workers. Because of his USMCA, even more companies would shut down in Lima or in Zanesville or in Gallipolis or in Portsmouth or in Chillicothe and move overseas to look for cheap labor and weaker labor laws so they would make more money. So this President betrayed workers again by giving us a trade agreement that was no better than the ones he had campaigned against. Yet, this year, a number of us--Senator Wyden of Oregon, Speaker Pelosi, Congresswoman DeLauro of Connecticut, and organized labor-- banded together and said: No, Mr. President. We are not going to pass another corporate trade agreement. We are not going to pass another special interest trade agreement that sells out workers and enriches corporate executives over and over. We are not going to buy that again. We are saying no to that. Then we said: We will support your USMCA only if you include strong language for workers. So we got the Brown-Wyden amendment in this agreement. Finally, after a year--the President fundamentally refused to talk to us about it, and the U.S. Trade Rep refused to seriously include this language--they realized: Wait a second. If we don't do this, we will never get another USMCA. So just a few weeks ago, President Trump and U.S. Trade Representative Lighthizer finally agreed to put in strong labor language. Do you know what that means? It means that the center of our trade agreement now--the center of our trade policy--is workers. Workers are now at the center of our trade policy, not corporate interests that send jobs overseas, not pharmaceutical companies that make even more money when they go to China, not other kinds of corporations that outsource their jobs and have their whole business plans undermining workers. Do you know what else that means? It is good news for places like Gallipolis and Zanesville and Mansfield and Lima and Chillicothe and Columbus and Dayton and all of these communities in my State. It is good news for them because, for the first time, they can look to our trade policy and see that workers are the center of that trade policy. In years and years here, I have never voted for a trade agreement. I have always opposed NAFTA and CAFTA and PRT with China. Last week, in the Committee on Finance, because they included Brown-Wyden, because workers are now at the center of our trade policy, I cast my vote for a trade agreement that will matter, that will help workers in my State. It is a good move. It means not just that this trade agreement will be better; it means, in the future, that any President who wants to pass a trade agreement will have to do what we did this year over the resistance of President Trump. He will have to do what we did this year and put workers at the center of our trade policy. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I rise today to honor a heroic Ohio veteran whom we lost this month, CPL Fred B. McGee. Corporal McGee served in Korea, where he and his squad leader were both wounded in the bloody Battle of Hill 528. With his leader down, and despite his own injuries, Corporal McGee took command--he wasn't next in line, but he stepped up, and he saved lives. He was hit again, and his squad was given the order to withdraw. Yet still, with shrapnel in the face and leg, he voluntarily remained behind to evacuate his fellow soldiers who were wounded and killed. His acts of bravery earned Corporal McGee a Silver Star and two Purple Hearts. For too long, he did not receive the recognition he earned serving our country. Like so many veterans, Corporal McGee rarely spoke about his service and never drew attention to his own courage. While recalling the battle earlier this year he said, ``No, I'm not brave. I just did what was a necessity.'' And in the 1950s, the color of his skin surely also contributed to the lack of recognition for Corporal McGee's heroism. He was drafted in 1951 into a newly integrating Army and was one of the first African- American soldiers to serve in Korea. Jefferson County's sheriff talked about how someone made a comic book in 1953 illustrating 10 stories of soldiers' heroics, they depicted Corporal McGee as a White man. We owe a hero like Corporal McGee a tribute that befits his service and sacrifice. At the end of last year, the Jefferson County Veterans Service Commission honored Corporal McGee as its Veteran of the Year. And I ask all my colleagues to join me in honoring him on the Senate floor today. We thank CPL Fred McGee for his heroism and his sacrifices for our country and we send our thoughts to Corporal McGee's family. May the tributes from the many lives he touched bring you comfort, and know that we will keep alive the story of his heroism.

Mr. BROWN

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

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, 3\1/2\ years or so ago, I live in Cleveland, and I was in my State watching the Presidential campaign. I heard Candidate Trump repeatedly talking about renegotiating NAFTA or getting rid of the North America Free Trade Agreement. While I did not support his candidacy and have generally disagreed with most of what he has said and done, it was a bit of music to my ears to hear Candidate Trump talk about renegotiating or getting rid of NAFTA. I have voted, in my time in the Senate and before this, every single trade agreement starting with the North America Free Trade Agreement of two-plus decades ago, I have voted no in these trade agreements. I never voted for a trade agreement because, frankly, every trade agreement coming in front of the House or Senate has been a corporate trade agreement. It has been written by corporate lobbyists to serve corporate executives to serve their biggest stockholders. That is what these trade agreements are about. In every case, it was an attack on the middle class. In every case, it undermined worker protections. It depressed wages. It meant loss of jobs. I know what these corporate trade agreements did to my hometown of Mansfield. I know what it did in Mansfield, OH. I know what they have done to my adoptive city of Cleveland, OH, and I know what they have done to the entire industrial Midwest--well beyond that, too, in places like Arizona and elsewhere. I have seen what these corporate trade deals do. So Candidate Trump is elected President. He then says he is going to do away, back out, or renegotiate NAFTA. I looked at that with optimism. I talked to the U.S. Trade Representative, Ambassador Lighthizer, a number of times. I spoke with the President about it. I offered my assistance, and then, lo and behold, about a year ago, the President came out with a renegotiated NAFTA. It was the same old, same old. It was another corporate trade agreement that served his corporate interests, that served the drug companies, and that served those companies that are looking for cheap labor across the Rio Grande River. Under the President's new NAFTA--he called it USMCA--United States- Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement--under the President's new NAFTA, it was the same corporate template, the same corporate trade agreement that helps corporate investors, that undermines workers, that gives incentives to companies to shut down production in Zanesville, in Gallipolis, in Marietta, in Cleveland, in Lima, in Toledo, and in Bryan and move their jobs to Mexico. So what did we do? Instead, initially, I continued to talk to the U.S. Trade Representative, as did some of my colleagues, knowing this first NAFTA draft was unacceptable and was not nearly what the President said he would do for workers. In fact, it was more than that. It was another betrayal of workers. This same President has betrayed low-income workers by refusing to raise the minimum wage. It has been more than a decade. This same President took away the new overtime rule, costing at least 50,000 Ohioans--that is just 50,000 in my State, thousands in Arizona, probably 100,000 in California, tens of thousands around the country and different States--cost them their overtime pay, meaning they would work 50 hours a week, and they would only get paid for 40. We saw that this President again was betraying workers. It has taken us months and months and months of fighting alongside Speaker Pelosi and Senator Wyden--the senior Democrat of the Finance