Rob Portman

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am here on the Senate floor to talk, once again, about the addiction crisis in our country. Over the past 4 years, I am told I have given over 64 speeches on this topic, and that is because it is a crisis, and a national one, and we have done a lot here in this Senate and also in the House of Representatives to deal with the issue. We passed some important legislation. We are making some progress, but, gosh, prescription opioids, heroin, fentanyl, methamphetamine, and cocaine continue to harm so many people in our communities and so many of the families we represent. We put new policies in place to help deal with it--better prevention, better treatment, and better recovery efforts. Among other things, we passed legislation like the SUPPORT Act, the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, the 21st Century Cures Act, and the STOP Act. Through these new laws, we have also provided over $4 billion in additional Federal resources just over the last 3 years to be able to combat this epidemic--particularly, the opioid epidemic. In Ohio alone, our State received nearly $140 million through the CARA and Cures legislation. It has gone toward innovative, evidence- based programs to try to figure out how we intervene at the appropriate time to keep people who are addicted from overdosing and, instead, to get them into treatment and into longer term recovery in a successful way. I have gone to visit many of these programs across our State, and I can tell you many of them are working, and they are working because local volunteers, local communities, and the State are also involved. So that is the positive thing. I was very pleased that the year-end spending bill passed with a record $658 million, as an example, in funding for these CARA grants that again go to these innovative ideas back home. Let me give you an example of one. In many of our communities now, we have the ability, after somebody has overdosed, not to simply have them go back home and go to the same neighborhood and get addicted, and continue to be addicted and overdose again and again and again, but, rather, to intervene and to go there with law enforcement, with treatment providers, with first responders, and get them into treatment. It is working. In a program I was recently at in Columbus, OH, the RREACT Team, 80 percent of the people whom they go to visit end up getting into treatment. And the evidence is, not only are they getting into treatment, but because there is the ability to monitor that, they are also going into longer term recovery programs. It is helping to save lives, but for the first responders, it is also a great relief because no one is more frustrated than they are. Think about it. You help somebody through an overdose by applying Narcan--that miracle drug that reverses the effects of the overdose--and the next day they are right back again. This is the right thing to do, and, again, we have made progress in that. The good news is, it looks like it is starting to pay off. After many, many years of increases in overdose deaths every single year, finally, we are making progress. In States like mine, overdose deaths had climbed to the No. 1 cause of death in our State; in other words, surpassing car accidents or anything else. There were more people dying of drug overdose deaths than anything else. Nationwide, we had some great success between 2017 and 2018. We now have those numbers in. In 2017, we had about 70,700 people who died of overdoses. In 2018, it went down to about 67,700. That is a decrease of 4 percent. Now, that is nothing to write home about, 4 percent. On the other hand, this is after three decades of increased overdose deaths every year and in some years substantial increases. So just to have that 4-percent decrease--and we are waiting for the 2019 figures to become available--was a big deal. In Ohio, we are one of the States that has been hardest hit. In 2018, our number was a 22.4-percent reduction. We were one of the States that led the country in this, and I am proud of that. That means a lot of lives saved. Still, though, the overdose rate is way too high--way too high. On the positive side, I think we are also seeing more accountability for the opioid crisis, in particular. As courts around the country hear cases of those affected by prescription opioids, like OxyContin, these drug companies are being held accountable by individual States, by some local governments, and by the Federal Government. Every day we learn more about what they did and how wrong it was. The sheer number of pain pills that drug companies pumped into the United States is astounding, with more than 100 billion pain pills between 2006 and 2014. So during that one period of time, 8 years, there were 100 billion pain pills. We have one county in Southern Ohio, Scioto County, where we had 48 million opioid pain pills distributed by manufacturers during those 8 years. By the way, that is 617 pills for every man, woman, and child in that one county in Southern Ohio. We were flooded with pain pills that were addictive, and we have to be sure that that kind of a crisis doesn't start again. As I travel around the State of Ohio, I hear stories all the time of people who had an accident or had an injury, and they took pain medication prescribed by a doctor. That led to physical addiction. Something in their brain changed. They became addicted. They couldn't get the prescription drugs because they are too expensive or not accessible enough, so they turned to heroin. In many cases, the tragedy that occurred was not just an overdose but sometimes an overdose and a life lost. I hear this all the time. Just this morning at my weekly Buckeye Coffee, where we have constituents come in once a week and meet with Ohioans, I met an impressive young man from northeast Ohio. He told me about his brother, Dylan. He reminded me that I had met his mom. I already knew about Dylan because his mom had told me, but Dylan struggled with pain pill addiction before tragically dying of an opioid overdose. It is a pattern that we have seen too often in our communities, and it needs to stop. We are making some progress there, I think partly because of the lawsuits, partly because we increased awareness, partly because of the Federal legislation we discussed that has helped on this, and partly because doctors and others are beginning to get the message. We have cracked down on pill mills as well. I mentioned Portsmouth, OH, and Scioto County, OH, where there were hundreds of pain pills per person. They had pill mills. Because of all of that, the number of prescription pain pills prescribed between 2013 and 2018 fell by more than 80 million--about a 33-percent decrease nationwide. So pushing back against this opioid flow that flourished for way too long here in the United States is helping, and that is a positive sign as well. Again, while the CDC--Centers for Disease Control--has shown an overall decrease in drug overdose deaths for the past 18 months or so, I want to talk tonight about some new troubling trends and the need for us in Congress not to take our eye off the ball because sometimes around here, you get a little progress, and you think: OK. Let's go on to the next thing. Unfortunately, that is not the way addiction works, and we have seen this over time. Back in the 1990s, we thought we had solved the cocaine crisis; we didn't. Now some think we have solved the opioid crisis; we haven't. In addition, there are new troubling trends I want to talk about tonight. The most worrying is, while the overall number of opioid deaths has fallen, the number of overdose deaths related to the very deadliest of opioids--synthetic opioids like fentanyl or carfentanil--has actually increased. In fact, in 2018, more deaths were attributed to fentanyl than to heroin and prescription drugs combined. So it has shifted. Think about this. From the prescription drugs to the heroin, now to fentanyl. Fentanyl is 50 times more powerful than heroin. A few flakes of this stuff can kill you. Unfortunately, it is being mixed into other drugs, partly because it is so powerful and a few flakes can kill you. According to the Centers for Disease Control, 40 percent of drug overdoses in 2017 were at least partly because of fentanyl use--40 percent. It is by far the largest problem. That data also showed that overdose deaths due to fentanyl had increased by 88 percent per year since 2013. So it has been going up really since the 2013, 2014 time period. We are seeing this mixing occur in a lot of overdose reports from Ohio communities, where declining prescription opioid and heroin use has opened the door now for this other form of addiction. In particular, psychostimulants, as they are called, like crystal meth and cocaine, are being laced with fentanyl. This is a deadly combination. According to our State's deputy attorney general for law enforcement, Carol O'Brien, Ohio law enforcement officials in 2018 tested double the amount of methamphetamine samples as they had in 2017 and triple the amount from 2016. So crystal meth is, unfortunately, making a resurgence in our communities. By the way, you may remember in the past couple of decades in your community you heard about these meth houses, where people would be cooking meth, literally, in a home or in a trailer or in the basement and causing environmental concerns and so on. You don't hear about that anymore. Do you know why? It is because crystal meth coming straight from Mexico is so powerful and so cheap that people don't have to make it at home anymore. That is a bad thing because this has expanded to the people who have become addicted to methamphetamine because of this powerful crystal meth. Today I met with law enforcement officers from around the State of Ohio. The FOP was in town, the Fraternal Order of Police. Many of my colleagues met with them. They confirmed this troubling trend. They told me that the crystal meth and the cocaine, because they are psychostimulants, are much more difficult for them to deal with and puts their lives and their safety more at risk, as well as the citizens whom they are there to protect. Why? Because it causes a more violent reaction. Think about it. With heroin, with other opioids, prescription drugs, fentanyl, people talk about the nodding effect. It calms people more. Whereas, with heroin, with cocaine, and with the other psychostimulants, like crystal meth, it makes people more agitated and more violent. We have seen not just more assaults on individuals but more violent crime overall coming out of this. So it is a shift that is impacting our police officers and our citizens, as well, in terms of increased violent crime. I am really pleased to say that the legislation we passed in December--just about a month and a half ago--responded to this issue of the increase in meth and cocaine. It is because it included our legislation called the Combating Meth and Cocaine Act. It is a really important bill. Basically, what it says is, let's give local communities the flexibility to use the opioid grant money that I talked about earlier, that has increased over the last 3 or 4 years, also to be used for psychostimulants. I felt very strongly about this because I was hearing it back home: Thank you very much for your help on the opioid crisis. By the way, we have shifted now in our community. Opioids are not as big a deal, but we need the funding to also help us deal with the consequences of crystal meth or cocaine. I thank my colleagues for passing that legislation. It is going to make a big difference, and I think we will now begin to see the ability to address this new threat. The U.S. attorneys for the Northern and Southern Districts of Ohio have recently weighed in and told me what is going on in terms of this mixing of cocaine and crystal meth with fentanyl. They say it is a crisis. Preliminary data from Cuyahoga County, which is in Cleveland, OH, suggested about 45 percent of the fatal overdoses in the county last year were associated with cocaine, much of that mixed with fentanyl. By the way, that is twice the amount of heroin overdoses over that same time period from the previous year, which shows how, again, the frontlines of addiction have shifted, partly in response to our successes on the opioid front. We are hearing similar things in the Southern District of Ohio, where more than a third of overdose deaths are from cocaine and fentanyl, where they just had 10 overdose deaths from the combination of fentanyl and cocaine in the last several days. I met with the Columbus, OH, police chief, Tom Quinlan, on Friday, in the middle of a spike there, a spike in overdose deaths that they have seen from this mixture. In the first 10 days of February, this month, Columbus, OH, Franklin County, had 28 overdose deaths involving some combination of fentanyl and cocaine--28 in 10 days. I was actually in Columbus on Saturday, a day in which five people died from overdoses of a mixture of fentanyl and cocaine. Just yesterday, the Columbus police informed me that in one drug bust, they seized over 200 grams of cocaine and nearly 2 kilograms of fentanyl. That is enough to kill about 1 million people. Again, we have made some progress on the opioid front, no question about it. We have made progress in terms of the overprescribing of prescription drugs, but, unfortunately, my colleagues, this issue is not going away. The more flexible funding we got in at the end of the year is important, and we will begin to see that take effect here over the next several months--it is just being implemented now--but we have to deal with it. The other thing we have to deal with in terms of fentanyl is being sure that some evil scientist doesn't slightly change the molecular compound of fentanyl, making it an analog of fentanyl that is not illegal. You have to schedule a drug to make it illegal. As we have seen an uptick in these fentanyl copycats, we have seen the reality that it is not just about fentanyl. It is also about carfentanil, and it is also about other analogs. As an example, we had an 819-percent increase from just a year ago in Cleveland with carfentanil deaths in 2019. So from 2018 to 2019, there was an 819-percent increase. That is why the DEA--the Drug Enforcement Administration--has made the right call in 2018 in temporarily making these fentanyl-related substances, like carfentanil, illegal to possess, transport, or manufacture. Thanks to that designation, our law enforcement officials have been better able to protect our communities by seizing and destroying this fentanyl-related substance because it is illegal. We had a real problem in the last couple of months here in Congress because, as of early this month--just last week--that scheduling of those analogs expired, and we almost had a situation where these drugs were going to become illegal. Thank goodness, at the last minute, we stepped in, and we provided a temporary extension; otherwise, again, last week, we would have had a real crisis. Unfortunately, the temporary extension, like so much stuff around here, was kind of kicking the can down the road. So in May of next year--just a year and a few months from now--again, it is going to expire. