in a few minutes lawmakers will resume debate on nomination of richard myers to be u.s. district court judge for eastern north carolina. you're watching the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain will lead the senate in prayer, chaplain black. the chaplain: let us pray. holy god, you make the clouds your chariot and walk upon the wind. we see your works in the rising

of the sun and its setting. for the beauty of the earth and the glory of the skies, we give you praise. today, make our lawmakers heirs of peace, demonstrating that they are your children as they strive to find common ground. may they take pleasure in doing your will, knowing that by so doing they are fulfilling your purposes in our world. lord, you are never far from us but often we are far from you, so show us your ways and teach us your paths.

we pray in your merciful name. amen. the presiding officer: please join us in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington,d.c., december 4, 2019. to the senate under the provisions of rule 1 paragraph 3 of the stranding rules of the senate i hereby appoint the honorable kevin cramer, a senator from the north dakota to

perform the duties of the chair, signed chuck grassley, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, richard earnest myers ii to be united states district judge for the eastern district of north carolina.

mr. mcconnell: on sunday, as we

americans savored the holiday weekend and gave thanks for our liberty, the people of hong kong once again took to the streets to demand their own. many waved american flags. hong kongers are continuing to speak up for the freedoms and the autonomy that beijing has slowly tried to erode. as long as beijing does not relent, it looks like the people of hong kong are not going to relent either. in local elections last week, they were largely symbolic, pro-democracy candidates literally blew away the candidates the chinese communist party would have preferred in a literal landslide. not even beijing's propaganda can credibly blame this massive display of popular revulsion at their authoritarianism on the black hand of the west.

in spite of china's propaganda, the west should not stay silent as beijing seeks to snuff out dissent in hong kong. just a few days prior, mr. president, the congress and president trump sent our clearest signal yet. yes, the united states of america stands with hong kong. the senate unanimously passed the hong kong human rights and democracy act, and the president signed it into law. it delivered important updates to the original u.s.-hong kong policy act which i authored back in 1992. sprembg -- preserving freedom and promoting democracy has required vigilance from hong kongers since the chinese communists assumed control of the region of the i've been proud to stand with them in that effort. with my original legislation we paved the way for cooperation between hong kong and the united states, codifying and

strengthening economic ties and facilitating the robust exchange of ideas and support of greater democracy in the autonomous region. we've laid the foundation for a u.s.-hong kong relationship that has strengthened both their society and ours and created leverage to hold beijing accountable. back in 1992, i observed that democracy was, quote, finally gaining a tenuous foothold in hong kong. recent months have reminded us how tenuous that foothold can be. they remind us how intent beijing remains on exporting its impressive surveillance state not just within mainland china but also into hong kong and, frankly, all around the world.

so the unanimous senate vote for expanded oversight and firm responses to beijing was welcome news on the streets of hong kong not because the u.s. senate or international nonprofits or anybody else is ginning up these protests as beijing wants people to believe. but because those speaking out for freedom recognize a friend of freedom when they see one. it's been fine to see how invested beijing is in these conspiracy theories that this organic protest movement is actually the work of shadowy puppeteers. a few days ago the parties of foreign ministry took the panicked and laughable step of, quote, sanctioning, and i quote, several american nonprofits and n.g.o.'s such as the international republican institute, the national democratic institute, and the

national endowment for democracy. like i said, mr. president, laughable. i admire the heck out of these organizations, but they aren't exactly in the business of commanding millions of people from hong kong to beirut to baghdad to tehran to take to the streets. they're not that good. here's the business they are in. speaking up for the timeless and universal principles of basic human freedom. they help keep the torch lit. it's the brave souls around the world who want better lives for themselves and their children who pick up the ball and run with it for themselves. the junior varsity tantrum that beijing is throwing against u.s.-based organizations is literally comical. it puts the communist party's hypersensitivity on full display and it's the same flailing we see from other regimes from

moscow to tehran, driven by the same aggressive author authoritarian instincts that push police violence and the modern-day gulags where china is imprisoning and brutalizing the uighur people. so, mr. president, these are forces of history, never judge us kindly. so i'm proud of the people of hong kong. i'm proud of the senate's latest action to support them. and i'm proud of continuing to stand alongside them in their journey to true self-determination. now on a related matter, nearly every day i've come to the floor to talk about the key pieces of legislation that we'll only be able to complete with bipartisan cooperation. really essential things like

funding for the entirety of our federal government, something we have to do, including for our men and women in uniform. the money for the tools and the training and the weapons that our volunteer service members need to complete their missions. things like the national defense authorization act which congress has passed every single year always on a bipartisan basis for the last 58 years. this is literally the bill that reauthorizes the u.s. military. it could not be more basic or fundamental. so it's dismaying that my democratic colleagues have seen fit to hold these basic duties hostage for the sake of picking fights with the white house. for advancing a partisan

domestic agenda. it's disappointing that speaker pelosi and the democratic leader have abandoned their own written promises that they would not make our bipartisan appropriations process conditioned on poison pills, policy riders or changes to presidential transfer authorities. all those commitments were made. even though they put that in writing, they've chosen to shoehorn partisan demands right back into the process. so we're stalled. we're stalled because the agreement that we all reached in the summer has not been honored by the other side. but today, mr. president, i want to keep this really simple. the senate's dispensation on that hong kong legislation proves that we can still work together when our core principles and our national interests are at stake. of course those things are

