Floor Statements

Mr. President, I was coming to floor today to talk about legislation we just got passed in the last week in the Homeland Security Committee with the hopes that I can convince some of my colleagues to join us in this effort, and I will talk about that bill in a moment. But first let me, if I could, address the photograph and the comments from my colleague from New Jersey.

He showed a tragic photograph that so many of my constituents and all Americans have seen--Oscar Alberto Martinez Ramirez and his daughter Valeria, facedown in the Rio Grande.

This man came from El Salvador. We don't know all the details yet, but clearly he was interested in coming to the United States and applying for asylum, as so many others have come--hundreds a day, thousands a week, hundreds of thousands a month now, overwhelming the infrastructure at the border, pulling 40 to 60 percent of our Border Patrol off the border to deal with the humanitarian crisis that has occurred.

That tragic photograph--and it is a horrific photo of a daughter clinging to her father's neck, having drowned in the Rio Grande coming over from Mexico--should be a wake-up call. I agree with that, but it should not be a wake-up call to have us continue to point fingers around here at the other side and blame someone else for the problem. It should instead be a wake-up call for solutions--for bipartisan solutions--because that is all that works to be able to resolve these issues.

I hope the first step will be taken today, because I just learned, as I came to the floor, that the House of Representatives is now considering taking up the legislation we passed here in the Senate just yesterday. It provides immediate emergency funds for humanitarian assistance at the border that is needed right now. We passed it with over 80 votes here in the Senate--82 votes, with 9 of our Members absent, I believe. Over 82 votes is very unusual for anything to pass around here, particularly something so substantial.

It is bipartisan. It came out of the Appropriations Committee with a 30-to-1 vote to get these funds and these resources down to the border now to help with this true humanitarian crisis that we are facing. Everyone must acknowledge that.

The House was balking at that. They were sending us another bill that had some partisan elements to it that no Republican could support in the House--not a single one.

Finally, I think they have decided to pick up our bipartisan bill and pass it, and thank God, because now the President can sign it and that aid can go down to our border immediately where it is needed.

But I have to be frank with you. That humanitarian aid going down to the border is not enough because I don't think it would have had an impact on the tragic photograph that was talked about on the floor earlier.

That incident did not occur because of the lack of humanitarian aid that is badly needed. That incident occurred because there is this pull factor to come to our country, particularly from these Northern Triangle countries--Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador. This particular gentleman, Oscar Alberto Martinez Ramirez, came from El Salvador.

Then, there are push factors from those countries. And, again, this is causing so many families to come here, so many unaccompanied children to come here from these three countries in Central America.

The traffickers are telling them: If you come to America and you ask for asylum, you will be let in.

Let's be frank. These countries are countries that have real challenges and real problems.

My colleague from New Jersey is right. We have sent a lot of American taxpayer dollars down to those countries, and he noted that the reports back from the administration and others are positive, saying it is beginning to make a difference. He noted that that funding is now being reduced or even eliminated in some cases, but it was during the time when that funding was there that the people started coming.

So, yes, we should have more funding that is effective for those countries. I agree with that. The Millennium Challenge Corporation funding is the new way we send that funding. It is more effective because it says: What are you doing in Central America to improve your infrastructure, your conditions, your judicial system, your rule of law, and to fight corruption? We need to do all those things.

But let's be frank. Let's be honest. We have been doing that, and yet the push factor is still there.

So I believe it is part of the answer, but I don't think logic applied to this situation means that you could say that it is all of the answer because we have been doing it.

My taxpayers and other taxpayers, I think, around this country are willing to do more, but they also want to deal with the pull factor, and the pull factor is very simple. If you come to America and you apply for asylum right now, with the system being overwhelmed and with certain laws in place, including a court decision, you are released into the community, meaning you come into America. Most of the court cases that deal with whether you are successful or not in your asylum claim take over 2 years now. It takes over 2 years until you are before a judge for a hearing.

When those court cases occur, we are told on the Homeland Security Committee, that about 15 percent of those individuals are granted asylum--15 percent.

Now, in America, our wages are 10 to 20 times higher than they are in these Northern Triangle countries--El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras. Is it any wonder that they come here seeking a better way of life? No, you would too. But we have to have a system of laws here in this country where, yes, we accept refugees and, yes, we accept people who have claims of asylum that are granted, but we don't have open borders.

We have a system here, a system of laws, and it has clearly broken down now. Again, thousands come in every week, hundreds of thousands every month--mostly families, mostly children because of the way our laws work. I don't think we should be separating families, by the way. So, if you have a child with you or you are a child, then under a court decision you could be held only for a short period of time, 20 days maximum, in emergency situations. What happens is that people are released into the community.

I will be frank with you. From what we have heard from Customs and Border Protection and from the Department of Health and Human Services, which are responsible for many of these detention facilities, they are so overwhelmed, they don't even have room for 20 days, so people are allowed to come into the community. Again, the court cases happen a long time after that, and people are granted work permits. That is why people are coming. It is a pull. They are saying: If you get to America, we will get you in.