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me, Senator Manchin, and others on both sides of the aisle in passing legislation that puts these analogs on the schedule, making them illegal permanently. It should be permanent. The legislation is called the FIGHT Fentanyl Act. Again, it just codifies what the DEA has done but also gives them the flexibility to be able to schedule new things, as, again, these scientists come up with ways to slightly alter the molecular compounds for these incredibly dangerous and deadly drugs. By the way, our legislation has strong bipartisan support but also has the support of every single attorney general in every State in America and six territories. Fifty-six of our attorneys general have come forward and endorsed our bill, and I thank them for that. Let's do that. Let's push back against these deadly copycats of fentanyl and be sure that our communities are just a little bit safer. Again, we have made a lot of progress in the fight, but as we have seen, addiction--not a particular drug but addiction--is really the crisis we face. As we have made progress against opioids, including an unprecedented Federal response here--and I appreciate that very much-- we now see the playing field changing. We see these psychostimulants like cocaine and crystal meth making a comeback. We see this mixing with fentanyl. Again, the funding bill passed last year will help as it begins to implement these changes. We need to be sure that the FIGHT Fentanyl legislation is passed, and we need to be sure that we continue the funding. It is easy to say: Well, this crisis is better; let's move on. We have to keep our eye on the ball. So I thank my colleagues as we go through the funding process again, but we have to keep the funding for the CARA legislation and others. We also have a new bill called CARA 2.0, so Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act 2.0, and it expands the reach of these evidence-based programs we are talking about, particularly longer term recovery programs, because we have learned that it is so critical to actually get somebody into recovery and keep them in recovery for a long enough time so they don't relapse. In that legislation, we also have important legislation with regard to opioid prescriptions because that is still a problem. We say that there should be a limit of 3 days for acute pain--not for chronic pain but for acute pain, limit it to 3 days. That comes from a recommendation by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention but also from the FDA. I have heard from too many families--like the young man I heard from this morning--about someone whose child has become addicted because the doctor gave them too many opioids. By the way, I now know several families whose son or daughter was given opioids when he or she had a wisdom tooth removed, which apparently is one of the top two or three most common procedures in America. Doctors and dentists are still giving these kids opioids. I think that is wrong, and I think that should be stopped altogether. In the meantime, 3 days is a sensible limit. A doctor can always prescribe more if you have an issue. And I think there are proper exceptions for chronic pain. I think our legislation would make a big difference. It also has a prescription drug monitoring program, which would require States to make their monitoring programs and their data available in other States because people go from State to State to get these prescription pain pills. This would help against overprescribing, making sure people are treated as soon as possible and identified. I urge my colleagues who are not yet cosponsors of any of these bills--the FIGHT Fentanyl bill and the CARA 2.0 bill--to help us and to join us in responding to this ever-evolving challenge we have, which is not just an opioid problem; it is an addiction problem. Every State represented in this Chamber is affected by this epidemic, and these two bills at least provide us an opportunity to continue to give law enforcement the tools they need to give our communities the help they need to be able to overcome this crisis. I yield the floor.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am here today to talk about the Senate trial and the factors I have considered in making my decision on the Articles of Impeachment from the House. I have now read hundreds of pages of legal briefs and memos, including the testimony of 17 witnesses. Here, on the Senate floor, I have reviewed more than 190 witness videos and listened carefully to more than 65 hours of detailed presentations from both the House managers and from the President's legal team. As cofounder and cochair of the Ukraine Caucus and someone who is proud to represent many Ukrainian Americans in Ohio, I have been active for the past several years in helping Ukraine as it has sought freedom and independence since the 2014 Revolution of Dignity that saw the corrupt Russian-backed government of Viktor Yanukovych replaced with pro-Western elected leaders. Since first seeing the transcript of the phone call between President Trump and President Zelensky 4 months ago, I have consistently said that the President asking Ukraine for an investigation into Joe Biden was inappropriate and wrong. I have also said, since then, that any actions taken by members of the administration or those outside the administration to try to delay military assistance or a White House meeting pending an investigation by Ukraine were not appropriate either. But while I don't condone this behavior, these actions do not rise to the level of removing President Trump from office and taking him off the ballot in a Presidential election year that is already well under way. I first looked to the fact that the Founders meant for impeachment of a President to be extremely rare, reserved for only ``Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' Any fair reading of what the Founders meant in the Constitution and in the Federalist papers in the context of history and just plain common sense makes it clear that removing a duly elected President demands that those arguing for conviction meet a high standard. As an example, for good reason there has never been a Presidential impeachment that didn't allege a crime. In the Clinton impeachment, the independent counsel concluded that President Clinton committed not one but two crimes. In this case, no crime is alleged. Let me repeat. In the two Articles of Impeachment that came over to us from the House, there is no criminal law violation alleged. Although I don't think that that is always necessary--there could be circumstances where a crime isn't necessary in an impeachment--without a crime, it is even a higher bar for those who advocate for a conviction, and that high bar is not met here. What is more, even though it was delayed, the President ultimately did provide the needed military assistance to Ukraine, and he provided it before the September 30 budget deadline, and the requested investigations by Ukraine were not undertaken. It is an important point to make. The aid went. The investigations did not occur. The military assistance is particularly important to me as a strong supporter of Ukraine. In fact, I was one of those Senators who fought to give President Obama and his administration the authority to provide badly needed lethal military assistance to Ukraine in response to the Russian aggression that came right after the Revolution of Dignity in 2014. I must say, I strongly urged the Obama administration to use that authority, and, like Ukraine, I was deeply disappointed when they did not. I strongly supported President Trump's decision to change course and provide that assistance shortly after he came into office. While visiting Ukrainian troops on the frontlines in the Donbas region of Ukraine, I have seen firsthand how much those soldiers need the military assistance President Trump alone has provided. Beyond whether the President's conduct met the high bar of impeachment, there is also the underlying issue of the legitimacy of the House impeachment process. The House Democrats sent the Senate a flawed case built on what respected George Washington University constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley calls ``the shortest proceeding, with the thinnest evidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a President.'' Instead of using the tools available to compel the administration to produce documents and witnesses, the House followed a self-imposed and entirely political deadline for voting on the Articles of Impeachment before Christmas. After the rushed vote, the House then inexplicably stalled, keeping those articles from being delivered here in the Senate for 28 days, time they could have used to subpoena witnesses and resolve legitimate disagreements about whether evidence was privileged or not. They didn't even bother to subpoena witnesses they then wanted the Senate to subpoena for them. The House process was also lacking in fundamental fairness and due process in a number of respects. It is incomprehensible to me that the President's counsel did not have the opportunity to cross-examine fact witnesses and that the House selectively leaked deposition testimony from closed-door sessions. Rushing an impeachment case through the House without due process and giving the Senate a half-baked case to finish sets a very dangerous precedent. If the Senate were to convict, it would send the wrong message and risk making this kind of quick, partisan impeachment in the House a regular occurrence moving forward. That would be terrible for the country. Less than a year ago, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said: ``Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we should go down that path.'' She was right. It is better to let the people decide. Early voting has already started in some States, and the Iowa caucuses occurred last night. Armed with all the information, we should let the voters have their say at the ballot box. During the last impeachment 21 years ago, now-House Manager Congressman Jerry Nadler said: There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other. Such an impeachment would lack legitimacy. In this case, the impeachment wasn't just ``substantially supported'' by Democrats; it was only supported by Democrats. In fact, a few Democrats actually voted with all the Republicans to oppose the impeachment. Founder Alexander Hamilton feared that impeachment could easily fall prey to partisan politics. That is exactly what happened here with the only purely partisan impeachment in the history of our great country. For all of these reasons, I am voting against the Articles of Impeachment tomorrow. It is time to move on and to move on to focus on bipartisan legislation to help the families whom we represent. Unlike the House, the Senate is blocked from conducting its regular business during impeachment. My colleague from New Jersey asked a moment ago, how do we heal? How do we heal the wounds? Our country is divided, and I think the impeachment has further divided an already polarized country. I think we heal, in part, by surprising the people and coming out from our partisan corners and getting stuff done--stuff that they care about that affects the families we were sent here to represent. While in the impeachment trial, we were prevented from doing the important legislative work our constituents expect, like passing legislation to lower prescription drug costs, like rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, like addressing the new addiction crisis-- the combination of synthetic opioids like fentanyl and crystal meth, pure crystal meth coming from Mexico. It is an opportunity for us to strengthen our economy with better skills training, including passing legislation to give workers the skills they need to meet the jobs that are out there. Those are just a few ideas that are ready to go--ideas the President supports, Republicans support, and Democrats support. I have been working on bipartisan initiatives like the JOBS Act to provide that needed skills training, the Restore Our Parks Act to deal with the infrastructure that is crumbling in our national parks, the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act, which promotes energy efficiency--something we should be able to agree on across the aisle. All of these have been sitting idle this year as we have grappled with impeachment. How do we heal? How do we heal the wounds? In part, let's do it by working together to pass legislation people care about. Back home, I have seen that the impeachment process has, indeed, further divided an already polarized country. A conviction in the Senate, removing Donald Trump from office and taking his name off the ballot, would dangerously deepen that growing rift. That is one reason I am glad we are not likely to see a conviction because I do care about our country and bringing it together. Instead, my hope is that lessons have been learned; that we can heal some wounds for the sake of the country; that we can turn to the bipartisan work most Americans expect us to do; and that we can allow American voters, exercising the most important constitutional check and balance of all, to have their say in this year's Presidential election. I believe this is what the Constitution requires and what the country needs. I yield back my time.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chief Justice, I send a question to the desk on behalf of myself, Senators Toomey, Cornyn, Crapo, Ernst, and Moran.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. I send a question to the desk.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chief Justice.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise to honor the memory of one of our country's great civil rights leaders and judges, the Honorable Nathaniel Jones, who passed away on January 26 at the age of 93. Judge Jones was a native of Youngstown in my home State of Ohio, a veteran who served in the Air Force during World War II, and a tireless advocate for justice and equality. After his time in the military, he earned an undergraduate degree and a JD from Youngstown State University. For much of the 1960s, Judge Jones was the assistant U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Ohio at the appointment of Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy. In 1969, he became the general counsel for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, NAACP, where he argued numerous cases before the Supreme Court. In 1979 he moved to the Cincinnati area upon being appointed as an appeals judge for the Sixth Circuit by President Carter, and he served admirably in that role for decades. With all of his experience, and his reputation for integrity and problem-solving, Judge Jones was an active member of the Cincinnati community and widely respected in legal circles. As an example, he was asked to deliver the inaugural Judge A. Leon Higginbotham Distinguished Memorial Lecture at Harvard Law School. His work also included helping to end the apartheid regime in South Africa, working to promote a free and independent Namibia, participating in the U.S.-Egypt Judicial Exchange Program, and advocating for human rights within the Soviet Union. Among his many accomplishments, he received the Distinguished Service Citation from the National Conference for Community Justice and the State Department's Millennium International Volunteer Award. For all of his accomplishments, worked in the House of Representatives to write and pass legislation to rename the U.S. courthouse in Youngstown after Judge Jones--the courthouse stands only a few miles down the road from where he was raised as a child. It now bears the name of this proud son of Youngstown. Back home in Cincinnati, Judge Jones was just as important a figure in the fight for a more equitable society, having taught law at the University of Cincinnati, among other schools. I was proud to work with him on launching the National Underground Railroad Museum, housed in my hometown of Cincinnati. It is there in large part because of the efforts of Judge Jones, who also served as a co-chair of the board of trustees for the museum. I was honored to work with him over the years to further its mission. Just last fall, the University of Cincinnati College of Law renamed its Center for Race, Gender, and Social Justice in his honor. Judge Jones was a model public servant, working to better his community and his fellow man. I will remember him as a friend who brought people together to support racial healing, equality and to improve the community. His legacy of justice and equality before the law should inspire all of us to continue to seek positive change. Today, my thoughts are with his family--his sister, Allie Jean, his daughters Stephanie and Pamela, his sons Rick, William, and Marc, and the many others whose lives he touched.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I appreciate my colleague from Delaware and his comments on trade. I ask unanimous consent that my colleague from Ohio, Sherrod Brown, be permitted to address the Chamber for a brief tribute following my remarks.

