one as a group. >> so help you god. >> then as individual. >> ms. mikulski. >> i do. >> and then third, you go into the well and you sign a book for all of history where i hereby barbara mikulski, u.s. senator from maryland, do pledge in render impartial justice on the matter of impeachment. now, your happened shakes with that kind of historical and immediate commitment. >> the impeachment of president trump, today the house votes on impeachment manager, sending the article from abuse of power and obstruction of congress to the senate. live on c-span, c-span.org/impeachment and listen live on the c-span radio app. >> today we expect the u.s. senate to receive the articles of impeachment from the house

of representatives at 5 p.m. eastern. and you can see that here on c-span2. now, live to the floor of the u.s. senate. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, we whisper our prayer boldly before your throne of grace. you have invited us to come to you with all our needs. we thank you for our requests

that you have already answered. we have sought and found. we have knocked and walked through open doors. lord, with your grace and mercy, strengthen our lawmakers for their journey. prepare them for the ravages of the valley and the chill of the mountain summits. guide them, great redeemer. they are pilgrims on this earth. they are weak, but you are mighty. inspire them to keep their eyes on you and not the problems that

seem too difficult to solve. we pray in your holy name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me 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 senator from iowa. mr. grassley: can i address the senate for one minute in morning business? the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: when president obama signed the iran deal, we

were led to believe that this are a -- rapproachment would get iran to address its foreign policy and iran would likely spend the money made available through that dale on economic development -- deal on economic development through the good of its people. instead under the direction of general soleimani iran accelerated its efforts at regional domination, funding terrorist organizations like hamas and hezbollah in the palestinian territories and in lebanon, proiranian militias in iraq, the assad regime in syria and the houthi rebels fomenting civil war in yemen. iran did all that with money from the iran agreement.

meanwhile the suffering iranian people staged widespread demonstrations against their government which were met with violent crackdown that killed hundreds. years of appeasement didn't work. but it looks like president trump's deterrence is having positive effect. i yield the floor. mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: today it appears the house democratic majority will finally stand behind its decision to impeach the president of the united states. last year the house of representatives rushed through the least thorough and most unfair impeachment inquiry in american history. they took just 12 weeks -- 12 weeks. there was more than a year of hearings before the impeachment of president nixon. there were multiple years of

investigation for president clinton. when people are serious about compiling evidence and proving a case, these things take time. that's not what happened this time. house democrats performed a pale imitation of a real inquiry. they did not pursue their own subpoenas through the courts. they inclined to litigate potential questions of privilege. they pulled the plug as soon as speaker pelosi realized she had enough democratic votes to achieve a political outcome. so, mr. president, this isn't really about ukraine policy or military assistance money. it can't be, because for one thing, prominent democrats were promising to impeach president trump years, years before those events even happened.

the day this president was inaugurated "the washington post" said the campaign to impeach president trump has begun. that was the day he was inaugurated, in the "washington post." more than two years ago congressman jerry nadler was campaigning to be the top democrat on the house judiciary committee specifically because he was an impeachment expert. and just a few weeks ago when a he reporter asked speaker pelosi why the democrats are in such a hurry, here was her response -- speed? it's been going on for 22 months, two and a half years actually. now that's really interesting. really, really interesting. the events over which the democrats want to impeach happened just six months ago. just six months ago, not two and a half years ago. so how has impeachment been underway for two and a half

years? the speaker tried to say she was referring to the mueller investigation, except the house couldn't impeach on the mueller investigation because the facts let them down. remember? the house impeached over events in ukraine, events that happened only six months ago. but they still admit this was years in the making. it was not, mr. president, some earnest fact-finding mission that brought us to where we are. this is not about the nuances of foreign assistance to eastern europe. this has been naked partisanship all along. naked partisanship all along. if that weren't already obvious, our colleague, the senate democratic leader, helpfully removed any shred of doubt just this past weekend.

here's what he said. he told reporters as long as he can try to use the trial to hurt some republican senators' reelection chances, then whatever happens, quote, is a win-win. that's the democratic leader. this is a stunning statement. presidential impeachment may be the gravest process our constitution contemplates. it undoes the people's decision in a national election, going about it in this subjective, unfair and rushed way is corrosive to our institutions. h hurts national unity, and it virtually guarantees -- guarantees -- that future houses of either party will feel free, free to impeach any future president because they don't like him. they don't like him, impeach him. that's the message coming out of this. but as long as our colleague, the democratic leader, can weaponize this process in the next election, he thinks it's a

win-win. that really says it all, doesn't it. that really sums it up. this partisanship led house democrats to cross a rubicon that every other house of representatives had avoided for 230 years. they passed the first presidential impeachment that does not even allege an actual crime under our laws. we had a 230-year tradition of rejecting purely political impeachments, and it died last month in this house of representatives. so speaker pelosi and the house have taken our nation down a dangerous road. if the senate blesses this unprecedented and dangerous house process by agreeing that an incomplete case and a subjective basis are enough to impeach a president, we will almost guarantee the impeachment

of every future president of either party when the house doesn't like that person. this process of last constitutional resort will be watered down into the kind of anti-democratic recall measure that the founding fathers explicitly, explicitly did not want. the senate was designed to stabilize our institutions, to break partisan fevers, to stop short-term passions from destroying our long-term future. house democrats may have descended into pure factionalism, but the united states senate must not. this is the only body that can consider all factors presented by the house, decide what has or has not been proven, and choose what outcome best serves the nation.