Committee--and unions and organized labor to secure the Brown-Wyden provisions that now, with USMCA, amount to the strongest labor enforcement in a U.S. trade agreement ever. It means that wages will go up in Mexico, which is good news for American workers because fewer jobs will move to Mexico. A worker in Mexico now will be able to report a company that violates her labor rights or worker rights. Within months, we can determine whether worker rights have been violated and can take action against that company. Now, for the first time in my whole career, I will vote for a trade agreement. I wouldn't have voted for the Trump trade. I didn't vote for NAFTA, the Central American Free Trade Agreement, PNTR with China and South Korea, and all these other trade agreements. I would not have voted against the Trump USMCA because it didn't look out for workers. Instead of putting workers at the center of trade agreements, which is what we should do, it was a trade agreement written by and for corporate interests. What Senator Wyden and I did and others is we are now about to pass a trade agreement that puts workers in the center of the trade agreement, meaning a stronger middle class and meaning workers will get a fair shake. It means that Ohio workers will be able to compete. We know why companies took advantage of these corporate trade agreements. They shut down production in Ohio and moved to Mexico so they can pay lower wages and they can take advantage of workers who don't have rights. American workers can't compete with that when it is a race to the bottom on wages. Brown-Wyden will work to stop that, and for the first time ever, as I said, it will put workers in the center of a trade agreement. We must be straight with American workers. This isn't a perfect trade agreement. One trade deal the Democrats fixed--even though the President resisted it, finally gave in--a trade deal that Democrats fixed will not undo the rest of Trump's economic policies that puts corporations over workers and appoints judges who put their thumbs on the scales of justice to support corporations over workers and to support Wall Street over consumers. I voted yes. I voted yes today in the Finance Committee. It is the first time I ever have on a trade deal because, by including Brown-Wyden, Democrats have made this agreement much more pro-worker, and, equally as important, we set an important precedent that Brown-Wyden must be included in every future trade agreement that comes in front of this body. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise to talk about an issue that the Senate may address on the floor this week. Tomorrow in the Senate Finance Committee, we are going to take up the renegotiated North American Free Trade Agreement. One of my proudest votes as a Member of the House a long time ago was to vote against the North American Free Trade Agreement, to vote against NAFTA. I have voted no on every trade agreement since then because every trade agreement that has come in front of this body was written by corporate interests for their corporate executives and stockholders. They maximize profits always--every one of these trade agreements--CAFTA, NAFTA, PNTR with China, which is not technically a trade agreement, but it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck. Every one of these trade agreements, in every case, has looked out for corporate interests and jettisoned the interests of workers. We see the consequences. Corporate profits soar every time. Executive compensation explodes upward every time. Workers continue to produce more than ever before. Even though corporate profits are up and executive compensation is up, workers' wages are flat. Often, they can't join a union, and the middle class continues to shrink. I know what that has meant in the Presiding Officer's State of Arkansas. I know what it has meant in Ohio. I know what it has done to my hometown of Mansfield. I know what these trade agreements do to Dayton and Cleveland and Cincinnati and Canton and Youngstown and Toledo. Then-Candidate Trump said that he was going to renegotiate NAFTA. Well, that was his promise. He did, but he gave us the same thing. His economic policies overall have been that, but his renegotiated NAFTA, which he brought to this Congress originally--the negotiation that he made with Mexico and Canada--was another corporate trade agreement written for corporate interests. Again, this President betrays workers with his tax giveaways to corporations, to his judges who put their thumbs on the scale, choosing corporations over workers, choosing Wall Street over consumers. Then, last year, as he has done one betrayal of workers after another, squeezing the middle class even more--last year, when we got the initial draft of this agreement from the administration, the renegotiated NAFTA was another betrayal. His first NAFTA draft was nowhere near the good deal for workers that President Trump promised. He had fundamentally negotiated another corporate trade deal--a deal that helps corporate executives, that helps stockholders, that betrays workers again and again, another trade deal just like that. It meant nothing for workers. It meant a sellout to drug companies. It took us months of fighting alongside Speaker Pelosi and Senator Wyden and trade unions to improve this deal and take the real and important steps toward putting workers at the center of our trade policies. These trade policies should be written for workers so that they increase their income and expand the middle class, not written for corporations in trickle-down economics. We know what happens on every tax bill that comes before this Congress, written by the administration and Senator McConnell. We know it is the same thing. Instead of building the economy from the middle out so that the middle class grows and America overwhelmingly prospers, just like the tax cuts--the tax cuts for the rich that may, they tell us, trickle down and help the middle class--that is the way this trade agreement was written. That is the way these tax bills in this Congress were written. It took months of fighting alongside Senator Wyden and organized labor and Speaker Pelosi. We now have a provision in the labor chapter, and the President has finally agreed to this provision. He knew he wasn't going to get a renegotiated NAFTA unless he followed what we said on workers. For the first time, we have a provision in the labor chapter. For instance, it says that violence against workers is always a violation of the agreement. The language the President gave us said: Well, the first time you commit violence against workers, we might fine you. The second time, we might fine you. Only if you do it over and over is it a violation. Really? If there is violence against workers, the people who committed that violence ought to pay for it. So we fixed that in this agreement. We have improved some of the legalese that since the beginning has been included in trade agreements to make it nearly impossible to successfully win a case when a country violates its labor commitments. We secured the Wyden provision, which amounts to, by far, the strongest ever labor enforcement in the U.S. trade deal. This provision that Senator Wyden and I wrote and fought for is the first improvement to enforcing labor standards in our trade agreements since we have been negotiating them. We know why companies closed factories in Ohio and opened them in Mexico. They can pay lower wages. They can take advantage of workers who don't have rights. They can keep unions from organizing. American workers can't compete with that kind of low-wage lack of enforcement of labor laws. What happens? There is a race to the bottom on wages. So if a company threatens to move to Mexico and they tell their workforce ``We are going to move unless you do some wage givebacks,'' they either move and the American workers lose their jobs or they use that as a way to put downward pressure on wages for American workers. I know what that has done to Mansfield, OH. I know what it has done to Gallipolis, Chillicothe, Zanesville, Dayton, Huber Heights, and every other community. The only way to stop this is by raising labor standards in every country we trade with and, most importantly, making sure those standards are actually