These traffickers are charging a lot of money. It is horrible. They are taking mortgages on people's homes. They are saying ``We will take half your pay for the next year,'' promising things that are frankly beyond what can be accomplished.

A situation in Ohio occurred a couple years ago with kids from Guatemala. Unaccompanied kids coming from Guatemala were told: You can get in. It is good. We will take care of you. In this case, the traffickers took mortgages on the parents' homes. They brought these kids to the United States, to the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, detention facility. They were then sent out to sponsor families, which is what they do. They take these minor children, underaged, and send them to sponsor families. Sometimes they can find families; sometimes they can't. In this case, our own government sent these kids back to the traffickers because the traffickers applied for the very kids they had brought up from Guatemala.

Despite claims and promises to their parents that they would get a good education with a family taking care of these kids, do you know what they did with these kids? They put them on an egg farm in Ohio-- underage kids--and exploited them. They took away their pay, had them live in conditions none of us would find acceptable for any member of our family. They had them living in trailers, some of them under trailers, on mattresses without sheets, working 12 hours a day. Some of these kids were working 6 days a week, some 7 days a week. This is not America. Yet this was happening. Again, our system is broken. These traffickers were exploiting these children.

Finally, in this case, law enforcement stepped in, and we have been able to indict and convict the traffickers. Thank goodness. But this is not a situation that can or should continue.

In the tragic photo of the story I just told, the answer is not politically pointing fingers. Blaming Donald Trump isn't going to solve this problem. We need as a body to change the laws. We need as a body to provide more effective aid to those countries. That is true. The push factors and the pull factors both need to be addressed. But if we just play politics with this on both sides, we will have more unnecessary deaths. We will have more tragic situations.

Again, I had planned to come and talk about something else, and I will, briefly. But I must say, with regard to this immigration challenge we face as a country, I hope the tragedy we have now all seen online and on TV serves as a wake-up call to get to bipartisan solutions that actually help solve this problem and stop the push factors and the pull factors that will continue to bring hundreds of thousands of people from these three countries to our border, which has overwhelmed us.

Today there is a start. Today there is a start with the humanitarian aid package. Thank goodness.

Tomorrow we need to get to work to talk about these bigger problems. I will say, I have worked on this with some of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I heard the words today from my colleague from New Jersey about refugee processing centers. I think that is part of the answer. In the Obama administration, you could apply for refugee status from your country--El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras--and not come to the border. The refugee criteria is almost identical to the criteria for asylum. The United Nations does this all over the world. I agree, that is a much better solution.

Let's have these processing centers in the Northern Triangle countries. Let's have one in Mexico, maybe one in Mexico at the southern border with Guatemala, maybe one at the northern border of the United States. Let's deal with this processing problem. Let's determine who is qualified, who has a legitimate fear of persecution. Again, 15 percent of them are now being granted. The other 85 percent are not. For the others, we have to say: You can apply to come to the United States as everybody else does, from Mexico, from the Philippines, from India, from countries in Africa, and we need to continue to be a generous country with regard to immigration. But we have to have a system of laws, and we have to stop these tragedies where people are being told by traffickers: You can make this journey to the north. It will be fine.

It is not fine. It is arduous, it is dangerous, and you see the results.

The trafficking that is going on of girls and women is all part of this too. It is not going to stop unless we as a group here in Congress, on a bipartisan basis, deal not just with the push factors but also the pull factors and deal with them realistically.

Mr. President, the legislation I came to the floor to talk about today passed in the Homeland Security Committee last week to help make our synagogues, our churches, our mosques, and other nonprofit institutions safer.

Sadly, we have seen a troubling pattern in recent years. Hate-fueled attacks at houses of worship and religious institutions, not just in our country but around the world, are becoming more and more common. A couple of months ago, a shooting at a synagogue outside San Diego took the life of Lori Gilbert Kaye, who heroically sacrificed herself to save her rabbi. Exactly 6 months to the day prior to that, the shooting at the Tree of Life synagogue outside of Pittsburgh, PA, claimed 11 lives, the worst act of anti-Semitic violence in U.S. history.

Sometimes this hate is manifested in other ways: bomb threats at the Jewish Community Center in Columbus, OH, and anti-Semitic graffiti sprayed on the Hebrew Union College walls in my hometown of Cincinnati,

Madam President, I would like to speak about the legislation that is before us right now on the floor. It is the annual National Defense Authorization Act, incredibly important legislation that the Senate, pretty much every year, is able to pass on a bipartisan basis.

It is really an exception. There is so much else that we are locked up on here with partisan gridlock. With regard to our troops, we tend to come together, Republicans and Democrats, and make commitments to them that we are going to give our men and women serving in the Armed Forces the resources and support they need to carry out their critical mission.

We have now proceeded to that legislation. I want to talk a little about it. It has a lot of incredibly important things in it. It is really important to Ohio.

