[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 163 (Wednesday, October 16, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5822-S5824]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                 United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement

  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise to voice my strong support for 
the passage of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or the USMCA.
  When I travel the State of Nebraska, I always hear directly from our 
farmers and our ag producers. Nebraska's farmers have endured some of 
the most challenging setbacks in recent memory. The severe flooding 
from last spring devastated thousands of acres of our farm and our 
ranch land, brought hundreds of livestock deaths, and destroyed barns, 
countless grain bins, hay, and critical farm equipment. This list of 
daunting obstacles continues to grow.
  Last July, the Gering-Fort Laramie-Goshen irrigation tunnel collapsed 
and cut off a crucial source of surface irrigation water to the western 
region of our State for several weeks.
  Only a few days earlier, a devastating fire broke out in a Tyson beef 
processing plant in Holcomb, KS. The plant processed about 6,000 head 
of cattle every single day. That is roughly 6 percent of the total fed 
cattle processing capacity in the United States.
  The effects of the plant's closure rippled throughout the entire 
cattle industry and the beef processing chain. This is all in addition 
to 5 years of low commodity prices, the unfair small refinery 
exemptions for oil refiners, and the cloud of uncertainty over trade.
  While all of these factors have caused anxiety and unpredictability, 
there is one solution that Nebraska's farmers, ranchers, ag producers, 
manufacturers, and hard-working men and women have made clear, and that 
is the passage of the USMCA.
  Nebraska's farmers and ranchers have a different lifestyle than most 
people. Their patience is steadfast. They plan for the long term. They 
can envision how they want their land to look, not only next year but 
100 years into the future. It is in their DNA, and families are fed 
around the world because of it.
  They are optimists, but they are realists. As Secretary Perdue 
recently said, ``they know you can't plant in August and harvest in 
September.''
  That is exactly right. Our producers have remained patient during 
these tough and turbulent times because they know that there is an 
opportunity for a better, long-term trade solution on the horizon.
  The USMCA would replace the 25-year-old North American Free Trade 
Agreement, or NAFTA, and bring the deal into the 21st century, while 
fortifying our strong trading relationships with Canada and Mexico and 
growing critical market access for Nebraska.
  The heart of Nebraska beats in the same rhythm as agriculture. It is 
who we are, and as the world knows that it is what we do better than 
anyone. So it is not hard to understand why our State needs this deal.
  America's neighbors to the north and south are the destination of 44 
percent of Nebraska's total exports. In 2017, Nebraska shipped $447 
million of agricultural products to Canada and a staggering $898 
million to Mexico. These exports include hundreds of millions of 
dollars' worth of Nebraska's high-quality corn, soybeans, ethanol, and 
beef.
  Specifically, the USMCA maintains and strengthens those markets for 
corn and soybeans. It also allows U.S. beef producers to continue to 
grow their exports to Mexico, which have risen 800 percent since NAFTA 
was first ratified.
  In 2018 alone, Nebraska exported over $250 million dollars of beef to 
both countries.
  It is important to note that the benefits of the USMCA extend far 
beyond our farmland. Agricultural trade between Canada and Mexico 
supports nearly 54,000 jobs in the State of Nebraska. According to the 
Nebraska Department of Agriculture, Nebraska's $6.4 billion in 
agricultural exports in 2017 translated into $8.19 billion in 
additional economic activity. For the good of our State and our Nation, 
these markets need to be protected.
  The USMCA goes even further than NAFTA. It adopts labor and 
environmental standards that Democrats have long advocated for. It 
requires that 40 to 45 percent of auto content be made by workers who 
earn at least $16 an hour by 2023. This will undoubtedly help close the 
gap in labor standards between our Nation and Mexico.
  According to the U.S. Trade Representative, the deal includes new 
provisions to prohibit the importation of goods produced by forced 
labor.
  The USMCA addresses violence against workers exercising their labor 
rights, and it ensures that migrant workers are protected under labor 
laws.
  The deal brings labor obligations into the core of the agreement, and 
most importantly, it makes them fully enforceable.
  On top of that, the USMCA deploys the most advanced, comprehensive 
set of environmental protections of any trade agreement in our Nation's 
history. The list of environmental protections includes first-ever 
articles to improve air quality, support forest management, and ensure 
procedures for studies on its environmental impact.
  New provisions protect a variety of marine species, such as whales 
and sea turtles, and there are prohibitions on shark finning.
  Unlike NAFTA, the USMCA provides enforcement mechanisms that will 
ensure that all countries not only meet but strengthen their 
environmental responsibilities.
  Lastly, I want to point out to my Democrat colleagues the support the 
USMCA is receiving on both sides of the aisle.
  I recently heard Tom Vilsack say this:

       I think under any evaluation, from the U.S. agriculture 
     perspective it clearly is a better deal. So, with that our 
     hope is that it gets done, and gets done soon.

  These are not the words of some Trump administration official. These 
are the words of President Obama's former Secretary of Agriculture.
  Here is another quote from Dan Glickman:

       We have a good agreement. We cannot let the perfect be the 
     enemy of the good. This is a good deal for America and 
     particularly a good deal for farmers at this vulnerable time.

  Again, this isn't support from some Republican Member of Congress. 
This is support that is voiced by President Clinton's former Secretary 
of Agriculture.
  What is more, all former Agriculture Secretaries since the Reagan 
administration have voiced their full support for the USMCA.
  We have seen the headlines of endorsements, and one especially caught 
my attention. The title of a recent op-ed read: ``Democrats Should Give 
Trump a Win on His Trade Deal with Mexico and Canada.'' Well, this 
piece wasn't composed by a conservative publication. It was penned by 
the editorial board of the Washington Post.
  Finally, a group of 14 House Democrats sent a letter to Speaker 
Pelosi last July urging her to take up the USMCA for a vote.
  The letter reads: ``Canada and Mexico are by far our most important 
trading partners, and we need to restore certainty in these critical 
relationships that support millions of American jobs.''
  Both sides of the aisle agree that the USMCA is a significant win for 
farmers, ranchers, ag producers, and America's economy as a whole.
  Nebraska's farmers and ranchers have maintained patience in these 
tough times. They deserve to know without a doubt that they will 
continue to have access to their two largest markets and closest 
trading partners.
  As I said earlier, farmers aren't just thinking about themselves. 
They are planning for the future generations that will proudly carry on 
their life's work and continue feeding our world.
  Right now, we have an opportunity to come together around a 
commonsense, bipartisan agreement that will benefit the American people 
both now and for years to come. Now it is up to Congress to deliver.
  I urge Speaker Pelosi to stop needlessly delaying this vote, and I 
encourage all of my Democrat colleagues not

[[Page S5823]]

to allow politics to stand in the way of sound policy. It is time to 
push the USMCA over the finish line.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. SASSE. Mr. President, first I would like to associate myself with 
the comments of my senior Senator about the necessity of the passage of 
the USMCA. The House of Representatives and the Speaker should schedule 
that vote immediately. There is clearly overwhelming support in both 
bodies for its passage.
  I would also like to underscore my senior Senator's comments about 
the tragedy of the irrigation tunnel collapse in Nebraska and about the 
character of Nebraska's farmers and ranchers. They have dealt with yet 
another catastrophe after 81 of our 93 counties went through a state of 
emergency earlier this year in a flood.
  I would like to just commend my senior Senator for a fine speech on a 
really important topic.
  (The remarks of Mr. Sasse pertaining to the submission of S.J. Res. 
58 are printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
  Mr. SASSE. I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The measure will be received and appropriately 
referred.
  The Senator from Maryland.


                              S.J. Res. 53

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about S.J. 
Res. 53. We will have a chance to vote on that tomorrow. I am joined by 
my colleague from Maryland, Senator Van Hollen, and my colleague on the 
Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Whitehouse from Rhode 
Island. I also want to thank Senator Carper for his leadership as the 
senior Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee in regard 
to this resolution.
  This resolution will be voted on tomorrow. It deals with the CRA--
Congressional Review Act--vote in regard to the Trump administration's 
affordable clean energy rule. That is probably a misnomer. It is what I 
call the dirty powerplant rule. The CRA would repeal that so that we 
can go back to the Clean Power Plan that was promulgated under the 
Obama administration in 2015.
  Let me explain what the Trump-era rule would do. First, it would 
repeal the Clean Power Plan that was issued in 2015. That plan had real 
results in it. It set limits on a powerplant's production of dangerous 
carbon. It made meaningful progress. The rule promulgated by President 
Trump's administration would repeal that and substitute it with a plan 
that would be a powerplant judgment in each powerplant--coal-burning 
only--and would not take into consideration the powerplant mix of 
individual States.
  The previous rule allowed the States to figure out how to reach those 
goals. So a State could do a mix. They could start using natural gas. 
They could start using renewable energy. They could meet their goals 
that are set with a reduction of about one-third of these dangerous 
carbon emissions but with local discretion on how to reach those goals.
  The rule that was promulgated that I am seeking to reverse allows 
only efficiency per coal powerplants, does not allow the mixing of the 
different technologies, and prohibits the States from pursuing market-
based plans.
  I am going to tell you, in my region of the country, we have what is 
known as REGI, which is a compact to reduce carbon emissions. We do it 
by energizing market forces so that we can get to friendlier sources of 
energy, which, by the way, has helped our region not only reduce carbon 
emissions but create green energy jobs, which is in our interest.
  Let me point out from the beginning that the powerplants are the 
largest stationary source of harmful carbon emissions. Why should 
everybody be concerned about it? We know its impact on climate change. 
We have seen the harmful impacts of climate change in America, from the 
wildfires out West to the flooding here in the East. We have seen the 
problems not only in our own community but throughout the world. In my 
own State of Maryland, we have had two 100-year floods within 20 months 
in Ellicott City, MD. The list goes on and on about the impact of 
climate change. We see the coastal line changing in our lifetime. We 
are seeing regular flooding. We are seeing habitable land become 
inhabitable. All of that is affected by our carbon emissions, and the 
Obama-era Clean Power Plan did something about it. The rule that we 
will have a chance to vote on tomorrow would do nothing about it.
  We see this as a public health risk. I can't tell you how frequently 
I have heard from my constituents who have someone in their family who 
has a respiratory illness: What can we do for cleaner air? Children are 
staying home from school because of bad air days. Parents are missing 
time from work. Premature deaths. All that is impacted by clean air.
  I talk frequently about the Chesapeake Bay. I am honored to represent 
the Chesapeake Bay region in the U.S. Senate, along with Senator Van 
Hollen, and we treasure the work that has been done. It has been an 
international model of all the stakeholders coming together in order to 
clean up the Chesapeake Bay, and we are making tremendous progress on 
dealing with the sorts of pollution coming from runoff or from farming 
activities or development. But, quite frankly, we have not been 
successful in dealing with airborne pollutants that are going into the 
Chesapeake Bay.
  In Maryland, we are a downwind State. We need a national effort here. 
Maryland could be doing everything right, but if the surrounding States 
are not, we suffer the consequences. That is why the Clean Power Plan 
was so attractive in dealing with this issue, because it dealt with it 
with national goals. Establish how to attain them by the local 
governments. That is the way it should be.
  Let me give the numbers. The Clean Power Plan that is repealed by the 
rule under the Trump administration would have reduced dangerous carbon 
emission by about one-third. We believe the rule that was promulgated 
by the Trump administration could actually increase dangerous 
emissions.
  Let me use EPA's regulatory impact analysis. Looking at 
CO2--carbon dioxide--the Agency says that the Trump rule 
will reduce it by 0.7 percent. That is less than 1 percent. The Clean 
Power Plan issued by President Obama--19 percent. SO2s under 
Trump are 5.7 percent; under the Obama rule, 24 percent. NOX 
emissions under the plan that was promulgated under the Trump 
administration are 0.9 percent--less than 1 percent. Under the Clean 
Power Plan, it is 22 percent.
  We really are talking about whether we are serious about dealing with 
dangerous carbon emissions or whether we are going to at best maintain 
the status quo; at worst, make things even worse.
  It saddens me that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are 
embracing the ACE rule, since it threatens to reverse much of the 
progress we have made in reducing air pollution--progress their 
conservationist Republican predecessors helped to spur. The Clean Air 
Act amendments, which established the sulfur dioxide--SO2--
cap-and-trade program, were adopted in 1990. This was never a partisan 
issue; cap-and-trade was originally a Republican idea. George Herbert 
Walker Bush was President. It passed the House of Representatives by a 
401-to-21 vote. It passed this body, the U.S. Senate, by an 89-to-11 
vote. It has been highly successful. During George W. Bush's 
Presidency, the EPA determined that the SO2 cap-and-trade 
program had a 40-1 benefit-to-cost ratio.
  The Supreme Court held in Massachusetts v. EPA that the EPA has a 
responsibility to regulate these carbon emissions. So that is exactly 
what was done in 2015, which is now being jeopardized because of the 
regulation that was issued under the Trump administration.
  I had a chance to serve in the State legislature. This is an affront 
to federalism. Innovation for green energy and jobs is prohibited under 
the rule that I am seeking to repeal. It is prohibited. That is why 22 
States and 7 local governments have filed suit against this regulation. 
But we can act.
  The Congressional Review Act allows us to take action in this body, 
and that is why I filed that so we can take action. If we allow this 
rule to go forward, it will delay the implementation of carbon emission 
reductions--delay it. If we vote for the CRA, we will be back on track.

[[Page S5824]]

  We have already seen the U.S. leadership challenged in this area with 
President Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris accord--the only 
nation in the world that has done so. Who has filled that void? Quite 
frankly, it has been China.
  Do we want to cede our leadership globally to a country with a 
controlled government economy like China or do we want to reassert U.S. 
leadership? We are going to have a chance to do that tomorrow with a 
vote in the U.S. Senate. I urge my colleagues to support the 
Congressional Review Act resolution I have filed, S.J. Res. 53.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I would like to start by thanking my 
friend and colleague from the State of Maryland, Senator Cardin, for 
bringing this resolution to the floor of the Senate--as he said, we 
will be voting on it tomorrow--but also for his longstanding support 
and efforts in trying to protect our environment, to protect the 
Chesapeake Bay, and to address the urgent issue of climate change, 
which anybody with eyes can see is already having a devastating impact 
on communities throughout our country and, indeed, throughout the 
world.
  I am also very pleased to be here with our colleague, the Senator 
from Rhode Island, Mr. Whitehouse, who has made this such an important 
cause and has kept the Senate focused on this pressing issue.
  As Senator Cardin indicated, under the previous administration, under 
the leadership of President Obama, as a country we adopted something 
known as the Clean Power Plan rule. This was a historic step forward. 
It was a blueprint to create more good-paying jobs in the clean energy 
sector. In fact, we have seen a tremendous growth of those jobs in the 
area of solar and wind power and other jobs.
  That Clean Power Plan rule, under the Obama administration, also 
really addressed the issue of carbon pollution in the atmosphere, 
beginning to reduce it significantly, to offset the damage and real 
costs we are already experiencing in communities from that climate 
change.
  As Senator Cardin said, this is an area where there are huge 
communities, if our country moves forward, in the area of clean energy 
jobs. Right now, with this new Trump administration action, we are 
ceding the playing field to China, which is happily seizing the 
initiative and moving forward and creating more and more jobs in the 
clean energy sector. If we don't wake up, we are going to lose that 
important global competition in the vital sector to China, which has 
established a goal of dominating the area of clean energy technologies 
by 2025.
  Instead of building on the progress of the Obama administration, on 
June 19, the Trump administration decided to repeal and roll back these 
important rules that have been put in place and substitute them with 
something that, in the worst case, actually makes the situation much 
worse than even before these Trump rules and, at the very least, is a 
huge retreat from the progress we were headed toward under the rules of 
the previous administration.
  Let me just point out the analysis that was done by a very good 
organization called Resources for the Future. They looked at their 
analysis of this Trump proposal, which I agree with Senator Cardin is 
better termed the ``Trump dirty power plan,'' and they concluded it 
would do very little, if anything, to address climate change and would 
have an adverse air quality impact in many of our States.
  Some people may recall when the Trump version of this power plan, the 
``dirty power plan,'' was released last year, people looked at the 
EPA's own analysis of that rule, and it showed that 1,630 of our fellow 
Americans would die prematurely under the Trump provisions compared to 
the Obama-era provisions.
  So when the Trump administration released this most recent version of 
their amended plan back in June, they made it really difficult to put 
together all the data so people would not be able to connect the dots 
in many of these areas, but Senator Cardin has presented some of the 
results of this. I want to emphasize those and put them in somewhat 
different terms, which is, what does the Trump rule accomplish compared 
to the Obama rule on some of these issues?
  So with respect to carbon dioxide emissions, the Trump rule would 
reduce carbon dioxide emissions, carbon pollution emissions, by 2.7 
percent of what the Obama administration would have done--2.7 percent 
of what the rule they are replacing would have done.
  With respect to sulfur dioxide, the Trump plan reduces sulfur dioxide 
emissions by only 1.9 percent of what the Obama administration's rule 
would have done.
  When it comes to nitrous oxide, the Trump proposal, the Trump plan, 
reduces nitrous oxide by only 2.5 percent compared to what the Obama 
provisions would have done.
  If you take all of these together, you can see it is a really anemic 
proposal that takes us way backward compared to where we were. That is 
why I support Senator Cardin's efforts on the floor, with the vote 
tomorrow, to say no, to say no to the Trump administration's efforts to 
roll back the progress on clean air, to roll back the progress on clean 
water because a lot of that pollution settles in places like the 
Chesapeake Bay, and to roll back progress on climate change, which we 
know is hitting our communities as we speak.
  I want to give some additional Maryland examples here. The Baltimore 
Sun ran a story a little while back about the staggering costs that 
Maryland and Marylanders would have to pay to build seawalls to protect 
communities from sea level rise. A study from the Institute for 
Governance & Sustainable Development found that in the coming decades, 
seawalls to protect thousands of homes, businesses, and farmlands from 
Ocean City to Baltimore City will cost more than $27 billion--$27 
billion.
  We have also seen dramatic flooding in the city of Annapolis that is 
already hurting the Naval Academy. This past week, we just had a famous 
national boat show, and in the middle of this boat show, there was huge 
flooding in the city of Annapolis. The costs to the city and that 
community are rising rapidly and have been well-documented.
  I ask my colleagues to support Senator Cardin's motion. Let's not go 
backward. Let's not go backward in terms of protecting our air. Let's 
not go backward in terms of the battle against climate change because 
going backward means less good jobs in America, it means more dirty air 
and more asthma, and it means ceding this important area to China and 
others in the global economy.
  I urge my colleagues to support the motion of Senator Cardin.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Blackburn). The Senator from Rhode 
Island.