enforced. If corporations are forced to pay workers a living wage and treat them with dignity no matter where the workers are, we take away the incentive for those companies to move jobs abroad. That is what the Brown-Wyden provision does. A worker in Mexico now, under this agreement--the reason I am supporting this, the first-ever trade agreement that I am supporting-- workers in Mexico will be able to report a company that is violating their rights. They can actually call a toll-free number and report violations against the workers. A worker can actually make that request. They have never had that right in Mexico. They, often enough, don't have it here. We can then determine whether worker rights have been violated and then take action against the company that did it. We have never done it that way. We haven't had good results because of that. We can apply punitive damages when companies stop workers from organizing. If they keep doing it, we stop their goods from coming into the United States. You enforce it at the factory level by saying: If you keep violating this trade agreement, you are not sending your products into the United States. That will make them behave. When Mexican workers have the power to form real unions and negotiate for higher wages, it helps our workers. Right now, Mexican workers can be paid as little as $6.50--not an hour but a day. We have been asking American workers to compete with that. We have already heard some critics say that Brown-Wyden will force Mexican wages to rise. I plead guilty. That is the entire point--to take away the incentive. If Mexican wages go up, it makes U.S. companies less likely to shut down production in Steubenville or Lisbon or in Bryan, OH, and move overseas. It takes away the incentive for those companies to relocate. I want to be clear. I will always be straight with American workers. This is not a perfect agreement. One trade deal that Democrats fixed will not undo the rest of Trump's economic policies that put corporations over workers. This deal will not stop outsourcing when we have President Trump's tax plan that gives companies a tax break to send American jobs to Mexico. Here is how the President's tax bill that was rammed through this Senate a year or so ago works: If you are in Springfield, OH, your corporate tax rate is 21 percent. If you move--pull up stakes and move to Mexico or anywhere else--your tax rate is 10.5 percent. Even with this good trade agreement, we cannot stop that kind of outsourcing because the President insists on helping his corporate buddies. I will keep fighting his corporate trade policies and tax policies just as we did in this agreement. We have a lot more work to do to make our trade agreements more pro-worker. I will vote yes for the first time ever on a trade agreement because, by including Brown-Wyden, Democrats have made this agreement much more pro-worker. We set an important precedent for the future that Brown- Wyden must now be included in every trade agreement in the years ahead. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Robert Greenstein, founder and president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, for his work over nearly four decades, fighting for a more just and equal society. Bob founded CBPP in 1981 to push for policies that expand opportunity for the lowest income children and families, and ensure that this country's prosperity is shared with the workers who create it, not just the wealthiest CEOs and the largest corporations. He built CBPP from the ground up and transformed it from a tiny organization with a shoestring budget to one of the most influential policy shapers in the country. Under Bob's leadership, CBPP combined in-depth analysis and research with clear-headed strategy to drive the debate and deliver results. We worked together to spearhead efforts to permanently expand the earned income tax credit and child tax credit in 2015, and Bob was vital to our success. It is probably the most important thing we have done to life people out of poverty in the last 25 years, and it could not have happened without Bob's leadership on this issue, stretching back decades. Of course it is not only tax credits; from passing the Affordable Care Act to strengthening SNAP, from protecting and expanding Medicaid, to fighting for more affordable housing, Bob's work at CBPP has meant that millions of ordinary Americans have more food on the table, more money in their pockets, and a little more economic security. Over his career he has touched so many lives, and he has so much to be proud of. We know we have a lot more work to do, and while Bob has earned his retirement, I have faith that he will continue to be a force for the progressive change that our country needs.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of Senator Carper and Senator Wyden and all the members of the tax-writing committee with Senator Stabenow. I believe a couple more Senators will join us--I believe Senators Cardin and Cantwell. Thanks for the work you do, Senator Stabenow, on this issue and so many others. We all know now what the Trump tax scam did. We know it was a giveaway to the richest people in the country. It was a $1.5 trillion tax cut. Seventy percent of it went to the wealthiest people in the country. We know that. We pretty much knew that in the beginning. We know the President said all kinds of things--one lie after another-- about it. I want to tell two stories. One of them is from when I was at the White House with the President and half a dozen other Senators sitting in the President's Cabinet Room when he was talking about the tax bill. He said to me and to other Senators that every American will get at least $4,000 more in their paycheck--at least. I guess he meant people in Gallipolis and Ironton, OH, and Portsmouth and Cleveland and Lansing, MI, and Kalamazoo and everywhere else. He said everybody was going to get $4,000. That is what he said when the bill was being written. When he signed it, he said everybody was going to start seeing a lot more money in their paychecks. Well, he lied. No surprise there-- he always does that. He lies about a lot of things. But I particularly take it personally when he lies about something like that; when voters in Lima and Piqua, OH, don't get what he promised them; when citizens and workers just don't get the help. At the same time, when I was at that meeting, I went up to the President. I had in my hand a bill I was working on called the Patriot Corporation Act. I went up to the President after the meeting. I had mentioned it during the meeting, and then I walked up to him and said: Mr. President, this is the Patriot Corporation Act. I want you to consider this. Unlike the bill we were looking at, which gave tax cuts to all kinds of corporations and all kinds of the wealthiest people in this country, the Patriot Corporation Act was simple. The Patriot Corporation Act said: If you pay your workers a decent wage; if you provide adequate benefits--health and retirement--to your workers; and if you are in manufacturing and you do your production in the United States, then you will get a break on your taxes. So if you do things right as an employer--decent wages, decent benefits, do your production in the United States--you get a lower tax rate. But if you don't, if you pay low wages or outsource jobs, you pay something called the corporate freeloader fee. This is because so many companies in this country--they might be retail outlets, whatever these companies are--pay $8 or $10 or $12 an hour, and their workers are eligible for Medicaid, food stamps, Section 8 housing, and, basically, those companies are subsidized by taxpayers. So why not have a tax system where corporations that do the right thing get a lower tax rate, and corporations that rely on the government to fund them--food stamps, the earned income tax credit, Medicaid, and all of that--those corporations ought to pay a corporate freeloader fee to the government. That is the first story. The second story I wanted to tell you about--the three of us right here in this room right now, Senator Cardin and Senator Stabenow and I, were in the midst of this--when this tax bill was written, it was written in the Senate Finance Committee. You know, when we do things