this, mr. president, is what we must do. so for the information of all senators, with the house signaling they will move forward later today, members can expect to receive further guidance about the logistics and practicalties of the next several session days in short order. now, mr. president, on an entirely different matter before the senate shifts into the trial, we hope to complete an enormous accomplishment for this administration, and most importantly for american families. it's now been more than a year -- a year -- since president trump hammered out the usmca with the governments of mexico and of canada. these two neighbors buy more than $500 billion in american goods and services every single year. they buy nearly 30% of all the food and agriculture products we

export to the entire word. and for 90% of our manufacturing sectors, mexico or canada rank as the number one or number two export destination. over the past quarter of a century, 12 million u.s. jobs have come to depend on trade with mexico and canada. that includes many livelyhoods in my home state of kentucky from agriculture to manufacturing to aerospace and motor vehicles to our signature industries like distilled spirits. that's why workers, families, and small businesses in kentucky and around the nation have been clamoring to get this deal done for a year now. and in addition to all the american livelihoods that this commerce already supports, experts predict the usmca will create 176,000 new jobs as well. so on behalf of all these americans, we were troubled to see speaker pelosi slow walk this agreement for the better

part of a year. but finally late last year the overwhelming bipartisan pressure to move forward made an impact on the house, so we are finally on the threshold of approving this agreement and sending it to president trump's desk to become law. our colleagues on the finance committee have already approved it by an overwhelming margin. other committees of jurisdiction are wrapping up their consideration as we speak, and very soon we hope the senate will be able to vote on the floor and put this landmark accomplishment right on the president's desk. a major win for kentucky and for all 50 states, a major win for our country, a major win for the trump administration, a major win for those of us who are already ready to move past this season of toxic political noise and get back to doing even more of the american people's business. mr. president, i understand there's a bill at the desk due a

second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill. the clerk: s. 3193, to list fentanyl related substances as schedule 1 substances and for other purposes. mr. mcconnell: in order to place the bill on the calendar i would object to further proceedings. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bill will be placed on the calendar. under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. mr. mcconnell: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. durbin: mr. president,. the presiding officer: the democratic whip. the i ask conse quorum call be suspended. i would like to address comments made this morning by the majority leader, the senator from kentucky. the first related, as most of his comments recently on the pending impeachment trial in the united states senate. i listened carefully to his arguments that the house and senate have moved too quickly on this matter. it is true that they moved with

dispatch, and i think it reflects the fact that the charges that have been made were timely, important, and relevant to the election campaign cycle which we now face. the charges in the impeachment articles suggest the president, in conversation with the president of ukraine, asked for help in the campaign that is about to ensue, asking specifically for investigative material on the son of former vice president joseph biden. and at the same time, the president was withholding military assistance voted by the appropriations committee in congress to ukraine as they continue to battle with russia. these are serious charges, and they were based on a telephone conversation last july. it is true that the effort by the house of representatives has been timely and by measurement of previous impeachment investigations much faster. but i believe that the

timeliness is one of the important elements here because we are facing this campaign. secondly, there was an argument made by the majority leader that the impeachment articles which we're about to receive in the senate do not state that a crime was committed. i would refer the majority leader to the constitution, as well as to precedent in the united states senate. the actual allegation of a crime is not required for impeachment. i think the senator from kentucky knows that. the last point that he makes is one that i think is very important, and that is that there has been some delay by speaker pelosi in sending the impeachment articles to the united states senate. i would say during the course of the period since they were first voted on last december in the house and their arrival in the senate this week, we have seen several things of importance unfold, not the least of which was a recent disclosure of new evidence and new witnesses that have been collected since the

house voted on the articles of impeachment. in the eyes of many, it's relevant evidence, and the fact that that information is now available to the senate means that we have a better chance of arriving at the truth after deliberation. secondly, i might add that it is encouraging that some republican members of the united states senate have made it clear that they oppose the notion of a motion to dismiss the impeachment charges as soon as they arrive. that might have been the dream of some in the white house, perhaps even some in the united states senate, but cooler heads have prevailed, and i salute my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who believe that we have a special responsibility to treat this constitutional assignment with independence and dignity, and that means that we don't prejudge by coming to the floor and announcing in some critical terms that the impeachment articles should not be taken seriously. we should take them seriously. it is a serious matter, and i

hope colleagues on both sides of the aisle will do that. the majority leader, senator mcconnell, also addressed the usmca. this is characterized as the nafta 2 or the new draft grade between the united states, canada, and mexico. as he noted, trade among our three countries is critically important to all of us and certainly to the american economy and to my home state of illinois. our trade with mexico and canada eclipses all the other trade around the world and is important especially to our agricultural sector. just last weekend, in my hometown of springfield, illinois, i held an historic press conference. i brought together the president of the illinois stayed afl-cio, tim dray, of christian county in central illinois, and dick gephardt, who is the president of the illinois farm bureau, both of whom, through their organizations, support the usmca

trade agreement that is about to come before congress. there were a lot of smiles and laughter in the room as these two friends of mine noted that it's the very first time they have ever come together at a press conference -- organized labor and the farmers of the state of illinois. they both agree that this usmca trade agreement is a step forward, an improvement over the original nafta. they both endorse it, and i do, too. i also want to add the suggestion that somehow speaker pelosi, in the words of the majority leader, slow-walked the usmca really in a way that ignores the obvious. in the period of time between the original submission of the usmca and the vote that's taken place -- will take place soon in the united states senate, changes have been made to the treaty which -- trade agreement which the president submitted to congress. important changes. for example, there was a

provision in the trade agreement submitted by the president to congress that was a dream come true for the pharmaceutical industry of the united states. it extended the period of time of exclusivity for certain by logical drugs in that treaty. what it meant was that these pharmaceutical companies could continue to charge the highest prices on earth to american consumers while delaying any competition from generic drugs. that was a deal breaker as far as i was concerned. i told everyone involved i would not support the president's original usmca with that sweetheart deal for the pharmaceutical industry. thank goodness because of speaker pelosi, our leader on the senate side, senator schumer, and many others, we had that provision removed. now, the majority leader is criticizeing speaker pelosi for slow-walking. i didn't see it as slow-walking. i see it as bargaining, negotiating, and coming up with

a result which made this trade agreement more acceptable to people on both sides of the aisle. there was also language which the democrats insisted on ultimately included in the usmca which provides additional protection for workers in the united states when it comes to the competition with workers in mexico and canada, which provides for additional inspections of production facilities in those other countries, if there is a suspicion that they are engaging in the treatment of workers in an unacceptable manner. in other words, we put more enforcement provisions in the treaty over the last year while it's been before congress, as we should. exactly what the american people want. and for the senator to come to the floor and criticize this as somehow negative and political and slow-walking, i think those two things i have just mentioned are substantive and important and go to the heart of why this agreement now has strong bipartisan support, which it should have had. i think we have added to this

