Rob Portman

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I am on the floor again today to talk about developing the American workforce. Why? Because it is such a big issue back home in Ohio and around the country. Pro-growth Federal policies, including tax cuts, have really worked. I just had another group of Ohio small businesspeople visiting me today, telling me how they have taken those tax savings and used them to invest in their workers, invest in machine and technology, helping to create more economic growth. It is working. The most recent report released by the Commerce Department shows that the economy grew by 3.1 percent in the first quarter this year. That is significant. By the way, it is about twice what was projected for that same quarter prior to tax reform being put into place. So we are doing about twice as well as the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office thought we would be doing at this point. Official unemployment is now 3.6 percent. That is tied for the lowest in 50 years. We continue to see solid wage growth, including better wage growth--which is really exciting for me--among people who are not, as I said, supervisory employees; in other words, blue-collar workers, a 3.4-percent increase in wages. That is after about a decade and a half of flat wages when you take inflation into account. Finally, we are seeing a real increase in wages. I hear from our small business owners back in Ohio how this is working for them, but I also hear something else, which is that they are looking for workers. The good news is, the economy is growing. There is a demand for workers, but that is not the whole story. We are still seeing a lot of individuals who are missing out on the benefits of a growing economy, not working, and not even looking for work. I have visited dozens of factories and businesses over the past year, and I keep hearing the same thing: We just don't have enough skilled workers to fill all the positions we have in order to keep on growing, to keep expanding as a company. Yet, in Ohio and elsewhere, we do not have enough working-age adults participating in the labor force. So how do we solve this problem? How do we bring this together? How do we take people off the sidelines and into work? By the way, I am told it is over 8 million men right now not working at all; meaning, they are not looking for work; they don't show up in the unemployment numbers. Labor force economists call this the labor force participation rate. It is relatively low. It has fallen in the past decade, meaning there are a lot of unemployed Americans not even looking for work, not being recorded in those official Department of Labor unemployment numbers. It is so low that if our labor force participation was simply at its normal prerecession level--so go back 10 years and what was normal for decades before that. If you just went back to that labor force participation rate, our country's unemployment rate would not be 3.6 percent today. Guess what it would be. More like 8.3 percent. If we had an 8.3-percent unemployment number out there, all of us would be pulling out our hair thinking, how do we deal with this? How do we get more people back to work again? That is essentially what we have. Again, of particular concern to me are those who are of working age, 8 million men, between the ages of 25 and 54, who are not working. We need to get these people off the sidelines and back into the workforce, where they can have the dignity and self-respect that comes from work and where our businesses can have their talents. We need them to have our economy continue to grow. To achieve this, I think there are a number of challenges we have to address. First, we do need to focus on what is called the skills gap. This skills gap is essentially a mismatch between the skills in demand today and the skills our workers have. This labor force out there that is not finding the work doesn't have the skills that are needed to get the jobs that are available. It is a widespread issue. It is holding back our economy from fulfilling its full potential. In the most recent skills gap study from 2018, Deloitte and The Manufacturing Institute highlighted this skills gap. The study found that it may leave an estimated 2.4 million positions unfilled between 2018 and 2028, with a potential negative economic impact of $2.5 trillion. This skills gap is real, it is hurting our economy, and we have to figure out how to address it in more innovative ways. One way to address it is to have more robust training for the jobs that are going unfilled. Pretty simple. Often, of course, these are technical jobs. These are trade jobs, plumbers, welders, nursing assistants, IT jobs like coders. Economists call these jobs middle- skilled jobs. What they mean by that is that typically these are the kinds of jobs that don't require a college education, but they do require some training after high school. That is what is really missing right now. That is where this skills gap can be closed. The best known training you have probably heard about for these kinds of jobs is called career and technical education, CTE. For those who are older, you might think of vocational education. CTE programs are doing great work all over the country. I have seen this a lot firsthand in Ohio. I am a big fan of career and technical education, so I visit our CTE programs--Butler Tech near Hamilton, OH, and Max S. Hayes High School in Cleveland, OH. I cofounded and cochaired something here in the Senate called the CTE Caucus, alongside Senator Tim Kaine. We have meetings here. We have conferences here. We try to encourage more career and technical education back home. It is important. But the training we need goes well beyond these great high school programs. Shorter term technical workforce training programs post-high school are another key way to help close the skills gap. Think of the many workforce training programs that might be offered in your community college. We need to encourage more of those. We need to be sure that the Federal Government is playing a role here to hold up career and technical education generally but also to ensure that these training programs are given the same opportunities that we give to 2-year and 4-year colleges and universities. One impactful way to close that skills gap is through Pell grants. Currently, we use Pell grants to help expand access to college-level education to Americans. You have to meet the criteria, which is basically an income criteria. For lower income families in America, if you want to go to a 4-year college or university and you otherwise qualify, you can get a Pell grant to do it--not a loan, a grant. That is great, but, unbelievably, you can't get that same grant if you want to go to a 15-week, 14-week, 13-week, or 12-week training program to learn how to be a welder or a coder or a hospital tech. To me, that makes no sense. Our bipartisan JOBS Act, which I cowrote with Senator Tim Kaine, would allow us to use the Pell grant for these shorter term job- training programs with an industry-recognized credential at the end of the process. That is what employers are looking for. That is what these people need, young people and mid-career people who are looking for a job. Under current law, you are eligible for an associate's or a bachelor's degree but not to enroll in a CTE program under 15 weeks. It doesn't make any sense, and the JOBS Act would fix that. By the way, these kinds of workforce training programs provide students with academic and technical skills knowledge and training that are necessary today to fill the 21st-century jobs we have. They encompass the kinds of high-quality and rigorous job-training programs that are easily transferrable to the in-demand jobs we have. Whether it is learning HVAC installation, how to operate factory machinery--which, by the way, often involves computer skills--or how to be a programmer or a coder, these programs teach students the practical, transferable skills that keep our economy moving. I have seen firsthand how this can work in my home State of Ohio. Most recently in May, I had the opportunity to deliver the commencement address at two of our community colleges that specialize in these types of programs--Sinclair Community College in Dayton and Marion Technical College in Marion County. I was happy to go to these graduation ceremonies. First, both schools were great partners in helping us develop the JOBS Act, and these schools are getting it done. They are giving students what they need, the tools they need to be able to succeed in today's workforce. Second, I am always inspired by attending commencements at our community colleges. At these two colleges, as an example, I saw individuals as young as 15 years old walk across the stage. This one young man was getting his associate's degree that he started at a career and technical education program in high school before he got his driver's license. I also saw individuals as old as 74 years old. I saw the whole range. And they weren't just graduating; they were commencing a new stage of their lives that will be filled with opportunity because they are getting jobs. That is why the JOBS Act is so important. It has the potential to help thousands more students, like the ones I met at Marion and Sinclair, in gaining the skills necessary to be their best and to get a job. (Mr. YOUNG assumed the Chair.) At the same time, we know that addressing the skills gap will not fully solve the challenges we face in raising our labor participation rates. Another is overcoming the scourge of addiction we have seen in Ohio and elsewhere around the country, from both opioids and, more recently, crystal meth. Opioids, prescription drugs, heroin, and fentanyl have hit us really hard in Ohio. I see my colleague from Indiana is here on the floor. He sees the same thing. It has torn our families apart. It has devastated our communities. It has forced a lot of able-bodied adults out of the workforce while they struggle with their addiction. We have begun to make some progress on this front. After 8 straight years of rising overdose deaths--8 straight years; every year more people dying from overdoses, to the point where we are losing 72,000 Americans a year--finally, we saw a drop in the last year. In Ohio, we had a 21.4-percent decrease based on a study that was done by the Centers for Disease Control. This is the last data we have from the most recent numbers. We will see. We expect to have some new numbers soon for all of 2018. We will see. That is good. A 21.4-percent decrease is good. The problem is, it started from such a high-water mark. Frankly, what I am hearing this year, 2019, is that some of these overdose rates are increasing in some areas of Ohio. But we have seen some progress. Again, according to the studies that have been done, we are reducing the overdose deaths, but we still have so many people who are addicted, and we still have this issue of how to get them into the workforce. The bills we have passed here in the Congress, like our CARA legislation--the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act--and the Cures legislation, have really helped. The STOP Act has helped to try to keep this deadly fentanyl, which is the opioid that is killing most people, out of our country. There is $3 billion in increased funding that has gone out from this Congress over the past few years to deal with education, prevention, treatment, longer term recovery, and providing Naloxone--this miracle drug--to reverse the effects of an overdose. Those are good, and we are making some progress but not enough yet--not enough. Our work is far from finished. What I see happening in Ohio is that as we are making progress on the opioids, we are seeing crystal meth beginning to increase--pure crystal meth--methamphetamines coming from Mexico, across the Mexican border, into our country. Back in the day, we had meth labs in Ohio, in Indiana, and in other States represented in this Chamber. Those meth labs are pretty much gone now. People aren't making it in their own homes