In my State of Ohio, we have a lot of defense installations. They are very important to our national security because they do important work. They are also important to our Ohio economy. Ohio's defense spending now accounts for more than 66,000 direct jobs, more than $4 billion in salaries, and more than a $14 billion economic impact. Forty-three of our 88 counties in Ohio are impacted by these facilities. So they are critical to our State, to our economy, to our soldiers and their families, and to tens of thousands of civilian employees as well.

Again, because of the good work being done in Ohio, including at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, which is our largest single employer in Ohio, it is really important to our military readiness and to our national security. This bill has proceeded through the Armed Services Committee in the bipartisan manner in which it usually is done. I love seeing that. It is legislation that every Member of this body, I hope, will be able to support at the end.

It has a lot of important initiatives and some much needed reforms-- including, by the way, this year, a 3.1-percent pay raise for our troops. I think that is necessary. They are in harm's way around the world. They are ensuring our safety, and we should ensure that they are fairly compensated for their hard work and their sacrifices.

One of the bill's other important initiatives that has a big impact on my State is authorizing $1.7 billion to increase the rate of production for both our M1 Abrams tanks and also for upgrades to 165 tanks that are already in service. That is an increase from last year's figure. It also authorizes about $249 million to upgrade the Stryker armored fighting vehicles.

This is great news for the men and women who are out in the field in our Armed Forces. They love these vehicles, and they need them. The Abrams

and the Stryker are the most advanced and lethal tanks and armored vehicles on the battlefield today. One of our priorities in Congress should be to ensure that we are providing our troops with what they need to be able to do their duty and to protect themselves. We want to be sure they have the highest quality equipment to be able to do that. Only by ensuring that these funds are allocated to such key vehicles like this can we be sure our Armed Forces are able to maintain their advantage--their qualitative advantage on the battlefield.

This isn't just a big win for our military, however. It is also a big win for a plant called the Joint Systems Manufacturing Center, or JSMC, which is the tank plant in Lima, OH. The best tanks and armored vehicles in the world are made at this plant. It has the best workforce in the world to do it. I have seen them in action many times. It is the only facility in the United States that has the capacity to produce tanks like the Abrams tank and the Stryker armored vehicle. It is a really important strategic asset for our country in Lima, OH.

Having been out there a lot, visiting with the workers, watching them work, seeing what they can make, and having talked to the soldiers in the field who use these products, I can tell you how important they are. Most recently, I was at the Lima tank plant in March where I was able to speak directly with the workers there about the long-term health of the Lima plant, which the Obama administration, about 8 years ago, attempted to shutter.

The President sent a budget to Congress--President Obama--saying we would like to close down the tank plant because in the future we won't need these tanks, at least not immediately, and some day we will have a new generation of tanks, and meanwhile, let's just shut down this plant. Some of us stood up, and I fought against that. We were able to convince the U.S. Congress to overturn what the President wanted to do and instead to provide funding for the tank plant to keep it open. Even though production was down at that time, we were able to keep the plant open and not have it be mothballed, as the administration wanted to do. Thank goodness we did that because now we know--particularly with the Russian influence in Europe and what our allies are telling us they need--that we have to have these armored vehicles and these tanks, and we need to continually upgrade them.

If we had shut down that plant, we would have lost this incredible workforce that is there building something that is unique. There is nothing quite like the welding, as an example, and the cutting that goes into our tanks. We also would have lost the supply chain. That would have been detrimental. It would have cost taxpayers so much more to try to take that plant out of mothballs and recreate it again than to keep it open as we did.

Now, frankly, we kept it open mostly through foreign sales. Other countries around the world, including our allies, were still buying Abrams tanks and Stryker vehicles. And Israel was buying the Nemera vehicle, which is an armored vehicle that is much like our Abrams tank without the turret. That kept us going, plus a little bit of upgrade to our tanks.

Now, today, again, and since 8 years ago, when there was a proposal to shutter this plant, we have been able to increase production slowly but surely to the point that today we have the ability to really have that plant humming. We have a lot of people who are working. It is on its way up, and that is really exciting.

The funding allocated under this legislation we talked about today is really important because it will allow this JSMC--the Lima tank plant-- to hire, train, and retain more workers dedicated to making the best equipment possible to protect our troops.

I will tell you that the workers at the tank plant are very proud of what they do. A lot of them are veterans. They know that what they are doing every day by providing these armored vehicles has the potential to save the lives of the American men and women in uniform across the world who are relying on these vehicles to keep them safe and to be able to have that qualitative advantage on the battlefield by having the best equipment possible.

Last year, I had the opportunity to be the first Member of Congress to see the latest models of the Stryker Dragoon vehicles, up-armored at Lima. This was a real fight also. The Army came to us and said: We need to have some additional capability with regard to our Stryker vehicles to be able to push back against potential threats on the European continent. At that time we had no tanks in Europe, and we needed to upgrade what the Strykers could do by providing for additional lethality, particularly to provide a turret on top of the Stryker vehicle. We did that.