process by making it truly bipartisan. now, mr. president, i'd like to make a separate statement in the record. thank you, mr. president. this week, the house of representatives will have the opportunity to stand up for student borrowers who have been defrauded by the schools they attended. the house of representatives will be voting on a resolution introduced by representative suzy lee of nevada which will allow defrauded student loan borrowers relief from their student debt. under the higher education act, currently the law of the land, when a student borrower is defrauded by their school, they are entitled to have their federal student loans to attend that school discharged. that's what the law says. why? the logic behind it is very straightforward. consider the following -- the federal government recognizes the accreditation of these

schools, colleges, and universities, and authorizes these schools to offer loans from the federal government to pay for the cost of attending. it's a very straightforward process. the schools are accredited. the united states government recognizes the accreditation and authorizes the school to offer courses to students and then goes on to say that students attending those colleges and universities will qualify for federal student loans. now, that's where this particular statement i'm about to make becomes particularly relevant. the school makes promises about the education that they're going to offer to the students to entice them to attend and to borrow money to attend. for example, the school may tell the students that the credits that they earn at this school can be transferred to other schools, but sometimes that turns out to be untrue and

false. these schools may tell the students that there are jobs waiting for them in the fields that they want them to study at the schools. they tell them that after graduation, there are plenty of employment opportunities, and oftentimes that turns out to be untrue. in fact, in the case of some of these schools, they have deliberately misrepresented the job placement of graduates to create the impression of success if you complete a course. the schools are lying to the students. the school they also promise, that if you complete a course at the school, you will automatically be qualified for certain certifications under state law. sometimes that turns out to be a lie. they may also tell the students there are certain teachers and courses available to them if they pay their tuition. that may turn out to be untrue as well. the law that i referred to

earlier says that when these types of lies and misrepresentations occur and the student is misled into borrowing federal student loans based on these misrepresentations, the defrauded student can be relieved of the student loan responsibility under the law. it makes sense. if the student is lied to, takes out a federal loan, and it turns out the school lied to them and defrauded them, we don't want the students saddled with a loan from that school that could literally change their lives. and now we have a new secretary of education under president trump, betsy devos. she has decided to rewrite the rules when it comes to these students receiving relief from the fraud that i have just described. she places burdens on these students that we have not seen

before. basically, she is saying to the students lawyer up. you just can't make your plea to the department of education that you along with a group of other students were defrauded by representations in the materials that they distributed or the statements they made. not good enough under the new rule made by secretary devos. what she has basically said is that each one of these students now has an individual responsibility to prove that that student was defrauded, that there was a representation to that student as opposed to being made by the school to all of the students or in its publications and the like. the burdens which secretary devos now places on defrauded students have led to estimates that only 3% of the students who have been defrauded can possibly expect to receive relief from their student debt. 3%. you might say well, these things

happen. it's a buyer beware market. students ought to know better. really? when the federal government recognizes an accredited school and says to that school you can offer federal student loans, do we not bear some responsibility to the student and the family if that school lies and misrepresents facts to the students? 78% of americans happen to think yes. we don't want to have students in a predicament where their own futures are going to be somehow compromised because of the fraud by the school. how many students are affected by this? a handful? no. it turns out a dramatically large number. over the last decade, hundreds of thousands of college students in america have been defrauded in ways that i just described, lured into enrolling in classes with false promises and aggressive tactics, only to be left with massive student debt and a worthless education and no job. sadly, it's a common occurrence

in the for-profit college industry. that industry, the for-profit college industry, is an industry that can be best described by two numbers -- 9% of high school graduates enroll in for-profit colleges and universities in america. think about the university of phoenix, devry in the city of chicago and others. 9% of students end up at schools like that. and yet, 33% of all the student loan defaults, college student loan defaults are students from these for-profit colleges and universities. 9% of the students, 33% of the student loan defaults. why? the tuition is too high. the education is virtually worthless, and there are no jobs at the end of the rainbow. some of these schools, for-profit colleges like corinthian, i.t.t. tech, westwood, dream center preyed on students and reaped huge profits

and then conveniently went bankrupt. they may be gone, legally gone, but the debts for the students still live. others like ashford, university of phoenix, career education corporation, still out there doing business. virtually all of these notorious schools have been the subject of multiple state and federal lawsuits for unfair and deceptive abuse and practices. they create more student victims due to the lack of enforcement by our own u.s. department of education and loopholes in the laws which sadly congress has been unwilling or unable to close. currently there are more than 223,000 claims made by students of being defrauded and seeking relief under the higher education act. over 200,000 student borrowers whose lives have been altered by

these worthless defrauding schools. they are big and small, red, blue, and purple, over 11,000 from my state of illinois, over 19,000 from the state of florida, 7,800 from ohio, 6,100 from north carolina, 3,800 from colorado, 1,000 from west virginia, 200 in alaska, 285 in maine. it is believed these defrauded borrowers and future defrauded borrowers deserve help. they believe the student low loans -- student loans should be forgiven if the schools defrauded them. that includes democrats and republicans. this new rule would not allow borrowers to receive the federal loan discharge curtly in the law. it is why more than 60 organizations are supporting the

resolution which the house will vote on this week and the companion resolution i introduced in the senate. among those supporting our effort, the american federation of teachers, the national education association, the student veterans of america, and one that i want to highlight. i see there are others on the floor preparing to speak so i'm going to abbreviate my remarks here, but i want to make one last point. among the groups supporting our efforts to undo the borrower defense rule promulgated by secretary of education devos is the american legion and the american legion sent me a letter last month and among other things in support of our effort to undo the devos rule that it has been fundamentally unfair to veterans. listen to what they say about the plight of veterans currently having been defrauded by schools trying to get relief from their loans. this is from james bill oxford,

national commander of the american legion. and he writes, thousands of student veterans have been defrauded over the year, promised that credits would transfer when they wouldn't, given false or misleading job placement rights, promised something when recruited but given something completely different. this type of deception has been a lucrative scam for unscrupulous actors as veterans are aggressively targeted due to their service to our country, they must be afforded the right to group leaf. the department of education's borrower defense rule eliminates that right. i ask unanimous consent that this be placed in the record with my statement. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: and i have an additional letter from the commonwealth of massachusetts office of the attorney general. i ask consent that it be included as well. are. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: thank you, mr. president. i will conclude.