or in communities in Ohio. Instead, they are buying it on the street because it is cheaper and more powerful to buy pure crystal meth. That is not a good thing. It is a bad thing because it is indicating that the crystal meth is spreading. By the way, these drugs are causing more law enforcement concerns than ever because, like cocaine, this is a stimulant. They call it a psychostimulant, which creates more violent crimes and more challenges for our law enforcement officials. We have to ensure that we continue this downward trend in overdose deaths and address the crystal meth issue, which I will be talking about more over the next couple weeks, with some ideas on crystal meth. Another factor that undermines our efforts to develop our workforce is the increasing number of people with a felony record. Having a felony record can be a heavy burden to bear when trying to find employment. Far too often, we see the downward spiral that occurs when inmates are released back into the community without any kind of job training, any kind of a way to deal with their mental health or drug abuse history or their addiction. So people find themselves out of a job and then committing crimes again to get by. This often goes hand in hand with the issue of addiction, as so many people are jailed for nonviolent drug offenses related to opioids, meth, and other drugs. Fortunately, we are making some progress in getting these individuals the help and treatment they need, thanks to some actions we have taken here at the Federal level as well. The Second Chance Act, which was signed into law about a decade ago, is helping. I was the coauthor of that back in the House and a coauthor again this year for the reauthorization of that legislation. It provides Federal grant money to State and local entities to help people, when they get out of prison, get their lives back together-- again, provide job training in prison, as they get out of prison; that transition--and help them deal with issues they have, including mental health and addiction. In so many cases, that has been remarkably successful in reducing the recidivism rate--the number of people who go back into the system. Unfortunately, about two-thirds of those who get out of prison get rearrested within 2 or 3 years. So there is a great opportunity here, if you use these programs, to keep these people out of the system and to get them back on their feet, back with their families, and back at work. Last week, I was able to see firsthand how groups at the State and local level are using some of these Federal resources to create strong and effective pipelines to get individuals off the sidelines and back into participating in the workforce. In Cincinnati, I had the opportunity to attend a graduation in supply chain logistics for 11 women incarcerated on nonviolent drug offenses. These 11 women now have a skill, a tool, to be able to go out and get a job in this 21st-century economy we have. In Cincinnati in particular, we have a lot of supply chain jobs that are available. They are excited about it. I also visited one of the companies where a few of these women are going, where they hire a lot of second-chance folks, people who are returning citizens. They have had great success. These workers are grateful. They show up on time. They are local. We need more companies to take that person who has been down on his or her luck, gone through a program, and is ready to work. A lot of these women were repeat offenders of low-level crimes, and they had circulated in and out of prison for years. This program is run by the Hamilton County Office of Reentry, which in 2010 was established in part from grant money from the Second Chance Act we talked about. Again, in coordination with local partners, this office of reentry has run programs like this that have given incarcerated individuals a chance to reenter society and the tools and support they need for gainful employment. That is one of the reasons we have the opportunity out there to reduce this problem with so many people out of work altogether. There is great potential here to get people back to work. In May, I attended a roundtable with a number of workforce development nonprofits in Northeast Ohio, Cleveland, OH, including the Boy and Girls Club, Habitat for Humanity, and Youth Opportunities Unlimited. Bloom Bakery is an example of an entity that is taking advantage of some of these Federal opportunities in the Second Chance Act. Their parent, a nonprofit, received a Second Chance Act grant that allowed them to help ex-inmates reenter the community. During their time at Bloom, individuals have a chance to contribute to the operations of the bakery, learn culinary skills, learn how to bake, learn how to deal with people, because it is a retail outlet, and also learn how to be good in the service industry. I had the opportunity to meet a number of these individuals. Ashanique Johnson was one person I talked to. She talked about how Bloom was really a second chance for her, how she intended to use what she was learning there to find long-term success in the culinary field. I also met with TreShon Bankhead. TreShon is a participant in another program, one of their sister programs that train healthcare professionals. He is currently working at University Hospitals as a nursing assistant and is pursuing a degree in nursing. It was great to see that. Again, it is a second chance for him. Meeting them, hearing their life experiences, and seeing what they have accomplished underscore the need to continue to provide these opportunities so they can get ahead in life and so our economy can have them in the workforce. Let me conclude by saying that when it comes to our economy, more participation is better for everybody. We want more people coming out of the sidelines, coming out of the shadows, and getting to work. Let's make sure all Americans have the tools they need to go to work and to find success. Let's close that skills gap by doing the career and technical education programs that we have talked about but also providing more help at the Federal level. Rather than the help going to just colleges and universities for a degree, let it go to the short- term training programs so they get a meaningful certificate and can go to work right away. Let's help get the JOBS Act passed to be able to do that. Let's help individuals overcome their addiction. Let's help people stay out of jail and stay with their families and get to work. Let's give every single American the opportunity to get the tools they need to achieve their God-given potential. Thank you. I yield back.

Mr. PORTMAN

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

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague and one- time President pro tempore of this body, Senator Leahy. 75th Anniversary of D-Day Mr. President, I am here on the floor today to talk about D-Day, to talk about how we would remember the 75th anniversary tomorrow of a turning point in World War II: June 6, 1944, the invasion of Normandy. Historian Douglas Brinkley has written that D-Day was both the single most important in the 20th century and one of the bloodiest and most tragic, too, in terms of loss of life. On D-Day, our fleets set forth from the rocky shores of Britain to reach the fog-shrouded beaches of Normandy. On board the thousands of ships and planes were our fathers and grandfathers and great- grandfathers--some no older than 18 years old--who would bravely venture ashore in a show of determination and duty. There were 160,000 soldiers who crossed the English Channel that day. On their backs were rucksacks, some weighing over 80 pounds. But really on their backs was the fate of our allies in Europe and, really, the fate of the free world. Were our men to fail that day, Europe might well have fallen to Hitler once and for all. Many of our best and brightest young Americans did fall. We lost more than 10,000 men that day. The Nazis had spent 2 years fortifying the coast to prepare for this moment. It was Hitler's so-called Atlantic Wall. The beautiful coastline of northern France was covered in barbed wire, landmines, and bunkers. Hell had come to Earth to greet our men as they landed, and still they fought on gallantly. At the end of the largest amphibious invasion in history, we stood victorious, battered but unbroken. On we marched, through France, through Belgium, and finally into Germany. The world would never be the same. Even today among the beautiful flowers and fields of Normandy, you can feel the lingering presence of those who died that day in service of liberating Europe, and you can see it, as I have, at the stark, orderly U.S. military cemeteries, where row after row of white crosses and Stars of David stand defiant, representing lives lost in a noble cause. Though much has happened in the following 75 years, we can never lose sight of the valor and sacrifice displayed by our Armed Forces on that day. On Memorial Day, I spoke at the National Veterans Memorial Museum in Columbus, OH, and also at a cemetery in Grove City, OH. In both ceremonies, there were World War II veterans present and up front. To see the generations of veterans and family members there to honor the fallen was to see the living embodiment of the stories we ought to remember from a war that recedes further into the past with each passing year. Stories of valor like that displayed by Jim ``Pee Wee'' Martin, from Dayton, OH. On that day, he and the rest of the 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment parachuted through German lines in the dark of predawn. Jim was wounded but fought bravely, earning the Purple Heart and Bronze Star for his D-Day efforts. Stories of sacrifice like that of the Napier Brothers of Warren County in Southwest Ohio. All five served in the war. Two of the brothers of the five landed at D-Day. One died there on the beaches, never to come home to Ohio. These are stories to be preserved for the generations to come. The memory of D-Day and, indeed, all of World War II must never be lost. That is why I was proud to join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle earlier today to show through our resolution the gratitude and appreciation of the Senate for the courage shown by our troops who participated in the Normandy landings that day. Since I have been a Member of the Senate, I have come to this floor often on D-Day to recite a very special prayer given by President Roosevelt on that fateful day. It was expected that Franklin Delano Roosevelt would give a speech when the invasion took place, as he had done many times before, called the fireside chats from the White House. But on the morning of D-Day, FDR was moved to prayer instead. That famous prayer has become known as the D-Day prayer. It is my understanding that President Trump actually recited this prayer just yesterday in the United Kingdom at an event that preceded the official ceremonies tomorrow commemorating the 75th anniversary of D-Day. The words are powerful and deserve to be remembered for generations to come. In 2013, I introduced legislation, the World War II Memorial Act, which directs the Secretary of the Interior to install a plaque to be placed on or near the World War II Memorial on the National Mall in Washington, DC, with the words of the D-Day prayer. I like that because it adds more context and more interpretation to that beautiful World War II Memorial. It was the Ohio Christian Alliance president, Chris Long, who first came to me with this good idea of placing this plaque on or near the memorial, given its history and importance. Since that legislation was signed into law in 2014, we have worked hard with the National Park Service, the Friends of the National World War II Memorial, and the two Federal commissions that are required to approve any permanent structure on the National Mall. It has been 5 years now--actually longer than America's involvement in World War II-- and although we do not yet have this plaque placed, we have made progress. The commissions have approved the location of the plaque to be just north