[Senate Hearing 116-226]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 116-226
BUSINESS MEETING
=======================================================================
MEETING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JANUARY 14, 2020
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
40-834 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware,
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia Ranking Member
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
MIKE BRAUN, Indiana BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
ROGER WICKER, Mississippi CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JONI ERNST, Iowa TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
Richard M. Russell, Majority Staff Director
Mary Frances Repko, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
JANUARY 14, 2020
OPENING STATEMENTS
Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming...... 1
Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware.. 2
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma,
prepared statement............................................. 12
LEGISLATION
H.R. 5430, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement
Implementation Act............................................. 13
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
The Implementation Act for the Agreement Between the United
States of America, the United Mexican States, and Canada
(USMCA), Statement of Administrative Action.................... 252
From the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, U.S.-Mexico-Canada
Agreement (USMCA), Benefits.................................... 298
From the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, U.S.-Mexico-Canada
Agreement (USMCA), Trade Figures............................... 301
U.S.-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement, Highlights, www.usitc.gov.... 302
BUSINESS MEETING
----------
TUESDAY, JANUARY 14, 2020
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Barrasso, Carper, Capito, Cramer, Braun,
Rounds, Sullivan, Boozman, Wicker, Shelby, Ernst, Cardin,
Whitehouse, Merkley, Gillibrand, and Van Hollen.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Good morning. I call this business
meeting to order.
Before we begin the markup, I want to take a moment to
congratulate and thank Senators on our Committee who worked to
pass two important pieces of legislation through the Senate
this past week.
On Thursday, the Senate passed the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act,
and Senator Sullivan and Senator Whitehouse partnered together
to shepherd this bill through the Senate. Both of them were on
the floor of the Senate last evening talking about all the
benefits of this legislation that has passed our Committee
unanimously, as well as the Senate unanimously. The legislation
will help reduce the amount of plastic and waste floating in
our oceans and will spur innovative solutions to prevent more
plastic pollution.
Also on Thursday, the Senate passed America's Conservation
Enhancement Act, or the ACE Act. Ranking Member Carper and I
introduced the ACE Act; Senators Cramer and Cardin and Capito
and Van Hollen and Inhofe and Boozman all joined as cosponsors.
The ACE Act helps conserve wildlife and wildlife habitat.
The legislation addresses the threats of emerging wildlife
diseases, like chronic wasting disease. It protects livestock
from predators, and it combats invasive species.
The ACE Act has received broad support from States, from
environmental groups, and from stakeholders. Now, the Senate
has passed the legislation unanimously. The House of
Representatives should follow our lead and pass this historic
bipartisan conservation legislation into law.
In today's markup, we will consider one bill, H.R. 5430,
the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement Implementation Act.
Senator Carper and I have agreed that we will begin voting at
10:15. At that time, I will call up the legislation for a vote.
We won't debate the bill while we are voting. Instead, we will
debate the legislation before we begin the vote, and I will
also be happy to recognize any member who still wishes to speak
after the voting concludes.
President Trump promised a strong, fair, and updated trade
agreement with our neighbors, Canada and Mexico. President
Trump has delivered on his promise. The United States-Mexico-
Canada Agreement, also known as USMCA, was signed by the
leadership of all three countries more than a year ago. Mexico
gave its final approval of the agreement last June. Canada is
waiting for us here in Congress to approve the agreement before
taking it up. It is critical that Congress approves this trade
deal to continue to fuel America's strong, healthy, and growing
economy.
H.R. 5430 will implement the United States-Mexico-Canada
agreement. At the end of last year, the House of
Representatives overwhelmingly voted to approve the
legislation. The bipartisan vote tally was 385 to 41.
It has a good reason for broad support. USMCA builds on the
certainty and progress achieved through recent trade agreements
with Japan and with China. It is going to expand market access
for a host of U.S. products, and it will sharpen U.S.
exporters' competitive edge.
Trade is certainly very important to my home State of
Wyoming. We trade our agriculture and our energy products,
including our number one cash crop, which is beef. We do this
all around the world.