in the Senate, we do these things out in public--in the Senate Finance Committee--but we know that much of the work is done in Senator McConnell's office down the hall. That is where the corporate lobbyists who want these big tax cuts line up. We were doing our public meeting in the Senate Finance Committee, and they were in such a hurry to pass this bill. We worked way into the night, which we are all fine with doing, but the next day we worked, they were moving so fast that we would get an amendment that would be handwritten in not very good writing, and it would be added to the bill, and we really didn't know exactly what we were voting on. They didn't want to give us time to do it. The people who run this place--Senator McConnell and the special interest lobbyists who line up down the hall--know that if they can operate and people can't understand what they are doing--they will work all night sometimes. They will do things by hand instead of actual legible writing so that we end up with the kind of confusion that came out of that. Well, you know what happened, Mr. President. There were all kinds of mistakes in this bill, and the President signed it. We didn't know what the mistakes were, but then we found out. Now Republicans are coming back and they want us to clean up this mess. Well, cleaning up the mess means more corporate tax breaks, more giveaways to corporate America, and more help for the richest 1 percent in this country. We are saying: We want to fix the technical mistakes you made when you hurried through this bill. We want to do that. We all voted against the bill because it was a corporate giveaway and a giveaway to the rich. We want to fix this so the Tax Code actually reads right and there won't be all these court cases regarding it. But if we are going to do that, you are going to give some tax breaks to middle-class families, and you are going to pass legislation expanding the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit. We have simply said to the President and to the Republican majority that writes these bills that we will work with you. We want to do that, but you are not going to hurt middle-class and working-class taxpayers again. You are going to expand the earned income tax credit, take care of electric vehicles and the kinds of issues we want to do there, but fundamentally you are going to help low-income and moderate-income children whose parents work just as hard as any Senators work but don't have much to say for it. Again, it comes down to, whose side are you on? Are you going to stand with workers, or are you going to stand with corporations? Do you fight for Wall Street, or do you fight for the dignity of work? If you love this country, you fight for the people who make it work. The President promised to fight for American workers. He betrayed American workers, as he has betrayed American workers on minimum wage and overtime and trade deals. He has betrayed workers over and over again. He broke that promise he made. It is important that we fix it and we fix it for the broad middle class in this country. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN

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

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a Cleveland native, a Buffalo soldier, and an Olympic legend--Harrison Dillard. Mr. Dillard died last month at the age of 96. His life included service to our country in World War II, four Olympic gold medals, and world records. He grew up racing up and down the streets of our shared hometown of Cleveland with friends. When Mr. Dillard was 13, he saw his hometown hero, a gentleman named Jesse Owens, in a parade. He ran home and told his mother: ``I just saw Jesse Owens, [Mom], and I'm going to be just like him.'' She humored her son. Think about how many people say that to mothers in Cleveland and other places. She humored her son like all mothers do, but Harrison Dillard was serious. He and his friends would take old cars seats and put them in the street and jump over them for practice. When he enrolled at Jesse Owens' alma mater, Cleveland's East Technical High School on the east side of our city, Owens himself gave Harrison a new pair of running shoes. Jesse Owens was one of the most famous athletes in the country. He won world records, one gold medal, and stood up to Adolph Hitler. Jessie Owens gave Harrison Dillard a new pair of running shoes. Mr. Dillard joined the Army after high school. He served in a segregated unit. Just for younger people who don't know this history, we segregated our Armed Forces in this country, even in World War II. Just to add a little more to that history with those soldiers who came back from serving their country, they came back to a segregated country. They had fought for human rights. They came back, and they didn't have those human rights. Think about that. After the war, General Patton saw Harrison Dillard in an Army track meet, and Patton said--pardon my language on the Senate floor: ``[That man] is the best Goddamn athlete I've ever seen.'' Harrison Dillard proved him right. He represented our country at the Olympics in London. He brought home two gold medals in the 100-meter race. He achieved his childhood dream. He matched Jesse Owens' Olympic record time of 10.3 seconds. That was in 1948. He would later write in his autobiography: ``I could finally say that I was just like [Jesse Owens].'' Plenty of people tried to hold Harrison Dillard back because of the color of his skin. He recalled how, after his military discharge, he was refused food at a restaurant. Again, he served his country, he came back to his country, and he was refused food in a restaurant because of the color of his skin. It is shameful how we treated veterans and fellow citizens in this country. It is a testament to Mr. Dillard's tenacity and talent that he achieved so much in the face of a society that was so often set up to hold him back. He ended his career by serving the city that raised him. He worked for the Cleveland public school system. Now, I met Harrison Dillard once. Actually, I met him later as an adult. I saw him not that many years ago. I met him when I was in Boy Scouts at Camp Avery Hand in Mansfield, OH. Harrison Dillard came out and spoke to our Scout troop and other troops who were sitting there congregated to listen to this world class famous athlete talk to us about service. I remember I didn't know a lot about him because I was not even born when he won the Olympics, but I knew he was an Olympian. He was introduced as that. We got to listen to him, and he inspired us. His legacy lives on in Northeast Ohio. He lives on around the country not only in our record books but also through the young people he inspired. I ask all my colleagues to join me in honoring Harrison Dillard--Olympic gold medal winner, U.S. Army veteran, and citizen of the great city of Cleveland. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I appreciate Senator Menendez always speaking up for human rights, regardless who the President is, regardless of any colleagues running for President, whenever the President calls on them, and Senator Menendez has always been a Senator here that stands up for his principles on international human rights.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I was walking by and heard Senator Wyden--I do not usually sit over here--Senator Wyden was speaking about healthcare. It is just so clear to me some of the things that this body could be doing to bring down the cost of healthcare and to expand the number of people that have health insurance. I know, in my State, I worked with, I know, a friend of the Presiding Officer, Governor Kasich, a Republican--I am a Democrat--on expanding Medicaid in Ohio. In fact, after the Affordable Care Act, we now have 900,000 more people that have insurance. But what I liked about what Senator Wyden was saying was some of the things we could do in the future. It is clear to me, if we allowed the government to negotiate drug prices on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries, directly with the drug companies the way we do at the Veterans Administration, it could make a huge difference in drug costs. We, in this body, a large part is because the drug company lobby refuses to do it.