Now, as I saw with the 2nd Calvary Regiment in Germany, they are using these vehicles, and those drivers of those vehicles, those other troops who are using those vehicles, love them. It feels like, again, it gives them the ability to be effective on the battlefield. They are also training with a coalition of our allies, including Poland, the United Kingdom, and Denmark. The work our men and women in uniform are doing with our allies in Europe is vitally important because it forms a framework of defense to protect our NATO allies from aggression.

The importance of an American military presence in Europe has never been in doubt, but perhaps now, more than at any time since the end of the Cold War, the security of Europe is uncertain. We have seen repeatedly, these past few years, instances of military aggression, electoral interference, and diplomatic provocation by Russia toward its western neighbors.

Nowhere is Russia's continued maligned behavior on display more than in the country of Ukraine. For the past 5 years, we have seen Ukraine work to break free of Russia's orbit and seek greater integration with the democratic framework of the West, with the EU, with the United States, and with our NATO allies. Most vividly during the 2014 Maidan protest in Kiev, Russia responded to these appeals for democracy by illegally invading and annexing Crimea, which remains occupied in violation of international law to this day.

In the eastern region of Donbass, more than 4,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed fighting Russian-backed separatists. I have been to the frontlines, the so-called line of contact in the Donbass, and let me tell you that it is very much a hot war. Just last November, the Russian Navy attacked three Ukrainian naval vessels and captured two dozen Ukrainian sailors in international waters near the Kerch Strait. These individuals remain unlawfully detained by the Russian Government to this day. I urge my Senate colleagues and the entire international community to join me in calling for the release of those sailors.

I know here, on this side of the Atlantic, what is happening in Ukraine can sometimes seem like it is half a world away, but it is not. It is very relevant. In a sense, it is where the modern battle is taking place between two different ideologies--between whether a country wants to go toward freedom and democracy in the West or whether, again, to stay under the orbit of the Russian influence.

Here, in Ohio, we have a large and vibrant Ukrainian-American community, particularly in Northeast Ohio, who have a vested interest in seeing that their ancestral homeland can defend itself from Russian aggression as it works to align itself more with NATO and the West while promoting a platform of democracy, freedom, transparency, and free markets.

Frankly, we should all be supportive of Ukraine's efforts to reshape itself as a beacon of liberty in the region. As cochair of the Senate Ukraine Caucus, which I cofounded with my colleague Dick Durbin, I have been an advocate of the Ukraine as it works to break free from Russia's influence. I traveled to Kyiv to meet with their newly elected President, Volodymyr Zelensky. I am encouraged from my meetings that they will stay on the right path toward reform, but to properly do so, they also have to defend themselves from Russian aggression.

For the past 3 years, I have successfully introduced and passed amendments to the legislation before us today, the National Defense Authorization Act, to expand U.S. military aid to the Ukraine. These provisions built and expanded the primary statutory framework for U.S. security assistance to Ukraine, the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative.

This year, I was pleased to see a further $300 million authorized in lethal

and nonlethal aid to Ukraine in the NDAA. This security assistance package is good news and sends a strong signal that America stands with the Ukrainian people, and we will make sure their military has the capabilities it needs to defend its sovereign territory on land and in the sea and air.

But our commitment to Ukraine security should extend to other forms of support as well. I have offered an amendment that I hope will be included in the final bill to pressure Russia to release the Ukrainian sailors kidnapped in the Kerch Strait. It would do so by adding the release of the 24 Ukrainian sailors as a condition for any U.S. military cooperation with Russia. We need to take a firm stance against Russia's blatant disregard for international law in this matter, and passing this amendment will help us do so.

I am glad to see that the National Defense Authorization Act will keep the lines of production running, from the factory floors in Lima to the frontlines all around the world. I am glad we will be continuing to help Ukraine defend itself from unlawful Russian aggression. I hope we can also push for the release of the Ukrainian sailors who have been detained illegally in the Kerch Strait.

I look forward to voting on the bill's final passage in the Senate in the next week so the men and women who give so much of themselves to keep us safe have the resources they need to fulfill their important mission.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Mount St. Joseph University on its 100th anniversary of service to higher education.

Since 1920, Mount St. Joseph University has stood the test of time as an institution of higher education in Greater Cincinnati, grounded in the spiritual values and vision of its founders, the Sisters of Charity of Cincinnati. As the Mount approaches its centennial in 2020, it remains on a mission--to educate students, build better communities, and to serve the common good.

Mount St. Joseph University enrolls 2,168 undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral students. The majority of Mount graduates--i.e. more than 13,000 of the 16,600 living alumni--stay in the Cincinnati region to pursue their careers and to raise their families, contributing to the overall success of this region.

The Mount also serves a diverse population. Over 31 percent of students are first generation, 23 percent represent minority populations, and 100 percent receive financial assistance through scholarships and financial aid. About 48 percent of Mount students are from families in the low or moderate income levels.