of the World War II Memorial at the Circle of Remembrance. If you have been to the memorial, you come from the Washington Monument, and you see the Circle of Remembrance on the right. The commissions have also approved initial design concepts for the plaque, which must comply with the Commemorative Works Act. We are moving forward with this project, by the way, without any Federal funding. We are relying on private fundraising, not taxpayer dollars. We had hoped to have the plaque in place, of course, for the 75th anniversary tomorrow. I am disappointed we don't, but, instead, we will preview tomorrow the placement of a temporary plaque with the words of the prayer at the chosen location, the Circle of Remembrance, next to the World War II Memorial. At our event tomorrow--which will include the chairman of the Friends of the National World War II Memorial; officials from the National Park Service; Chris Long, president of the Ohio Christian Alliance; and a number of World War II veterans--we will also lead a reading of the D-Day prayer. I am looking forward to that tomorrow. The temporary plaque, by the way, was generously donated to the Friends of the National World War II Memorial by Mr. John Nau, a member of the National Parks Foundation Board, who felt strongly about at least having a temporary plaque in place. We are hopeful that the permanent plaque will be placed at the Circle very soon. The fact that a prayer was offered that day, on D-Day, by the Commander in Chief is historic in and of itself, but I think it is the content of the prayer that makes it so worthy of remembrance. If I may, I would now like to read the D-Day prayer. FDR began: My fellow Americans: Last night, when I spoke with you about the fall of Rome, I knew at that moment that troops of the United States and our allies were crossing the Channel in another and greater operation. It has come to pass with success thus far. And so, in this poignant hour, I ask you to join with me in prayer: Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our Nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity. Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith. They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces. Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return again and again; and we know that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph. They will be sore tried, by night and by day, without rest--until the victory is won. The darkness will be rent by noise and flame. Men's souls will be shaken with the violences of war. For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice arise, and tolerance and good will among all Thy people. They yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the haven of home. Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom. And for us at home--fathers, mothers, children, wives, sisters, and brothers of brave men overseas--whose thoughts and prayers are ever with them--help us, Almighty God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice. Many people have urged that I call the Nation into a single day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips, invoking Thy help to our efforts. Give us strength, too--strength in our daily tasks, to redouble the contributions we make in the physical and the material support of our armed forces. And let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail, to bear sorrows that may come, to impart our courage unto our sons wheresoever they may be. And, O Lord, give us Faith. Give us Faith in Thee; Faith in our sons; Faith in each other; Faith in our united crusade. Let not the keenness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but fleeting moment, let not these deter us in our unconquerable purpose. With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogancies. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister Nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace, a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil. Thy will be done, Almighty God. Amen. I think you will agree with me that these profound words deserve to be made a permanent part of our broader World War II Memorial for a noble day that we must never forget. I yield the floor.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I want to spend a few moments talking about a trip I took overseas last week. After honoring our fallen soldiers here at home in Central Ohio and in Southwest Ohio, I traveled to Ukraine, where I had a meeting scheduled with Ukraine's new President, Volodymyr Zelensky. On my way there, I stopped in London for trade meetings and briefings by our Ambassador and our excellent U.S. Embassy personnel there. I was very eager to meet President Zelensky. First of all, along with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I have been a longtime supporter of Ukraine's quest for self-determination, democracy, and freedom from Russian aggression. As cochair and cofounder of the Senate Ukraine Caucus, along with my colleague Dick Durbin of Illinois, I have been proud to take the lead since the Revolution of Dignity in 2014 in giving Ukrainians the lethal and nonlethal aid they need to defend themselves from aggression in Crimea and the Donbass region. Second, I share that enthusiasm for Ukraine that is held by so many of my constituents, friends of mine, particularly in Cleveland and that area, who are proud members of the Ukrainian diaspora. Third, I was very impressed with President Zelensky's election victory, in part because he received a remarkable 73 percent of the vote. I also thought his focus on reform and change was important for the country. I wanted to meet with him and learn more about how and why his appeals for unity largely succeeded. Fourth, I wanted to hear more about his plans to fight the aggression from Russia on his eastern border, fight corruption at home, and put in place the reforms that will make his country stronger. Finally, I wanted to tell him we are with him. The United States stands by Ukraine, and the ties between our two countries can deepen even further. We want to help Ukraine succeed in this historic moment. I can report to my colleagues that I came away impressed from the meeting with President Zelensky. I was encouraged. We talked for about an hour and covered a broad range of topics. He is smart, engaging, and determined. We had a good discussion about Russian aggression in Crimea and in the Donbass region. President Zelensky has been out to the contact line, which is where the fighting is occurring. I was there last year. There is a real war going on, and 13,000 people have been killed on the eastern border of Ukraine, on that contact line. He spoke frankly about the bravery of his troops but also about their needs in terms of the weapons systems and basic conditions. We talked about the Russian propaganda along the eastern border and the efforts to jam Ukrainian TV signals to sow the seeds for dissension for the people of the Donbass region. We talked about some ideas that would help to counter that propaganda, the jamming, and the disinformation, and I have already been in touch with the State Department about those ideas. We also talked about the 24 Ukrainian sailors who were captured by the Russians last November 25 in the Kerch Strait in the Azov Sea. At that time, President Trump rightly refused to meet with President Putin until those sailors were free. President Zelensky and I talked about how to keep the pressure on Moscow to do the right thing. I gave President Zelensky my commitment to do everything in our power here in the Senate to keep these 24 sailors front and center until the crisis is resolved. Recently, the United Nations issued a statement about these sailors, by the way. It read that they should be sent back to Ukraine, that their taking was wrong. I told President Zelensky that he is now the face of reform in Ukraine and, indeed, for those of us who are watching around the world. He acknowledged that with a smile. He said that his commitment to reform is real, but he also had no illusions about how hard reform will be. Whether we are talking about fighting corruption, fighting for transparency in government, or fighting for civilian control of the military, I am very hopeful he will have the continued courage to see it through. He understands it is the only path forward and, frankly, is a linchpin of the U.S. partnership with Ukraine. As a matter of law, it is also a condition on our future defense assistance. Finally, we talked about the importance of the Ukrainian diaspora in the United States--about 2 million people strong, thousands of whom live in Ohio, my constituents--and about how they are putting great hopes in his leadership and are willing to do all they can to help. As I said, it was a very productive meeting, and I am grateful for his time. Of all of the messages of that discussion, the one that was the most important to me was when I asked him how he could win by 73 percent of the vote. He said: It was not about me. It was about change and reform and the betterment of the people of Ukraine. It was a modest and appropriate response. The messages of our discussion were reinforced in my meetings afterward with Lieutenant General Ruslan Khomchak. He is the new chief of the general staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine--a man with great experience and knowledge. He was confident and well informed, and we had an open and detailed talk about how the United States can be helpful. I have already begun to talk to my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee and in the Trump administration about those specifics and some requests that he had. So, my colleagues, I return from this brief trip to Ukraine hopeful-- hopeful that Ukraine is ready to write the next chapter of its long history and that it will be a chapter of freedom with a government and society that benefits all of its citizens. The United States of America must continue to be a good friend and ally in that quest. I am certainly determined to do my part to make it so. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am here on the floor today to talk about international trade. It is a very complex issue, but also a really important issue to our country. Our goal with trade should be pretty simple: It is to level the playing field for America's workers, America's farmers, and America's businesses. One, we have got to be sure they are not hurt by unfair imports coming into our country, so that is really a fairness issue and a trade enforcement issue. Second, we should expand our exports. Opening up more foreign markets to our products is great for America. That is the balance. As a trade lawyer and as the U.S. Trade Representative in the George W. Bush administration and as a member of the Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over these issues, I have worked on the trade matters quite a bit. It is really important to my home State. Ohio has products that are manufactured by workers and crops grown by our farmers that are shipped all around the world. In fact, in Ohio, 1 of every 3 acres is now planted for export. So our farmers are dependent on trade, and 25 percent of our factory workers-- manufacturing workers--have their jobs because of exports. Twenty-five percent is a big part of our manufacturing economy. These jobs aren't just good for Ohio's economy. They are great for the people that have them. Trade jobs pay, on average, 16 percent more than other jobs, and they have better benefits, so we want more of these jobs. With 95 percent of the world's population living outside of our country, we want to sell more of our stuff to the rest of the world to continue to grow and maximize the potential of our economy. So in my State and a lot of others, manufacturing and ag jobs that are the bedrock of our economy depend on balanced trade. That goes for our trading partners around the world, but particularly for our two biggest neighbors: Mexico and Canada. They are, by far, Ohio's biggest trading partners. Since 1994, we have linked our economy to Mexico and Canada in the form of the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA. In 2018, Ohio shipped 39 percent of our exports to Canada, more than twice the national average. Along with our trade with Mexico, this accounted for $20 billion in trade. In all, trade with Mexico and Canada now supports 450,000 jobs in Ohio. So it is important. We all know that the existing agreement--again, called NAFTA--has to be updated. It is 26 years old. It needs to be modernized. It needs to be improved. We need to be sure that we are doing a better job of leveling that playing field that we talked about and be sure that we are reflecting the nature of the 21st century economy. Think about it. Back when NAFTA was negotiated, there was no digital economy. So we need to have new rules with regard to digital economy, as we do in our more recent trade agreements. Also, as an example, there were no biologics. So we have no protections in the NAFTA agreement for biological pharmaceuticals. Of course, we need to have that in the new agreement, but it is more than that. Labor standards and environmental standards that have been in all of the more recent trade agreements need to be incorporated into the NAFTA agreement. There are lots of reasons for us to update the North American Free Trade Agreement and to improve it. Although no trade agreement is perfect, the new USMCA does those things. By the way, according to a recent study by the Independent Trade Commission, the new USMCA, which is used to replace NAFTA, is estimated to raise wages and add 176,000 jobs to the U.S. economy. That is good. I support this U.S.