Mr. PORTMAN. I am on the floor today to talk about international trade. What a week it has been. In the same few days, we are seeing the culmination of nearly 3 years of effort by this administration to deliver wins for American workers, for businesses, for farmers, and for consumers with regard to our three biggest trading partners, China, Canada, and Mexico. This is a big week. While the media is focused on impeachment--and I can say that because as I walked in that is all the reporters wanted to talk about--here we are on the floor talking about something that directly affects the constituents we represent. I think it is very positive in all three areas--China, Canada, and Mexico. In a way, it is like the World Series and the Super Bowl of trade all in the same week because these are big agreements that make a big difference. The U.S.-Mexico agreement is being finalized, and it will be voted on tomorrow. Second today is the signing of phase one of the China agreement, something many of us have been focused on over the past few years and wondered whether we would get here, and here we are. As a former trade lawyer and as a former U.S. Trade Representative under George W. Bush and as someone on the Trade Committee, which is the Finance Committee here, I follow these issues closely. Most significantly, I come from Ohio, which is a State that depends on trade and depends on that trade being fair to our workers, our farmers, our service providers, and our small businesses. We have a lot of manufacturing and a lot of agriculture. In fact, 25 percent of our State's factory workers have export jobs. One out of every three acres planted in Ohio is planted for export. Think about that. When you drive through our beautiful State and you see the corn and the soybeans out there in the field, one out of every three acres is being planted to be exported somewhere else. That is great for our farmers. It gives them markets, and it raises prices for their product at a time when they really need it. By the way, these trade jobs are good jobs too. Jobs dependent on trade pay, on average, about 16 percent more than other jobs, and they have better benefits. We like to be able to send more to the rest of the world. We have about 5 percent of the world's population in this country. We have to be sure that with 25 percent of the world's economy here and 5 percent of the people, that we are selling stuff overseas to the other 95 percent. It is always in our interest to open up overseas markets for our workers, our farmers, our services, and our service providers. While promoting those exports, we need to ensure that we are protecting American jobs from unfair trade and from imports that would unfairly undercut our workers and our farmers. Simply put, we want a level playing field. With that level playing field, where you get fair and reciprocal treatment from other countries, we will do just fine. American workers and businesses can compete, and they can win if it is fair. That is all we are asking for. To me, the sweet spot is balanced trade, where we are able to send our exports overseas without high tariffs and other barriers, and we are able to see imports coming in fairly traded into the United States. If we do that, we will be fine. The good thing about this week is that both of these agreements--the new USMCA, which replaces NAFTA, and this phase one of the China agreement--are exactly focused on how to have balanced trade. At times, recently, other countries have been wondering whether the United States was going to make progress on trade, to be frank, so this week is also important because the world is watching. What the world is seeing is that we can fulfill our stated interest in renegotiating and improving trade agreements and trade relationships. Concluding these two agreements proves that the United States can get to ``yes'' on these very big issues. We are able to work through our partisan differences here at home. We just saw this on the floor this afternoon where Democrats and Republicans alike are talking about their support for USMCA. In tough negotiations with our trading partners--we had some tough negotiations with Canada, Mexico, and China--we can reach outcomes that benefit our country and help to create that more effective balance for American workers. There is, perhaps, no better example of this balance than USMCA. Without it, by the way, we go back to the status quo, which would be NAFTA. That is a 25-year-old agreement that had to be updated. It just doesn't reflect the realities of a modern economy. Thanks to important measures designed to strengthen our economy, create jobs, and increase market access for American exports, this new USMCA will help level that playing field we talked about. First of all, USMCA means American jobs and economic growth. The independent International Trade Commission has studied it. They have said this new agreement will create at least 176,000 new jobs and will grow our economy. It also says that with regard to the auto industry, it will create tens of thousands of jobs. That is, again, very important to Ohio. We are a big State for auto production. These jobs are going to mean a lot to workers in my State. Part of the way it is going to create jobs is by leveling the playing field with enforceable labor standards. We just heard about this from the Senator from Oregon and the Senator from Ohio, about how this agreement has new enforceable standards with regard to labor. It also, though, has higher content requirements for U.S.-made steel and auto parts. This is important. I will give you an example. USMCA requires that 70 percent of the steel and 75 percent of overall content in USMCA-compliant vehicles come from USMCA countries. In other words, other countries can't come in and take advantage of the lower tariffs that we are providing under USMCA by adding too much to the content of those vehicles. The 75-percent overall content requirement is up from 62.5 percent in NAFTA. That makes that 75 percent the highest percentage of any trade agreement we have. It means more jobs in the United States, in particular, and fewer imports from countries like China, countries like Germany, countries like Japan that otherwise would come in and take advantage of this. Some have criticized these content provisions as being somehow protectionist. I disagree. We are saying to these countries that if you want freer trade with us, enter into a trade agreement, lower your barriers, and give us access to your markets as we are giving Mexico and Canada access to our markets. That is what a trade agreement is all about. If you don't want to do that, you shouldn't be able to free ride on our USMCA. I think this makes sense. Why should Japan or China or Germany be a free rider on our agreement with Canada and Mexico? This will incentivize good jobs in America, but it also incentivizes these other countries to enter into trade agreements with us. They can see that if you do an agreement with the United States, it is balanced and fair. You will have some benefit as well. The International Trade Commission expects that USMC will grow our economy by double the gross domestic product of that projected to be increased under what is called the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I tell you that because TPP, Trans- Pacific Partnership, is one that Members on the other side of the aisle have talked about as being such a great agreement. This grows the economy by more than double based on the ITPF estimate. Again, this is a big deal. USMCA also means important new rules of the road for online sales. So much of our commerce today takes place over the internet, but there is nothing to protect it or promote it in NAFTA. Because it was done 25 years ago when there was hardly any internet business, it doesn't have any protection. This USMCA was written to fix that. It does. It prohibits data localization requirements by banning tariffs on data online and by raising the de minimis level on customs duties for sales to Mexico and Canada. This means they can't require the servers to be in Canada or Mexico, as an example, for our digital economy here in the United States, which is one of our great advantages. For a lot of small companies in Ohio and around the country and for startups that do business online and rely on smaller shipments, this is very important. The relief from the customs burdens and also the data localization requirements and the inability for other countries to put tariffs on data is really important. This is great for us as a country. The third thing I want to mention is that American farmers are going to see unprecedented levels of access to new markets in Canada and Mexico under USMCA. Between bad weather, low prices even going into the bad weather, and the tariffs that were in place to get to this agreement with China, in particular, farmers have been hit pretty hard. So this is the light at the end of the tunnel. This gives them a chance, under USMCA, to get some new markets. That is why nearly 1,000 farm groups around the country have announced publicly that they strongly support this agreement. A lot of politicians and pundits have their views on who won the negotiations over USMCA that we will vote on here tomorrow on the floor. You can go back and forth on that, but in my view, thanks to the hard work of U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and thanks to President Trump pushing on this, the winner here is the American people. That is who I think benefits the most. They are going to benefit from a new, more modernized trade agreement that will replace an agreement that has shown its age with unenforceable labor and environmental standards, nonexistent digital economy provisions, and outdated rules of origin provisions that allow more automobiles and more auto parts to be manufactured overseas rather than being manufactured here in the United States. I think the American people benefit. We all benefit. I am glad we are going to finally have a chance to vote on this landmark trade agreement. I urge that tomorrow we pass it on a bipartisan basis, and I think we will. Getting this to the finish line is a significant achievement but to also do it signing onto the phase one agreement with China today is really incredible. Again, it has been a strong week. I want to congratulate Bob Lighthizer, the Trade Rep, President Trump, and others who worked to bring this win to the finish line. When I was U.S. Trade Rep for George W. Bush, we conducted the first- ever economic relationship review with China. We issued a report, and it concluded that our trade relationship with China lacked equity, durability, and balance. Well, 13 years later, China still doesn't play by the rules. So much of that continues. One reason the trade deficit with China is going to be the largest in the world is because of that. In 2018, we sent China about $180 billion in exports, and they sent us about $560 billion in exports. That means we had a resulting trade deficit of about $380 billion--the biggest trade deficit in the history of the world. That is a problem, but it is more than just the trade deficit. That isn't the only way to measure trade. Beijing routinely uses subsidies, state-owned enterprises, and a lack of transparency by government control on their own economy in order to surpass the United States as the world's economic and innovation leader. China's current policies undercut critical commitments China made, both to the WTO, the World Trade Organization, and to us and other countries--agreements that they would open up their market, protect intellectual property rights, adhere to international recognized labor rights, and meet its WTO commitments on unfair trade practices such as