Students at the Mount pursue studies in 39 undergraduate degree programs, 6 master's degree programs, and 2 doctoral programs. As a result of the academic excellence and career focus of the university, more than 98 percent of Mount students are successful in starting their careers, securing significant volunteer opportunities and obtaining admission to graduate programs within 6 months of graduating.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I am here to continue the important conversation we had on this floor about the ongoing addiction crisis we face in this country. Over the past 2 years, I have come to the floor 57 times to talk about addiction, and usually it has been about opioids and the impact opioids are having--tearing our families apart, devastating our communities. There is certainly an opioid epidemic in this country with prescription drugs, fentanyl, heroin--it is true--but we also have to focus on the fact that we have a broader problem. That is what I am going to talk about today, along with what we can do about it.

Congress has done a lot in the last several years. When looking at what was proposed and what was passed, we put new policies in place at the Federal level to promote better prevention, better treatment programs, and better long-term recovery. We passed legislation to stop some of these deadly drugs from coming into our country. That has helped somewhat. Those legislative initiatives, such as the CARA Act, the 21st Century Cures Act, and the STOP Act, are starting to work.

Over $3 billion of additional funds has been appropriated by this Congress just in the last 3 years alone to ensure that we have the ability to push back against this epidemic. In my home State of Ohio-- one of the States hardest hit by this epidemic--we received nearly $140 million from the CARA and Cures grants. It is going toward stuff that is working--evidence-based prevention, innovative approaches to treatment and getting people into treatment, and closing some of the gaps in the continuum of prevention, treatment, and recovery. A lot of people were falling between the cracks. Closing those gaps has a made a big difference in my State. We also equipped our first responders with what they need and the training they need to help push back.

The good news is, these programs are starting to work. Drug overdose deaths are still way too high, but for the first time in 8 years--8 years of increased overdose deaths every year--we are seeing a reduction in overdose deaths.

In my own State of Ohio, we have seen significant progress. We have had a 21-percent drop in our overdose deaths finally after 8 years of increases. This was the biggest drop in the Nation from July 2017 to June of 2018, according to the Centers for Disease Control National Center of Health Statistics. Nationally, again after 8 years of annual increased deaths, we have seen a leveling out--in fact, a very modest downturn. Between 2017 and 2018, overdose deaths fell from 73,000 to 71,000. In all, the overdose rate dropped in 21 States. Overall, there has been only about a 1-percent drop, so it is very modest but a lot better than the alternative we have seen for 8 years, which is increased deaths.

As we begin to turn the tide on the opioid epidemic, I am convinced that we would be doing even better if not for the influx of fentanyl. About 4 or 5 years ago, fentanyl came to our country in a big way-- almost entirely from China and almost always through our own U.S. Postal Service, believe it or not--and it has caused all kinds of havoc. It is the deadliest of all the drugs. When you look at overdose deaths, the primary cause now is fentanyl. It is a synthetic drug that is 50 times more powerful than heroin.

We are beginning to push back again, including with our STOP Act, which has now been passed, which requires the post office to begin screening and stopping some of these packages from coming in. We will do a better job in working with China. We have commitments from them, and we hope they will follow through on them.

Even as this limited progress is being made on the opioid front, we have a new, growing danger. I have heard this over the past few years from law enforcement and from providers--from people on the frontlines of the drug epidemic. They are seeing a resurgence of what are called psychostimulants. Mostly it is pure, powerful methamphetamine from Mexico--crystal meth.

In the last couple of months, I have heard about this from the people in the trenches all over Ohio. I have talked to community leaders in Knox County; treatment providers in Southeast Ohio; service providers in Columbus; the ADAMHS Board in Adams, Lawrence, and Scioto Counties; the leadership of

the Hamilton County Heroin Coalition; and community leaders and law enforcement in Butler County and the Dayton area just last week. From all over the State, they all tell me the same thing: We are making some progress now on heroin, and that is good. We are making limited progress on keeping the fentanyl out. But we are spinning our wheels on combating particularly crystal meth, and they are also seeing a resurgence of cocaine--both of which are stimulants, and both of which are causing havoc in these communities, in part because, as a psychostimulant, it leads to more violent behavior.

They are having a devastating impact in my State. According to a 2018 report from Ohio University, these psychostimulants--including meth-- were found in just nine overdose deaths in 2010. That number rose to 556 overdose deaths in 2017, which is the most recent data we have. That is an increase of 6,000 percent. That same year, Ohio had more than 1,500 people die of cocaine overdose, which is an almost 140- percent increase from the year before.

This problem isn't isolated to Ohio. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, deaths involving cocaine, crystal meth, and other psychostimulants have increased nationwide. In the more than 70,000 drug overdose deaths in 2017, more than 23,000 or nearly one- third involved cocaine, meth, or both. Just from 2016 to 2017, in that 1 year, death rates involving cocaine and crystal meth increased by approximately 33 percent. Increases occurred across all demographic groups and in all ZIP Codes.