-Canada agreement, or USMCA. Last week, President Trump and his administration took a major step toward realizing the USMCA by announcing they would be lifting the so- called section 232 steel tariffs on steel and aluminum coming from Mexico and Canada. This is really good news. It is something I had advocated for, as had others, in order for us to pass the USMCA here but also to be sure that other countries--Canada and Mexico--could ratify the USMCA. It ends the retaliation by Mexico and Canada on Made in Ohio exports to our northern and southern neighbors. This was really starting to bite in my home State and around the country. By the way, it also protects against import surges and transshipments, particularly with regard to steel and aluminum. We worry about transshipments coming from China into countries like Mexico and Canada and then being shipped or sneaked into the United States. You don't want that. That protection is in there as well. I think this was a good agreement. Tariffs, especially on our allies, ought to be something we try to avoid--used tactically, sparingly, and targeted as to when we are going to use them. There has been a lot of talk recently about the use of these section 232 tariffs by the administration not just on steel and aluminum but also with regard to automobiles and auto parts. Section 232, the law that this will be done under, is really an exception to our trade laws. Our trade laws say that if you unfairly trade with us--in other words, if you subsidize your products overseas or if you dump them, meaning, you sell them below their cost--then that is illegal, and we get to retaliate by adding tariffs to your product. We also have laws that say if there is an import surge that domestic industries are substantially harmed by, that is a time for us to step up. But our other trade laws require one of those two things: either a finding of injury to a U.S. industry or some kind of unfair trade. Under section 232, which is an exception to that, you don't have to do that. You can block imports simply by saying it is a national security issue. It is a pretty powerful thing that the executive branch has, but it has been used very infrequently, and that is how Congress intended it. Congress intended it just to be used for true national security purposes. The agency in charge of investigating these 232 tariffs is the Commerce Department. A recent Commerce Department investigation concluded that imported automobiles under the 232 criteria would be a national security threat. I think that is not accurate. I think minivans from Canada, as an example, aren't a national security threat to us. It may be that if they are unfairly traded, then we should enforce our trade laws. It may be that if there is an import surge that hurts our domestic industry, then go after them. But I think to use this tool in that sort of way is not appropriate. That is why, over the past 50 years since this has been in effect, the section 232 tool has been used only a few times. In fact, it hasn't been used in the last 33 years. One President tried to use it--George W. Bush, for whom I worked--and his Commerce Department said: You know, that is not a national security issue. So he used another trade provision that, again, required that you showed material injury to a domestic industry. That is the 232 issue. I think it is important to have the tool. I think if it is a true national security concern, it is good to have it in the toolbox, and we ought to be able to use it. But we have to be judicious about it and not misuse it. One reason to be careful is if you were to impose tariffs on cars and automobiles, as the Commerce Department has said you could do, it would really cost U.S. consumers and businesses. First, on average, U.S. cars would cost about $2,000 more, and I am told that is a conservative estimate. We don't want that. Second, if you put these 232 tariffs on cars and auto parts with no fairness rationale, the retaliatory tariffs on our exports would be swift and painful. Finally, if you misuse this 232 tool, I think you risk losing it altogether. The World Trade Organization might not have too much influence these days, but they do have the ability to say whether something is legal under international trade rules. They have an exception for these national security waivers, but not if they are misused. So I think we have to be careful about how we use it. President Trump and his administration made a decision over the last several days that I applaud them for. They decided not to move forward on these 232 tariffs against auto parts and automobiles. They decided to put it off for 6 months. I commend them for that. Again, I hope we would never go there, but I think it is really important that we put that off for 6 months so that we can get not just the U.S.-Canada-Mexico agreement accomplished but so that we can also focus on other things, specifically, our issues with China. I recently introduced a bipartisan bill on section 232. It is a commonsense approach that says: Let's be sure we are going under the original intent of section 232, that we are not misusing it. It is really simple. It says that instead of having the Department of Commerce make the decision, it should be the Department of Defense. The Department of Defense has the expertise to determine whether something is a national security issue. With regard to the recent decisions on these 232 tariffs, the Department of Defense did not agree with the Commerce Department and thought that it was not a national security concern. They said that explicitly with regard to steel and aluminum, as examples. I just think the men and women who are hired to protect our country ought to be the ones who decide whether that is a national security threat. Second, our legislation increases Congress's oversight here and allows for Congress to have an expanded role, to provide a legislative path for Congress to disapprove one of these 232 tariffs decisions if we think it is the wrong way to go. I think it is important to bring some of the power back to Congress, where it resides in the Constitution. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will help us with this commonsense legislation and avoid the misuse of section 232 on issues like autos and auto parts. Again, in the meantime, the administration has made the right choice by delaying the imposition of these 232 tariffs on longtime allies with regard to autos and auto parts. As I said earlier, balanced trade is about enforcement, being sure that it is fair in terms of what imports are coming into this country for our workers, for our farmers, and for our service providers. It is also about exports. Do you know what? Because of that goal of balanced trade, I support what the Trump administration is doing vis-a- vis China. Unfortunately, when you look at what has happened to our relationship with China, we have more and more reasons to say that China is not playing by the rules. China needs to make structural changes in our trade relationship in order for us to have that level playing field we talked about earlier. Right now, this U.S.-China economic relationship lacks equity, balance, and fairness. It also lacks durability. The big trade deficits and the structural problems we have can't last. To put it simply, China is not playing by the rules. First, they unfairly subsidized their exports. We talked about this earlier, but it is not fair for another country to say ``We are going to use government money to subsidize what we send to the United States,'' and then have our workers and our farmers have to compete with that. Subsidies are unfair under international rules and under our trade laws. China does it in a number of ways. One, they have a bunch of State- owned enterprises, and they have actually expanded their State-owned enterprises at a time when it looked as though China was going the other way, that they were going to have a more market-based economy, where the government wouldn't be controlling industries. But they have also committed massive subsidies to some of their favorite industries, companies, and technologies. Second, China doesn't grant reciprocal access to U.S. investors and engages in coerced technology transfer in intellectual property theft from U.S. companies. Often, that intellectual property or technology then goes to a Chinese company. To be clear, as a condition of doing business in the huge Chinese market, U.S. companies regularly have to hand over their intellectual property, their technology, and their innovations, like manufacturing processes, let's say, or blueprints, designs, trade secrets, and other things of value. Then, typically, a Chinese competitor uses these advantages to compete against U.S. companies. Again, that is just not acceptable. I encourage you to check out the administration's section 301 report on USTR.gov. Go on USTR.gov, and you will see the section 301 issues that are laid out in that report. If you want to learn more about it, it is pretty clear. Let me give you an example of how this technology transfer works. If a U.S. automaker wants to make cars in China--and a lot of them have wanted to and have made them there--China requires joint ventures in order to gain access to production technology that then helps foster China's own domestic auto industry. In a number of businesses, China requires a 51-percent Chinese partner in a joint venture. Again, that is one way that technology transfer happens. At first, China's foreign investment catalogue encouraged--that was the word--foreign auto investment. I was in China back in 1984, I believe it was--maybe 1985--at a Jeep plant. And I watched the first American vehicles go off the production line in China. I was there. I saw it. It was very positive. People were thinking: This is interesting. We are going to do business with China. Those Jeeps can then be sold in China and sold in other parts of Asia. It wasn't going to compete with the U.S. market. This was good for Jeep and good for China. That was at a time when they were encouraging foreign auto investment. But as China learned about auto manufacturing from these investments--in other words, they got knowledge about how to manufacture automobiles themselves--the foreign investment catalogue changed its position on auto investment from ``encouraged'' to ``permitted'' and then, more recently, in 2015, to ``restricted.'' Again, this is an evolution, initially, bringing in a joint venture partner and