i see my colleagues on the floor. democrats and republicans will have a chance to undo the mess created by the secretary of education, and you can stand for the student loan borrowers, how many speeches have been delivered on the floor about the men and women who served and how much we honor them. honor them by voting to undo the rule by secretary devos. i yield the floor. mr. thune: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. thune: mr. president, later today the president will sign phase one of the trade agreement we're negotiating with china. of particular importance to my state, phase one includes a college from china to increase its imports of american

agricultural products. that's good news for south dakota. it's good news for farmers and ranchers who have been struggling in a tough agriculture economy. low economy, natural disasters and protracted trade disputes have made the last few years challenging ones for farmers and ranchers around the country. i spent a lot of time in south dakota talking to our farmers and ranchers, and they emphasize the need for trade deals that will open up new markets or expand current markets for their products the china deal should increase the demand for agricultural products. while this agreement is excellent news, we do need to make sure that china will actually live up to its commitments. china doesn't have the best record in this regard and so it's important that the united states make clear that any agreements must be honored. as we wait for the china deal to take effect, one piece of definite good news on the trade front is the arrival in the

senate of the united states-mexico-canada agreement. after months of delay by house democrats, usmca has finally -- finally moving through congress. here in the senate it's advancing rapidly through the required committees and i expect it will be received for final senate consideration in the next few days. last week i voted in support of this agreement in the senate finance committee, and a few minutes ago i voted for this agreement in a meeting of the senate commerce committee. this has been a big priority of mine particularly because of the ways the agreement would benefit farmers and ranchers. canada and mexico had are the number one and two markets for agricultural markets and this will give farmers certainty about what these markets are going to look look going forward. i'm particularly pleased about the ways that usmca will benefit dairy farmers. if you drive the i-29 corridor

north of brookings, south dakota, you can see first hand the major dairy expansion that south dakota experienced over the past several days -- years. the u.s. united states-mexico-canada agreement will help dairy farmers and substantially expand market access to canada. the u.s. national trade commission estimates that the agreement will boost u.s. dairy exports by more than $277 million. the agreement will expand market access for u.s. poultry and egg producers and make it easier to export wheat to canada and much more. the benefits of this agreement is not limited to farmers and ranchers. the united states-mexico-canada agreement will benefit virtually every sector of the economy from manufacturing to digital services to the automotive industry. it will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs, boost our

economic output and increase wages for workers. the agreement also breaks new ground by including a chapter specifically focused on small- and medium-sized businesses, the first time a u.s. trade agreement included a dedicated chapter on this topic. roughly 120,000 small and smalld medium-sized businesses around this country export goods and services to mexico and canada, including a number of businesses in south dakota. the united states-mexico-canada agreement will make it easier for these businesses to successfully export their products. south dakota businesses and consumers will also benefit from the fact that the agreement maintains the de minimis threshold which is something i fought hard to protect. mr. president, it is too bad that farmers and ranchers had to wait so long for the usmca trade agreement. this agreement was concluded well over a year ago and it could have been taken up much,

much sooner. but house democrats have been for mowfd on playing political games than on working with republicans to do the american people's business. i'm very glad that we are taking up this agreement now, though, and i look forward to voting for final passage of usmca in the very near future. mr. president, we should get this agreement to the president's desk without delay. 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:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: are we in a quorum? the presiding officer: we are. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: now, mr. president, today is a momentous, historic,

solemn day in the history of the united states senate and in the history of our republic. the house of representatives will send articles of impeachment against president trump to the senate, and the speaker will appoint the house managers of the impeachment case. two articles will be delivered. the first charges the president with the abuse of power, coercing a foreign leader into interfering in our elections, using the powers of the presidency, the most powerful public office in the nation to benefit himself. the second charges the president with obstruction of congress for an unprecedented blockade of the legislature's authority to oversee and investigate the executive branch. let's put it a different way. the house of representatives has accused the president of trying to shake down a foreign leader for personal gain to help him in

his campaign and has done everything possible to cover it up. this administration is unprecedented in not being open in its desire for secrecy, in its desire to prevent the public from knowing what it's doing. and it's worst of all when it comes in an impeachment trial. the two offenses are the types of offenses the founders had in mind when they designed the impeachment powers of congress. now, americans and the founding fathers in particular from the very founding day of the republic have feared the ability of a foreign power to interfere in our elections. americans never wanted a foreign power to have sway over our elections, but that is what president trump is doing or soliciting in these articles. i would ask my colleagues, i would ask the american people -- do we want a foreign power

determining who our president is, or do we want the american voter to determine it? it's that serious. it's that serious. that is the essential question. who should determine who's our president and our other elected officials? from the early days of the republic, foreigners have tried to interfere, and from the early days of the republic, we have resisted. but according to these articles, and in other things he has done, president trump seems to aid and abet it. his view is if it's good for him, that's good enough. that is not america. we are a nation of laws, rule of law, not of the rule of one man. so the senate's job is to now try the case, to conduct a fair trial, to determine if these very severe charges, very

severe, letting, aiding, abetting, encouraging a foreign power to interfere in our elections and then threatening them with the cutoff of aid. our job is to try the case because the president's offenses merit, if they are proven, the most severe punishment our constitution imagines. the house has made a very strong case, but clearly senators have to see that case and watch it firsthand, and a fair trial means that the prosecutors making the case and the president's counsel providing the defense have all, all the evidence available. it means that senators have all the facts to make an informed decision. that means relevant witnesses. that means relevant documents. and we all know that. we all know, every member of

this body, democrat or republican, that you can't have a fair, open trial, particularly on something as weighty as impeachment when we don't have the evidence and the facts. and the precedents of the senator are clear. leader mcconnell is constantly citing precedent. well, here's one. the senate has always heard from witnesses in impeachment trials. there have been 15 completed impeachment trials in the history of this country. in every single one of them, the senate heard from witnesses. let me repeat that for leader mcconnell's benefit since he is always citing the precedent of 1999. there have been 15 completed impeachment trials, including the one in 1999 in the history of this country. in every single one of them, the senate heard from witnesses. it would be unprecedented not