exactly what's at stake with defense funding and the ndaa. so it's way past time -- we're in december -- way past time to get serious. chairman shelby and chairwoman lowey have agreed on subcommittee allegations -- allocations. chairman reed have made strides on our bipartisan ndaa. i would implore my democratic friends, please stop gambling our national security on the roulette wheel of domestic politics. please stop that. stop putting political theater ahead of our troops. we all know this is a heated political moment, but domestic politics do not excuse our men and women in uniform from doing their duties so they cannot excuse our democratic colleagues

from doing theirs. our service members need congress to have their backs. we can only fund the government if it's bipartisan. we can only pass an ndaa if it's bipartisan. the road maps are in hand. we have the same traditions that have yielded 58 bipartisan ndaa's in a row. we have the bipartisan agreement that everyone signed just a few months ago when speaker pelosi and the democratic leader promised in writing, in writing they wouldn't throw partisan wrenches into appropriations. our country can't afford for democrats to obsess over impeachment and obstruct everything else. so look, let's use these road

maps. let's get these things accomplished. for the american people. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. thune: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. thune: is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. thune: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, 4g technology is pretty amazing. when i talk about 4g technology, that stands for fourth generation. on your smartphone, it might say l.t.e., but it's the fourth generation of technology that we have available to us on our wireless devices. we can facetime with family members across the country, order dinner or groceries without leaving our couch, watch a football game on the go with our phones, adjust the heat in our houses before we actually get home. carry around an entire library in a tablet the size of one small book. deposit a check without actually

visiting the bank. and the list goes on. but as amazing as 4g technology is, it hadn't hold a candle to 5g, fifth generation technology. 5g mobile broadband technology will deliver speeds that are up to 100 times faster than what today's technology can deliver. think about that, mr. president. 100 times faster downloads than what we have today. it will be vastly more responsive than 4g technology. it will be able to connect to 100 times the number of devices that can be connected with 4g. that's pretty hard to imagine, really. our phones and computers today seem pretty fast and responsive, but 5g will be much, much faster. and while that will make it even easier to do the things that we do today like check our e-mail or stream our favorite shows, the biggest benefits of 5g,

mr. president, lie in the other technologies that it will enable. for example, 5g has the potential to pave the way for the widespread adoption of precision agriculture which uses tools like robotics and remote monitoring to help farmers manage their fields and boost their crop yields. u.s. department of agriculture estimates that precision agriculture will reduce farmers' operational costs by up to $25 per acre and increase farmers' yield by up to 70% by the year 2050. 5g will pave the way for automated vehicles which have the potential to dramatically reduce traffic injuries and fatalities. there are 37,000 people lost every year on america's highways due to traffic accidents. over 90% of those are a result of human error, driving under the influence, driving while distracted. 5g technology and the enablement of automated vehicles will go a long ways toward saving lives on america's highways.

it will facilitate surgical innovations and new ways to treat chronic illnesses or heal injuries. and so much more. the technology for 5g, mr. president, is already here. several cities around the united states, including my hometown, sue falls have 5g networks. but there's more to do before we can start to see the benefits of 5g on our phones. the widespread deployment of 5g will require two things, adequate spectrum and adequate infrastructure. while 4g relies on cellphone towers, 5g will also require small antennas called small cells that can often be attached to infrastructure like utility poles or buildings. i introduced the streamline act to make it easier for companies to deploy these small cells to get the infrastructure in place for 5g technology.

i secured adequate spectrum for 5g. last year the president signed into law my bipartisan bill called the mobile now act. it was legislation that i introduced to help secure adequate spectrum and it to facilitate next-generation infrastructure. tomorrow in my subcommittee, i will be chairing a hearing looking at the progress that has been made in implementing the mobile now act. wrea have a great slate of witnesses testifying, including the sue falls mayor who introduced the advanced 5g technology. the mobile now act has helped us make progress toward the deployment of 5g, particularly in identifying licensed spectrum that can be used to support 5g technology. mobile now recognized the critical role that other spectrum plays in 5g.

wi-fi operating will have an increasing role as we continue to connect more devices in the 5g era. there's more work to be done. while we've made good progress on securing low and high-band spectrum, china and south korea are ahead of us. we don't want to lose out to china and south korea on 5g so we need to increase the amount of mid-span spectrum available to u.s. companies. senator wicker and i recently introduced legislation to facilitate the acquisition of the spectrum. it will bring a substantial amount of spectrum to the market for u.s. companies to deploy robust 5g networks. in addition to fostering dre mendus technological breakthroughs from agriculture to energy, 5g can add $500 billion to the economy and to create literally millions-new jobs of but in order to to

achieve those economic benefits, we need to stay at the head of the 5g revolution. the united states lagged behind other countries in deploying 2g and 3g technology which had economic consequences. europe, for example, took the lead in 2g and cornered most of the market in sales and telecom hardware. as 4g emerged, the united states wireless industry stepped forward, investing billions in 4g deployment. the government took steps to make it easier to deploy the necessary infrastructure. mr. president, that's what we've got to do again today. if we want to stay at the head of the race to 5g, the government needs to make sure that wireless companies have access to the necessary spectrum and the ability to efficiently deploy small-cell infrastructure. mr. president, we are right on the edge of the 5g revolution.