subsidies, which they provide. I encourage you to read the U.S. Trade Representative's section 301 report on China. That is its basis for this phase one agreement and the basis for the administration putting those higher tariffs in place on Chinese products over the past couple of years. The report notes that in 2016, the multilateral Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD, ranked China the fourth most restrictive investment climate in the world, despite them being the second largest economy in the world. Based on this OECD report, China's investment climate is nearly four times more restrictive than that of the United States. That is why we needed to take some action and have a negotiation with China to come up with something that was mutually beneficial. I have supported these 301 actions by President Trump to create this more level playing field for American workers, farmers, and business owners. The only significant leverage we had to be able to do that, by the way, was by controlling access to our own market by raising tariffs. Higher tariffs had collateral consequences, and we have seen that for our consumers and other countries. They have been a necessary evil to hold China's feet to the fire and force them to the negotiating table and to get the result we have seen today. These tough measures are now paying off. Think about it in terms of what I said before--equity, durability, and balance. In the interests of a more balanced relationship, phase one directly addresses that $380 billion trade deficit we talked about. China has agreed to increase its purchases of American products by at least $200 billion over the next 2 years, with additional increases likely in the future. That is going to help reduce our trade deficit and provide some relief, particularly in the agricultural, manufacturing, and energy sectors. The agreement includes provisions to make our relationship more equitable. That includes new commitments on intellectual property protection, new obligations on tech transfer, and a discipline on currency manipulation, similar to that which is in the U.S.-Mexico- Canada Agreement. Specifically, Beijing committed to eliminate pressure on U.S. companies to transfer their intellectual property to Chinese firms as a condition of doing business in China. This is a big deal, and it is a critical step in addressing the IP theft China has used to fuel its economic rise. Chinese companies aren't forced to hand over their patents as a condition of doing business here in America and American companies shouldn't be forced to do the same in China. We will also be able to keep a closer eye on China's currency manipulation. When the Treasury Department found evidence of manipulation to boost Chinese exports, they labeled Chinese a currency manipulator for the first time since 1994. That designation was just lifted because of phase 1. This new agreement contains new transparency and accountability commitments to ensure that American trade enforcers can better monitor future manipulation. The phase 1 agreement is a first good step toward creating a more balanced and equitable relationship between our two countries, but our trade relationship will remain durable only if we enforce these agreements. That is why it is also very significant that this agreement includes the option to reimpose tariffs should China fail to live up to the commitments it has made. Enforcement is critical. Just as the rest of the world is watching our success at getting to ``yes'' on these trade agreements, it is also watching how aggressively we are going to enforce these commitments. That is why it is imperative that the United States utilize this enforcement process assertively and swiftly should we find evidence that China has violated its commitments. Congress is watching. With such a big day for trade, especially only a couple of weeks into the new year, it would be easy to ask if anything else is left for the rest of the year. My answer is, yes, there is a lot. We should celebrate our accomplishments tonight, but tomorrow continues to bring a host of challenges and opportunities to advance a bold trade agenda. Most importantly, the next step is to negotiate the phase 2 agreement with China that will address the additional structural issues I mentioned earlier--the subsidies, the state-owned enterprises, and the lack of transparency--that make doing business in China an uphill battle. Resolving these issues will be critical to ensuring that our two economies are playing by the same set of rules, not different sets of rules. Between the USMCA and this phase 1 agreement, 2020 has already been a significant year for trade, but there is even more progress we are set to make. I look forward to phase 2 negotiations with Japan this spring, especially regarding new market access for ``Made in America'' automobiles. I look forward to potential FTA talks with Switzerland and with the United Kingdom post-Brexit--new trade agreements to open up more market access. We also want to ensure that the extension of the WTO moratorium of tariffs on data continues, and I hope we will see renewed efforts at WTO reform. We need to address America's longstanding fundamental concerns about the appellate body, special and differential status, and the decline of the WTO's negotiating function. We have lots to do. I hope Congress will consider new legislation to toughen our anti- dumping and countervailing duty laws this year to crack down on trade cheats, and I hope we will pass the Trade Security Act to return section 232 to its original purpose of protecting genuine national security threats. Clearly, there is a lot of work we can do in 2020, and I look forward to it. Yet we should pause today and congratulate the Trump administration on these two successes we have talked about. I have long advocated for balanced trade that prioritizes market opening and tough enforcement, and I believe that both the USMCA and the China agreement embody this philosophy of balanced trade. Most importantly, I believe our country is better off because of it. I yield the floor.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am here today to talk about the path forward on legislation and commonsense solutions that my constituents and all of our constituents would like to see this year. The Senators in this Chamber came back to town this week, along with Members of the House, at one of the most partisan times in our Nation's history. We just learned that the House is now going to send us Articles of Impeachment. This will be the third Presidential impeachment trial in our entire history and only the second one in the last 151 years. It will be the most partisan one ever. I agree with the Nancy Pelosi of a year ago, who said: ``Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there is something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we should go down that path because it divides the country.'' I think she was right about that. Yet, unfortunately, without meeting those criteria, here we are going down that path. While we face a lot of contentious issues ahead of us, I still believe we can legislate for the benefit of the people we represent, and we must. That is our job. We can't let partisanship cause us to lose sight of all the opportunities we have here every day to come together, to find common ground, and to pass commonsense solutions to address the issues our constituents care most about. In fact, I would say that under the radar and without fanfare, we have recently done that. At end of last year, we enacted a number of bills and provisions on a bipartisan basis that helped people. I talked about the SECURE Act a moment ago. Despite the headlines about gridlock and dysfunction and impeachment, we have been working on both sides of the aisle to find solutions to some of these real problems--like growing our economy, protecting national security, promoting conservation, or helping the most vulnerable.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, one area where this Senate and the Congress, in general, along with the administration, have made significant progress is combating the ongoing drug addiction crisis in America that has affected so many families represented by all of us in this Chamber. In my home State of Ohio, we have been on the frontline of this crisis for years. Opioids, in particular, have taken a heavy toll in our communities. In fact, in 2017, our opioid overdose rate in Ohio was almost three times the national average, with nearly a dozen Ohioans dying from these dangerous drugs every single day, making it the No. 1 cause of death in Ohio, surpassing car accidents. Since 2017, we have begun to make progress, finally, to be able to turn the tide on opioids. In 2018, after a decade of increased overdose deaths every year for the previous dozen years, we finally had a reduction, a 22-percent reduction in overdose deaths. By the way, that led the Nation in terms of the percent decrease. It is still way too high--unacceptably high--but we are starting to make progress. A lot of it goes back to what is being done here at the Federal level, but also the State level and local level, to address this problem. We have dramatically increased funding here for treatment for recovery, including providing Narcan as a way to save people's lives. It is a miracle drug that reverses the effects of an overdose. We have done some things that are very important. More recently, we have sent these resources through legislation that the President signed into law just last year. There are resources also provided by the State opioid response grants and also by our bipartisan Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, or CARA, helping our first responders to be able to use innovative and new approaches to ensure that individuals whose overdoses are reversed go into treatment rather than just overdosing again and again. The good news is that at the end of the year, the spending bill that Congress passed secured a record $658 million in funding for these Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act grants, or CARA grants. I was the author of that legislation, initially, along with Sheldon Whitehouse on the other side of the aisle. We started off with closer to $200 million. Now, we are at $658 million. Why? Because it is working. I have been back home, going from place to place, seeing how it works. I have watched some of these first responders in action with social workers and treatment providers who are going into people's homes and getting people into treatment who previously were not. We can't rest on our laurels because we have to do a lot more to address all forms of addiction that are increasingly becoming a problem. We have seen in Ohio and around the country that psychostimulants have now come back with a vengeance. This would be crystal meth from Mexico and cocaine. It is surging in communities across our State. According to our deputy attorney general in Ohio, law enforcement officials in 2018 tested double the amount of methamphetamine samples as they had in 2017 and triple the amount from 2016. In other words, crystal meth is growing. Higher and higher amounts of it are coming in and more and more people are being affected by this. I heard this at roundtable discussions around the State. I was in Knox County last year, learning that the prosecutor's office estimates that 80 to 90 percent of all drug incidents included crystal meth. Opioids used to be their biggest problem in Knox County, as it has been in all 80 counties in Ohio until recently. Now it is pure crystal meth coming in from Mexico. I am pleased that the spending bill at the end of last year that we passed just last month changed the way in which our