Mr. BROWN. Yes. MR. WYDEN. My colleague has been an enormous champion for consumers, and I just want to ask my colleague, didn't he and finance Democrats try in the Finance Committee to get rid of the restrictions on negotiating to do exactly what he is saying?

Mr. BROWN. Yes, that is exactly right. It should be an easy process. We know how to do it at the Veterans Administration. The cost is 40 or 50 percent of what typically is the cost a patient pays. The other thing we could do--and we were this close to getting it in the Affordable Care Act, is giving people the option, at age 50 or 55, to buy into Medicare because, as Senator Wyden knows, we all have in our States--whether it is Utah or Oregon or Ohio, we have 58-year-olds that lose their jobs or 62-year-olds that lose their jobs, and they cannot really often find insurance, or it is not affordable if they can. If they had the option to buy in--rather in a neutral way we built it into the Affordable Care Act, but lost in the end. We fell one vote short. But it would have made a huge difference in people being able to get through that. I will never forget, I had a townhall in Youngstown some years ago. A woman stood up and said, ``I'm 62 years old. I hold two jobs. I never had health insurance. I just want to stay alive until I'm 65.'' She did not say I want to stay alive to raise my grandkids or to take a trip. It was to stay alive so I can get on Medicare and get insurance, and that just should not be in this country.

Mr. BROWN. Absolutely--I thank Senator Wyden--absolutely. Just give them that option. It is something we ought to be able to do. We can do it in a cost-effective way. In the end, it means fewer trips to the emergency room. In the end, it means a healthy population of people at those 10 years when they are more likely to get sick and more likely to need Medicare, but are not likely to be eligible. I thank Senator Wyden. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Go ahead, Senator Alexander.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I reserve the right to object. I and my colleagues here--Senator Carper, Senator Coons, and prominent Democrats in the education debate--have deep concerns about Senator Alexander's proposed micropackage. To be sure, it is a micropackage of higher education bills. It is not a complete reauthorization. Our caucus has been clear about what a comprehensive bill should look like. It addresses access, affordability, accountability, and campus safety. This Alexander proposal falls well short. The Senator from Tennessee says this package is bipartisan. That is sort of true but not entirely. He has made a number of changes to the underlying bipartisan bills that do not have the support of lead Democrats on this and, in some cases, the lead Republicans of the original bills. For example, this package includes a limited repeal of the ban on Pell grants for incarcerated adults instead of the full repeal of the ban included in the bipartisan bill. Our bill adds to Pell grants. His version of the short-term Pell Grant Program makes significant changes to the bipartisan JOBS Act of 2019, a bill of which I am an original cosponsor. The JOBS Act excludes for-profit colleges from eligibility for the program. We know the Trump administration is all about for-profit institutions, with the Secretary of Education leading the charge. This version allows for-profit colleges--the sorts of schools we know mislead and scam students in too many cases--to sneak their way into eligibility. One of the things I admire about the chairman of the HELP Committee-- and have admired since I met him 20-some years ago--was his work not just as Secretary of Education but his work as president of the University of Tennessee. He knows what for-profit colleges do for and to far too many students. His legislation removes a number of the protections meant to ensure programs eligible for this funding are actually high-quality ones that educate students. These are just a couple of the ways this micropackage is different from the original bipartisan bills. We know the micropackage cannot pass the House. Chairman Scott and Speaker Pelosi have been clear that they want comprehensive reform. A comprehensive HEA reauthorization can pass. That is not what this is. I hope we can come to a bipartisan agreement, but as we work together, we can't hold hostage historically Black colleges and universities. Most of them are in the South. Most of them are in the States of my colleagues who are from the South. Most of them are in Republican States with Republican Senators. As mentioned by Senator Carper and Senator Coons, of Delaware, my State, which is similar to Delaware, has historically Black colleges. In Ohio, Wilberforce and Central State are prominent institutions that matter so much to our State. For the nearly 2 years now since the Trump administration has been in office, these schools have been in fiscal limbo. I know Senator Alexander cares about these schools, but there is no evidence that the President of the United States does. They need their funding extended now. The mandatory funding, which is vital to these schools, ran out on September 30 because the Senate refused to act and because the President didn't seem to care. The House did its job in passing the FUTURE Act. Now HBCUs are facing impossible decisions in the face of dwindling funding. The Senate needs to immediately take up and vote on the bill the House already passed to provide full, mandatory funding for MSIs and HBCUs. We all agree--Senator Burr, Senator Alexander, the two Senators from Delaware, and Senator Cardin, who has just joined us--that HBCUs have fostered generations of Black leaders. They are a critical part of our Nation's higher ed system. These schools have rich legacies and proven track records of educating students of color and other underrepresented students. Wilberforce was founded in 1856 in Wilberforce, OH, as the Nation's first private institution of higher ed for Black students. Central State, which is in the same town across the road in Wilberforce, has a rich legacy of educating students as an 1890 land grant institution. We have helped it this year through the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. It is further tasked with strengthening research, extension, and teaching in food and ag science. We know that without our HBCUs, millions of Black students would have been denied the opportunity to pursue higher ed. HBCUs account for approximately a quarter of all of Black students who earn bachelor's degrees and nearly a third of all of the African-American students who earn STEM bachelor's degrees. Our country owes an enormous debt to these schools that we don't seem to be paying back. That is why it is unconscionable that the Senate has abandoned these schools and these students. I have heard from schools about how their budgets have been thrown into chaos. They tell me that academia is about planning, and many of them already operate close to the margins. HBCUs have already received letters from the Department of Education telling them that they are not getting future funding and that they can't use any Federal funding for long-term projects. It could mean program cuts and layoffs. It means no long-term construction projects. It means not hiring permanent faculty and not purchasing major equipment. Imagine operating a school like that. It is shameful that in 2019 we still ignore schools that serve students of color by treating this as anything