In the case of meth in particular, usage rates have gone up as opioid rates have gone down. I am told by experts that this is for a few reasons. Some meth users initially turned to this drug to manage the heavy crashes that followed prolonged usage of opioids--heroin, fentanyl, and other opioids--and then they became just as addicted to meth as they had been to opioids. Others turns to meth because the drug is stronger and cheaper than other options.

By the way, the days of home chemists and one-pot meth labs in America are largely gone. You probably can remember, 5, 10, 15 years ago, the meth labs in your community. You are not hearing about those now. That is the good thing, but the bad thing is that you are not hearing about them because the stuff coming from Mexico is more powerful and less expensive. The super-labs in Mexico run by the drug cartels are mass-producing this meth. It is powerful, deadly, and low cost. I am told by law enforcement in Columbus, OH, that crystal meth now costs less than marijuana on the streets of Columbus.

Most of this pure crystal meth enters the United States from Mexico in bulk at ports of entry along our southwest border, often hidden in cars and trucks. Our Customs and Border Protection officers, who are already stretched thin by the ongoing migration crisis, don't have the resources to identify these smuggled shipments. The INTERDICT Act, which we passed here, is beginning to help by providing some technology, but, frankly, we need research on better technology, and we need to provide more funding to ensure we can stop this deadly substance by identifying it at the border to keep it from coming in.

According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the amount of methamphetamine at our ports of entry has soared from about 14,000 pounds in 2012 to 56,000 pounds in 2018. We have also seen a 38-percent increase in methamphetamine trafficking along the southern border just in the 1 year from 2017 to 2018. One troubling measurement is that the number of crystal meth submissions to the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation lab rose from 2,000 in 2015 to over 12,000 in 2018. That is a 500-percent increase in my home State. This is an indication of how much of this is being detained, being found by law enforcement and taken to these labs.

As I heard from folks all across Ohio, we are also seeing meth laced with other drugs, including fentanyl, heroin, and sometimes cocaine. I am told that sometimes the cartels mix these drugs into methamphetamine to lower the cost of the final product, meaning that the users may be consuming dangerous opioids without realizing it. Other traffickers do so because they know that fentanyl is incredibly addictive. You may think it is one thing, but it is really another. Any street drug you use is potentially deadly--remember that.

We still don't have the full picture of how these drugs are being mixed together and sold for consumption. Over the past 2 years, I have seen more reports of individuals in Ohio who used cocaine that, unknown to them, had been mixed with fentanyl. In the last month alone, at least 49 Ohioans in my hometown of Cincinnati, OH, were killed by that deadly combination. It has been hitting our African-American communities particularly hard.

Again, this highlights how the drug cartels sometimes try to hook users by cutting stimulants with addictive, deadly fentanyl, often with lethal outcomes.

The bottom line is, we have to address the broader issue of addiction, not just the issue of individual drugs. We know that crystal meth and cocaine are increasing pretty dramatically. That is why we have to continue our fight against opioid use but also provide more flexibility to our communities. As a result, today I am introducing new legislation designed to address the resurgence of crystal meth and cocaine into our communities.

To date, the grants provided by the 21st Century Cures Act--these are grants that go directly back to the States, and the States determine how they are used in local communities. These are called State opioid response grants. They have been used to increase access to naloxone--a miracle drug that reverses the overdose. They have also been used for longer term addiction treatment and support services for opioids.

For all the good they have done, these grants can't be used effectively to combat the drug crisis beyond opioids, which ignores the new on-the-ground reality of addiction in my State and many others. So the legislation I am introducing today will make a simple change to existing law. It will allow the State opioid response grants to be more flexible so they can be used for whatever the drug addiction problem is on the ground, which will be a little different for every State and, for that matter, every community. In particular, dollars would be able to be used in programs focused on methamphetamine and cocaine treatment and recovery.

We know these existing funds are making a difference. We have to be sure and keep this program going. That is why my legislation will also reauthorize the State opioid response grants program with this flexibility but reauthorize it for 5 years, providing $500 million annually to ensure there is stable funding.

A stable funding stream to these States is absolutely essential to having the predictability and the certainty we need to continue to make progress and to avoid these new drugs coming in and creating more devastation in our communities. It is a simple, commonsense change that will allow State and local organizations the flexibility they need to fight what is quickly becoming a two-front war on addiction.

The fact that we are continuing to see these new types of drugs pop up in Ohio and around the country highlights the reality that this is a fight against addiction. Addiction is a disease. Again, this Congress has done an unprecedented amount of work in this area in the last few years, and I commend us for that, but we have to do more. We have to provide this flexibility. We have to be sure we are focusing on the fight against addiction, not just on individual drugs.

While I am encouraged by the welcomed progress in preventing opioid overdose deaths, we cannot rest on our laurels. The cartels continue to pump new combinations of opioids and stimulants into vulnerable communities, hooking individuals on yet another toxic drug and perpetrating this cycle of addiction. Let's keep our unprecedented bipartisan efforts going in this body. Let's continue to partner with allies, local government and State governments, and with our nonprofits. Let's make sure the resources are there to continue to save lives and restore communities.