getting the technology. It goes from ``encouraged'' to ``permitted'' and then finally to ``restricted'' now that China has that technology. That is kind of leapfrogging us, isn't it? Again, that doesn't seem fair, and it certainly is not reciprocal because we don't do the same thing here in this country. This problem of fueling Chinese innovation with the hard work of U.S. companies is even more pronounced in the electric vehicle sector. There, China tries to incentivize the production of vehicles in China rather than imports from overseas. We would love to sell American electric cars in China, but they prevent this with a combination of things: tariffs, which are relatively high; subsidies for domestically produced electric cars; and a credit system that requires all automakers selling in China to produce a portion of their electric vehicles in China or face penalties. Again, we don't do that. It is clear from this experience that China's unfair trade practices are at odds with the current rules-based, multilateral trading system. I will continue to support the administration's efforts to increase pressure on China in order to reach a strong but fair and enforceable agreement. I argue that this is in China's interest, as well as in our interest. They are now a mature trading partner. They are now the greatest exporter in the world. They have an economy that is growing-- again, more sophisticated, more technology. They should want to protect their own intellectual property. They should want to be engaging with us and other countries around the world on a more fair basis. While I urge the United States to hang tough, the administration should work quickly to try to bring these negotiations to a close because a combination of the retaliatory tariffs on U.S. exports and tariffs on Chinese consumer products here in America is causing pain for our farmers, for our workers, and for our service providers. So it would be good to bring these negotiations to a conclusion. We were very close to doing that only a few weeks ago, and the reports back were that China had changed its view on some of the concessions they were willing to make. Let's get back to the table, and let's make a fair and enforceable agreement. As part of increasing pressure on China, as the new tariff increases are designed to do, the United States must also better leverage our allies. The European Union, Japan, Korea, Canada, Australia, not to mention Vietnam and lots of other countries in Southeast Asia--all share our concerns that the administration has raised with regard to China. They are all experiencing the same thing. Leveraging our allies helps put pressure on China by demonstrating the broad consensus that exists among those who believe China often acts contrary to our rules- based, multilateral trading system. When I was U.S. Trade Representative, I laid the groundwork for a number of successful World Trade Organization complaints against China by working with our allies. Key to our victory in those cases was our ability to rally and to kind of come up with a posse--the EU, Canada, Mexico, Japan, and other countries--to show China that the world was watching and cared. The administration's work with the EU and Japan on WTO reform and subsidies, right now, is a good step in the right direction. It shows how much is possible when we can rely on our friends and, therefore, gain more leverage. It is why it is important we don't adopt policies that actively undermine our ability to work with allies also. That is another reason I was glad to see the administration delay any tariffs pursuant to this 232 we talked about on automobiles and auto parts. A lot of those 232 tariffs would have been imposed on our allies. Not only do autos and auto parts from our allies or anywhere else in the world not threaten our national security, but it also invites retaliation on U.S. exports and poisons the well of good will we need with our historic allies as we pursue a resolution of our differences with China. Let me end where we started--about balanced trade. All America needs is a level playing field. We can compete. We have the ability to innovate. We have the ability to be flexible. We have a lot of advantages in this country, but we do need a level playing field. All we ask for is fair and reciprocal treatment from our trading partners. The sweet spot for America is that balanced approach--again, opening up new markets for U.S. products while insisting on trade enforcement so that our workers can compete. As we talked about today, right now, we have a lot of balls in the air in relation to trade. This has caused some uncertainty among our trading partners, with American businesses, workers, and farmers that rely on trade. I get that. Let's prioritize passing USMCA with Canada and Mexico. That will provide some certainty. Let's support the administration in bringing home a strong agreement with China. That will provide a lot of certainty. And let's not impose new section 232 tariffs. That will also provide some certainty and predictability. With that predictability and certainty further leveling the playing field, we can help American farmers, American workers, American businesses, and our economy. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, today I am on the floor to talk about the men and women in uniform, our police officers who protect us every day. They are here in the Capitol protecting us in the Chamber. They are in Ohio protecting the citizens of Ohio, and they do it every day. They put their lives on the line for us in many cases. This is National Police Week, a week when tens of thousands of police officers come to Washington, DC. They come to the police memorial. It has been a wonderful week because I had the opportunity to meet with law enforcement officers from Ohio, today, yesterday, and the day before. We have seen them on the streets. We have seen them in uniform. Their opportunity to come here is to talk about the important issues that relate to our law enforcement but also to pay tribute to their fallen colleagues. Sadly, Ohio has lost its share of officers recently. Officers who have lost their lives in the line of duty include two so far this year and four last year. On February 2, Clermont County Detective Bill Brewer was shot and killed after responding to a call from a suicidal man who was armed at an apartment complex just east of Cincinnati, in Clermont County. Detective Brewer served at the sheriff's department for 20 years, and was widely respected. The funeral was amazing. There was an overwhelming number of people. Grateful citizens showed up and law enforcement from our entire region and, in fact, law enforcement from even other States. At his service I had the honor of presenting his widow and young son with a flag that had flown over the U.S. Capitol, in honor of him and in gratitude to his family. On that day, County Sheriff Steve Leahy said of Detective Brewer: He was an outstanding man. He was a good father, a good husband, a good friend, a good employee. He's what this country needs more of. I agree with Sheriff Leahy. On January 4, Colerain Township Police Officer Dale Woods was hit by a vehicle while working at the scene of an automobile accident, and he passed away 3 days later as a result of his injuries. Police Chief Mark Denney remembered Woods as a hero who once saved a baby inside a hot car and also ran into a burning building to save a blind woman. That is the type of selfless and courageous officer he was. He represented the best. Last July, Cleveland Patrol Officer Vu Nguyen, a 25-year veteran of the department, collapsed while taking part in police training exercises. Vu was known as a people person, someone who cared a lot for his fellow citizens and always went the extra mile to help anyone who asked. His family said that was the reason he became a police officer, because he wanted a job where he could help people. That is what police officers do. In June of last year, Mentor Police Officer Matthew Mazany was struck and killed by a hit-and-run driver while assisting another officer during a traffic stop. Officer Mazany had served with the Mentor Police Department for 14 years. He was beloved by his fellow officers, by his family and friends, and by his entire community. This morning I had the opportunity to visit the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, here in Washington, DC. I was able to see the inscribed names on the wall there of thousands of law enforcement officers we have lost over the years. If you haven't been down there, it is a powerful experience. There were also beautiful memorials set up around those walls with wreaths, flowers, photographs, magazine articles, newspaper articles, and other information about officers whom we lost in the last year, including these two officers from Westerville, OH, who were tragically murdered last year while serving their community and all of us. On February 10, 2018, Westerville Police Officers Anthony Morelli and Eric Joering were fatally shot while responding to a 911 call. Sadly, it was fatal. They had rushed to the scene. They had arrived to help. They were under fire. Officer Joering was killed at the scene. Officer Morelli died in surgery later that day. I have had the great honor of meeting the families of both of these fallen officers--amazing women and amazing kids. Linda Morelli and Jami Joering are incredibly strong women and incredibly strong mothers. I was able to express condolences and gratitude from all Ohioans for their husbands' service. The memorials I saw today were a moving tribute to those two police officers, two fallen officers who served their fellow Ohioans with honor. Soon their names will be inscribed on the police wall I talked about at the memorial. Their names will be inscribed there for the ages for all of us to see and so that we can all remember the ultimate sacrifice they and other officers have made for us. We continue to hold up their families and the families of the fallen. We continue to hold them up in our prayers and to show our support and express our enduring gratitude. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I have 6 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Energy and Natural Resources The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 16, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Foreign Relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 16, 2019, at 2 p.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Bridget A. Brink, of Michigan to be Ambassador to the Slovak Republic, Kenneth A. Howery, of Texas, to be Ambassador to the Kingdom of Sweden, Matthew S. Klimow, of New York, to be Ambassador to Turkmenistan, and John Jefferson Daigle, of Louisiana, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Cabo Verde, all of the Department of State. Committee on the Judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 16, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on pending legislation and the following nominations: Ada E. Brown, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, Steven D. Grimberg, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia, David John Novak, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, and Matthew H. Solomson, of Maryland, to be a Judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims. Committee on Veterans' Affairs The Committee on Veterans' Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 16, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Oversight of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.'' Select Committee on Intelligence The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 16, 2019, at 2 p.m., to conduct a hearing. Subcommittee on Science, Oceans, Fisheries, and Weather The Subcommittee on Science, Oceans, Fisheries, and Weather of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 16, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume executive session.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I understand there are two bills at the desk due for a second reading en bloc.