and i am confident that the united states can lead the world in 5g just like we did with 4g many we just need to take the last few steps to enable widespread 5g deployment. i look forward to talking with individuals on the front lines of 5g deployment at the hearing tomorrow, inwill continue to -- and i will continue to work with my colleagues to ensure that both the spectrum and infrastructure are in place for 5g technology. mr. president, i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. schumer: mr. president, are we in a quorum? the presiding officer: we are. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. the democratic leader. mr. schumer: the house has released evidence it has on the impeachment of president trump. the report asserted that the

inquiry has uncovered a month's-long effort by president trump to use the powers of his office to solicit foreign interference on his behalf in the 2020 election, unquote. going on to say, quote, the president placed his own personal and political interests above the national interests of the united states. those are extremely serious charges, and the conduct they describe is undoubtedly worthy of congressional investigation, which is precisely what the house impeachment inquiry is designed to do. whatever your party affiliation, it is up to us in congress, and particularly in the senate, to examine the evidence, remain impartial, and treat this matter with the seriousness it deserves. but at the moment, too many members of the president's parties are stretching the bounds of truth in an attempt to defend the president's behavior.

certain members on the other side have par rotted the fiction invented by vladimir putin's intelligence services that ukraine, not just putin, interfered in the 2016 elections. one member repeated this falsehood, recanted on live television and went back to making similar comments a few days later. yesterday leader mcconnell, when asked to set the record straight said that it was a matter for the intelligence committees to look into. well, leader mcconnell, the intelligence committees have looked at it. in fact, according to reports, the republican-led intelligence committee investigated the allegations that ukraine interfered in the 2016 election and found no evidence to support those claims. the republican-led intelligence committee found no evidence and leader mcconnell, and so many of our republican friends, in obeisance to donald trump and

his falsehoods and lies have refused to even rebut that. it's a dark bay for america when a foreign leader who's our enemy can spread a false truth and is either defended or lack of reboughtal from our republican -- rebuttal from our republican colleagues. what the heck is going on here in this america? and david hale, the number three official at president trump's state department, was asked by senator menendez yesterday whether he was aware of any interference by the ukrainians, he said he was not aware. fiona hill, a former n.s.c. official, testified it was a fictional narrative. there is no doubt that the idea of ukrainian interference in 2016 is a hoax, perpetrated by putin's intelligence services, echoed by fox news and acolytes

of president trump who have shown no regard for truth -- none. the fact that republican senators are repeating and amplifying this fiction or playing koh about it -- coy about it is wrong for america, a turning point, a dark point in our history. in my view it shows to the extreme depths to which certain members of the other side will stoop to provide cover to a president accused of serious wrongdoing, a president who almost no americans believe is credible any longer. appropriations, on another matter where we could use some bipartisanship. in 16 days funding for the government will expire. we have several important pieces in place to avoid a shutdown,

including the recent agreement on allocations known as 3302b's. several sticking points remain, but overall this is good news because i believe left to our own devices, congress could work through the final issues and make sure that the government stays open. however, a report came out yesterday suggesting president trump may refuse to sign any funding agreement without securing funding for his border wall first. it -- if all of this seems a little familiar, it's because it is. nearly a year ago exactly the presidentor peeded --er to peedod negotiations by demanding funding for his border wall and the result was the longest government shutdown in history. funding for a border wall was a nonstarter for democrats then and it remains a nonstarter for democrats noun. the votes did not exist even in

the president's own party then and they have not materialized now. we had hoped the president had learned his lesson but appears a year after losing this same battle, the president is considering a repeat of history and another trump shutdown. i hope cooler heads will prevail. i believe they will. but i warned president trump and my republican colleagues, the last trump shutdown was terrible for the american people and terrible for republicans. it is in all of our interests to keep the president away from the appropriations process and avoid another trump shutdown before christmas. finally on snap. today the trump administration announced it had completed a new rule that would potentially throw hundreds of thousands of needy americans off food assistance. let me repeat, hundreds of thousands of people who need

food and have struggled to find employment would be kicked off federal food assistance under a new trump administration rule. right now there are 37 million americans who receive assistance under the government assistance program. the vast majority of them work, but they don't earn enough to feed their families and those who don't qualify for assistance for three months out of every three years, under the new rule, the trump administration would trample on states' abilities to request waivers to these strict time limits in areas of great unemployment. nearly every state in the union has requested a -- a waiver at one point or another. the trump administration is driving the vulnerable into hunger just as the christmas season approaches. it is heartless, it is cruel,

exposes a deep and shameful cruelness and hypocrisy in this administration. one of the trump administration justifications for these cuts is that they will save the government money. well, two years ago this very month the trump administration blew a more than $1 trillion hole in our deficit with a gargantuan tax cut for corporations and ultrarich. the trump administration argued it was money well spent. now the same administration says we have to pinch pennies when it comes to helping the hungry, particularly around christmastime. this makes the grinch look charitable. the same trump administration that has steered millions of dollars to wealthy agribusinesses and foreign-owned entities is now saying they need to save money by cutting off food aid to poor families who need it. this is jarring hypocrisy. it shows clear as day where this

administration's priorities truly lie, with the rich and powerful, not the most vulnerable members of our society. i yield the floor.