to. president johnson's impeachment trial had witnesses, 41 of them. president clinton's trials had witnesses, several of my colleagues, including the republican leader, voted for them. conducting an impeachment trial of a president of the united states with no witnesses would be without precedent and frankly a new low for the majority in this body that history will not look kindly on. each day that goes by, the case for witnesses and documents gains force and gains momentum. last night, a new cache of documents, including dozens of pages of notes, text messages, and other records shed light on the activities of the president's associate in ukraine. the documents paint a sordid picture of efforts by the president's personal attorney, mr. rudy giuliani, and his associate to remove a sitting

u.s. ambassador and pressure ukrainian president zelensky to announce an investigation of one of the president's political rivals. part of the plot to remove ambassadoro van very much -- ambassador yovanovitch involved hiring a cheap republican operative to follow her around and monitor her movements. how low can they go? just when you think that president trump and his network couldn't get possibly any more into the muck, reports suggest they're even dirtier than you could have imagined. i saw a novelist on tv this morning. he said if i had brought this plot to my publisher, he would have rejected it. he said it's absurd, it could never happen, people won't believe it. well, here it is. led by president trump who again cares not for the morals, ethics, and honor of this country as much as he cares

about himself. to allegedly have some cut-rate political operative stalk an american ambassador at the direction of the president's lawyer, potentially with the president's, quote, knowledge and consent -- that's what one of the e-mails said. i mean, how much more can america take in the decline of our morals, our values, our standing in the world? i don't care who you are, democrat, republican, liberal, conservative. doesn't this kind of thing bother you if anyone did it, let alone the president of the united states? i don't know how any member of this body could pick up the newspaper this morning, read this new revelation, and not conclude that the senate needs access to relevant documents like these in the trial of president trump. the release of this new information dramatically underscores the need for

witnesses and for documents. now the republican leader has so far opposed democratic witnesses to call for fact-finding witnesses and subpoena three specific sets of relevant documents. despite having no argument against them. the republican position at the moment is to punt the question of witnesses and documents after each side finishes its presentation. then they say they'll consider documents and witnesses with an open mind. democrats have requested four fact witnesses. they are the president's top advisors like mr. mulvaney. they are not democrats. they are the president's men. they're not democratic witnesses. they are not our witnesses. they are just witnesses plain and simple. each of them has firsthand information about the charges against the president. so as the house prepares to send

the articles to the senate today, it's time for us, all of us to turn to the serious job of conducting a fair trial, one that the american people will accept as fair. noes as a cover-up, not as something that that has hidden e evidence. and the focus of senators on both sides must fall on the question of witnesses and documents. now, on china, later this morning, the president's expected to take part in a signing ceremony for the so-called phase one trade agreement with china. now, i have commended the president for its inspingts when it comes to china. its instincts were at one point to be strong and tough. i have compared his stances favorably to previous administrations. i was rooting for the president to succeed for the sake of jobs and wealth and economy in this

country. and i've told them that personally, so this phase one deal is an extreme disappointment to me and to millions and millions of americans who want to see us make china play fair. president trump's phase one trade deal with china is a historic blunder. several harmful policies and practices are reportedly unaddressed. first, there appear to be no commitments to end china government's subsidy program that continues to hurt u.s. industries and workers. at all levels. second, there appear to be no commitments to reform the chinese policy of state-owned enterprises that unfairly compete with american -- american enterprises and take american jobs away while they're allowed to freely sell here while our best companies can't sell there. third, there appear to be no commitments to curtail the

illegal dumping of chinese products into our markets, which puts american firms out of business and workers out of a job. fourth, glaringly, there appear to be no significant commitments to definitely end china's predatory and flagrant cyber theft of american intellectual property, which has stolen a generation of american jobs and american wealth. fifth, concerning what the deal achieves in terms of agricultural purchases, it appears the trump administration has not addressed the fact that china has existing contracts with countries like brazil and argentina. they don't need any more of our products, certainly not the amount that's been talked about. and the agreement does not grapple with the fact that american farmers have already lost billions, watched their markets disappear, and gone bankrupt in the time it took the

president to reach the deal. reading the reporting of phase one of the trade deal feels like watching a bad rerun of botched trade negotiations with china. i fear that president xi is laughing at us about behind our backs for having gained so much at our expense. the united states concedes our leverage and in exchange china makes vague, unenforceable promises it never intends to fulfill. we've seen this over and over again. china greece to something and they don't do it. president trump complained about president obama and president bush and others when they signed these deals and nothing happened and he's doing the same darn thing. same darn thing, and it's no wonder they haven't made it public. they are afraid that when people actually read it they'll see

that it's not good for america, that the chinese took us hook, line, and sinker. so, mr. president, if i sound frustrated and angry, it's because i am. even today an hour before the deal is signed before the president, i have to use phrases like appear to and according to reports because the administration has shrouded the details of the agreement in secrecy and kept the text of the deal under lock and key. the trump administration doesn't want the details of the agreement to come out before they can spin it because it knows once the details come out, everyone will see china has taken president trump to the cleaners. president trump, the great negotiator, has been totally outnegotiated by president xi. just like on impeachment, the

president and his team are afraid of the truth. they don't want anyone to see the facts or the truth, they just want to spin. if the trump administration were proud of this deal, they'd hold it up to the world and shout it from the mountain tops. instead they've kept it hidden. they want to spin it but they can't spin away the fact that this deal is a bad deal for american workers, american companies, american jobs, and american wealth. even today, the day the agreement is signed, we've been told we may not get all the details. given the absurd secrecy surrounding president trump's phase one trade deal, i expect once everyone gets a chance to take a look at it in the light of day, they'll find that the administration has signed one of the most tragically one-sided agreements in recent memory. even the farmers, president

trump sold out the structural changes to try and help the farmers. when they look at the specifics, they are going to see they are a lot less than meets the eye and that our farmers will continue to suffer. there was an opportunity here to secure real reforms to china's rapacious trade and industrial policy. president trump may have just squandered it indefinitely, a severe and potentially irreparable loss for the american people, american businesses, and american workers. and given how poorly trade won deal was executed with china i have no faith that trade deal two, if it comes about will be any better. in fact, most americans should fear it if it is anything like this one. on the wall. yesterday "the washington post" reported that the trump administration is planning to