Mr. PORTMAN. In order to place the bills on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I would object to further proceeding en bloc.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. I further ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 178 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Thanks to my colleague from Maryland for yielding to me. It is great to be back on the floor with him talking about retirement savings. Back in 1996 and again in 2001 and 2006, we passed legislation while we were in the House of Representatives together to encourage people to save more for their retirement by providing more incentives, such as increasing, as an example, the amount you could put aside in a 401(k) or an IRA and catchup contributions and simplifying the rules for small businesses, and we made some progress. Those legislative initiatives resulted in about a doubling of 401(k) assets and about a tripling of IRA assets but still way too little in savings. Senator Cardin talked a little about that. Our national savings rate is a problem. Our personal savings rate is a problem. Our economy would be stronger if we had more savings. The real problem is that people just aren't saving enough for their retirement. Social Security is an absolutely essential safety net. Everybody wants to be sure it will be there into the future. But it is tough to live on your Social Security benefit alone. People need that private retirement savings. We want to encourage people to save more for their own retirement. What is more important than peace of mind in retirement, knowing that you have the ability to take care of your needs--maybe long-term care needs, maybe healthcare needs, or maybe just being able to have a comfortable retirement. This is something we are focusing on again. The Senate did recently pass legislation that helps. It is called the RESA legislation. We both support that strongly, but our legislation builds on that and expands it pretty substantially. Senator Cardin just talked a little about it. It is legislation that we spent 18 months developing. We heard from stakeholders all over the country. There is a reason that a lot of people are supporting this legislation, including the AARP, the chamber of commerce, and a lot of people who are in the retirement business--the American Benefits Council and others--because we took our time and went to them and said: Hey, what do people really need right now to expand their choices in retirement to be able to save more? We came up with four or five different challenges in our current retirement system and then specific proposals to address those. One is, we have an aging baby boomer population--I am among them, and I think all three of us are, Mr. President--that is not saving enough. That is a concern. Second is a lack of access to employer-sponsored plans. We want everybody who is in the workplace to have access to a 401(k). Yet, when we look at this, particularly with smaller businesses, a lot of people don't have access or a chance to save. A 401(k) is great because the employer typically puts in a match for you. So it is not just your money that is at a tax advantage, but, unlike an IRA, the employer puts in a match, and usually they help you with your decisions in terms of what kinds of investments to make with that 401(k). Third, we found that typically with lower income Americans, there was a real issue with the amount of savings. Who needs money more in retirement than lower income Americans, because that is when they don't have other savings to help them through retirement. Again, all of this is predicated upon the reality that we are living longer as Americans, longer and healthier lives, so we need more of those assets in retirement. The final one is inadequate lifetime savings. A lot of people have a 401(k) or an IRA, and when they stop working, they think, this is great. They take the lump sum and maybe spend some of that--maybe buy the boat, maybe go on a nice vacation--and suddenly find, oh my gosh, I am living longer and longer. I hadn't expected to be in my nineties and still here. Yet the trend right now is that people are living longer. We have to ensure that there is longer lifetime savings as people are living longer and healthier lives. After 18 months working with all these troops on the outside, we came up with 57 different provisions to address these four areas. How do we do it? First, it allows those who saved too little to set more aside for their retirement. For seniors--people who are over 60 years old--we have a special catchup contribution. If you are over 60 years old, under our legislation, you have the opportunity to put more aside in your retirement plan. That is important. Contribution limits go from $6,000 to $10,000 for workers over age 60 with a 401(k). Senator Cardin talked a little about this, but among these baby boomers, based on a 2019 GAO report this year, nearly half--48 percent of all retirees over the age of 55 have no retirement nest egg saved. Some may have a public pension, for instance, but still, when you add that in, 30 percent have neither private retirement savings nor any kind of pension benefits that they are going to get in the future. You have a lot of people out there with nothing. This will help with regard to those individuals. We also say that with regard to this first issue, it is not just being able to make a catchup contribution, but we tell employers: If you set up a plan that allows you to match 6 percent of pay rather than 3 percent of pay, we will give you a break from some of the onerous retirement rules in a safe harbor. That will encourage more of those employers to do that. That provides a tax credit to those employers who offer these safe harbor plans. So it gives more generous benefits to employees. We think that is appropriate to help save for retirement. It also helps employees who are struggling to save for retirement and pay off student loan debt, people who are saying: I would love to save for retirement, but how can I do that when I have this student loan debt to pay off? In Ohio, by the way, the average debt for someone coming out of a college or university is $27,000. A lot of people don't have enough disposable income to say: I am going to save for retirement and pay off college debt. What we do here is we say that employers will now be able to make a matching contribution to the employee's retirement account in the amount of his or her student loan payment. So employers can do this. It is a good way to help people pay off their debt, to help the individual pay off their debt. The employer putting a match in for the same amount is also a good way to attract employees. If you are a business owner out there, you will like this because it will give you an advantage in the marketplace by saying: Hey, come work for me. We will help you on your student debt. The second issue we talked about today is with regard to small businesses. This is important because we know that this is where most people work who don't have access to retirement plans. They work for smaller businesses. Bigger businesses tend to offer retirement plans, very generous ones. The smaller businesses tend not to. The Bureau of Labor Statistics survey that Senator Cardin talked about earlier shows that 68 percent of private sector workers have access to employer-sponsored plans, but it drops to only 49 percent for small businesses. So, if you work for a small business, it is less than half. By the way, it is only 39 percent if you are a part-time worker, which we also address. The bill takes a number of important steps to help small businesses offer 401(k)s and other retirement plans for the workers. It increases the current law tax credit that is already out there, but it improves it and increases it from $500 to as much as $5,000 for small businesses that are starting new retirement plans. It simplifies top-heavy rules for small business plans to reduce the cost of enrolling new employees. It also establishes a new 3-year, $500-per-year tax credit for small businesses that automatically reenroll all of the participants in the plans at least once every 3 years. This is one of the issues out there. If you don't do auto enrollment--in other words, opt in--and you opt out, you are not going to get the participation rate you want. By the way, this is legislation that Senator Cardin and I promoted back in the 2006 legislation that said to employers: Hey, you can do an auto enrollment. The participation then went from 75 percent to about 95 percent because there was auto enrollment. It is good for younger people. If you are just told ``Hey, unless you do something, you are going to automatically be enrolled in this 401(k),'' that really encourages them to get into retirement savings. All of that is to help these small businesses, and we think it is going to make a big difference. Third, one of the big problems we face is that plan participation rates for low-income workers are well below what they are for others. So this bill expands access to retirement savings plans for hard- working, lower income Americans. The way we do that--and Senator Cardin is the expert on this--is to ensure that those people who are of low income have the ability to get into retirement plans with matches. That will incentivize them to get in. Only 22 percent of low-income workers participate in retirement plans today. Again, these are people who need savings the most. The bill expands what is called the saver's credit. It expands the income thresholds to give more Americans access to increased credit amounts. It increases the government match for low-income savers with a saver's credit. By the way, the saver's credit goes directly into the retirement accounts. I think it is important because you don't want this money wasted, and you don't want it used for other purposes--so- called leakage in retirement accounts. This goes right into retirement accounts. We mentioned that only 39 percent have plans but, again, that only 22 percent participate. So this is important. It also expands the eligibility of 401(k)s to include part-time workers. This is very important to the AARP and others out there who are looking at these part-time numbers and saying: Oh my gosh. There are only 22 percent who participate. That is it. So we have to do more there. It allows part-time workers who complete between 500 and 1,000 hours of service for 2 consecutive years to be able to join in with a 401(k). These provisions are all designed to help particularly low-income Americans start to build nest eggs for retirement. A significant challenge we face--again, as I said earlier--is this lack of lifetime savings. Our bill provides more certainty and flexibility during Americans' retirement years. Last year, a study by Northwestern Mutual found that 66 percent of Americans believe they will outlive their retirement savings. So two- thirds of Americans are saying: I am going to live longer than my retirement savings. By the way, they are probably right. People are living longer and healthier lives and are running out of their retirement savings. It is a major concern. We have a number of initiatives to try to provide more certainty and flexibility to seniors in their retirement years. Specifically, the bill increases the age for the required minimum distribution from age 70\1/2\, which it is now, to 72 and to 75. So it takes it up to 75 years old. Why is that important? For those of you who are not in retirement, you may not know there is a rule that says you have to start taking your money out of retirement at 70\1/2\. Now, if you are like my father, who was working full time at 70\1/2\, it was a head scratcher. Why should I take my money out of my 401(k) when I am still working? I ran into a guy like that last weekend in Ohio who said the same thing--that this makes no sense. What we have said is, OK, we are going to kick it up to 75 years old but that if you have less than $100,000 in your retirement account, you will not be subject to the minimum required distribution rules at all. This is a great relief to a lot of seniors who are trying to save that money for retirement and don't want to pull it out because, although they may work until 75, they still know they are going to have another, maybe, 20 years to live, and they want to be sure they have that retirement savings in there. I am really excited about all of these provisions. I am hearing a lot about this last one. Here is Tom Kermode, from Geauga County, OH, who wrote: Relief from required minimum distributions would be very helpful in that it affords me and other senior taxpayers the freedom to save to help fund