Mr. President, today I am here to continue the important conversation we had on this floor about the ongoing addiction crisis we face in this country. Over the past 2 years, I have come to the floor 57 times to talk about addiction, and usually it has been about opioids and the impact opioids are having--tearing our families apart, devastating our communities. There is certainly an opioid epidemic in this country with prescription drugs, fentanyl, heroin--it is true--but we also have to focus on the fact that we have a broader problem. That is what I am going to talk about today, along with what we can do about it.

Congress has done a lot in the last several years. When looking at what was proposed and what was passed, we put new policies in place at the Federal level to promote better prevention, better treatment programs, and better long-term recovery. We passed legislation to stop some of these deadly drugs from coming into our country. That has helped somewhat. Those legislative initiatives, such as the CARA Act, the 21st Century Cures Act, and the STOP Act, are starting to work.

Over $3 billion of additional funds has been appropriated by this Congress just in the last 3 years alone to ensure that we have the ability to push back against this epidemic. In my home State of Ohio-- one of the States hardest hit by this epidemic--we received nearly $140 million from the CARA and Cures grants. It is going toward stuff that is working--evidence-based prevention, innovative approaches to treatment and getting people into treatment, and closing some of the gaps in the continuum of prevention, treatment, and recovery. A lot of people were falling between the cracks. Closing those gaps has a made a big difference in my State. We also equipped our first responders with what they need and the training they need to help push back.

The good news is, these programs are starting to work. Drug overdose deaths are still way too high, but for the first time in 8 years--8 years of increased overdose deaths every year--we are seeing a reduction in overdose deaths.

In my own State of Ohio, we have seen significant progress. We have had a 21-percent drop in our overdose deaths finally after 8 years of increases. This was the biggest drop in the Nation from July 2017 to June of 2018, according to the Centers for Disease Control National Center of Health Statistics. Nationally, again after 8 years of annual increased deaths, we have seen a leveling out--in fact, a very modest downturn. Between 2017 and 2018, overdose deaths fell from 73,000 to 71,000. In all, the overdose rate dropped in 21 States. Overall, there has been only about a 1-percent drop, so it is very modest but a lot better than the alternative we have seen for 8 years, which is increased deaths.

As we begin to turn the tide on the opioid epidemic, I am convinced that we would be doing even better if not for the influx of fentanyl. About 4 or 5 years ago, fentanyl came to our country in a big way-- almost entirely from China and almost always through our own U.S. Postal Service, believe it or not--and it has caused all kinds of havoc. It is the deadliest of all the drugs. When you look at overdose deaths, the primary cause now is fentanyl. It is a synthetic drug that is 50 times more powerful than heroin.

We are beginning to push back again, including with our STOP Act, which has now been passed, which requires the post office to begin screening and stopping some of these packages from coming in. We will do a better job in working with China. We have commitments from them, and we hope they will follow through on them.

Even as this limited progress is being made on the opioid front, we have a new, growing danger. I have heard this over the past few years from law enforcement and from providers--from people on the frontlines of the drug epidemic. They are seeing a resurgence of what are called psychostimulants. Mostly it is pure, powerful methamphetamine from Mexico--crystal meth.

In the last couple of months, I have heard about this from the people in the trenches all over Ohio. I have talked to community leaders in Knox County; treatment providers in Southeast Ohio; service providers in Columbus; the ADAMHS Board in Adams, Lawrence, and Scioto Counties; the leadership of

the Hamilton County Heroin Coalition; and community leaders and law enforcement in Butler County and the Dayton area just last week. From all over the State, they all tell me the same thing: We are making some progress now on heroin, and that is good. We are making limited progress on keeping the fentanyl out. But we are spinning our wheels on combating particularly crystal meth, and they are also seeing a resurgence of cocaine--both of which are stimulants, and both of which are causing havoc in these communities, in part because, as a psychostimulant, it leads to more violent behavior.

They are having a devastating impact in my State. According to a 2018 report from Ohio University, these psychostimulants--including meth-- were found in just nine overdose deaths in 2010. That number rose to 556 overdose deaths in 2017, which is the most recent data we have. That is an increase of 6,000 percent. That same year, Ohio had more than 1,500 people die of cocaine overdose, which is an almost 140- percent increase from the year before.

This problem isn't isolated to Ohio. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, deaths involving cocaine, crystal meth, and other psychostimulants have increased nationwide. In the more than 70,000 drug overdose deaths in 2017, more than 23,000 or nearly one- third involved cocaine, meth, or both. Just from 2016 to 2017, in that 1 year, death rates involving cocaine and crystal meth increased by approximately 33 percent. Increases occurred across all demographic groups and in all ZIP Codes.

In the case of meth in particular, usage rates have gone up as opioid rates have gone down. I am told by experts that this is for a few reasons. Some meth users initially turned to this drug to manage the heavy crashes that followed prolonged usage of opioids--heroin, fentanyl, and other opioids--and then they became just as addicted to meth as they had been to opioids. Others turns to meth because the drug is stronger and cheaper than other options.