funding is delivered in the fight against addiction. Specifically, included in that is my Combating Meth and Cocaine Act. This is an important bill that allows States the flexibility to use the roughly $1.5 billion in grant funds allocated specifically to combat opioids. The 21st Century Cures grants, now called the State response grants, can all be used for the treatment and recovery services for new threats like crystal meth and cocaine. Giving our local communities that flexibility is incredibly important. I have heard it constantly when I am back home. We have now done that. We have been able to help even further to try to reverse the effects, not just of the opioid crisis but of the drug crisis and all forms of addiction. We have made significant strides in ensuring that we can respond to this ever-changing addiction crisis. I am proud we are able to do it. As I said at the beginning of this speech, this is a pretty divisive time in Washington, to say the least. No one can deny that. What I hoped to show by highlighting these achievements over the past year is that even in a highly partisan environment, it is possible to bring people together to get things done and pass laws that make a fundamental improvement to the lives of the people we represent. While lots of time finding that common ground takes more work, it is worth it. The extra effort goes a long way. Fortunately, we are coming into this new session of Congress having already laid the groundwork that we need to do to continue to fight this addiction crisis. Critical right now to that fight is passing bipartisan legislation that will help us to push back against a particular kind of opioid, the synthetic opioid called fentanyl. Fentanyl came on the scene 5 or 6 years ago with a vengeance. Just as we were making progress on reducing the use of heroin and prescription drugs, suddenly, this fentanyl arrives. It is a synthetic opioid. It is 50 times more powerful on average than heroin. It is now the No. 1 killer. It has been the last few years. In States like mine, Ohio, when you look at the numbers over the past few years, although we are making progress on other opioids, we are not making progress on fentanyl. Why? Because it is being mixed into all kinds of other drugs, including crystal meth, including opioids, including all street drugs. The improvements we have seen are significant, but fentanyl continues to be the No. 1 killer. Fentanyl, unfortunately, knows no ZIP Code and is devastating individuals and families all across the country. According to the most recent data available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were 72,000 drug-related deaths in the United States in 2017, and 40 percent of those deaths were involving fentanyl. That data showed that the overdose deaths due to fentanyl had increased at a rate of 88 percent per year, on average, since 2013. It is a real threat to our States. In 2017 alone, we had a record 3,500 overdose deaths in Ohio that were attributable to fentanyl. Last fall, our Narcotics and Gun Enforcement Task Force seized 45 pounds of fentanyl in a single bust in Montgomery County, in Dayton, OH. There was enough of the drug to kill the entire population of Ohio. That is why the Drug Enforcement Agency made the right call in 2018 to make fentanyl-related substances illegal to possess, transport, or manufacture. This means they have been scheduled. Thanks to that designation, our law enforcement officials have been able to better protect our communities by seizing and destroying large amounts of these fentanyl-related substances, which are the analogs to fentanyl. So that is good. Unfortunately, due to Federal law, the DEA was only able to make these dangerous substances illegal on a temporary basis. Think about that. You have this deadly drug that is 50 times more powerful than heroin. Back in 2018, we were able to finally make not just fentanyl but all of its analogs--fentanyl-related substances--illegal. Law enforcement was using that to begin to push back, and now we find it was only temporary. Guess what. We are fast approaching the end of that designation. Next month, on February 6, which is 3 weeks from this Thursday, fentanyl-related substances will once again be legal, and it will be much harder to keep vulnerable communities safe from these deadly substances. We cannot let that happen. I met earlier today with former Iowa Governor Terry Branstad, who is now our Ambassador to China. For years, many of us have been pushing China to do more to crack down on fentanyl because most of the fentanyl that comes to this country and kills individuals in our communities comes from China. Most of it has been coming through our mail system. We have done a lot to stop that. We have passed the STOP Act, which tightens up the post office's screening process, which has worked very well over the last year. We have also provided more money under the INTERDICT Act in order to provide better equipment not just to our Postal Service but also to the private carriers like DHL and FedEx. What has happened is, China has also done a better job of making fentanyl illegal and scheduling the precursors and analogs to fentanyl, and we have pushed them very hard on that. I have myself been to China and have personally done that, and I know Ambassador Branstad has pushed China hard on this. Finally, China has begun to start addressing this rampant production in its country. Terry Branstad told me today--and I agree with him--that the credibility of the United States to continue to provide pressure to China to do the right thing will be eroded dramatically if we don't continue to schedule fentanyl. As we are asking China to do it, we cannot let this designation lapse here. Obviously, what is most important is that we not let it lapse because it is the wrong thing to do and because it will affect all of our communities and all of our families who have been affected by this dangerous drug. We can't let it happen. That is why, last fall, Senator Joe Manchin and I introduced a bill called FIGHT Fentanyl, which codifies the Drug Enforcement Agency's precedent to permanently schedule fentanyl-related substances. So forget these temporary designations that have caused these issues; let's permanently schedule these fentanyl-related substances. It has very strong bipartisan support. In fact, as of a couple of weeks ago, every single U.S. State's and territory's attorney general has now endorsed our bill. That is all 50 States and 6 territories. That doesn't happen very often. This is a bipartisan group of law enforcement officials who has said: We support this legislation, the FIGHT Fentanyl Act, that we introduced last fall. I am confident we can get it passed if it comes to the floor for a vote. There are other approaches to it as well that are slightly different than ours. I support those as well. The point is, we need to pass legislation to ensure that February 6 doesn't come and go without our scheduling these fentanyl analogs. It is a good example of the need to continue working across the aisle on this issue. We have done a good job with it so far. As I have said, even in these contentious times, we have to do it again, and we have to do it soon. I am told that during impeachment, it is impossible or at least very difficult to legislate on any other topic without having unanimous consent. So we need to get this done before next week, before we get the Articles of Impeachment and before the U.S. Senate begins the impeachment trial. I urge all of our colleagues to focus today on this issue. Join us in this commonsense, lifesaving legislation. Let's work together. The Committee on the Judiciary has been working on this, and others have worked on this. We have legislation at the desk to be able to solve it. I hope we can do it by unanimous consent, but we have to do it. This is lifesaving legislation to keep fentanyl from spreading its poison even further. I yield the floor.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, first, I want to say to my colleague from Oklahoma that I appreciate his remarks. I was on the floor last week talking about this issue. He is absolutely right. Soleimani was a recognized terrorist, not by the Trump administration but by the global community, including the Obama administration, the United Nations. The two organizations that he had were both considered terrorist organizations. He was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of our constituents and thousands more who were maimed or injured. When I have been at these briefings, I am sort of getting a different briefing than, apparently, some of my colleagues are. The briefings have been very explicit about the degree with which this particular individual had already attacked and killed so many Americans and, in fact, there were more plans, of course, in the future. That is why he was traveling around the Middle East, meeting with other commanders, including the commander of the Islamic militia group in Iraq that very day. I think this is a time for us, as the Senator from Oklahoma has said, to be sober and to be realistic about the great threat that he posed to us, and not just in this administration but in previous administrations, and now talk about a way forward, avoiding war with Iran but making sure Iran is held accountable. To the people of Iran, I say today that we are with you. We understand the fact that your country is one where your own rights have been repressed and you have not had the ability to achieve your dreams. We want that for you, as well. Our arguments are not with you. They are with the Government of Iran.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am here today to talk about something very sad. Last week, my staff and I were informed that a colleague of ours, Chris Allen, a Senate staffer in the Senate Finance Committee, passed away unexpectedly. Chris was an amazing guy. He was diligent, hard-working, and an expert on pensions and tax-exempt organizations. He was a very valued colleague. I got to know him particularly well over the last couple of years as we worked together on pension issues. He was the one who, along with Charlie Bolton in my office, really focused on the complicated issue of multiemployer pensions and other retirement security issues. We have a crisis in our country right now. The pension system is in big trouble. Chris Allen played a pivotal role in ensuring that this very important issue was brought to the fore and that we have responsible solutions for it. He was developing a framework to prevent the collapse of that longtime employer system. He also recently prevented pension cuts to over 92,000 retired coal miners through his work. He is the one, I think, most responsible from all of the staff on the Hill for ensuring that we expanded 401(k)s to millions of part-time workers left behind by current law. Last month, Congress enacted and the President signed the SECURE Act. It is going to help millions of Americans to have more peace of mind in retirement. I don't believe it would have passed the Senate at the end of last year but for Chris. That is how important he was. Through his quick wit and tenacity, he is the one who built the coalitions to get that done, and he built the momentum for it when, frankly, a lot of others had given up. As a result, all Americans are better off. In this difficult time, my thoughts and my prayers are with his wife Lynda-Marie, his daughters Sophie and Lucie, and all of his family and his many, many friends, as we mourn the loss of a true public servant. I also want to express condolences to Chairman Grassley and the entire staff of the Senate Finance Committee. Chris will be dearly missed as a friend, a retirement expert, and a model public servant.