Above all, USMCA will benefit American workers. The
agreement will protect and create millions of jobs here in the
United States. American manufacturers overwhelmingly support
USMCA. It is imperfect, but it is still a win for American
workers and families.
It is also a win for the environment. The United States
already has strong environmental protections. The phrase ``made
in America'' is good for the environment. The agreement does
not change those protections or give Washington new authorities
to regulate. Instead, the agreement recognizes that our
partners should have strong environmental records like we do.
Our Committee is one of several Senate committees that have
jurisdiction over the legislation. Under the fast track rules,
the Committee cannot amend the bill. We will vote today only on
whether to favorably report the bill.
I urge my colleagues to support passage of the United
States-Mexico-Canada Agreement so we can continue to support
our strong, healthy, and growing economy.
I will now turn to our Ranking Member for his opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
A lot of people from my State, and probably your States as
well, think we don't work together on anything, and I think the
Chairman has mentioned two bills that passed literally this
week out of our Committee, bipartisan bills, and a trade
agreement before us that has been worked on by Democrats and
Republicans of Congress and the Administration.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for pulling us together today.
Those of us on the Environment and Public Works Committee are
considering the new North American Free Trade Agreement Treaty,
as we know. If we view the treaty solely as a vehicle to
address climate change, then we didn't get nearly enough in the
agreement, in fact, far from it.
It is no surprise that I and the Democrats and a growing
number of Republicans, too, think that we need to act with a
sense of urgency to address climate change. It has just been
reported that our planet experienced its second hottest year on
record in 2019. Last decade was the hottest decade in the
history of our planet. Australia today is literally on fire,
the Arctic is melting, and our seas are rising.
If we are only measuring the new NAFTA by what it does to
address climate change, well, it doesn't work, plain and
simple. The new NAFTA fails to recommit the U.S. to the Paris
Accords. It continues to give special treatment to fossil fuel
interests. It fails to ratify the Kigali amendment to the
Montreal protocol, which could bring the global community
together to reduce the use of HFCs and avoid up to a half-
degree Celsius in global warming by the end of this century.
Like so many of the Trump administration's proposals, the
new NAFTA fails to even mention the words ``climate change.''
With these major deficiencies on the climate front, the new
NAFTA Environment Protection chapter cannot be considered a
template for future trade negotiations.
Having said all that, though, if we are evaluating the new
NAFTA as a trade agreement, which it is, and we consider the
new environmental enforcement tools that Democrats fought hard
to include, this new NAFTA can work. These new provisions will
ensure the rules of this agreement can actually be enforced.
That cannot be said of previous trade agreements that the
Senate has ratified.
Thanks to Democrats mostly, it is no longer the case that
if one NAFTA country fails to ratify the environmental
agreement, it can be used to prevent the others from honoring
their obligation. Moreover, environmental violations will now
be treated as trade violations, so when the United States does
bring cases under the new NAFTA's Environmental Obligations,
those cases will be easier to win going forward.
The new NAFTA adds stronger language to ensure that the
obligations of all three countries under multilateral
environment agreements, including the Kigali amendment to the
Montreal Protocol, can be fully enforced. This agreement also
includes significant new wins for coastal States, including
binding provisions around overfishing, around marine debris,
and conservation of marine species.
In addition to its $88 million for environmental monitoring
cooperation enforcement, the new NAFTA creates an enforcement
mechanism that gives environmental stakeholders an expanded
role in enforcement matters. This will ensure that
environmental violations can be investigated and remedied in a
substantive and timely manner.
Again, the new NAFTA will not solve the climate crisis or
remedy this Administration's most egregious environmental
rollbacks. If it was solely an environmental agreement, I could
not vote for it, but the new NAFTA does make significant
improvements on past trade agreements, including the original
NAFTA.
The new NAFTA adds important tools and resources that were
negotiated mostly by Democrats to strengthen the agreement,
hold the Administration accountable to enforce NAFTA countries'
environmental obligations, and help ensure that those who break
the rules are actually held accountable.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I am going to be voting yes on
new NAFTA today, and I want to urge my colleagues to join me in
doing so.