mr. lankford: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: mr. president, we have a debt issue in america.

for some reason we're looking track of that. the economy is so good right now. unemployment is at historic numbers. the inflation numbers have stayed down. more americans are bringing home more take-home pay, which means they can buy more stuff, and more job opportunities are out there. in fact we literally have 1.5 million more job openings in america than we have people looking for work in america. with the economy going so well right now, everyone is losing track of debt and deficit which are not going well right now. last year the federal treasury received in more tax revenue than they have ever received in in the history of the united states which is surprising to some folks that i've talked to that said there was a big tax cut in 2017, so that would mean tax revenue would go down. it didn't. it went up. when that tax cut occurred, more people were able to have more money to be able to bring

home to be able to spend more which created more jobs and there was more investment, and the economy charged up, and so we have more revenue coming in now than what we used to have in. but we still have a $1 trillion deficit. that is the overspending in a single year. the highest amount of revenue we ever had, yet we have epic levels of deficit spending, adding to $23 trillion in total debt as a nation. $23 trillion, it's a number none of us can even fathom. we're approaching a time where it would take the income of every single american for the entire year to be collected as taxes to pay of 0 our debt. we're at 95% total debt to g.d.p. these kind of numbers can't be sustained, and everyone quietly knows it in the back of their mind, but dealing with debt and deficit seems to be one of those

things we'll deal with in the future. someday, someday, someday. i'm here to encourage this body to say we should be taking on the issues of debt and deficit now. the two things that have to occur to be able to get on top of our debt and deficit, one is to get a growing economy where we've growing revenues. we have that now. then we have to be able to deal with federal spending. what would it take to be able to manage federal spending? now we are so far out of balance, $1 trillion, that literally you could shut down the entire department of defense, the department of education, the state department, you could close down every single one of those and we still wouldn't balance in a year. and no one would propose doing that. there is no one-year fix to try to get on top of our deficit. this would be a multiyear process. but just to be able to tell you how bad we've become, if we chipped away at our deficit for the next ten years, for ten years chipped away at our deficit to get us back to just balance, and then we had $100 billion surplus the next year, which would be an enormous

surplus, with $100 billion surplus it would take us 230 years in a row of having $100 billion surplus in our treasury just to be able to deal with our debt. 230 years in a row of $100 billion surplus. again we're not just out of balance. we're way out of balance. and there is no one secret thing that we can do just to be able to get us back on track, but we do need to get started. so that's why our team puts out something we call federal fumbles. the federal fumbles guide is something we put out every single year. it's a group of ideas. it's no magic bullet. it's something our office puts out where we look at areas of inefficiency across the federal government and say why is this happening the way this is happening and what would happen if we continued to do the same things we're doing. are there areas where we could save money and that we'd be okay with as a group? we're not trying to put out partisan ideas. we're just trying to put out

ideas. quite frankly, the federal fumbles guide is not a confrontation for this body. it's the opening salvo in a conversation to say we're bringing our ideas. you may have different ideas, great, bring yours. let's try to figure out how to be able to solve this together, because this last year we paid $371 billion just in interest payments on our debt. this fiscal year we paid $423 billion just in interest. that's $423 billion that's not going to health care, that's not going to transportation, that's not going to basic structure of our government. that's not going to national defense. it's just $423 billion paid in interest payments, and it just goes away. so we're asking questions as we put this federal fumbles guide out. how do we solve this? what are some ideas? we ask simple questions like why

did the social security office pay $11.6 million to deceased beneficiaries in puerto rico? we ask questions like why did the government pay almost $500 million last year on temporary tents -- not buying them -- renting temporary tents across our southern border? was there a better way that could have been done. we ask the questions about the 21 government shutdowns that occurred in the last 40 years including the one this year that cost the the federal taxpayers over $4 billion. if you like the tesla you pull up next to at a stoplight and you gaze at its beauty and think that's a beautiful car, i'm glad you like it. you helped paid for it. because of all the teslas on the road, over $7,000 was paid by you the federal taxpayer. what you should do the a a

stoplight with a person driving a tesla and say it's my turn. i helped pay for the car. why don't you let me drive it for the rest of the day. we ask questions about grants like sea lions in russia, because the united states taxpayer gave almost $2 million to study sea lions in russia last year. we spent $600,000 doing a the documentary on joseph stalin. we spent a big chunk of money actual little studying the russian flu in 1889. why did we do that? some of these things are small, some of these things are very large. we laid out a proposal dealing with prescription drugs because the way the tiering is done on prescription drugs now costs the federal taxpayer $22 billion. $22 billion. and that just because generic drugs were placed on a higher cost branded tier, and so the federal taxpayer and the consumer ended up paying not the generic price, but the more