divert $7.2 billion in funding from the defense department to fund its border wall with mexico. once again, the administration proposes stealing this funding from military families and counterdrug programs, bringing the total amount that the president has stolen -- stolen from our troops and our family to over $13 billion. the last time the president took away from military construction, serious military projects suffered. schools in kentucky, medical facilities in north carolina, hurricane recovery projects in florida. now the president wants to take even more money away from these projects for a border wall he promised mexico would pay for. this is another slap in the face to our armed forces, their families, and all the places throughout america that have military bases that need new construction funding. some democrats -- senate

democrats strongly oppose this action. we will continue to oppose the transfer of counterdrug funding for the wall and we will force yet another vote to terminate the president's bogus national emergency declaration and return these much-needed military construction funds back to the military, to the men and women in our armed forces and to their families. our republican friends hopefully will join us in that vote. president trump is once again subverting the will of congress, once again thumbing his nose at the constitution. the founders gave congress the power of the purse, not the president, and this chamber has refused repeatedly to fund the president's wall. but whether it's to federal appropriations, foreign policy, or our oversight authority, president trump seems to have little regard for constraints placed on the executive. he seems to view the

constitution as merely a nuisance. some inconvenient obstacles in the way of his personal and political interests. it's time for democrats and republicans to say enough, and i'd say one final thing to my conservative friends. the true foundation of conservatism is to minimize the powers of government, particularly the executive because they believe it provides more room for the individual. where are our conservative voices when donald trump in issue after issue, one of the most egregious being this border wall, takes the power away from congress, away from the american people and air gates it -- arrogates it on to his own personal wishes. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a

quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. toomey: thank you, mr. president. it appears that we are likely to be considering some version of the usmca implementing legislation this week. and so i want to address this agreement, but in order to do that, i think you kind of have to start with the underlying nafta agreement which has been in place for some years and ask a question which is why did we go down the path of renegotiating nafta in the first place. and so let's start there. i can imagine one reason that one might want to renegotiate a trade agreement is if the trade agreement in question were not a reciprocal agreement, if it treefted one party differently -- treated one party differently

than it treated the other parties, you might question whether that's a fair arrangement and might decide that if it's not, it needs to be revisited. well, that certainly would not describe nafta. nafta is entirely reciprocal. another reason you might decide to renegotiate a trade agreement is if you had tariffs, so it wasn't really a free trade agreement. it was an agreement that maybe changed the terms of trade but if you still had tariffs, you might decide as a free trader like me, you may decide it would be a good idea to renegotiate this so we can eliminate the remaining tariffs. well, that certainly isn't the motivation either because with nafta, there is zero tariff on 100% of manufactured goods that cross the borders of any of the three countries that are parti parties. and zero tariffs on 97.5% of agricultural goods. so really there's not much to do

on the tariff side. and by the way, that's true about any other kinds of restrictions on trade. there's no quotas. there's no obstacles. this is a free trade agreement. that's what it is. it is fair. it is free. it is reciprocal among the three countries and as a matter of fact, since nafta was adopted, u.s. exports to mexico, for instance, have increased 500%. that's true of pennsylvania exports to mexico as it is on average for all 50 states. now, i will say modernizing the agreement always made sense, right? we now have this huge digital economy that did not exist back in the early 1990's when nafta was adopted. and so it definitely makes sense -- it always made sense -- to modernize, to update. but, mr. president, i think it's very clear. modernizing and updating was not

the driving motivation for renegotiating nafta and adopting the usmca. the fundamental reason was that we have a trade deficit with mexico. it's pretty persistent. every year. it's not a huge number but we have a trade deficit with mexico. and that was deemed to be unacceptable to the administration. and so the fundamental purpose of renegotiating nafta, the reason that mexico and canada had to be coerced into this new agreement was in order that we could diminish imports from mexico. despite the fact that economists universally understand that a trade deficit with a country like mexico is a meaningless measure, nevertheless that's the goal. since trade in cars and car parts are the source of the trade deficit with mexico, it is the auto sector that bore the brunt of the restrictions.

so let me suggest that one useful way to think about usmca is it's nafta with two categories of changes. the first category are the modest constructive modernizations that i alluded to. they're mostly taken from the trans-pacific partner agreement that had been negotiated by a previous administration. and examples include requiring that there be free digital trade so you can't impose a tax on a data transfer, for instance. now, you can't impose a tariff on software. you can't require that data be stored locally. so these are mostly -- these are good things. they are -- it's important to note they are codifying existing practices so canada, mexico, and the united states do not currently impose obstacles and tariffs on this kind of economic activity. under usmca they won't be able to. it will be codified and so we

will make permanent that which is already the practice. there's a very, very tiny reduction in canadian protectionism with respect to dairy products, but for the most part these modernizing features are modest. they come from t.p.p. but most importantly they could have been achieved without the second category of changes that i'm about to describe. they could have been achieved because they weren't really very controversial fnlt but here's the other -- controversial. but here's the other important category of changes to nafta that usmca contains, and that is a whole series of protectionist measures that are designed to diminish trade and/or investment. so for the first time in certainly modern times, we're going to consider a trade agreement that is designed to diminish trade which should be very disturbing for those of us

who understand how much economic growth comes from trade. what are some of the specifics? well, the specific changes that are meant to diminish trade, as i said, the auto sector bears the brunt of it. it's really the end of free trade in automobiles and auto parts with respect to mexico. the agreement imposes minimum wage requirements that are designed to be impossible for mexican factories to meet. and when they don't meet them, mexican autos and auto parts will be subject to a tax. so americans who buy these cars will have to pay a tax on them. this is designed to make mexico and mexican factories less productive and we have folks who think that that's somehow a good thing for the united states. it is not. this minimum wage requirement, the tariffs that will follow from it will simply make the entire north american auto industry less competitive because we have integrated supply chains and american

domestic manufacturers use parts that originate in mexico. those parts will now be more expensive. it means higher prices for american consumers. we'll have to pay more money to buy a car and therefore will have less money available for any of the other things they might like to consume. it will probably lead to an increase or an acceleration in the shift to automation because when you artificially establish an arbitrary wage rate that's unaffordable, it creates an incentive to avoid labor costs entirely with automation. all of that means fewer jobs. we are already seeing a -- we've got a terrific economy generally, but the manufacturing sector is actually not participating in this tremendous expansion. we've been losing jobs in manufacturing as a result of tariffs that we've been imposing. and in the auto sector with the full anticipation of this agreement coming, the auto sector in the united states of america has been shedding jobs. we've been losing jobs. as employers in this sector see