If I could just take another 60 seconds. I think it was
1999, I was chairman of the National Governors Association. We
were all gathered in Washington, DC. We spent a big part of the
morning with Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and their Cabinet.
One of the issues that came up during our discussion with
Bill Clinton, President Bill Clinton, was NAFTA, which was just
being negotiated at that time. I asked him to explain why he
thought that a couple of us--Mel Carnahan and I were about to
run for the Senate--why we should support his efforts.
What he did is he said you know, at the end of World War
II, the U.S. was the 800 pound gorilla in the room; we were on
top of the world. The rest of the world, their industrial base
was mostly in ruins. We gave them the ability to sell their
stuff to us without much impediment, and they put up barriers
to keep our stuff out.
And he said, that was fine, that was right, that was
appropriate. Communism was sweeping through Europe, and we
wanted to stop it in its tracks. He said, a lot has changed
since then, and he said the reason why we do free trade
agreements is because we want not to allow others to sell their
stuff to us; they already do that. We want to make sure that we
can sell in their markets, and so that is what this is all
about.
He never mentioned the environment. Never talked about
anything to do with the environment, and from that day until
this, we have heard people complain, justifiably so, about the
lack of, one, tough environmental provisions that we and Mexico
and Canada need to abide by, the ability to enforce those
environmental protections, and the money to pay for those
enforcements.
Is this perfect in terms of its environmental standards and
all? No, it is not perfect, but it is a whole lot better than
what we talked about all those years ago with Bill Clinton, and
we can do better from this going forward. I would urge a yes
vote on this. Thank you.
Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Senator Cardin.
Senator Cardin. I support the agreement. I will speak after
the vote.
But I ask consent that Senator Whitehouse be able to speak
now. He is opposed to the agreement. I think we should at least
hear one person who is opposed to the agreement before the
vote.
Senator Barrasso. Senator Whitehouse, then you can expand
on it afterwards as well.
Senator Whitehouse. I have to go rank up in budget, so I
appreciate everybody's courtesy. Thank you.
I think I was the lone Democratic no vote in the Finance
Committee on this bill. There is no doubt in my mind that this
bill easily wins the record as most improved on environmental
matters. But it wins the most improved award off a baseline of
terrible, horrible, and no good, which has been the history of
these trade agreements under Democratic and Republican
Administrations alike.
We are now at a point where I don't believe improvement is
the measure. You are either reaching a measure that will
protect us, or you are not, and if you are not, then I can't
vote for it, and I view this as one that very clearly does not.
As we look at getting through 410 parts per million of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, as we look at the appalling
warming of our oceans and the acidification of our seas, I am
reminded of times I spent running rivers. If you are running
rivers, and they are dangerous rivers, and they have got
serious rapids on them, the first thing you do is you check the
map to see where the rapids are, so that you know that they are
up ahead.
Well, we got warned about this. The scientists told us,
here is what is going to happen. This is on the map. We paid no
attention.
Then if you go down the river, you get to the point where
you can hear the rapids downriver. They are roaring; the falls
are roaring ahead of you. That is a really good signal to
paddle to shore until you know what the hell you are getting
into.
We can hear the roaring right now. We hear it in the flames
of Australia, we hear it in the gushing of Greenland's glaciers
into the sea, we see it in all of our home States, every single
one of us has a home State university that teaches this stuff,
every single one of us.
But then there comes a point on the river where there is a
point of no return. If you don't get off the river, you are
going down the falls. At that moment, if you want to get safely
to shore, you have got to paddle for your lives.
That is where I think we are in climate right now.
Colleagues can disagree with me. That is where I think we are
on climate right now. If we don't take action soon, we are
doomed to go down these cataracts.
I think it is really vitally important that we take
stronger action, and this is a big missed opportunity,
notwithstanding it easily winning the most improved award for a
trade negotiation.
On that front, I do really want to trust my appreciation to
Senator Cardin and Senator Carper for having leaned in to try
to make so many of those improvements.
So thank you very much for everybody's courtesy.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse.