Mr. PORTMAN

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

Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I would like to take a few moments today to talk about the current situation with regard to Iran. First, the decision to take out Qasem Soleimani. Let's remember who he was. He was leader of the Quds Force and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps--both of these groups, by the way, having been designated as terrorist organizations. He was responsible for providing the Shia militias in Iraq with explosively formed penetrators. What does that mean? These were the extremely deadly improvised explosive devices--so-called roadside bombs--that were responsible for killing over 600 American soldiers and injuring many more, at least a couple thousand. Some of those maimed or killed were from my home State of Ohio. My heart goes out to their families for their sacrifice. I got a chance to see some of these brave Americans in visits to the Landstuhl military hospital in Germany and the Walter Reed Hospital here in Washington, DC. We must never forget their courage and the sacrifices they and their families have made. Over the past 2 months alone, Soleimani helped direct more than 11 attacks against our forces in Iraq. In fact, he was found recently to be plotting more. When he was killed, he was plotting additional and imminent attacks with the commander of the Shia militia--the same commander who directed both the rocket strikes that killed the American contractor and wounded four American service personnel in Erbil and the demonstration and assault against the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. Thankfully, that commander was taken off the battlefield as well. For reasons I have outlined, the killing of Qasem Soleimani was both legitimate and justified. His history of fomenting terror and murdering innocents goes back decades, and the world is a better place without him. Some of my Democratic colleagues have been critical of the President's actions against Iran, to include the killing of Soleimani. Some argue that our actions have been unwarranted and belligerent. In fact, given the facts, I believe President Trump has shown restraint in the face of continued Iranian aggression over these past 18 months. By authorizing the killing of the leader of terrorist organizations that were actively plotting more violence against our brave men and women, I believe President Trump reset the concept of deterrence and fulfilled his duties as President. As GEN David Petraeus said after the Soleimani action, ``This was a significant effort to re-establish deterrence.'' I would call that peace through strength. Last evening's Iranian missile attacks against our forces and air bases at Erbil and Al-Asad was a continuation of the reckless and provocative approach. Thanks to the professionalism and capability of our Armed Forces, despite over a dozen Iranian missiles aimed their way, there were, fortunately, no American or allied troop or Iraqi casualties--amazing-- and there was only minimal damage to our bases. For that, of course, we are very thankful. I listened to President Trump this morning, and I agree that the maximum pressure campaign against Iran must continue, and it should include additional sanctions. There is a way forward for Iran to rejoin the international community rather than continue to be a pariah and the top sponsor of state terrorism in the world. President Trump has said on many occasions he is willing to negotiate with Iran if they cease their belligerent actions in the region and come to the table. We do not desire war with Iran, but we cannot and will not stand idly by as they continue to attack Americans, continue to kill our forces in the Middle East. I have been in meetings with top administration officials today and yesterday, and I look forward to continued discussions on their strategy moving forward. I will continue to pray for the safety of our men and women in uniform who are forward deployed, who put their lives in danger for all of us and do so for the sake of peace and stability. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PORTMAN

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

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, as we all know, there have been increased incidents of violence and threats against some of our faith-based institutions over the past decade. The FBI has been able to monitor this and unfortunately tells us that these attacks are likely to continue. We need to do a better job of figuring out how to disrupt these attacks but also to harden these facilities. When the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh was attacked, it was the worst anti-Semitic violence in the history of our country. Shortly after that, I went to Youngstown, OH, which is very near the Pittsburgh synagogue that was attacked. It was within the next week or two afterwards, and there were very raw feelings, as you can imagine. We talked about what was needed to provide better protection for houses of worship--our synagogues, our churches, our mosques--and we came up with an idea to provide for a grant program from the expertise of the Department of Homeland Security where they could provide best practices, consulting, placement of cameras, you know, where it is necessary to harden facilities, where it is necessary to have a door with locks--simple things that can save lives. That program has now been appropriated. In the legislation we just passed, there was a $90 million appropriation for this program. The Jewish community, the Christian community, the Muslim community, the Sikh community, the Hindu community, and others are very supportive of this program. H.R. 2476 is the legislation I am talking about this evening, called the Securing American Nonprofit Organizations Against Terrorism Act. Tonight, I am hopeful that we can pass, by unanimous consent, this legislation. In the appropriations bill, there is a $90 million appropriation from Congress for the program for this fiscal year. Our authorization bill is at $75 million. Again, it is a very important program. I am pleased that the Department of Homeland Security has recently changed its rules to allow these institutions to use the funds not just for cameras, locks, and other hardening but also for armed guards where necessary. Sadly, it is necessary to disrupt and stop some of these hate crimes that are occurring. Senator Mike Lee had some concerns about the cost. I understand his concern. We are going to keep the cost in an efficient and effective manner--going to the organizations that really need it. I appreciate his talking to me about that tonight and his willingness to allow us to move forward on this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2476 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. PORTMAN. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. PORTMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, another bill has been cleared tonight that I would like to ask the U.S. Senate to provide unanimous consent for. This is legislation called the Fallen Warrior Battlefield Cross Memorial Act. This comes out of a situation in Ohio where some of our veterans were not permitted to have a battlefield cross at their grave site. Senator Brown, myself, and other Members have been supportive of this legislation, and tonight I am pleased to say that we now have unanimous consent from the other side of the aisle to proceed with it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1424 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills and joint resolutions during today's session of Congress.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am here on the floor again for the third time in 3 weeks to talk about the U.S.-Mexico agreement, USMCA. Just a few moments ago, this trade agreement passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 385 to 41. That is extraordinary. Trade agreements sometimes tend to be pretty controversial and, more recently in our history, pretty partisan. In this case, Republicans and Democrats alike helped negotiate a good agreement, and Republicans and Democrats alike supported it. Let's now get that agreement over here. Let's not wait. The people in Ohio and all around in country who are going to benefit from it need those benefits now. So I am very pleased that the President and his U.S. Trade Representative, Bob Lighthizer, patiently negotiated with Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats and were able to get something done, and now it is close to becoming the law of the land. All it needs is a vote over here from the Senate and then the President will sign it into law. Thanks to important measures designed to strengthen our economy, create more jobs, and increase market access, this new agreement, the USMCA, actually helps to level the playing field between the United States and Canada and Mexico. First of all, it is going to result in more jobs. The independent International Trade Commission has said over 170,000 new jobs. That is mid-range. It could be a lot more than that. But they have also said that these are good-paying jobs. Jobs in trade tend to pay about 15 percent higher on average, and they have better benefits. So this is a bunch of good jobs. By the way, they estimate that at least 20,000 jobs in the auto industry will come to the United States that would not have come otherwise. I come from Ohio, a big auto State. It is a State that cares a lot about manufacturing and, specifically, autos, and they are both going to be helped by this agreement. Part of the way that it is going to create jobs here is by leveling the playing field on labor standards and enforcing those standards. Also, it has higher content requirements for U.S.-made steel and intra auto parts that go into an automobile. As an example, USMCA requires that 70 percent of the steel going into cars come from North America. There is no provision like that in the status quo, in the NAFTA agreement. So this is a big improvement for us to drive more jobs here in America with regard to the steel production that goes into automobiles. But, second, it says that 75 percent of the overall content in USMCA automobiles that are sold through this agreement have to be from North America. That is a big jump. In the current agreement, instead of 75 percent, NAFTA has 62.5 percent. What does that mean? It means that if you make a car, say, in Mexico, and it has a bunch of parts in it that come from other countries, say, Japan or China or Germany, they can't take advantage of the USMCA's lower tariffs unless they have at least 75 percent North American content. So that is a big difference. Now, there are some, including on my side of the aisle, that have criticized this provision and said that somehow this is a protectionist provision. Let me just make this point. We are agreeing with Canada and Mexico that we are going to have a new agreement with them that lowers barriers, tariffs, and non-tariff barriers on our borders with Canada and Mexico. We are taking advantage of that, with each other trading back and forth. That is why we will have more trade. That is why we will have more jobs. If other countries want to take advantage of that by coming into Mexico or Canada and adding parts to the cars, they are free riders because they are not giving us the reciprocal access to their markets as Canada and Mexico are. That is why I think this agreement makes sense. Now, I think it will incentivize two things. One, it will incentivize more jobs here--auto jobs, manufacturing jobs, steel jobs. But, second, it will incentivize those other countries to enter into a trade agreement with us. We have talked about this with Japan. We have taken the first step in starting to put together what is considered a broader free trade agreement. I hope we get to one. It would be important. But if they can simply free ride on existing agreements by having their stuff be transshipped from another country into the United States to take advantage of the lower tariffs that we are providing to Canada and Mexico, they wouldn't have that incentive to trade with us with their own agreement. So I think this is a good thing for encouraging more trade agreements and more trade openness. The International Trade Commission also tells us that the USMCA is going to grow our economy. In fact, they say it is going to grow our economy by double the gross domestic product of that which was projected under the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Some may remember that agreement, the TPP. Many of my colleagues, particularly on the other side of the aisle, held that agreement up as one that would have been great for America and that we should be part of it. I think it is important that we trade with our neighbors in Latin America and in the Pacific Rim, but, frankly, that agreement that was touted as being so great had less than half of the economic growth that we are talking about here. So this has more than doubled the economic growth we saw in the TPP. Second, the USMCA means new rules of the road for online sales. This is really important. So much of our economy today and our commerce takes place online, and yet there is nothing in NAFTA on it. If you think about it, 25 years ago there was no significant online commerce, and so there is nothing in the agreement. Whereas, in this agreement, there are a few things that are very important. For my State of Ohio and, really, for our entire country, a lot of our commerce is done online now. We have a lot of small businesses engaged in it. They want to do business with Mexico and Canada, but they have no protections--no protections from tariffs. They can be assessed on that trade. This says no tariffs. Also, data localization is something some countries are doing to American online companies. So if you are in online commerce in America, another country may say: Do you know what? You can do business in our country only if you localize your data, meaning the servers have to be in our country--in Mexico or in Canada, as an example. This agreement says no. It prohibits that data localization requirement, which allows us to sell more to those countries without having to place our servers there. It also says that the de minimis level on customs duties for sales online is increased. This saves money because people can now be involved in commerce with Canada and Mexico and not pay as much in terms of the customs duties and the tariffs, but there are also incredible administrative burdens being lifted by not having to worry about that. So this is good for us because we do a lot of online commerce here. Third, I would say that American farmers are strongly behind this agreement for a good reason, which is that it opens up more markets for them and adds more certainty for them. Again, the NAFTA accord is 25 years old, and we had hoped during the last 25 years that we would get at some of the protectionist policies, particularly with regard to Canada and with regard to dairy and wheat and other issues, but we didn't have much success until now. Now, with the USMCA, we have the ability to send more of our stuff to these countries, and that is why the ag community is so excited about it. Between bad weather, low prices, and a shrinking China market, our farmers have been hit hard, and this is a light at the end of the tunnel. That is why, by the way, over 1,000 farm groups have come out in support of USMCA. There are a lot of folks I hear talking who say one side won or one side lost in the negotiations over USMCA. I don't think that is it. I think because of the hard work of U.S. Trade Representative Bob Lighthizer and the Trump administration and President Trump himself supporting this and pushing it, I think neither side won but the American people won. And isn't that nice to see? I think that is why you saw today on the floor of the House of Representatives a vote of 385 to 41. I think now more people are going to be able to benefit from trade with these two countries. For Ohio, Canada is, by far, our largest trading partner. Mexico is No. 2. So this is a big deal. It is more modernized trade. We have replaced an agreement that has shown its age with unenforceable labor standards and environmental standards, non- existent digital economy provisions, and outdated rules-of-origin provisions. This changes all that. We waited long enough. It is time, now that the House has voted--as I said, this evening, which was great news--to get that legislation over here to ensure that we do have great victory for American farmers, for small businesses, for our manufacturers, for our online businesses, and so many others. I look forward to the opportunity to be able to vote for it over here.