expensive branded price when they could have paid the lower price. $22 billion just for that one piece. we laid out a whole set of ideas, and we said let's just look at them together. this congress passed $380 million that was sent out to the states to help with election security after the russians were clearly trying to interfere in our elections in 2016, we decided to do something about it to help our states, so that $380 million was sent out to the states to say do the work that needs to be done to upgrade your election security equipment to make sure it's prepared for 2020. as of this last july, of the $380 million that was sent to the states, the states have only spent a little over $100 million of those dollars. they have literally banked the other $250 million and just saved it and said we'll use it some time. 2020 elections are coming, the money was allocated but it's not actually been spent and used for

election security. we want to be able to highlight things and to be able to say there are ways to be able to solve this. we didn't try to bring partisan ideas. we just brought ideas. this is our fifth volume of this. we've had other additions that dealt with other issues and tried to resolve it, and in the back of the book we actually put out what we call the touchdowns in forward progress. at times we complain about what's happening in government but we don't actually identify the good things, and there are a lot of good things that are actually happening. this senate has already passed something called the great act. the great act dramatically increases the way we handle data on grants. about $600 billion a year in the federal government is spent just on grants. we think there needs to be greater oversight on that, and this senate has agreed, and this senate has added something

called the great act and sent it over to the house and said let's try to resolve how we can be more effective at doing grants and to be more transparent in the process, and streamline the data itself to make it easier on those requesting a grant and make it more transparent where those grant dollars are going as well. we don't want to just complain about the way the grants are done. we want to try to actually fix it. and we highlight multiple other areas where we've made real progress in the past year on attacking some of the things we've listed in previous versions of previous federal fumbles. but i do want to remind this body, while we talk about some of these hard issues, we often break off into republican-democrat fights over hard issues. america is more than an economy. and while the economy is extremely important, we're americans, and we're americans together. and while we struggle to deal with hard issues like debt and deficit and what's going to be

done to be able to resolve this, we can't just conveniently go into our corners and make speeches and say we tried. we have to sit down and do hard things and do hard things together. that's why we're opening this conversation. that's why we keep this conversation going, because i do believe that while the economy is important, who we are and how we value each other is just as important, because we have the responsibility to solve this. again, other offices may have other ideas on how to resolve it. great. let's bring all those ideas together. let's get 100 of these books like this and everyone bring their ideas, and then let's actually do the work to be able to solve this in the future. we're americans. we do hard things. this one's going to be hard and it's going to take a long time, but it doesn't get easier if we don't start. and it doesn't get done until we

begin. so i'm challenging us today, let's begin. let's deal with the ways we fumbled the ball in the past and let's solve our debt and deficit together over the years in the future. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: mr. president, i'm here -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: mr. president, i'm on the floor today to urge the united states congress to do the right thing, and that is to allow a vote on this new agreement between mexico and canada and the united states. unbelievably, this agreement was negotiated a year ago. they signed it at the end of november last year, and yet for a year now, congress has refused to take it up.

it's got to go to the house of representatives first so speaker pelosi and the house democrats who control that body have not been willing to at least take it to the floor for a vote. the agreement is such a big improvement over the status quo. the status quo is the nafta agreement, which is 25 years old. the new agreement, again which was negotiated a year ago, is something that canada wants, mexico wants, and the united states wants. and we want it because it's really important to us. it's particularly important to my home state of ohio, i will tell you. our number one trading partner by far is canada. we send about 40% of our exports to one country, canada. and so to have a better agreement with our biggest trading partner and our second biggest trading partner, which is mexico, is really important. alongside mexico, our trade with canada accounts for about

$28 billion a year. and i'm hearing a lot about it. i'm hearing from ohio farmers. they have had a tough time. the combination of bad weather, combination of shrinking market for them in china, a combination of just low commodity prices even going in to the bad weather period last year has made it really tough for farmers. a lot of them are having a very difficult time making ends meet this year. they see the usmca for what it is, which is an expansion of their market. they can sell more stuff to canada and to mexico. that would help them to improve their prices and help them to be able to get through this tough period. so for them, it's a light at the end of the tunnel. if we can get this new trade agreement passed, it means expanded markets for dairy products, for pork, for corn and soybeans and other commodities, bet those prices up and give our farmers a chance to compete on a more level playing field. this is a good thing. that's why they're all for it. businesses really want usmca passed. by the way, i hear mostly from

small businesses about this. because they increasingly have looked to markets overseas, particularly canada and mexico and the state of ohio, and they're concerned that if we don't put this agreement forward, we're going to have a lot of uncertainty out there and they're going to sell less stuff rather than more stuff to these countries. so a lot of small manufacturers in particular sell a lot from ohio to canada and to mexico, and they tell me they want this agreement passed and passed now because it will really help them. my colleagues here in the senate have to be hearing the same thing. when they go home, they have to be hearing from these same people because all around the country when people look at this agreement, they say of course this is better than the status quo for my business. workers, farmers, service providers will all benefit. taken together, our neighbors in canada and mexico now make up the biggest foreign market for u.s. goods anywhere, so these two countries together combined