Now that enough members have arrived, I would like to move
to vote on the item on today's agenda, H.R. 5430, United
States-Mexico-Canada Agreement Implementation Act. I would like
to call up H.R. 5430 and move to approve and report H.R. 5430
favorable to the Senate.
Is there a second?
Senator Cardin. Second.
Senator Barrasso. The Clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Booker.
Mr. Boozman.
Senator Boozman. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Braun.
Senator Braun. Yes.
The Clerk. Ms. Capito.
Senator Capito. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Cardin.
Senator Cardin. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Carper.
Senator Carper. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Cramer.
Senator Cramer. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Duckworth.
Senator Carper. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Ms. Ernst.
Senator Ernst. Yes.
The Clerk. Mrs. Gillibrand.
Senator Gillibrand. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Inhofe.
Senator Barrasso. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Markey.
Senator Carper. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Merkley.
Senator Merkley. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Rounds.
Senator Rounds. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Sanders.
Senator Carper. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Shelby.
Senator Shelby. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Sullivan.
Senator Sullivan. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen.
Senator Van Hollen. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Wicker.
Senator Wicker. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Aye.
Clerk will report.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 16, the nays are 4.
Senator Barrasso. The yeas are 16, the nays are 4. We have
approved H.R. 5430, which will be reported favorably to the
Senate.
The voting part of the business is finished. I am going to
be happy to recognize any other members who wish to make a
statement on the legislation we just approved.
I think Senator Ernst has the first right of refusal.
Senator Ernst. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or as we call
it, the USMCA, is a huge deal for my constituents back home in
Iowa. Just this last weekend, I was in my hometown of Red Oak
in Montgomery County, and I hosted a roundtable discussion with
some of our farmers. Of course, the No. 1 topic was USMCA.
That was the case last year on my 99 county tour. Iowans
have been waiting a long time on this trade deal to be
ratified. Our farmers, manufacturers, and small business owners
need certainty and predictability, and getting this deal done
with our top two trading partners gives them exactly that.
We waited for over a year for the House Democrats to move
on the USMCA, and I am happy to be a part of this process today
in getting this bill to the Senate floor as quickly as
possible.
My home State of Iowa exports more to Canada and Mexico
than we do to our next 27 trade partners combined. The USMCA
will allow those numbers to grow exponentially by creating new
export opportunities and over 175,000 jobs across the country.
I believe that having the USMCA will not only be a win for my
State, but also for the hard working Americans from all over
the United States.
Ratifying this agreement will be a shot of positive energy
into businesses, homes, and lives across rural America.
Mr. Chairman, as the daughter of a farmer, and as a proud
Iowan, it is a privilege to vote in support of passing USMCA
out of committee today, and I would be happy to support passage
of the USMCA on the Senate floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Cardin.
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to move this along.
Trade is critically important to our economy. I think we
all understand that trade done in the right way will improve
the living standards for Americans and create jobs, as it has.
As a Senator from Maryland, along with Senator Van Hollen,
we are very much aware of the importance of the Port of
Baltimore to our local economy. It depends upon open trade, and
this trade agreement will help the Port of Baltimore, will help
people in Maryland, and people around our Nation.
There are many reasons that we should be supportive of this
agreement, as it was originally presented from the point of
view of the provisions that were included in it. There were
some really good provisions.
From my State of Maryland, the poultry industry will get a
major plus as a result of this agreement. I want to thank
Senator Carper, as part of the Delmarva team on poultry, for
opening up markets, particularly in Mexico and Canada, that
will be important for the poultry industry in our region.
As the Ranking Democrat on the Small Business and
Entrepreneurship Committee, there are many provisions here that
are going to help small businesses. One, the de minimis rule,
helps deal with expediting process at our borders for small
companies. That is good for business and for small business; it
is good for our economy.
I particularly want to thank the USTR, Bob Lighthizer, for
what he was able to get done in regard to good governance.
During the debate on the trade promotional authority, I fought
very hard as a principal negotiating objective to include good
governance.