my retirement years. Why should I be forced to deplete my retirement account at age 70\1/2\ instead of remaining financially independent? You are darned right, Tom. Thanks for your letter. The bill also provides help in other ways. It reduces the current penalty for one's failing to take the required distribution from 50 percent of the shortfall amount to 25 percent in most cases and to as low as 10 percent in some cases if one self-corrects the error. Finally, in order to help those who are in retirement, the legislation encourages the use of qualifying longevity annuity contracts, QLACs. What are they? They are retirement plans that provide annual payments to individuals who outlive their life expectancies. Basically, think of an annuity or a periodic payment. When you retire, instead of taking a lump sum, you have one of these contracts in which you are able to ensure that you are not going to outlive your retirement savings. There are affordable options for a lot of Americans who are trying to hedge the risk of outlasting their savings. We should encourage those more, and that is what we do in our legislation. These are all commonsense reforms. They deal with all four of these challenges that we have seen, as we have looked at the retirement system, that have been based on a lot of input from a lot of people. My hope is that we will be able to get this done. Our coalition includes the American Benefits Council, the AARP, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Insured Retirement Institute, Fidelity, Nationwide, T. Rowe Price, Vanguard, the Women's Institute for a Secure Retirement, the International Association of Fire Fighters, the American Council of Life Insurers, and The ERISA Industry Committee, to name a few. There are a lot more too. We have had the opportunity to work together for a couple of decades now on these issues. I am glad that we are taking this next step to provide additional options for people to build and save for their retirements and to have more peace of mind in retirement. I yield to Senator Cardin.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Maryland for his partnership on this over the years. Let me just make the obvious point for those who are watching today. I am a Republican, and he is a Democrat. We are actually talking about doing legislation together. It is bipartisan. I would say, in the retirement space, we have tried to keep it nonpartisan because this is so important to the people we represent. The committee also happens to be represented by a Republican and a Democrat who believe in this. Senator Grassley was the chairman of the committee back in 2001 when we first passed this major legislation to increase what people could save for their retirement. He is the chairman again, and he believes in this. Senator Wyden is the ranking Democrat, the top Democrat. He also was a former Gray Panthers executive director and also has a provision in our bill that is very important, as Senator Cardin talked about, with regard to student loan debt. The constellations are kind of properly aligned. I think the ability for us to get this done might be counter to a lot of the partisanship and the gridlock we see here in this town. This is bipartisan stuff. It always has been. We have spent our time, have done it right, and have used input from all sorts of outside stakeholders. We have the opportunity here to improve our national savings, which everyone says is important, including the Congressional Budget Office, and to help people have peace of mind in retirement. What could be more important? Again, I thank my colleague from Maryland for allowing me to join him on the floor to talk about the importance of this legislation. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take a look at this. I hope they will sign it and be cosponsors on this legislation. Let's get this passed. Let's do it this year. I yield the floor. Nomination of Kenneth Kiyul Lee

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today again to talk about the drug epidemic that continues to be such a big issue in my home State of Ohio and around our country. I am here now for my 56th floor speech, I am told, on this topic, sometimes talking about the opioid crisis that has gripped my State the way it has so many others in this Chamber but also talking about other issues that relate to the drug epidemic. It is not just about the prescription drugs, the heroin, the fentanyl, and the carfentanil that have impacted so many women and children and families and devastated so many communities; there are also other issues. The one I want to talk about today is what is happening with regard to crystal meth. Methamphetamine is back with a vengeance, and we need to have a more effective response to it. Congress has done quite a bit in the last several years to push back against this drug epidemic. New policies have been put in place at the Federal level for the past few years that are promoting better prevention, treatment, and recovery and helping our law enforcement respond with Narcan--that miracle drug that reverses the effects of overdoses--and helping to ensure that we have a prevention message out there that is more effective. Congress has now spent more than $3 billion in additional funding-- taxpayer dollars--to support treatment and recovery programs, and it has been needed. The Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act has provided a lot of that, and so has the 21st Century Cures Act. That goes directly to the States. The good news is that these efforts are actually starting to pay off. Drug overdose deaths are still way too high. In Ohio, we started with a high-water mark, but after 8 years of more people dying every single year, finally, last year, we saw in Ohio and around the country a reduction in overdose deaths. That is great news. We peaked in 2017 at 72,000 Americans losing their lives. It is the No. 1 cause of death in my home State of Ohio and the No. 1 cause of death for all Americans under the age of 50. The progress has been particularly encouraging in places like Ohio. We saw a 21.4-percent drop in overdose deaths in the first half of last year, 2018. Those are the last numbers we have and the most recent data we have. That was the biggest drop in the Nation, actually, between July of 2017 and June of 2018. So in that 1-year period, according to the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics, Ohio had the biggest drop in the country. Again, that was partly because Ohio's numbers were so high. We were second in the Nation in overdose deaths, from that data. Nationally, we are seeing a more promising, if more modest, downturn in overdose deaths. Between September of 2017 and March of 2018, overdose deaths fell from about 72,000 to about 71,000. Overall, the overdose rate dropped in 21 States and nearly a full percentage point nationally. So at least we are seeing some progress finally, after 8 years of increases every year and more and more heartbreak. This is progress. I think we would have been doing even better, frankly, if we hadn't seen the big influx of fentanyl over the last 3 or 4 years. Again, Congress has passed important legislation, but we are pushing up against more and more fentanyl coming into our communities. That is an incredibly powerful synthetic opioid--50 times more powerful than heroin--inexpensive, and it is coming primarily from China and primarily through the U.S. mail system. Our pushback on that more recently that is starting to be effective is called the STOP Act. We just passed it in this body last year. What the STOP Act says is that the post office has to start screening packages, particularly from countries like China, from which we know fentanyl is coming in. They haven't done exactly what we asked them to do yet, but they are doing a better job of stopping the poison from coming in from China, which is where the vast majority comes from. Today, even as we see progress on opioids and as we see somewhat less fentanyl coming in and therefore higher prices for fentanyl on the street, which is important--as we see this progress, we are also seeing something that is very discouraging. What I have been hearing now for over a year from law enforcement, treatment providers, social service providers, and community leaders back home is that there is a resurgence of methamphetamine--pure, powerful crystal meth--coming primarily from Mexico. I meet regularly with treatment providers and drug abuse task forces all over our State. Recently, I talked to community leaders in Knox County, at the Southeast Healthcare Services in Columbus, at the ADAMHS Board in Adams, Lawrence, and Scioto Counties, the Hamilton County Heroin Coalition, and community leaders and law enforcement in Butler County. Every single meeting ended up the same way: We are finally making progress on opioids. Thanks for your help--because all these communities are taking advantage of the legislation we passed here--but the new scourge is crystal meth. Help us with that. Often they are saying that this crystal meth is being laced with something else, sometimes fentanyl. So this same deadly fentanyl we talked about earlier is sometimes now being laced with crystal meth, making for a devastating cocktail. The October 2018 report from Ohio University said that psychostimulants--including methamphetamine--were found in just nine unintentional deaths in 2010. That number rose to 509 in 2017, the most recent data we have. That is an over 5,000-percent increase. Something is happening out there. Again, having finally gotten control of the opioid issue, even the fentanyl, synthetic opioids, which is the latest surge, now we are seeing methamphetamine deaths rising dramatically. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, deaths involving cocaine and psychostimulants, including meth, have also increased nationwide in recent years. Among the more than 70,000 drug overdose deaths in 2017, nearly 23,000--nearly one-third--involved psychostimulants such as meth, cocaine, or both. From 2016 to 2017, deaths rates involving cocaine and psychostimulants like meth each increased by approximately 33 percent. This increase is across all demographic groups, all census regions, and in several States. A July 2018 report from the Ohio Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services highlights the intertwined nature of rising meth usage rates and the ongoing opioid crisis. They said some meth users initially turned to this drug to manage the heavy crashes that followed prolonged use of heroin and other opioids, and then they became just as addicted to meth as they were addicted to opioids. So that is one reason I think we see this increase in methamphetamines in Ohio-- because users are turning to meth to manage the crashes that follow prolonged use of heroin. Meth is now stronger and cheaper than ever before. Again, it is coming almost exclusively to Ohio from Mexico. The days of home chemists and the one-pot meth labs are actually over. You probably heard about it in your community or other States where these meth labs were a big setup, and they created a huge environmental problem, as well as the issue of producing meth, which was devastating communities. Those meth labs are pretty much gone now. In Ohio, there is not a county that tells me there is a meth lab left. That may sound like good news, but it is actually bad news. The meth labs are gone because the meth coming in from Mexico is more powerful and it is cheaper. So why make meth in the basement when you can have crystal meth delivered to your doorstep from Mexico? It is being mass-produced by Mexican drug cartels who are smuggling it into the United States. According to Dennis Lowe, who is the commander of the Major Crimes Unit in Athens, OH, ``[Mexican drug cartels] almost single-handedly eliminated meth labs in the State of Ohio. . . . People are getting better quality product and it's cheaper to buy from a cartel.'' So it is more powerful, more deadly, and cheaper. By the way, one Columbus, OH, enforcement officer recently told me that crystal meth on the streets of Columbus is less expensive than marijuana now--another reason we see it increasing. As I have heard from folks all over Ohio, we are also seeing meth laced with other drugs, including fentanyl, heroin, and cocaine. Many of these cartels splice these drugs into methamphetamine but don't tell the customers, so users may be consuming dangerous opioids without realizing it. Any street drug can be deadly. Much of the methamphetamine, as I said, enters from Mexico through the ports of entry. It comes in bulk through the ports of entry. It is often hidden in