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I would also like to talk for a moment about the legislation we just passed on the appropriations side. There were two bills. One focused more on the national security and defense side. There are a lot of good things in there for Ohio, including the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, and also for the Lima Tank Plant. Also, much more importantly, it is good for our military-- for our men and women in uniform, who are on the frontlines every day, sacrificing for us. We have shown through this legislation we just passed that we appreciate them. There is not only a pay raise, but also we are providing them the equipment and the modern technology they need to be able to be successful. But I also noticed in the agreement that just passed, the first appropriations bill, that there is really important language with regard to the drug crisis that we face in this country. I see my colleague Sheldon Whitehouse is on the floor. I have worked with him over the years on the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act. Now we have a CARA 2.0 bill that we would like to see passed. But the bottom line is that this House and Senate and President Obama and now President Trump have begun to address this problem in different ways over the last 3 or 4 years, and it is beginning to work. We are finally beginning to see, with regard to the opioid crisis, some success. Recall that the opioid crisis is the worst drug epidemic we have ever faced in this country. In 2017, 72,000 Americans lost their lives to overdoses. That is more than we lost in the entire Vietnam war. Last year, we had a little better number. After 12 years of increases every year in overdose deaths, finally, last year, we had a slight decrease, and I think it is because of a lot of good work that has been done here, particularly with regard to the opioid crisis. In Ohio, unfortunately, we have been in the center of the storm. We have been one of the top two or three States in the country in terms of overdose deaths. Last year, in 2018, because of all the hard work we have done here at the Federal level, at the State level, and at the local level, we actually saw a decrease. We led the country with a 22-percent decrease in overdose deaths. So that is the good news, and it is because of the Comprehensive Addiction Recovery Act, which is bipartisan and which is working to provide more treatment and recovery services, to provide better prevention, and to provide more Narcan to reverse the effects of overdoses. It is also because of the 21st Century Cures Act, which provides funding for evidence-based programs to the States and the States decide how it is spent. I was back home just this past week meeting with people who are getting the benefit of those programs. On Monday, I was at a home in Dayton, OH, that provides residential treatment for women who are addicted and pregnant and helps their children to be able to overcome the neonatal abstinence syndrome when they are born to a mother who is using. It is beginning to work. I met two mothers who have turned their lives around, and I saw a beautiful baby who, at 5 weeks old, is going into the world brighter, cheerier, and with more opportunity because of the work that we have done here to provide funding to help. But I will say we have found, having made progress on opioids, that other drugs are starting to come into our communities. This is not just an opioid problem. This is an addiction problem, and addiction is a disease that must be treated like other diseases. Although we have made progress, we can't rest on our laurels. When I talk to those on the frontlines, as I did on Monday in Dayton with law enforcement--the sheriff was there for Montgomery County--but also to treatment providers, to those who are in the trenches, and talking to those who are recovering addicts who were there, they tell me about what is happening, which is that, increasingly, other drugs, including psychostimulants like crystal meth and cocaine, are making a horrible comeback in those communities. Crystal meth coming in from Mexico is more pure and less expensive than ever. In fact, law enforcement tells me that on the streets of Columbus, Dayton, Cleveland, or Cincinnati, crystal meth is sometimes less expensive than marijuana and yet much more powerful and much more dangerous. So it is important that here in Congress we focus on how to respond to that. Although we have some great legislation out there with regard to opioid addiction, treatment, recovery, and how to deal with this, we have not done as well with regard to these new drugs coming in. Part of the solution, of course, is to build up our security at our southern border, where we have seen larger and larger quantities of crystal meth, manufactured in Mexico, being brought into our country by these cartels from super labs, as they call them, in Mexico. By the way, there were crystal meth labs over the years, but the volume was not nearly as high, and the cost was much higher. Now that it is cheaper and there is higher volume, you see the meth labs in our communities closing down, but for the wrong reason. It is not being made here anymore because the stuff coming from Mexico is so much more pure, more powerful, more deadly, and less expensive. So for the people already struggling with methamphetamine or cocaine addiction, it is important that they have access to treatment, too, so they can get help. What I have heard at the local level is this: We appreciate the funding on opioids, but we want more flexibility now to be able to use this funding to combat what is, in many of our communities, in Ohio, even a bigger problem, which is crystal meth and sometimes cocaine. So I am pleased to say that in the legislation that we just passed here this evening, legislation that provides appropriations to deal with this addiction issue, we have provided that flexibility. We have said: Yes, we are going to continue to provide grants to help with regard to prevention and treatment and recovery and help with regard to getting people back on their feet and helping law enforcement, but we are going to allow local communities to use this funding both for opioids and for crystal meth and other drugs. So my hope is that what we will see is some of the same progress we have made in opioids now happen with regard to some of these other substances. I have introduced a bill called the Combating Meth and Cocaine Act--I introduced it in June of this year--to allow this kind of flexibility. That is an authorization bill that has already been introduced, and we have good bipartisan support for that. But we went ahead today in these appropriations bill and did it for this year. So for this fiscal year, essentially, that legislation will be in effect. So for 2020 we are going to provide that flexibility. I applaud the Senate appropriators for doing that. Again, I am proud of Congress showing that we can be flexible and continue to fight a many-front war on this issue. It is not just about opioids. It is about addiction. We also need to pass the authorization bill, the Combating Meth and Cocaine Act, and I hope that we will be able to do that after the first of the year to ensure that we can continue to address these public health threats and we can continue to provide for those whose future is so dim because of the addiction, and instead they be able to achieve their God-given purpose in life. I yield the floor.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay special tribute to Commander Michael D. Cassady, Medical Service Corps, U.S. Navy. Commander Cassady currently serves as the Program Manager, Naval Advanced Medical Development at the Naval Medical Research Center and will be released from Active Duty after almost 35 years of Active military service on March 1, 2019. Commander Cassady is a native of Millersport, OH, and I am pleased to recognize his distinguished career. Commander Cassady enlisted in the U.S. Navy on May 21, 1985, and after completing initial training at the Naval Training Center in San Diego, he earned designation as a hospital corpsman third class. In 1991, Cassady graduated from University of Maryland University College and received a commission on June 8, 1993 as an environmental health officer. From 1993 to 1999, Cassady completed tours at the U.S. Naval Hospital Keflavik in Iceland and Branch Medical Clinic in Iwakuni, Japan, where he increased the overall readiness and health of hospital staff and improved testing of the base drinking water. In 2001, he deployed to Australia in support of Exercise Tandem Thrust 2001 and later deployed to Thailand in support of Exercise Cobra Gold 2002 to improve combat readiness, combined-joint interoperability, and enhance security relationships between the United States, Thailand, and Singaporean forces. He subsequently served as a medical department and safety inspector for the Board of Inspection and Survey, providing direct support to the fleet; and as chief, medical concept and development, Joint Forces Command, where he furthered joint warfighter capabilities and supported U.S. Northern Command response and relief efforts post Hurricane Katrina. In 2006, he deployed to Iraq in support of combat operations, where he served as the civil affairs public health section lead, Multi- National Division in Baghdad. Upon returning from Iraq, he served as the assistant officer in charge for the Navy Environmental and Preventive Medicine Unit Two. Cassady also deployed as the medical planning officer in Expeditionary Strike Group Two and U.S. Naval Forces Central Command in Bahrain, where he was instrumental in coordinating medical plans, guidance, and response to counter piracy and Marine Corps operations, and health service support to the U.S. FIFTH Fleet. His next two tours of duty were as the Environmental Health Officer at the U.S. Naval Hospital Guantanamo Bay in Cuba and the U.S. Naval Hospital in Naples, Italy. During these tours he provided public health oversight and leadership. Commander Cassady reported to his current and final tour of duty in July 2014 at the Naval Medical Research Center in Silver Spring, where he provides program management, leadership, and key administrative direction. Commander Cassady has spent the entirety of his adult life and over 15 of his 35 years of naval service deployed or stationed overseas in the defense of the United States. Additionally, he holds a master of science in management from Troy State University, a master of public health degree from the Ohio State University, a master of arts in national security and strategy from the Naval War College in 2007, and a master of science in education from Old Dominion University, which he completed in December of 2011. Mr. President, I ask that you join me, our colleagues, and Commander Mike Cassady's family and friends in saluting this distinguished officer's many contributions and sacrifices in defense of our great Nation. It is fitting that the Senate today publicly recognizes his service and wishes him, his wife Rohini, and their children, Rhyan, Kassandra, Briana, and David, health, happiness, and success in the years to come. Congratulations, Commander Cassady, on completing an exemplary career.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the 100th season of the National Football League. Ohio has a rich football history. In 1920, 10 teams gathered in Canton, OH, to form the American Professional Football Association. Of those original 10 teams, Cleveland, Canton, Akron, Columbus, and Dayton were all in the lineup. Further, the Dayton Triangles hosted the first- ever NFL game in 1921 against the Columbus Panhandles. Home to the Cleveland Browns and the Cincinnati Bengals, Ohio has continued to embrace the legacy and tradition of America's game. The birthplace of the NFL, Canton's Pro Football Hall of Fame sees 225,000 visitors annually. Additionally, Ohio natives Don Shula, Chuck Noll, Paul Brown, Roger Staubach, and Cris Carter are among the 326 players who have been inducted into the Hall of Fame. Further, Cleveland looks forward to hosting the 2021 NFL draft, and I was proud to advocate for this selection last year. Since its first season in 1920, the NFL has grown from humble beginnings to a national pastime known as America's game. Represented in 22 States by 32 teams, the NFL has united communities across the Nation through live games and televised events. In fact, the Super Bowl has become the single most-watched annual television event in the United States. I commend the NFL for their continued philanthropic and volunteer efforts. Through working to honor veterans, promote cancer awareness, and encourage healthy lifestyles, the league has embraced community through sport. I applaud the commitment of the NFL, its staff, and all who were involved in reaching this milestone and making the first 100 seasons of the NFL a success.