where we're heading on this policy. that's one item. another area in which we're restricting trade is by arbitrarily putting an expiration date on this trade agreement. it expires 16 days from the date of enactment. now, there's a mechanism by which if all three parties unanimously agree and simultaneously agree, they can extend it. but the default setting is for this thing to go away, for this to expire. we have never put a termination date on a trade agreement. on all of the trade agreements we've done and there are dozens, we've never had an expiration. and there's a good reason. the reason is as you get anywhere close towards that expiration date, an uncertainty emerges about what will the trade regime be like if the agreement is not extended. and that has a chilling effect on trade and investment. so it's a very bad idea. now, our trade rep has argued,

well, these agreements ought to be renegotiated periodically anyway. not necessarily. a free and fair and reciprocal trade agreement that has no barriers to trade doesn't ns necessarily need to be renegotiated with any specific frequency. and secondly, it could be renegotiated without an expiration. the question is what's the default setting? do we assume the arrangement continues or do we assume that the arrangement ends? unfortunately in the usmca, it all comes to an end. there's another provision that is very disturbing. and that is the almost complete destruction of what's known as the investor state dispute settlement mechanic mism. this is the mechanic -- mechanism. this is the mechanism that american vestors, canada and mexico in this case, can add jiewt indicate a dispute because -- add jude indicate a dispute because some they do not treat the american investor in that country doesn't get treated fairly. that happens sometimes.

and so 50 or more of our bilateral investment treaties and free trade agreements have these -- this mechanism, this investor state dispute settlement mechanism so that if an american investor, an american employer with an investment overseas in one of these countries is being treated unfairly, they have a place to go to get a fair add jude indication -- add jude indication of their dispute. in march of 2018, 22 currently serving republican senators sent a letter to the trade representative. and i'll quote if that letter. it says ids provisions at least those as strong as those an obtained in the existing nafta must be included in a modernized agreement to win congressional support. this actually is a broad consensus about the importance which is why it's in every other trade agreement we've ever had. but usmca completely guts these investor protections. it limits it very, very narrowly to just several sectors in mexico. it eliminates it entirely in

canada. and the irony of this is in the 30 years that we've had these investor state dispute settlement provisions, every time a u.s. investor was a litigant, the u.s. won. this has been a jurisdiction that has been very, very helpful to the united states and we're just -- we've given it away. it's just out the door and it's because there are some, i think, advocates for eliminating this who think in a classic protectionist mindset that an investment in other another necessarily comes at the expense of an investment in america and that's completely wrong. most american investment overseas is made to serve overseas markets. and it results in jobs in the united states in management and supervision and accounting and planning and all kinds of aspects of overseeing that investment overseas. but now we're going to have a chill imposed on this activity.

well, those provisions i just described were the deal as it was reached back in may. and at that point be, our democratic colleagues said the agreement is not acceptable, and so our trade rep and a number of house members in particular, entered into a whole new series of negotiations. and from there, the agreement got worse. what happened there -- let me talk about just a couple of categories. one is a whole set of labor provisions. basically, the united states forced mexico to pass labor laws designed to facilitate the unionization of their factories. it's none of of our business what the labor laws are in mexico, but we passed -- we forced them to pass these laws. but then it gets worse. the usmca creates this elaborate mechanism by which american taxpayers are forced to pay to

enforce mexican labor laws. richard trump can a from the afl-cio said, and i quote, for the first time, there truly will be enforceable labor standards, including a process that allows for the inspections of factories and facilities that are not living up to their obligations, end quote. so he's alluding to the mechanism that is established in usmca to allow site inspections, and i remind my colleagues, this agreement is fully reciprocal. so i wonder how much american businesses are going to appreciate having mexican inspectors come in to inspect their facilities to see if they're in compliance with american labor law. but this is there because it is perceived to be in the interest of organized labor's economic interests, right? it increases the expense and diminishes the productivity of mexican plants, which some people think that's a good thing. i think it's a bad thing for american consumers to have to pay more than necessary.

but, in any case, american taxpayers are going to pay hundreds of millions of dollars over the years to enforce another country's labor laws. another provision that was sinced on in the latter parts of the negotiation is the removal of intellectual property protection for biologics. as you know, biologics are a complex new medicine derived from living cells. it's one of the most exciting things in medicine because it has allowed scientists to use living organisms, or at least cells from living organisms to produce wonderful, wonderful, curative medicines. very, very exciting. under u.s. law, when a business develops such a new medicine, which comes at enormous cost to get it to market, we provide 12 years' worth of what we call data exclusivity. it's the exclusive ability to

market that medicine so that the company can recoup the billions of dollars that are spent developing it. well -- 12 years, that's the period of protection that we provide for that intellectual property. when the trans-pacific partnership was being negotiated, the obama administration insisted on at least eight years. we're the only country that -- we're by far the leading country in developing this new category of medicine. we're the ones that have the incentive to protect this intellectual property. other countries like mexican and canada and other countries around the world, they don't really care about protecting it, because it's not theirs. and so they argue for less intellectual property protection. we argue for more. that's the general nature of the contest. as i said, under trans-pacific partnership, everybody had agreed on eight years. not in usmca. in usmca, we agreed to zero --

zero, no period of data exclusivity to protect the intellectual property of this very, very exciting new kind of medicine. it's so ironic because right now, as an aside, mr. president, we're in this ongoing protracted, tough battle with china over a number of their economic practices. chief among them is their theft of intellectual property. we're insisting, rightly -- we are rightly insisting that we're going to defend and protect our intellectual property because it's the crown jewel of the american economy. it's the most precious thing we have is the creativity of the american people. and so we're insisting that we have rebust protection for intellectual property, here in the usmca, we give it away. we just give it away. there's another aspect of this that is important to consider,