other than a must-pass bill. I know that very few African Americans voted for President Trump, and I know he seems to care for only those people who voted for him. Yet this is an obligation. Senator Alexander wants to fulfill it, but he is operating in a straitjacket with this President. It is so important that we do this. The FUTURE Act is budget neutral, and it is fully paid for. We use the same offset the administration has used. It is a bipartisan pay-for, not a gimmick. I should add that less than 2 years ago, this Senate and President Trump had no problem passing a $1 trillion tax cut for corporations and the wealthy that wasn't paid for. We have seen that under Republican leadership in the White House. We have seen what has happened to our budget debt, and we know corporations have had huge tax cuts. We know 70 percent of the tax cuts went to the wealthiest 1 percent. Yet this body can't take care of historically Black colleges. They hold schools that serve students of color to a different standard. I am hopeful that Senator Alexander, whom I trust, and Senator Murray, whom I trust, will continue to negotiate a truly bipartisan and truly comprehensive higher ed reauthorization that supports HBCUs. I support those efforts. That is the way forward for the priorities that Senator Alexander has outlined in his micropackage and for the updates and reauthorizations all of our students and families need. HBCUs and MSIs can't wait until that process is over. They need action now. They have all had to overcome enough hurdles every day in order to educate their students. The U.S. Senate should not be one of those hurdles. We need to pass the FUTURE Act now. Accordingly, I object.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Stabenow. She is exactly right. A couple of times, she used the term ``blank check.'' When people join the Army, people become marines, people go off to a service academy, and people enlist in the National Guard, essentially they sign a blank check cashed by all of us who care so much about protecting our country. Senator Stabenow has been, with Senator Tester, one of the real leaders on this. You know, it used to be, many years ago, when it became clearer that veteran after veteran after veteran--young veterans in those days, 20 years ago, not that far removed from Vietnam--were coming down with these illnesses, Congress decided bipartisanly, almost unanimously, that rather than make every single veteran, every soldier, every marine, and every sailor prove to the government, prove to the VA that they should be eligible for healthcare coverage based on the illness they got because of Agent Orange--Congress decided that we shouldn't make every single person go through proving this--through that process. So what did we do? We made a list of illnesses that typically come from exposure to Agent Orange, and any veteran who was sick from one of these illnesses, no questions asked, got healthcare. That is what we did. That was then. Today, in this time when I hear my colleagues who sit over here--I don't want to make this partisan, but it has become that because it is President Trump, Vice President Pence, and Senator McConnell who say no to this. We have the Secretary of the VA, appointed by the President of the United States, President Trump--the Secretary of the VA came up with these four additional illnesses around which there is scientific consensus saying that these illnesses are caused by Agent Orange, and individual veterans shouldn't have to, one at a time, prove that they got sick, that they got this kind of Parkinson's or they had bladder cancer based on Agent Orange. We ought to just accept that. That is how we serve those who served us. But do you know what Senator McConnell does? You know, his office is down the hall, as my colleagues know. Senator McConnell apparently says that we should do tax cuts for rich people, but we can't afford to spend a few billion dollars. It is a lot of money, but these are our people, and these are people who served in Southeast Asia mostly in the 1960s and 1970s. Senator McConnell wants to turn his back on them. President Trump turns his back on them. The new Secretary of the VA, appointed by President Trump, turns his back on these soldiers. There are 80,000 of them. Does President Trump just want to wait till all 80,000 are dead, and then we will not have to worry about this anymore? Or do we serve those who served us? Every time I think about this, I just can't believe that the President of the United States, who didn't serve--I didn't either. I understand that. But you know, because I didn't serve in Vietnam and I am just slightly on the young side of this generation, because I didn't serve, maybe I should work a little harder, as a member of the Veterans' Committee, to make sure the people who did serve are taken care of. This President, who didn't serve--I don't judge him for that. No matter what he said, I don't judge him for that. But maybe he ought to work a little harder, not just making speeches about how much he loves veterans but actually coming to the table and telling Senator McConnell: Quit blocking our attempts to take care of these 80,000 veterans. It is just outrageous.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of my remarks be placed at a different point in the Record.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I always appreciate Senator Menendez standing up for human rights all over the world, and this is one of the worst human rights violations the world has seen in the last 150 years. I thank my friend from New Jersey.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, judges make decisions around the country. They are making them right now on workers' rights, voters' rights, women's rights, civil rights, LGBTQ rights--decisions that would limit those rights for a generation. We used to be able to rely on judges to expand human rights and civil rights and all rights of humankind. Today, we cringe so often because of judges who get selected by this President who put their thumbs on the scale to support corporations over workers and health insurance companies over patients and Wall Street over consumers. These same judges make decisions on healthcare and sentencing and corporate power. That is why we can't afford to have Steven Menashi on the Federal bench. On all of these issues, his record makes it clear that he is not on the side of the people we were sent here to serve. There is a simple rule for understanding where Steve Menashi stands on any issue: If a policy helps ordinary, hard-working Americans, Menashi opposes it. He argued that gun safety regulation is ``pointless and self-defeating.'' We are talking about commonsense background checks that 85 percent of the American public supports, all blocked by the gun manufacturers. Tell that to the people of Dayton whose lives were torn apart and ended in some cases by gun violence. Tell them background checks are pointless. Menashi also advised Stephen Miller on immigration policy--the man who stands in the way of comprehensive immigration reform and helped orchestrate the separation--the ripping of children from their parents' arms. Menashi refused to answer any questions about whether he worked on the Trump family separation policy with Stephen Miller. He has been a senior adviser to Betsy DeVos at the Department of Education, where we have seen one disastrous decision after another. The headline in the New York Times says it all: ``Appeals Court Nominee