For the first time, for the very first time in a trade
agreement, we have strong provisions in regard to good
governance in the core provisions of the USMCA. That includes
anti-corruption provisions; it includes regulatory reform so
that we can actually have input into the regulatory process in
Mexico and Canada. It includes transparency; it represents U.S.
values that are now embedded in our agreement with Mexico and
Canada, and it is a template for future agreements with any
trading partners.
That is where we were when we started the process, but it
was not good enough. I want to really thank Senator Carper for
his extraordinary leadership on the environmental section.
I want to thank my Democratic colleagues for what they were
able to get done in the labor sections; I think that is all
critically important.
For the first time, we have enforcement of labor standards
in this agreement that are effective. We can challenge the
labor actions in Mexico or Canada, and there is enforcement.
That is why it earned the support of the AFL-CIO.
On the environmental provisions, which are particularly
important to this Committee that has primary jurisdiction over
the environmental provisions, again, I want to congratulate
Senator Carper for insisting that we include a strong
environmental section in the core agreement.
NAFTA had environment. The problem was, it was a sidebar
agreement and didn't have enforcement. You had a way of raising
it, but once you raised it, you couldn't take it any further.
Well, that is corrected in the USMCA. We now have a
provision whereby the USTR can bring enforcement actions
against Mexico or Canada in regard to failure to live up to the
enforcement agreements, environmental agreements. We have
upgraded the commitments in the environment, including fishery
subsidies, marine litter, and conservation of marine species.
And if the USTR decides not to bring action, they must
notify Congress within 30 days, so we have transparency in
regard to enforcement. There are funds that are made available,
$88 million during the next 4 years for environmental
monitoring enforcement, and there are three new environmental
attaches in our embassies in Mexico City.
I think this agreement really does provide a major template
for including environment in trade agreements. If you go back
just a few years, just a few years ago, it would have been
revolutionary to include environment provisions in a trade
agreement. We now are not only including it; we are providing
for enforcement.
So I think this agreement is good for many reasons, but I
also think it is a major step forward in using trade to help
provide a level playing field for environmental rules, and I
strongly support the agreement.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Cardin.
Senator Sullivan, congratulations again on the Save Our
Seas Act 2.0.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to express my strong support for this agreement. It
is good to see so many of my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle who are supportive.
There is certainly a strategic aspect to this, which is
something I have been encouraging this Administration from the
President on down to his team in terms of trade, where we need
to work more closely with our allies, so we address some of the
really big challenges we have with China. I think bringing our
North American trading partners together with this agreement is
going to help that broader strategic aspects.
I want to echo some of what Senator Cardin just mentioned,
and I appreciate your comments, Mr. Chairman, and the help you
provided me and Senator Whitehouse on passing the Save Our Seas
2.0 Act. That is the bill that passed last week in the Senate.
That is the most comprehensive ocean debris, ocean pollution
legislation ever to pass the Congress.
Didn't get a lot of stories on it, but that is true, we
checked with CRS last week, and they said, absolutely, you can
say that. So we are doing a lot in a bipartisan way on cleaning
up our oceans.
And importantly, as Senator Cardin just mentioned, there is
a whole article on marine debris in this trade agreement. First
time ever that any trade agreement that we have ever done. I
think, that is important for the environment, for the oceans,
and importantly, as he indicated, fisheries.
I want to talk just briefly, Mr. Chairman, on the fisheries
chapter. You know I like to talk, and I know my colleagues hear
from me a lot, but my State, the great State of Alaska, is the
superpower of seafood. Almost 60 percent, actually over 60
percent of all the seafood harvested in America commercially,
sport fishing, subsistence, over 60 percent, six-zero, comes
from the shores of Alaska, and we export billions, billions of
dollars in seafood around the world to markets all over.
But here is the thing: prior to this agreement, there had
never been a chapter on opening markets overseas to seafood
exports from America. So in 2016, as we were debating the trade
promotion authority, I recognized that we looked like we were
going to have 60 votes in the Senate, so I withheld my vote
until I got a commitment from the then-Obama administration and
some other members, Democrats and Republicans, that TPA, Trade
Promotion Authority, that we passed in 2016, would have as a
principal negotiating objective for the USTR, fisheries. That
was agreed to by everybody. It was in TPA.