By the way, the days of home chemists and one-pot meth labs in America are largely gone. You probably can remember, 5, 10, 15 years ago, the meth labs in your community. You are not hearing about those now. That is the good thing, but the bad thing is that you are not hearing about them because the stuff coming from Mexico is more powerful and less expensive. The super-labs in Mexico run by the drug cartels are mass-producing this meth. It is powerful, deadly, and low cost. I am told by law enforcement in Columbus, OH, that crystal meth now costs less than marijuana on the streets of Columbus.

Most of this pure crystal meth enters the United States from Mexico in bulk at ports of entry along our southwest border, often hidden in cars and trucks. Our Customs and Border Protection officers, who are already stretched thin by the ongoing migration crisis, don't have the resources to identify these smuggled shipments. The INTERDICT Act, which we passed here, is beginning to help by providing some technology, but, frankly, we need research on better technology, and we need to provide more funding to ensure we can stop this deadly substance by identifying it at the border to keep it from coming in.

According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the amount of methamphetamine at our ports of entry has soared from about 14,000 pounds in 2012 to 56,000 pounds in 2018. We have also seen a 38-percent increase in methamphetamine trafficking along the southern border just in the 1 year from 2017 to 2018. One troubling measurement is that the number of crystal meth submissions to the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation lab rose from 2,000 in 2015 to over 12,000 in 2018. That is a 500-percent increase in my home State. This is an indication of how much of this is being detained, being found by law enforcement and taken to these labs.

As I heard from folks all across Ohio, we are also seeing meth laced with other drugs, including fentanyl, heroin, and sometimes cocaine. I am told that sometimes the cartels mix these drugs into methamphetamine to lower the cost of the final product, meaning that the users may be consuming dangerous opioids without realizing it. Other traffickers do so because they know that fentanyl is incredibly addictive. You may think it is one thing, but it is really another. Any street drug you use is potentially deadly--remember that.

We still don't have the full picture of how these drugs are being mixed together and sold for consumption. Over the past 2 years, I have seen more reports of individuals in Ohio who used cocaine that, unknown to them, had been mixed with fentanyl. In the last month alone, at least 49 Ohioans in my hometown of Cincinnati, OH, were killed by that deadly combination. It has been hitting our African-American communities particularly hard.

Again, this highlights how the drug cartels sometimes try to hook users by cutting stimulants with addictive, deadly fentanyl, often with lethal outcomes.

The bottom line is, we have to address the broader issue of addiction, not just the issue of individual drugs. We know that crystal meth and cocaine are increasing pretty dramatically. That is why we have to continue our fight against opioid use but also provide more flexibility to our communities. As a result, today I am introducing new legislation designed to address the resurgence of crystal meth and cocaine into our communities.

To date, the grants provided by the 21st Century Cures Act--these are grants that go directly back to the States, and the States determine how they are used in local communities. These are called State opioid response grants. They have been used to increase access to naloxone--a miracle drug that reverses the overdose. They have also been used for longer term addiction treatment and support services for opioids.

For all the good they have done, these grants can't be used effectively to combat the drug crisis beyond opioids, which ignores the new on-the-ground reality of addiction in my State and many others. So the legislation I am introducing today will make a simple change to existing law. It will allow the State opioid response grants to be more flexible so they can be used for whatever the drug addiction problem is on the ground, which will be a little different for every State and, for that matter, every community. In particular, dollars would be able to be used in programs focused on methamphetamine and cocaine treatment and recovery.

We know these existing funds are making a difference. We have to be sure and keep this program going. That is why my legislation will also reauthorize the State opioid response grants program with this flexibility but reauthorize it for 5 years, providing $500 million annually to ensure there is stable funding.

A stable funding stream to these States is absolutely essential to having the predictability and the certainty we need to continue to make progress and to avoid these new drugs coming in and creating more devastation in our communities. It is a simple, commonsense change that will allow State and local organizations the flexibility they need to fight what is quickly becoming a two-front war on addiction.

The fact that we are continuing to see these new types of drugs pop up in Ohio and around the country highlights the reality that this is a fight against addiction. Addiction is a disease. Again, this Congress has done an unprecedented amount of work in this area in the last few years, and I commend us for that, but we have to do more. We have to provide this flexibility. We have to be sure we are focusing on the fight against addiction, not just on individual drugs.

While I am encouraged by the welcomed progress in preventing opioid overdose deaths, we cannot rest on our laurels. The cartels continue to pump new combinations of opioids and stimulants into vulnerable communities, hooking individuals on yet another toxic drug and perpetrating this cycle of addiction. Let's keep our unprecedented bipartisan efforts going in this body. Let's continue to partner with allies, local government and State governments, and with our nonprofits. Let's make sure the resources are there to continue to save lives and restore communities.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the votes following the first vote in this series be 10 minutes in length.

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

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.