Shaped DeVos's Illegal Loan Forgiveness Effort.'' Menashi devised the scheme to illegally use people's Social Security data to deny them debt relief after they were scammed by for-profit colleges. It seems that the Department of Education with Menashi there always sided with the for-profit schools against Denison or Ohio State or the University of Toledo or Lourdes or Case Western or any of the traditional, excellent schools of higher education in this country. We have seen how shady schools like Corinthian used deceptive and even illegal tactics to trick Ohioans into taking out huge loans, only to then close up shop and leave them with meaningless degrees or credits--often falling short even of that but always with mountains of debt. We need to hold these for-profit schools accountable, but, of course, we learned not to hold our breath when it comes to the Trump administration holding any of the elite in this country accountable. Instead of figuring out how to provide relief for students, DeVos and Menashi went to work figuring out how to let the schools that scammed them off the hook. Be clear--it was not Menashi just doing his job advocating for someone else's bad policy; he wrote the memo. It is clear that he actually supported and supports Betsy DeVos's radical agenda. Now they want to put him on the Federal bench so he can put his thumb on the scales of justice for shady for-profit schools over students and corporations over workers and, as I said, for Wall Street and insurance companies over patients. We have seen that from judge after judge after judge with President Trump, but even by those Trump standards, Menashi is particularly bad. It always comes down to whose side you are on. Are you a judge who will stand on the side of workers or stand on the side of corporations? Will you stand on the side of students--struggling students, moderate- income and sometimes low-income students trying to build better lives for themselves--or on the side of failed sham schools? His record is clear. The stakes for Ohio are too high to give Steve Menashi a lifetime appointment on the Federal bench.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, yesterday we got another reminder of the urgency in the pension crisis facing more than 1 million workers and retirees with the news that Dean Foods is filing for bankruptcy. The company is part of the Central States Pension Fund. The bankruptcy puts the pension fund that much closer to insolvency, that much closer to having to turn to the PBGC for help, and that much closer to knocking down the dominoes that could bring down our whole multiemployer pension system and potentially and even likely trigger a recession. We have to act now for the sake of our economy, for the sake of thousands of small businesses, and for the sake of a million Americans who are on the verge of facing massive cuts to the pensions they earned. This crisis affects thousands of Ohioans. It affects the massive Central States Pension Plan, the United Workers Pension Plan, the Ironworkers Local 17 Pension Plan, the Southwest Ohio carpenters, the bakers and confectioners, and many others. It touches every State in this Nation. If the system collapses, it won't be just retirees who will feel the pain. Current workers will be stuck paying into pensions they will never receive. Small businesses will be left drowning in pension liability they can't afford to pay. That will have ripple effects throughout the economy. If we do nothing, this can trigger a recession on par with the housing crisis. We know who gets hurt the worst. It is the small businesses, workers, and the retirees who are counting on these pensions to survive. People in this town so often don't understand the collective bargaining process. People give up dollars today at the bargaining table for the promise of a secure retirement with good healthcare and a pension. These workers' lives and livelihoods will be devastated if Congress doesn't do its job. I think about the words of Larry Ward at a hearing in Ohio last year. He said: I don't understand how it is that Congress would even consider asking us to take a cut to my pension or to see it going away, when it had no problem sending billions to the Wall Street crooks who caused this problem in the first place. They used that to pay themselves bonuses. We use our pensions to pay for medicine and food and heat. Think about that. Wall Street uses this pension money for bonuses. Mr. Ward and his other workers and retirees use their pensions to pay for medicine and food and heat. There is something wrong with this picture. It is bad enough that Wall Street squandered workers' money; it is worse that the government, which is supposed to look out for these folks, is ignoring the promise to these workers. I know there are Senators in both parties working in good faith to fix this, but this bankruptcy is a reminder that we are running short on time to come up with the bipartisan solution we need. It comes back to the dignity of work. When work has dignity, we honor the retirement security that people earned. When work has dignity, we fight for those workers, we honor workers, and we respect workers. I urge my colleagues in this body, let's pass a solution that honors their work, that honors the dignity of work, and that keeps our promise to the people who make this country work. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN

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

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, earlier this week, we celebrated Veterans Day, a day we honor the sacrifice and the service of those who fought in Normandy and Pearl Harbor and Inchon, at Khe Sanh, Somalia, Bosnia- Herzegovina, Kandahar, Mosul, and everywhere else where veterans work to protect our country. We owe them and their families a debt that we often fall short in repaying. That is what this is about today. For years, the VA has been presented with scientific information from the National Academy of Sciences making it clear that the list of the conditions stemming from Agent Orange exposure is extensive. It includes hyperthyroidism, bladder cancer, Parkinson's-like symptoms, and hypertension. In the late iteration of the Veterans and Agent Orange Exposure Update 11, published a year ago, the National Academies recognized that those illnesses--hypothyroidism, bladder cancer, Parkinson's-like symptoms, and hypertension--all have suggestive or sufficient evidence associated with Agent Orange. Historically, the VA added illnesses in those two categories to the list of presumptive medical conditions associated with Agent Orange exposure. On a bipartisan basis, this Congress has done the right thing time after time. We are all on the same side when it comes to helping veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange in Vietnam. We recently found out that former VA Secretary Shulkin decided to add three of these conditions to the list of presumptive medical conditions associated with that exposure only to have OMB--the Trump administration--block his decision. In an email to Director Mulvaney, Secretary Shulkin said adding these conditions was ``imperative.'' Yet no action took place. There are 83,000 veterans living with at least 1 of the presumptive medical conditions--83,000. They are in Tennessee. They are in Georgia. They are in South Dakota. They are in Ohio. In a discussion with blue water Navy veterans last week, I learned that since the Department put a stay on adjudicating