If you look at this agreement, Mr. Chairman, you have
Article 24.17, Marine Wild Capture Fisheries; Article 24.18,
Sustainable Fisheries Management; Article 24.19, Conservation
of Marine Species; Article 24.20, Fisheries Subsidies.
Countries all around the world over-subsidize their fleets;
government subsidies, the Koreans, other Asian countries do
this all the time to the disadvantage of my fishermen, so now
we are going to be able to go after illegal subsidies for
foreign fleets that are unfairly trading.
Article 24.21, Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated
Fishing, IUU Fishing, is now going to be illegal. Article
24.22, Conservation and Trade with Regard to Fisheries. There
is a lot in this agreement on an industry that supports tens of
thousands of Alaskans and coastal communities.
This is historic. I am proud to say the TPA Bill in 2016 is
what made it happen, and my team and I wrote that provision, a
bipartisan provision. For a lot of the reasons Senator Cardin
just mentioned, environment, cleaning up the oceans, fisheries
for the first time, I think this is a very important agreement,
and I am going to strongly support it. It is good to see so
many of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, supporting it
as well.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Sullivan.
Senator Merkley.
Senator Merkley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, for me, this was a very difficult call. I
think the USMCA improves the labor standards and labor
enforcement, but I am disturbed both about the process and the
substance on the environment. There are a lot of environmental
elements to consider in this, and yet we didn't hold a hearing
on it. We didn't even hold a conversation among ourselves
before taking this vote.
I think it really violates the responsibility of you, Mr.
Chairman, to make sure this Committee has a chance to consider
important environmental issues before voting on an
environmental piece of legislation that has implications,
perhaps for a generation, perhaps for other trade treaties that
are pursued.
On the environmental side, every major environmental
organization is in opposition to this treaty, and they have a
list of reasons why. We should have heard from them and duly
considered their points of view.
I did look at the fact that we now have seven multilateral
environmental agreements that are enforceable under this
treaty: wildlife trafficking, ozone depletion, ship bilge
water, waterfowl wetlands, Antarctic whaling, tuna, OK. All
well and good.
But where is the enforceability on air and water pollution
that drives manufacturing to Mexico, so they can pollute,
produce items at low cost, and undermine manufacturing in the
United States of America?
There is a piece of a process embodied in here that was not
in former agreements. It is untested and unclear if it will be
able to have any impact. I think we should have heard experts
weigh in on both the strengths and weaknesses of that process
as we consider that.
Embodied in this particular agreement is special treatment
for fossil fuel companies. I completely applaud and agree with
my colleague, Senator Whitehouse, who says we are in big
trouble on carbon pollution, and we should have weighed and
considered why we are giving special treatment to fossil fuel
companies in this agreement.
In fact, we are eliminating a tax that is in place now on
tar sand oil, some of the dirtiest oil to be found anywhere on
the planet. We maintain the villainous ISDS system,
specifically for the oil and gas companies only. If it is such
a terrible system, and a corrupt system in which those who are
plaintiffs one day or defense lawyers or advocates one day, can
be judges the next, why is it a good system to maintain for the
fossil fuel companies?
And while some have applauded the regulatory provisions in
here, those regulatory systems may also provide many
opportunities for corporations to obstruct new regulations that
protect our environment. We should have heard about that issue,
well debated before this Committee.
So I am very disappointed in the conduct of this Committee
and the responsibilities we have to do due deliberation as a
Committee on environmental issues on a major piece of
environmental legislation. I did support moving this to the
floor. I think my vote is primarily one on the basis of the
labor provisions.
But I am also aware that no one thinks this agreement will
return a single manufacturing job to my home State of Oregon
that has moved to Mexico because of the low labor standards,
and the particularly low environmental standards. So the
process of exporting pollution is one that we may well see
continue, and that process, again, is one that should have been
duly debated in this Committee.