cars and trucks. Smugglers make it through the screening process, and they sell it to the distribution network. So we need to do more at the ports of entry to have better screening. According to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection folks, the amount of methamphetamines seized at our ports of entry has soared from 14,000 pounds in 2012 to 56,000 pounds in 2018--a huge increase. In fact, just in the last year alone, we have seen a 38-percent increase in methamphetamines trafficking across the southern border. According to the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Northern District of Ohio, the number of crystal meth submissions to the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigations' lab rose from 2,000 in 2015 to over 12,000 in 2018--in just a 3-year period, a 500-percent increase. What's happening with crystal meth is one reason we need more resources to secure our southern border. It is not just my opinion. The experts at Customs and Border Protection tell us they need more physical barriers; they need more border patrol agents; they need more technology; they need more surveillance; they need more cameras; they need more screening to stop this illegal flow of drugs. I think we are beginning now to make some progress here since we are deploying more sophisticated technology at the ports of entry, and that is smart. But the traffickers are smarter, and they are also learning ways to avoid those ports of entry, to go around them, to cross wherever they can continue this evil and prosperous trade. A story originating in Galion, OH, last year caught the Nation's attention. A 5-year-old was out trick-or-treating for Halloween last year, and he was exposed to meth and began suffering from seizures and other symptoms of meth exposure. Law enforcement checked his Halloween candy, thinking that was the problem, and it was not. It wasn't laced with the drug as they feared. But then they found the meth. It was in his own home--his own family home. His father eventually was charged with possession of drugs and tampering with evidence. But here is a 5-year-old kid suffering from a meth exposure. Two weeks ago, I was in Knox County, OH, Central Ohio, where I participated in a roundtable discussion with local elected leaders and law enforcement officials, mental health recovery folks. This board is focused on the crystal meth problem. Why? Because it is overwhelming them. Opioids used to be their No. 1 issue. Now it is crystal meth. I was told that methamphetamines are now involved in 89 percent of the drug cases in Knox County, and in many cases there is polysubstance abuse or overlap with any combination of meth, heroin, and marijuana. Last August the Knox County Sheriff's Department arrested three individuals who were involved in trafficking, distribution of meth, moving from Columbus into Knox County. By the way, what law enforcement tells me about methamphetamines is that they are causing a new state of crimes, somewhat closer to the cocaine crimes that would have been back in the 1990s when cocaine was the primary concern. Heroin is a drug that does not create the same stimulant effect; it is not a psychostimulant. So the crimes primarily are crimes to pay for the drugs--property crimes--whereas the meth crimes often tend to be crimes of violence because it is a stimulant like cocaine. So law enforcement tells me they are very concerned. Their jails are being crowded now with meth users who are there for serious crimes. The big issue they are looking at is this: How do you get people through successful recovery? Here is the other bad news: We do not know much about how to help people in recovery with methamphetamines. We know that with regard to opioids, there are medication-assisted treatments that can be used, and, in general, recovery practices that work for opioids can work for meth--taking people through a therapy process--but there are not the drugs to be able to help you through it, as there are with opioids. So it is an even tougher problem in some respects. We talked about the Federal funding that had been awarded to Knox County when I was there, and they are really happy about it. They are getting money through the 21st Century Cures funding that came from here, then went to the State of Ohio, and went down to them. They are getting money from my CARA legislation, the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act. They are also getting funding from the Drug-Free Communities Act--legislation that I authored when I was in the House of Representatives many years ago, and it is being used for prevention very effectively in some of these counties. The one thing they said about the funding was that they want to be sure that there is more flexibility, particularly in the 21st Century Cures fund. So it can be used not just for opioids but also for dealing with this meth issue, which is their big problem now. So my hope is that we will begin to see some flexibility in those funding streams to be able to help places like Knox County. We need to build a sustainable infrastructure for prevention, treatment, and longer term recovery from all drugs. For these communities, having that flexibility gives them the ability to respond to whatever the latest problem is that is facing their community. The U.S. Attorney's Office based in Cleveland, OH, which is led by Justin Herdman, has been deeply involved in this effort to combat the spread and distribution of meth. Last August his office indicted eight people in Federal Court for their efforts to create a methamphetamine and cocaine trafficking supply network--a supply chain from Mexico all the way to Ohio. In connection to these arrests, DEA agents seized more than 144 pounds of meth from a warehouse outside of Cleveland. It is believed to be the largest seizure of methamphetamine in Ohio history. Again, it demonstrates just how serious this threat is and how these criminal organizations pose such a threat to our State and our country. Back in 2005, Congress passed a bill on meth. It was called the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act. It regulated the over-the-counter sale of certain drugs, like epinephrine, because of their use in the manufacture of methamphetamines. This helped to combat the ability of the meth producers to manufacture cheap methamphetamine from over-the- counter medicines that were easy to get. It dropped the price and reduced its availability. However, Mexican cartels have now again supplanted these domestic labs so that legislation is no longer effective because here we are laden with these cheap, high quality, crystal meth supplies from Mexico. As the public learns more about the dangers of opioids and works to wean themselves off those drugs, methamphetamine, if left unchecked, is primed now to become the new drug of choice, perpetuating the cycle of abuse. We cannot let that happen. As we begin to make progress again on the opioid epidemic, which is the worst drug crisis in the history of our country--and remains so--we can't take our eye off the ball. What we are doing is actually helping in the fight against opioids. We need to keep it up. We are actually making progress, finally. We have to keep the pressure on. But my question is, What do we do about the next wave coming? What do we do about the methamphetamine that is coming into my State and your State? First, we need to continue awareness about the issue of addiction generally. This is not about one drug or just opioids or just meth or just cocaine. It is about the overall addiction--treating addiction like a disease, which it is; providing better treatment so that people can get back on their feet; providing longer term recovery. So raising that awareness generally is important, not just as to opioids but as to addiction, which is really the issue. Second, we have to do more on our southwest borders to stop the flow of this crystal meth coming in. It is not the ultimate solution because there is enough demand in America for this drug. It will find its way in, but we can stop some of it. We are beginning to do that. At a minimum, we can raise the price on the street, which is one of the problems right now. As I said, it is incredibly inexpensive. As one law enforcement person told me, it is less expensive than marijuana in some cities of America. Next, we need to do more to support Federal prevention programs that can address this issue--prevention, education, awareness. This is ultimately the most effective way to stop this epidemic from growing. One tool to do that is called the Drug-Free Communities Act. It has established more than 2,000 coalitions now around the country. Let's continue to support those coalitions. Very little Federal money has gone in compared to the private-sector money, the State and local money, the foundation money, but it leverages some of that other money. We need to continue to support these community foundations. Next, let's start a new prevention program focused on this meth challenge. One place we could find that funding, by the way, is in the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act. We authorized and then actually appropriated $10 million for a national prevention program. We allowed HSS to set that up. They haven't done it yet. I think it is important that we do it. I would take that $10 million and multiply it manyfold by using it as leverage to go out to the private sector, to encourage foundations, companies, pharma companies, and others to help in this effort. I believe there is an interest in that. I know there is. Let's do a massive prevention program because that may be, in the end, the most effective way to keep people from getting into the funnel of addiction in the first place. Next, we need to continue to expand and support these high intensity drug trafficking areas. They really work. I will tell you, in Ohio, when you have Federal resources, combined with State and local resources, when they are coordinated together, focused on this drug issue, they make a lot of sense. They have stopped a lot of the meth distribution, as I said, in Ohio. I talked about what happened in Northeast Ohio. There was the largest meth seizure ever. That was through the HIDTA Program. Next, we need a more effective treatment for meth. NIDA--the National Institute on Drug Abuse--and the NIH--the National Institutes of Health--are working on answers. But we need new medications so we can assist with quality treatment to help those suffering from addiction get into recovery. This is a major challenge. I spoke to Scott Gottlieb today, who is a former FDA Commissioner, about this issue, and I have talked to others. We need to do everything we can to support efforts to try to come up with medication that can assist with regard to the treatment for these psychostimulant drugs. Finally, we have to be sure that the communities have more flexibility to use the Federal funding they are already getting through Cures, through the State Opioid Response grants, to address issues like meth. I am exploring whether legislation is necessary to provide that flexibility, but I believe a lot of it could be provided through the administration of these grants and through the States. I will continue to ensure that the Federal Government is a better partner for those working on the frontlines on this drug epidemic. Opioids--yes, we need to keep up the fight. We are finally making progress. After 8 years of increases in opioid deaths, finally last year, for the first time in 8 years, we are seeing a reduction of those deaths--the worst drug epidemic in the history of our country. It is not a time for us to pull back. It is time to focus on what is working and do more of it. But, also, we have these new challenges, particularly crystal meth. We need to do a better job of addressing that, as we talked about today. Working together, I believe we can make a difference. I believe we can turn the tide on addiction in this country. Thank you. I yield back. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., Thursday, May 9; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; further, that the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the Park nomination under the previous order.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 197, submitted earlier today.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 196, submitted earlier today.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all postcloture time on the Park nomination expire at 1:45 p.m., Thursday, May 9. I further ask that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session for a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.