are the biggest market anywhere in the world. one-third of all american exports in 2019 have gone to canada or mexico, way ahead of all foreign markets. it's about 12 million jobs. so 12 million jobs nationally depend on trade with canada and mexico. i am a former trade lawyer myself, a recovering trade lawyer, and -- i don't practice it today, but i did at one time. i'm also a former member of the trade committee in the house of representatives called the ways and means committee. today i'm a member of the senate finance committee, which is the trade committee over here. in the interim, i was u.s. trade representative for president george w. bush. and i will tell you from all these experiences i have had in trade, i've learned one lesson, which is, yeah, it's complicated. trade has a lot of nuances. it's politically difficult. but it's really important to our

economy. why? because we've got about 5% of the world's population and about 25% of the economy here, and so it's in our interests to access that other 95% of consumers outside of america in order to keep america as a prosperous country. and that's what these trade agreements tend to do. the problem with the nafta agreement, the current one, is that it's 25 years old. and it needs to be updated. it's one of the oldest trade agreements we have, and it's one that is fraught with problems right now, some of which are fixed in this usmca. so the usmca, the successor to it, is a lot better. it creates a more balanced and a more healthy trade relationship with mexico and canada for us. and, again, for the workers and farmers and service providers that i represent and other people in this body represent. the level playing field is important because while trade

works, if it's done properly and fairly, it doesn't work well when you have big trade deficits, when other countries cheat, when they don't play by the rules. and everything in this agreement helps to level that playing field. as an example, right now our trade agreement with canada and mexico doesn't have a lot of things you would expect in a modern agreement like provisions relating to the digital economy. so much of our economy now operates on the internet, and yet there is nothing in the nafta agreement that protects data from tariffs, as an example. another one would be labor and environmental standards which are weak and unenforceable under the current nafta. all of our new trade agreements have labor and environmental agreements and they are enforceable. guess what? usmca does, too. it includes a lot of agreements, a lot of the modern provisions that we have in our more recent trade agreements. i've got a handy little chart here to talk about some of the specific changes between usmca

and nafta. first, the usmca means more jobs. the independent international trade commission did a study, and they said it creates at least 176,000 new jobs. so one, new jobs, usmca, yes, nafta no. and by the way, for my home state of ohio, which is a big auto state, thousands of those jobs are going to be traded in the auto industry, which is a great opportunity for us in america to help to bolster our manufacturing. 176,000 new jobs is significant. 20,000 in the auto industry. in fact, it's going to grow our economy by double the gross domestic product of that which was projected in the trans-pacific partnership. that was an agreement that was done with countries in the pacific region, asia and latin america. it's an agreement that many democrats have praised, and a few years back criticized the administration for not going into the trans-pacific

partnership. but as much as they thought that the trans-pacific partnership was going to be good for our economy, this is even better for our economy. again, it more than doubles the g.d.p. growth, the economic growth as compared to the trans-pacific partnership. second, the agreement does level the playing field, as we talked about. it has enforceable labor and environmental standards. usmca, yes, nafta, no. so another big difference. by the way, these weak standards are one reason we have lost manufacturing jobs to mexico over the years. third, the usmca, as i have said, has new rules for the internet economy. those new rules of the road are really important, particularly to small businesses in ohio and around the country that rely on internet sales for their businesses. unlike all of our mod earp trade agreements, right now there is no chapter in nafta, so none at all as it relates to the digital economy. fortunately, for ohio online

businesses, the usmca has these protections. as an example, small businesses that rely on access to canada and mexico are going to have an easing of their customs burden for small values of their products, so both countries have agreed to raise their cap. i frankly wish they would agree to raise it even more, but this is important both for small businesses that are in the internet economy to save some money from customs and tariffs, but also it simplifies their business, which is fair because the united states has a higher cap. usmca also prohibits requirements that data be localized in mexico and canada. now, this is a big concern around the world. countries say okay, you can do business but you have to localize your data here. in other words, you have to have your servers here and your people in our country. that's not required now under usmca. that can be a huge barrier for small businesses. usmca helps. and finally, it does prohibit tariffs on data, which nafta does not do.

so these are the key provisions to keep the modern economy moving. voting against usmca or not allowing it to come up, which is what's happening right p now, really means you believe these burdens and uncertainties should continue for our small businesses. fourth usmca, goes further than any agreement we've got toward leveling the playing field on steel. steel production in this country is an incredibly important manufacturing sector. in ohio, we're big steel manufacturers, we're proud of that. usmca requires that 70% of the steel in vehicles that are produced under nafta in north america has to be steel from north america. so usmca 70% requirement, nafta, nothing. nothing. and, fifth, there's also an unprecedented requirement in the usmca that's not in any other agreement in the world that

helps to level the playing field considerably by saying between 40% to 45% of vehicles have to be made in nafta countries by workers earning at least $16 an hour. now, we've heard a lot about, well, it's not fair in our dealings with mexico in particular because they have lower wage rates. well, this is being addressed very directly in a way that's never been addressed in any previous agreement. democrats have been talking about this for years many they should hail this as a great breakthrough and allow the nafta agreement to end an allow the usmca to take place because this is better. voting for usmca will also help level the playing field on labor costs between the u.s. and mexico because this new agreement requires that usmca compliant autos and auto parts have a higher percentage of u.s. and north american content. so under the nafta agreement, that requirement for content is 62 money 5%. if you want a car that gets