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I have come to the Senate floor several times over the past year to talk about the importance of passing the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement. This is the successor agreement to the 25-year-old NAFTA accord. Yes, it has been a year; in fact, it has been over a year since that agreement was negotiated between Canada and Mexico, and then Congress was meant to take it up. It has been too long. However, I am happy to report today that now we are at the end of that long process. I am told that the legislation is actually going to be voted on in the House of Representatives probably next week and then here in the U.S. Senate right after the holidays. We will have a chance, finally, to pass this agreement that is so good for the farmers, for the workers, for the manufacturers, and for the small businesses that I represent. I am really pleased that the President of the United States and his chief trade negotiator, Bob Lighthizer, had the persistence to get this done. I am not sure I would have had the same patience. I also want to congratulate House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for making the decision to move forward with it. This is one of these situations in which, under our law, the agreement has to be voted on first by the House. So the Speaker of the House had an unusual role here, where it couldn't go forward without her approval. Again, finally, we are there. The agreement, which was negotiated over a year ago and languished-- specific language was sent up here in May of last year--is pretty much the same. About 99 percent of it is the same agreement. It is a good agreement because it opens up more markets for us. What has changed is there are new provisions, different provisions, as it relates to enforcing the labor standards that are already in the agreement. In the agreement, what Mexico and Canada were asked to do, in addition to the United States, in terms of higher labor standards, was negotiated over a year ago, but what has happened over, really, the past several months is now there is a mechanism to enforce it that is a little different. I think it will make it easier to enforce potential violations of the agreement we have reached, particularly with regard to Mexico. It doesn't really come back against the United States at all. We can explain this in more detail as we see the exact language that is coming up in the next couple of days. The bottom line is, for a U.S. company, the labor standards that are established are the ones we already have in our law. For Mexico or Canada to file an objection to us potentially not following that agreement is simply after there has been a U.S. law processed, which would involve the National Labor Relations Board and our existing law, so it really shouldn't affect us at all. By the way, Secretary Scalia, who is the Secretary of Labor, was very involved in ensuring that it wouldn't come back on U.S. companies, on U.S. workers, and on our economy. At the end of the day, although it took way too long to get there, we have ended up with a very good result--an agreement that does expand trade, and that is the whole idea. We have talked a lot on the floor as to why this is so important. I will tell you, in my home State of Ohio, we send more than half of our exports to two countries, Canada and Mexico. By far, the No. 1 trading partner is Mexico, and No. 2 is Canada. This is really important because these jobs are really important. It is about $28 billion a year. These are jobs that pay higher wages and better benefits--export jobs. For our farmers, this is really important. For manufacturers and workers, it is really important because this lets them be able to do what we do best, which is efficiently and productively make things and produce things that could be sold to other markets. Remember, in America, we are only about 5 percent of the global economy--five percent of the people--so our population is only about 5 percent, but we are about 25 percent of the GDP of the world. We are a relatively small country by population, but we have this big economy. To access that 95 percent of consumers outside of America to sell our products is absolutely essential to our prosperity here, to our jobs here. As I mentioned earlier, those export jobs tend to be better jobs and higher paying jobs with better benefits. What does this agreement do? First of all, it creates a bunch of new jobs. This chart has 176,000-plus new jobs. That is because the International Trade Commission--which is the independent body that analyzes these things--gave us a range. The GDP increased. It increased our economy. The number of jobs is huge, by the way--greater than any other trade agreement we have entered into, greater on the economic growth side than the Trans-Pacific Partnership that many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle thought was something we should have entered into and was so important. This is even bigger. Obviously, it is so big because Canada and Mexico are such big trading partners with us. So even relatively small changes to open up new markets have a big impact. These are going to be welcome jobs and, again, higher paying jobs. Second, it really helps us with regard to online sales. One of our advantages as a country is we do a lot of commerce over the internet. When the original NAFTA agreement was written and was currently enforced--the status quo--there really were not any significant online sales--virtually none. So there were no provisions in there. Every modern trade agreement has provisions for online sales or for sales over the internet. Now we have them with regard to Mexico and Canada, which we would not have had under the old NAFTA. So that is a big improvement. For Ohio, that is a lot of small companies because entrepreneurs--some of these new startups are online companies--really like these provisions. By the way, it says a number of things. It says you can't require localization of data. In other words, Canada and Mexico can't say: Hey, you have to have your servers in our country if you are going to do business with us. That is really important to our American online industry. Second, it says that you can't put tariffs on data online. Again, it is very important to establish that, not just for Canada and Mexico but as a precedent for other trade agreements going forward. Third, it actually raises the de minimis level. In other words, to apply customs duties on stuff going to Canada and Mexico, they have a very low level. We have a relatively high level here. That level has increased for Canada and Mexico. That is an administrative burden that is lifted off of a lot of these small businesses but also a costsaver because they don't have to pay customs duty on a relatively small product that goes to another country. These are all good things for American jobs. Again, we have a comparative advantage here because we do a lot of online sales. Third is more U.S.-made steel and auto parts. This is really important to Ohio but also to our country. Manufacturing is now finally on the upswing. Manufacturing jobs are actually increasing in this country for the first time in years, and we are getting back on our feet in terms of what has always made America great, which is that we produce things; we make things. So this agreement helps. It says, as an example, that 70 percent of the steel that goes into automobiles--and the automobile industry is a big deal for Canada and Mexico and the United States--has to be from North America. That helps U.S. steel mills and steel mills in Ohio, as opposed to steel coming in from China, for example, from Brazil, and from other countries. Second, it changes the rules of origin--how much stuff can go into an automobile that comes from other countries. It is 62\1/2\ percent now, and it would take it up to 75 percent in this agreement. That is the highest level of any agreement we have with anybody. Why is that important? Well, think about it. We have agreed with Canada and Mexico that we are going to have this agreement that lowers the tariffs in all these countries and lowers the trade barriers generally. In other words, it gives them an advantage in our market. We get an advantage in their market. That is the idea. If you don't have a rule of origin where you say stuff can't come in from other countries and take advantage of that, then you have basically free riders. As an example, China can send a bunch of their auto parts to Mexico and produce a car that is a Mexican car that therefore gets the benefit of the NAFTA agreement. China has not opened its market at all; it has only provided this product to Mexico. But then the product gets the advantage of the lower tariffs and lower trade barriers generally. That is not fair. Raising it from 62\1/2\ percent to 75 percent is really significant. Again, it is the highest number of any trade agreement we have, and it avoids this problem. Some of us say: Gee, that sounds protectionist. I don't think it is. I think what it says to China, Japan, Brazil, or other countries is that if you want to get the advantage of the U.S. market that Canada and Mexico are getting and that we get reciprocally from them, then enter into a trade agreement with us. Let's have more trade agreements. Let's lower the barriers for everybody. That actually will expand trade. But we ought not to allow them to do it without that. This is a big deal. It also is true that in this agreement, there is something unprecedented with regard to leveling the playing field. Remember, a basic concept of our trade laws is that you want to have a balanced trade law where you have imports and exports because that makes sense-- keeps consumer prices down and allows us to have good jobs here--but you want it to be reciprocal and balanced. You don't want to have a situation where a country, because of its low wage rates and lack of labor standards or lack of environmental standards, where it is polluting a lot, can take advantage by having lower cost goods coming into America. In this agreement, we do say that there is a minimum wage for between 40 and 45 percent of the auto production. It is $16 an hour. That will end up benefiting us because wages are relatively higher in America and Canada than they are in Mexico. That will be good for auto jobs here and help to level the playing field. This is why you might have seen that some of the labor unions are supporting this agreement and some of the U.S. manufacturers are supporting this agreement. They have a lot of facilities here in America, and they like that part of it as well. There are new markets for farmers. I mean, this is kind of a no- brainer that has made it, for me, frustrating over the last year because we haven't been able to move forward on this agreement while farmers have really been suffering because of a few different things. One is weather. We have had some lousy weather, particularly in my State and across the Midwest, where it is too wet to plant and too dry for the crops to grow properly for a harvest, and that has hit us hard. We couldn't plant in Ohio in a number of cases this last year because of the weather being too wet, and so farmers have been hit by that. The second is that prices have been relatively low--not just recently but really over the last several years for different commodities such as corn, soybeans, and wheat. Part of that is because of the global markets. Part of it is because of the third issue, which is China. Because of our ongoing negotiation with China and disputes with China over what they are doing on intellectual property, stealing our technology, and other issues, they have bought less of our farm products. For Ohio, as an example, our No. 1 market overseas for soybeans is China, and one out of every three acres planted in Ohio is planted for export. Think about how that affects your prices if you lose that big market share and that big customer. I am pleased to say that we seem to be making some progress with China right now, incidentally, as an aside. It is great to have this agreement done. The next agreement I hope we get done is with China and get them to play by the rules and open those markets more. This week, they started to buy more soybeans, and that is good. In the meantime, our farmers are desperate for more markets, and in this agreement, that is exactly what they get. So if you are an Ohio farmer--and we are No. 2 in the country on eggs--you can now have access to these markets in Canada and Mexico, on eggs, that you never had before. On dairy, Canada in particular has some very protectionist provisions in place with regard to dairy products--think milk and cheese. If you are an Ohio dairy farmer, you can sell stuff into Canada you couldn't sell before--also pork, beef, wheat, and other products. This is good for our farmers. This is why over 1,000 farm groups around the country have supported this agreement. I mean, I don't know a farm group in Ohio that doesn't support it strongly. Again, part of it is that this is a great agreement for them, and part of it is that they are hurting, and this gives them some light at the end of the tunnel, an opportunity to see new markets and therefore see some prices increase in our ag community. This is a good agreement that is good for jobs, good for small business, as we talked about, good for farmers, good for workers, and good for our economy. It is important that we get it done. I am glad the House is going to go ahead and vote on it in the next week. I wish we could vote here in the Senate right away, too, but under the process called trade promotion authority, we do have some processes we need to go through. It is probably best to have it happen after the holidays. Right after the holidays, my hope is that here on the floor of the Senate, Members will look at this for what it is. This is not a Democratic or a Republican victory; this is an American victory. Again, I appreciate the efforts of President Donald Trump because he was persistent and tough on the negotiations, and then he was persistent and patient in working with the U.S. Congress. There were a lot of people saying: Go ahead and send the agreement up and try to jam the Democrats into doing the right thing. He didn't do that. He waited to figure out a way to come up with an agreement, particularly on the labor enforcement provisions we talked about, and as a result, we now have the ability on a bipartisan basis to get this done. I hope the vote in the House will reflect that; likewise, here in the Senate. I know there are some of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who think this agreement is not perfect. No agreement is perfect; I will just say that. I am a former U.S. Trade Representative. I am a former trade lawyer. I am a former member of the Ways and Means Committee, which is the trade committee over there. I am now on the trade committee here, the Finance Committee. No agreement is ever perfect. It is not the agreement exactly that you would write or I would write, but, boy, this is a good agreement. To make perfect the enemy of the good would hurt the farmers and the workers and the small businesses that we represent that want this agreement badly because they know it is going to help them. The other thing I would say is that it also helps our relationships with our two biggest trading partners in Ohio, Canada and Mexico, and also our neighbors. For North America's future, this is a good idea--to have the certainty and predictability that comes with an agreement we have all been able to coalesce around and improve the status quo. NAFTA was negotiated 25 years ago. A lot has happened in the last 25 years. We talked about how the digital economy has transformed our economy, and we have a competitive and comparative advantage in that. That is one small example. So many things have changed. We have better protections for intellectual property in this agreement, as an example. We have these new trade-opening opportunities in agriculture. We have these opportunities in manufacturing to do more here in North America and specifically in the United States. A vote against this new agreement is a vote for NAFTA, which is this 25-year-old agreement that has these flaws because that is the status quo. My hope is that the next time I come to this floor to talk about this, it will be to ask my colleagues in short order to support a vote, that it will have come out of the Finance Committee with a strong bipartisan vote, that it will have come to the floor with a strong vote from the House, and that we can get this done. Then President Trump can sign it, and the people we represent will be better off, our community of nations here in North America will be better off, and the United States of America will have another victory. I yield back. I suggest the absence of a quorum.