and that is that there is not going to be any boost to economic growth as a result of swapping out nafta for usmca. the u.s. international radiation, right, that's an independent agency, part of the united states federal government. they did a big, extensive study. they did a report. their report said that usmca will create a net of 176,000 jobs. if that were true, it would be trivial in the context of our economy, right? our economy has been creating more than that number of jobs every month for years now, so it's a tiny number for 72 months when we've been producing more jobs than that each and every month, not over 72 months. but worse than it being a very small number, it's just not true. the study says that, on balance, the trade restrictive provisions, some of which i alluded to, will diminish trade and cause u.s. growth to

decline, and i offsetting growth -- and any offsetting growth just comes from reducing the uncertainty about whether or not the free trade and digital trade that i alluded to continues. however, the i.t.c. cost-benefit analysis explicitly chose not to attempt to quantify the sunset clause. there's no question that's a negative. they didn't even attempt to quantify it. and they did their analysis before these new labor provisions and before the abandonment of protection for intellectual property of biologics, before that even emerged on the scene. so we know that those have a negative effect on growth. the bottom line is, there's going to be no additional economic growth from this agreement. but there is a tax increase. the congressional budget office did their analysis, and they concluded, rightly, that these -- there will be tariffs added

to the sale of cars. so american consumers will be paying a tax increase in the form of this tariff on autos and auto parts. that is definitely part of this agreement. so, to conclude on the substantive matters, mr. president, we took a true free trade agreement and we added some constructive features. we did some modernizing from the trans-pacific partnership which was constructed. but then we slapped on an expiration date. we imposed costly new restrictions on one of our trading partners. we eliminated the dispute mechanism. we dropped the intellectual property protection for the most innovative new medicines we have. we saddled american taxpayers with fines to enforce mexican environmental laws. for all this, we get basically no additional economic growth. probably a little bit. it's worth noting that the members of this body who have

proudly and openly opposed every trade agreement that they have ever been asked to cast a vote on, they voted no, on this they're going to vote yes. and for the first time in two decades, the afl-cio is supporting a trade deal when they have opposed all free deals. there's a reason. it's because we're going backwards on trade. it's because this agreement is designed to limit trade. a quick word on process here, mr. president. and this is important. the implementing legislation that is going to get 0 to the floor one way or another sometime soon is not compliant with trade promotion authority. and what that means is it should not get the expedited treatment and the protection from all amendments that trade promotion authority confers on a narrow category of legislation that conforms completely, completely with the trade promotion authority law. let's remember a few fundamental

things here. trade policy is the responsibility of congress. the constitution assigns it to the united states congress to establish trade policy, including the establishment of tariffs, the management of tariffs, everything to do with trade. with t.p.a., we delegate that responsibility that is ours to the executive branch are a lot of conditions attached, and if they don't comply with those conditions, then this legislation shouldn't be whisked through congress on a simple-majority vote with no amendments, which is meant under t.p.a. to be limited only to those pieces of legislation that comply entirely with the trade promotion act legislation. a couple of specific ways in which this agreement violates the trade promotion authority -- first of all, congress did not receive the final agreement, according to the time frame contemplated by t.p.a. we're supposed to get the final agreement 30 days before there

is a vote in committee or on the floor on the implementing language, and the reason that's important is so that congress can give some feedback to the administration. this is a draft that's meant to be -- it's meant to be a draft of the implementing legislation submitted to congress so that congress can then consider how it might want to make changes, since this is, after all, our responsibility. the administration chose not to do that at all. they finalized this agreement in early to mid-december, and there was a vote on the house floor on the final version of the implementing language within a week or so. nothing close to the 30-day period that is meant to enable congress to influence its own product. there's another provision in the trade promotion authority legislation, and that requires that the implementing legislation must contain only provisions -- and i quote --

strictly necessary or appropriate to implement such trade agreement. why is that important? it's because we passed this legislation with a 51-vote threshold, simple-majority threshold. almost everything else in the senate requires 60 votes. and so we're saying, if you want to use the expedited process, if you want to be able to pass this legislation with a simple majority, you got to limit it to only that which is absolutely strictly necessary and appropriate for implementing this trade agreement. otherwise, obviously, people can stick in any old thing they want that they think there is a majority vote for, if there's not 60 votes for it. it would, in other words, abusing this narrow construct really dramatically underlines the 60-vote threshold for legislation in the senate. well, let me give you a few examples of cases where it's clearly being abused here in this agreement. one is there's appropriations in

the implementing legislation. this is a complete first. in all of our trade agreements in the past, there is a necessity for some spending. the appropriations bill to spend that money has always been a separate legislative vehicle precisely so it would be open to scrutiny, subject to amendment, and subject to a 60-vote threshold. not this time. the hundreds of millions of dollars of spending is in this bill. it includes, for instance, $50 million in salaries and expenses for the office of the u.s. trade rep. well, maybe the folks at the u.s. trade rep all deserve a big raise. maybe that's true. but that should be done in a separate piece of legislation, because it is not necessary and appropriate for the implementation of usmca. but not only that, mr. president, they've taken all of the spending and they've imposed on emergency designation

on it. there's an emergency designation. so apparently it is an emergency that the folks over at u.s. trade rep's office get a pay raise. apparently it is an emergency that all this money be spent. that's ridiculous. of course it's not. the reason they put the emergency designation on it is because spending in this body, spending in congress thattest goes an emergency designation -- spending in congress that gets an emergency designation doesn't need an offset. if you slap an emergency designation, then that's okay. if you don't have the emergency designation, then new spending has to be offset with reduction in spending somewhere else. now, the reason we have the emergency designation is because emergencies actually can occur. right? there are earthquakes, fires, floods. that happens. but i'm sorry. a pay raise for staffers of the u.s. trade rep's does not qualify. so, for a variety of reasons,

mr. president, this legislation that we're going to be considering is not compliant with trade promotion authority. that doesn't mean it can't move. it simply means it needs to move under the regular order. it should be an ordinary bill on the floor, as any ordinary legislation, and sadly from my point of view, i'm pretty sure the votes are there to pass it. i think there's probably going to be the votes to pass what i think is a badly flawed agreement, an agreement that restricts trade rather than expanding trade. but i certainly hope that we will do it under regular order because it does abuse trade promotion authority. the last point i would make, mr. president, is i certainly hope that this does not become a template for future trade agreements. we've got an opportunity to do wonders for our constituents, our consumers, our workers by reaching new an -- and additional trade agreements with all kinds