within the nafta agreement that gets the advantages of nafta that gets to come into the united states at a lower tariff from canada or mexico, 62% of it has to be from nafta countries. under usmca, we raised that 62.5% up to 75%. this means more autos, more auto parts are going to be made here in the united states and you will have fewer imports and fewer jobs in other countries like china or japan or germany. so this is good for us. by the way that 75% is the highest content requirement of any trade agreement we have. that's in usmca. all these things are going to ensure we have more manufacturing jobs in ohio and across the country. frankly, the trump administration, and particularly u.s. trade representative bob lighthizer has listened to democrats' concerns, listened very carefully and incorporated

these concerns into this agreement. now, some of the concerns have also been raised by republicans over the year, but, frankly, when i was u.s. trade representatives it was democrats who mostly raised these concerns about the labor standards being enforceable and ensuring that you had something like the minimum wage that is now in this agreement. these are provisions that democrats have demanded for years and yet now we can't get a vote. they won't let it even be voted on. how does that make sense? how do you explain that? i don't believe any democrat thinks the status quo, nafta, is better than usmca. if they do, i would challenge them to explain to the american people why they think the status quo, nafta, is better than usmca. blocking this trade agreement hurts so many sectors of our economy, as i talked about. it hurts our auto industry and the hardworking men and women who are on the assembly lines, it hurts our farmers. they aren't going to be able to

gain new access to markets in canada and mexico. that's why, by the way, nearly 1,000 farm groups from across the country have come out to strongly support the usmca. blocking the usmca means blocking our farmers out of these markets. with all of these new requirements, all of these fuel improvements -- new improvement, this is not rebranding nafta. it's new, it's different. it's not your father's oldsmobile. it is meaningful changes. in short, usmca is good for jobs, it's good for small businesses, it's good for our farmers, it's good for workers, and it's good for the economy. this is a rare opportunity, my colleagues, to do something that's good for america, do it in a bipartisan way. it can have such a positive impact at a time when our country needs to have us come together and do something that's food for everybody.

so to speaker pelosi and the house democrats, the ball's in your court. we realize that. under the rules up here in the congress as to how you deal with trade agreements, this has to start in the house of representatives. if it were to come to the floor here in the senate, i believe it would pass and pass with a good bipartisan margin because it makes such good sense, but it has to go through the house first. if that agreement did come to the house floor, by the way, i believe logic would prevail and it would pass there as well because i believe members would say here's my choice, and it's a binary choice. do i go with the status quo nafta that i've been complaining about for years or do i go with the new and improved usmca? i think that's a pretty easy vote for a lot of members who look at this objectively and with the interests of their constituents in mind. a vote for the usmca is quite simply a vote for improved market access, more u.s. market,

a more level playing field for u.s. markets. a vote against usmca and blocking it from coming to the floor is a vote to keep nafta. it's as simple as that. a vote against usmca is a vote for the status quo, which is nafta. supporting nafta today means supporting unenforceable labor and environmental standards, nonexistent digital economy provisions, outdated rules of origins provisions that allow more automobiles and auto parts to be manufactured overseas rather than in america. we've got a chance to fix all of this by passing usmca. i'm confident this new agreement will pass if we can get it up for a vote because the american people will demand it. there's plenty of time for politics between now and the 2020 election. right now let's focus on what's best for the american people. let's work together and put them first, and by doing so, let's

pass usmca. i yield back my time. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, i come to the floor today to discuss my friend and my former colleague and soon to be confirmed federal district judge david barlow. last night the senate voted to invoke cloture as to mr. barlow's nomination. we'll be voting later today to confirm him and based on the

support we've got, i expect the vote to be overwhelming and with good reason. david barlow is someone i've known for a long time. he's someone i've known, in fact, for more than 30 years. david barlow and i first met when we were both in high school. oddly enough we met in washington, d.c., while we were both participating in an event known as american legion boys nation. we both attended boys state in our respective states, i in utah and he in idaho and we represented our respective boys states. shortly after we convened as boys nation senators, david barlow was elected as the president pro tem. as a result, when we visited the white house a few days later, it was david barlow who got to stand right next to ronald reagan as he greeted us in the rose garden and addressed boys

nation. david barlow was someone who seemed to have been born for public service. and he was born for public service for all of the right reasons in all of the right ways. he had a certain enthusiasm about the workings of government, not in a partisan way, not in a self-interested way, but in a way that was infectious and made all around him want to build a better country, want to find common ground and want to come to know more about our country's rich histories and tradition. mr. barlow and i became reacquainted about a year after we first met when we both enrolled as students, as freshman, in brigham young university. he was there on a full academic scholarship and did not disappoint with his academic performance many as i recall, he graduated with a 4.0 grade point average from bigham young university with highest honors.