their Agent Orange claims earlier this year, 12 veterans have died. Time is running out. Some might accuse this body of waiting until they all die. As hard as it is to say that and hear that, we are waiting until they all die before we move. For whatever political reason the administration seems to place on this, we need to ensure that veterans receive the healthcare and the compensation they earned. They shouldn't have to fight these one at a time when there are sick men and women veterans of Vietnam. We did this to them. The American Government decided to spray Agent Orange. We knew it was harmful. We know it is harmful. We knew it then, and we know it now. The chemical companies knew and the government knew. Why does the administration now think it is OK to abandon our commitment to these veterans? If you are exposed to poison while serving our country, there should be no question that you deserve the benefits you earned. Period. No exception. Madam President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 420, encouraging the President to expand the list of the Department of Veterans Affairs of presumptive medical conditions associated with exposure to Agent Orange to include parkinsonism, bladder cancer, hypertension, hypothyroidism, which was submitted earlier today; I further ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. BROWN. Senator Isakson knows this is no sort of false kind of flattery. He knows how much I think of him. He runs the most bipartisan committee in the Senate. I have been honored to be on it my entire 13 years in this body. No Ohioan ever served on this committee as long as I have. I consider that a privilege, No. 1, and an opportunity to pay people back. I didn't serve in the military. I know Senator Isakson did. President Trump had deferments from Vietnam. He didn't serve in the military. I think that maybe perhaps, because I didn't serve in the military, I should work a little bit harder to make sure those people, most of whom are older than I by a little bit, during the Vietnam war--that they be treated better than they were by the country and by the public upon their return from Vietnam; that they, in this case, get the benefit of the doubt and the history of what happened with Agent Orange. You may remember years and years ago, veterans--people who had fought in Vietnam and had been exposed to Agent Orange--had to prove, initially, case by case, why they got sick, which was darn near impossible, especially when you are sick, trying to do that and go through that pain. Congress, on a bipartisan basis, did the right thing back then. They put a list of these illnesses together that exposure to Agent Orange was likely responsible for. If you had one of these illnesses and you were boots on the ground in Vietnam, you automatically qualified. You didn't have to fight in court. You didn't have to get lawyers or do any of that. That was then. Now, even though Secretary Shulkin--and I don't know how many Secretaries have come and gone. The President can't seem to keep Secretaries of the VA or staff of the VA because of the erratic policy he follows with veterans. The President of the United States goes to New York and makes a great speech about veterans, and we all applaud that, but then he is not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. These are four illnesses Secretary Shulkin thought--you heard the term I used earlier, which is the term he used--he used the term about these conditions that it was ``imperative'' that we do something. I understand as well as anybody how important it is to protect taxpayers. I also remember less than 2 years ago that Congress gave a tax cut--hundreds of billions of dollars, and 70 percent of it went to the richest 1 percent of people in this country--and we can't come up with a few billion dollars to help veterans who are dying from these four illnesses? We can't expand this list and give them healthcare as we try to comfort them at the VA in Cleveland and Dayton and Cincinnati and Columbus and in Atlanta--all over? This is no end run around process. These aren't four illnesses I heard somebody talk about in Steubenville or Cleveland that ought to be covered. These are four illnesses the VA has looked at, the scientific community has looked at, the medical community has looked at, and Secretary Shulkin--who served as Secretary of the VA, appointed by President Trump, initially was acting under President Obama--we can't give them the benefit of the doubt? This is no end run. We can't give them the benefit of the doubt and say, yes, we should cover this. I hope the chairman of the Veterans' Committee--that at some point we can sit down and talk and he can reconsider. Why do we think we need to protect President Trump, who, like me, didn't serve in the military? For me, it--I will not get into that. But why can't we help these veterans and give them the benefit of the doubt, cover these illnesses, and move forward with the VA taking care of people the way we should?

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I appreciate Senator Thune's comments about the USMCA. Some might call it NAFTA 1.6. It just doesn't do very much. I was not in this body when NAFTA passed. I was down the hall in the House of Representatives. I voted against it. I saw what NAFTA did to my State and what it did to our country in the number of lost manufacturing jobs. States in the industrial Midwest still have not recovered from that legislation, from that trade agreement--the North American Free Trade Agreement. During the Clinton administration, I opposed the President of my own party on this. In the Bush administration, the other party pushed the one for Central America. There was one after another after another of these trade agreements, and we see the lost jobs. President Trump made a huge campaign promise that he was going to do something about it, and this agreement simply doesn't do it. We have talked to the U.S. Trade Representative repeatedly about enforcing labor standards. The whole point of fixing this agreement is so that companies will not shut down in Mansfield, in Zanesville, and in Lima, OH, and move to Mexico to build plants there and sell the products back to the United States. Yet do you know what is happening? Even the USMCA has no language in it that is going to stop the outsourcing of jobs. So, if this Congress moves on the USMCA, you can bet that month after month after month, we are going to lose manufacturing jobs, that the business plan of shutting down production in Ohio, in Rhode Island, in North or South Dakota, or in Montana will continue, and that the USMCA will not do anything about it. This is the same President who went to Youngstown, OH, as Lordstown was about to shut down, and said: Don't sell your homes. We are going to bring those jobs back. No, we aren't. GM moved more and more jobs to Mexico at the same time it shut down the GM plant in Lordstown, OH. There were 4,500 jobs lost. This USMCA is simply a wallpapering over of an agreement. It doesn't do what you have to do to stop the outsourcing of jobs. I look at trade agreements in one way. Does it mean more jobs in our country or does it mean fewer jobs? The USMCA will do nothing to stem the tide of jobs that are moving to Mexico. That is why we should go back to the table and include the Brown-Wyden amendment on labor enforcement--language that will, in fact, mean there will be more prosperity in both countries. I thank Senator Whitehouse for yielding the floor.