As I said, it was a difficult vote for me. I think we have
to do far better in our international agreements, and bring in
the biggest crisis facing humankind.
We have the impact of carbon pollution affecting everything
in my home State. The duration of the snowpack that provides
irrigation water to my farmers and ranchers; my farmers and
ranchers care a lot about water as all farmers and ranchers do
across this country, and it is being profoundly impacted by
this pollution.
Why are we giving special treatment to fossil fuel
companies in this agreement? In my home State, the forest fires
are much worse because of those changes. Our off-sea ecosystem
for our ocean and our fisheries are being very much affected by
the heat and the acidity in the ocean waters off my coast.
These are big factors. Let us not repeat this mistake of
having major environmental legislation go through here with no
hearings, no consideration of experts being brought to bear.
Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator Merkley.
I point out that the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement was
referred to multiple committees in the Senate, the Finance
Committee; the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Committee; the Environment and Public Works Committee; the
Appropriations Committee; the Foreign Relations Committee; the
Commerce Committee; as well as the Budget Committee.
The agreement as passed by the Senate by the House is not
amendable. The agreement as referred to this Committee for
approval related to Section 815 and 821 is not amendable, and
it is the opinion of the Chair that any additional hearings or
debate would be completely dilatory and unnecessary.
With that, I ask unanimous consent that the staff have
authority to make technical and conforming changes to the
matter approved today.
Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Before we close, I just want to say to our
colleague Jeff Merkley, thank you, I know this was not an easy
vote for you. Frankly, it was not an easy vote for some of our
colleagues. Thank you for what you just said.
I think, Mr. Chairman, his point about on some of the other
committees I serve, we actually did have a hearing to consider
the impact of this treaty on--for example, in the Finance
Committee, our jurisdiction. I think that would have been a
good idea, and one that, I think, let's just keep that in mind
as we go forward.
Senator Barrasso. I would point out that the Finance
Committee, was, in my understanding, was the committee that was
supposed to have the entire agreement referred to them, so
there would have been time and appropriate nature to have that
hearing. But the Finance Committee voted on this last week,
within a day or so of it arriving from the House.
This Committee was informed kind of at the last moment that
we would be asked to review certain parts. I think many members
of the Senate on both sides of the aisle were surprised at the
number of referrals made by the Parliamentarian.
So in terms of moving this ahead, realizing that amendments
are not in order, and it is an up or down vote, it was the
opinion of the Chair that there was no reason at this point to
hold a hearing.
And with that, our business meeting is concluded.
[Whereupon, at 10:39 a.m., the business meeting was
concluded.]
An additional statement submitted for the record follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe,
U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma
Mr. Chairman, thank you for scheduling this consideration
of USMCA so quickly. Oklahoma truckers, manufacturers and
farmers have been waiting a long time for us to fix the
outdated NAFTA agreement, but help is now on the way.
Back in 1994, I opposed NAFTA because it put American
truckers at a disadvantage by allowing Mexican trucking
companies to skirt domestic hours of service laws. Thankfully,
President Trump recognized these concerns, and successfully
negotiated a new, fair agreement: the USMCA.
USMCA will now allow for a much more level playing field
for American companies. For example, by preserving and
enhancing U.S. duty free access to Mexican and Canadian
markets.
It's also good for Oklahoma. A total of $2 billion in
economic revenue and 15,000 jobs are supported by agricultural
exports to Canada and Mexico--USMCA will ensure this continues
to grow.
Nationally, USMCA is expected to add $68 billion to our
economy and more than 175,000 jobs.
Most importantly to this Committee, I am very pleased that
there are no radical, job killing climate mandates within the
agreement that would keep American businesses from competing
with other countries, or liberal policy riders that would force
us to adhere to globalist climate agreements, like the Paris
Climate Agreement.
The USMCA--both what is in it and what isn't in it--is
another massive accomplishment for President Trump and the
Nation. I am proud to support USMCA--there is no question it
will provide certainty for the future and increase economic
growth for American businesses across every sector.
[The text of H.R. 5430, the United States-Mexico-Canada
Agreement Implementation Act, follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]