david was smart, but not in a way that made other people feel less smart. he made people feel eager to be enthusiastic about the democratic process. he wouldn't have talked to other people about outstanding grades or about his wonderful accomplishments. a few years later, we both graduated from b.y.u. he graduated in 1995 from brigham young university and enrolled at yale law school where he received his jurist doctorate degree in 1998. after he graduated. david barlow started his legal career as an associate at the law firm then known as lord bissel and brook in the chicago office. just a couple of years ago, david joined sidly and sus tin in the chicago office and became

a partner in 2006, remained a partner at sidly until 2010. at -- during much of that time, i was an associate at sidly in the washington, d.c., office. i got to know david again through this process, this time as a lawyer, as a professional, and although we worked in different offices as part of the same firm, we knew the same people. and the network of lawyers with whom i worked quickly identify david barlow as one of the lawyers in the firm who could be trusted with anything. one of the lawyers in the firm who, even as a young associate, could be given any task and any lawyer giving him that responsibility could do so with the full assurance that the lient would be well served, that no -- client would be well served, that no ball would be dropped and every stone would be turned over in an effort to properly handle the case.

mr. barlow worked on a wide variety of litigation matters, including complex civil litigation, class actions and products liability cases, he handled a number of domestic violence cases on a pro bono basis. among many of his clients, david barlow became known as dr. barlow. this was ar name assigned to him by some of his clients when he was working on liability cases involving the medical field became so emersed in the subject matter of the litigation that over time he acquired more knowledge in some cases than some of the doctors who were consulting with the client on that same matter. to this day i occasionally refer to him as dr. barlow just for fund. in 2011, shortly after being elected to the united states senate, david barlow joined my team as my chief counsel and

chief staffer on the judiciary committee. he's someone who had never worked on the united states senate prior to that time, but literally within a matter of weeks had learned the ropes of this body to a degree sufficient that no one would have been able to discern the difference between mr. barlow and somebody who worked in the senate for many, many years. he quickly became a favorite within my office. david barlow was someone who we could always turn to in a moment where someone had a question, in a moment of crisis he'd figure out how to solve it, in a moment where we needed an answer to legal question, he either knew the answer or if he didn't know the answer, he would find it in a short period of time, and we could proceed with the correct understanding that when he gave us an answer, it was right. we could rely on it. but the fact that he was so beloved within my office extended far beyond his legal

acumen or his professional abilities. he's also just a delight to be around. he's really funny and he's equally conversant in a wide variety of material from shakespeare to the old testament to old episodes of 30 rock and saturday night live. he's got a sophisticated sense of humor that manages to be out ragesly funny while never inappropriate, and that's a skill that we in utah try to attain and very few are able to achieve. later in 2011, president obama chose david barlow to serve as the united states attorney for utah. this was a bittersweet thing for me and my staff. but we were happy for david and the state of utah who were the

beneficiaries of his outstanding service as the u.s. attorney general. having previously worked in the u.s. attorney office myself as an assistant u.s. attorney, i stayed in contact with many of my former colleagues, all of whom came absolutely to love this outstanding public servant. david served as u.s. attorney through 2014 at which point he returned to his partnership at sidley austin and worked in the firm's washington, d.c. office. in 2017 he joined walmart as vice president over compliance for the company's health and wellness visit. i still remember the moment when someone reviewing him for that position prior to the time he had been offered the job called to ask me what i thought about his qualifications for that job. i explained at the outset to this reviewer that it would be -- my comments regarding david barlow would be so overwhelmingly positive that she would think i was joking. i was in fact not. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to deliver my remarks to

an extent not to exceed four minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. lee: thank you, mr. president. needless to say he got the job. he flourished there has he has everywhere else. then in 2018 david barlow to the great happiness of many of us in utah who know and love him decided to return to utah and he joined dorsey and whitney l.l.p. as a partner in the firm's salt lake city office. for the past several years, david barlow has had a practice that's focused again on handling government enforcement actions, internal investigations which have typically been large, multijurisdictional matters. he's someone who knows how to handle complex litigation. i'd also like to note, mr. president, that since i first met david barlow, i've also gotten to know david barlow's family.

they're extraordinary people. david's wife, crystal, and their children, david's parents bruce and emily barlow in fact used to live just a couple doors down from me in utah. they are as kind and decent a people as you would every hope to meet. while one's parents certainly can't independently qualify one for service in a lifetime article 3 judicial appointment, if ever one could qualify through that route, that would probably qualify him here simply because david and bruce -- bruce and emily barlow are perhaps the most kind and decent people i've ever met. the warmest, loveliest neighbors anyone could ever hope to have. for all these reasons, mr. president, and based on mr. barlow's mastery of the law, his professionalism, his kindness, his demeanor, his collegiality which i have never heard questioned or in any way

called into question, david barlow is qualified to be a united states district judge. and i'm grateful that he'll be serving once he's confirmed as judge on the u.s. court -- district court for the district of utah. i urge my colleagues to support his confirmation and look forward to voting for him later today. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of richard ernest myers ii of north carolina to be united states district judge for the eastern district of north carolina signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory

quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of richard ernest myers ii of north carolina to be united states district judge for the eastern district of north carolina shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote: