[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 181 (Wednesday, November 13, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6540-S6541]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, it has now been 13 months since the
administration concluded negotiations on the United States-Mexico-
Canada Free Trade Agreement. It has been 13 months of uncertainty for
U.S. farmers and ranchers, manufacturers, small businesses, digital
firms, financial institutions, and many others. It has been 13 months
of wondering what the rules of the road on trade are going to look like
going forward.
We should have passed the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement
months ago. The Republicans in the Senate have been ready to take up
this agreement for a long time, but trade agreements have to be
considered by the House of Representatives first, and the House of
Representatives is controlled by the Democratic Party, which is far
more interested in partisan pursuits than in actually doing any
meaningful legislating.
While the House Democrats are happy to consider far-left messaging
bills that have no chance of going anywhere, they have no interest in
working with the Republicans to actually get something signed into law.
Why? The Democrats have convinced themselves that partisan posturing is
more important than securing a bipartisan legislative victory, like a
strong, new trade deal that will benefit the American economy. So they
are currently opposing a trade agreement that would benefit millions of
American workers.
Let's be very clear. The Democrats' decision to prioritize partisan
politics is having real consequences for the American people. Right
now, the members of our military are unable to fund new priorities
because the Senate Democrats are blocking the consideration of Defense
appropriations. Farmers and ranchers in my home State of South Dakota
and around the country are struggling, but the House Democrats refuse
to move forward on a trade deal--the United States-Mexico-Canada
Agreement--that would bring them relief.
Thanks to low commodity and livestock prices, natural disasters, and
protracted trade disputes, farmers and ranchers have had a tough few
years, and one of the biggest things we can do to help them is to take
action on trade. Our Nation's farmers and ranchers depend on trade.
When I talk to farmers and ranchers at home in South Dakota, they
emphasize that the most important thing Washington can do to boost our
agricultural economy is to take action on trade agreements. Farmers and
ranchers need access to new and expanded markets for their products,
and, just as importantly, they need certainty about what international
markets are going to look like going forward.
The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement would help to meet those
needs. It would preserve and expand farmers' access to two critical
export markets, and it would give farmers certainty about what these
markets will look like long term.
I am particularly pleased with the improvements the agreement makes
for dairy producers. South Dakota has experienced a major dairy
expansion over the past few years, and this agreement will benefit U.S.
dairy producers by substantially expanding market access in Canada,
where U.S. dairy sales have been restricted. In fact, the U.S.
International Trade Commission estimates 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 it will make it easier for U.S. producers to export
wheat to Canada.
Of course, the benefits for the agricultural industry are just one
part of this agreement. From manufacturing to digital services, to the
automotive industry, virtually every sector of our economy will benefit
from the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. The USMCA breaks new
ground by including a chapter specifically focused on small and medium-
sized businesses. It is the first time that a U.S. trade agreement has
ever included a dedicated chapter on this topic. Roughly, 120,000 small
and medium-sized businesses around our country export goods and
services to Mexico and to Canada. The USMCA will make it easier for
these businesses to successfully export their products.
[[Page S6541]]
It would be nice if the House Democrats woke up tomorrow and decided
that 13 months was long enough to make America's farmers and ranchers
and manufacturers and small business men wait for the United States-
Mexico-Canada Agreement, but my hopes of seeing action from the House
grow dimmer each day.
The Democrats in the House should be addressing the American people's
priorities. American workers shouldn't be sacrificed for the Democrats'
partisan political goals. I hope that enough of my Democratic
colleagues in the House of Representatives will urge their House
leadership to bring up the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement in the
very near future. Americans have waited long enough.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cramer). The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I appreciate Senator Thune's comments about
the USMCA. Some might call it NAFTA 1.6. It just doesn't do very much.
I was not in this body when NAFTA passed. I was down the hall in the
House of Representatives. I voted against it.
I saw what NAFTA did to my State and what it did to our country in
the number of lost manufacturing jobs. States in the industrial Midwest
still have not recovered from that legislation, from that trade
agreement--the North American Free Trade Agreement. During the Clinton
administration, I opposed the President of my own party on this. In the
Bush administration, the other party pushed the one for Central
America. There was one after another after another of these trade
agreements, and we see the lost jobs. President Trump made a huge
campaign promise that he was going to do something about it, and this
agreement simply doesn't do it.
We have talked to the U.S. Trade Representative repeatedly about
enforcing labor standards. The whole point of fixing this agreement is
so that companies will not shut down in Mansfield, in Zanesville, and
in Lima, OH, and move to Mexico to build plants there and sell the
products back to the United States. Yet do you know what is happening?
Even the USMCA has no language in it that is going to stop the
outsourcing of jobs. So, if this Congress moves on the USMCA, you can
bet that month after month after month, we are going to lose
manufacturing jobs, that the business plan of shutting down production
in Ohio, in Rhode Island, in North or South Dakota, or in Montana will
continue, and that the USMCA will not do anything about it.
This is the same President who went to Youngstown, OH, as Lordstown
was about to shut down, and said: Don't sell your homes. We are going
to bring those jobs back.
No, we aren't. GM moved more and more jobs to Mexico at the same time
it shut down the GM plant in Lordstown, OH. There were 4,500 jobs lost.
This USMCA is simply a wallpapering over of an agreement. It doesn't do
what you have to do to stop the outsourcing of jobs.
I look at trade agreements in one way. Does it mean more jobs in our
country or does it mean fewer jobs? The USMCA will do nothing to stem
the tide of jobs that are moving to Mexico. That is why we should go
back to the table and include the Brown-Wyden amendment on labor
enforcement--language that will, in fact, mean there will be more
prosperity in both countries.
I thank Senator Whitehouse for yielding the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am not going to be that long. I ask
unanimous consent to speak for up to half an hour as in morning
business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.