[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 199 (Thursday, December 12, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7005-S7007]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



              United States-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I have come to the Senate floor several 
times over the past year to talk about the importance of passing the 
U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement. This is the successor agreement to the 
25-year-old NAFTA accord.
  Yes, it has been a year; in fact, it has been over a year since that 
agreement was negotiated between Canada and Mexico, and then Congress 
was meant to take it up. It has been too long.
  However, I am happy to report today that now we are at the end of 
that long process. I am told that the legislation is actually going to 
be voted on in the House of Representatives probably next week and then 
here in the U.S. Senate right after the holidays.
  We will have a chance, finally, to pass this agreement that is so 
good for the farmers, for the workers, for the manufacturers, and for 
the small businesses that I represent.
  I am really pleased that the President of the United States and his 
chief trade negotiator, Bob Lighthizer, had the persistence to get this 
done. I am not sure I would have had the same patience.
  I also want to congratulate House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for making the 
decision to move forward with it. This is one of these situations in 
which, under our law, the agreement has to be voted on first by the 
House. So the Speaker of the House had an unusual role here, where it 
couldn't go forward without her approval. Again, finally, we are there.
  The agreement, which was negotiated over a year ago and languished--
specific language was sent up here in May of last year--is pretty much 
the same. About 99 percent of it is the same agreement. It is a good 
agreement because it opens up more markets for us. What has changed is 
there are new provisions, different provisions, as it relates to 
enforcing the labor standards that are already in the agreement.
  In the agreement, what Mexico and Canada were asked to do, in 
addition to the United States, in terms of higher labor standards, was 
negotiated over a year ago, but what has happened over, really, the 
past several months is now there is a mechanism to enforce it that is a 
little different.
  I think it will make it easier to enforce potential violations of the 
agreement we have reached, particularly with regard to Mexico. It 
doesn't really come back against the United States at all. We can 
explain this in more detail as we see the exact language that is coming 
up in the next couple of days.
  The bottom line is, for a U.S. company, the labor standards that are 
established are the ones we already have in our law. For Mexico or 
Canada to file an objection to us potentially not following that 
agreement is simply after there has been a U.S. law processed, which 
would involve the National Labor Relations Board and our existing law, 
so it really shouldn't affect us at all.
  By the way, Secretary Scalia, who is the Secretary of Labor, was very 
involved in ensuring that it wouldn't come back on U.S. companies, on 
U.S. workers, and on our economy.
  At the end of the day, although it took way too long to get there, we 
have ended up with a very good result--an agreement that does expand 
trade, and that is the whole idea.
  We have talked a lot on the floor as to why this is so important. I 
will tell you, in my home State of Ohio, we send more than half of our 
exports to two countries, Canada and Mexico. By far, the No. 1 trading 
partner is Mexico, and No. 2 is Canada.
  This is really important because these jobs are really important. It 
is about $28 billion a year. These are jobs that pay higher wages and 
better benefits--export jobs. For our farmers, this is really 
important. For manufacturers and workers, it is really important 
because this lets them be able to do what we do best, which is 
efficiently and productively make things and produce things that could 
be sold to other markets.
  Remember, in America, we are only about 5 percent of the global 
economy--five percent of the people--so our

[[Page S7006]]

population is only about 5 percent, but we are about 25 percent of the 
GDP of the world. We are a relatively small country by population, but 
we have this big economy. To access that 95 percent of consumers 
outside of America to sell our products is absolutely essential to our 
prosperity here, to our jobs here.
  As I mentioned earlier, those export jobs tend to be better jobs and 
higher paying jobs with better benefits.
  What does this agreement do? First of all, it creates a bunch of new 
jobs. This chart has 176,000-plus new jobs. That is because the 
International Trade Commission--which is the independent body that 
analyzes these things--gave us a range. The GDP increased. It increased 
our economy. The number of jobs is huge, by the way--greater than any 
other trade agreement we have entered into, greater on the economic 
growth side than the Trans-Pacific Partnership that many of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle thought was something we 
should have entered into and was so important. This is even bigger.
  Obviously, it is so big because Canada and Mexico are such big 
trading partners with us. So even relatively small changes to open up 
new markets have a big impact. These are going to be welcome jobs and, 
again, higher paying jobs.
  Second, it really helps us with regard to online sales. One of our 
advantages as a country is we do a lot of commerce over the internet. 
When the original NAFTA agreement was written and was currently 
enforced--the status quo--there really were not any significant online 
sales--virtually none. So there were no provisions in there. Every 
modern trade agreement has provisions for online sales or for sales 
over the internet. Now we have them with regard to Mexico and Canada, 
which we would not have had under the old NAFTA. So that is a big 
improvement. For Ohio, that is a lot of small companies because 
entrepreneurs--some of these new startups are online companies--really 
like these provisions.
  By the way, it says a number of things. It says you can't require 
localization of data. In other words, Canada and Mexico can't say: Hey, 
you have to have your servers in our country if you are going to do 
business with us. That is really important to our American online 
industry.
  Second, it says that you can't put tariffs on data online. Again, it 
is very important to establish that, not just for Canada and Mexico but 
as a precedent for other trade agreements going forward.
  Third, it actually raises the de minimis level. In other words, to 
apply customs duties on stuff going to Canada and Mexico, they have a 
very low level. We have a relatively high level here. That level has 
increased for Canada and Mexico. That is an administrative burden that 
is lifted off of a lot of these small businesses but also a costsaver 
because they don't have to pay customs duty on a relatively small 
product that goes to another country.
  These are all good things for American jobs. Again, we have a 
comparative advantage here because we do a lot of online sales.
  Third is more U.S.-made steel and auto parts. This is really 
important to Ohio but also to our country. Manufacturing is now finally 
on the upswing. Manufacturing jobs are actually increasing in this 
country for the first time in years, and we are getting back on our 
feet in terms of what has always made America great, which is that we 
produce things; we make things. So this agreement helps.
  It says, as an example, that 70 percent of the steel that goes into 
automobiles--and the automobile industry is a big deal for Canada and 
Mexico and the United States--has to be from North America. That helps 
U.S. steel mills and steel mills in Ohio, as opposed to steel coming in 
from China, for example, from Brazil, and from other countries.
  Second, it changes the rules of origin--how much stuff can go into an 
automobile that comes from other countries. It is 62\1/2\ percent now, 
and it would take it up to 75 percent in this agreement. That is the 
highest level of any agreement we have with anybody.
  Why is that important? Well, think about it. We have agreed with 
Canada and Mexico that we are going to have this agreement that lowers 
the tariffs in all these countries and lowers the trade barriers 
generally. In other words, it gives them an advantage in our market. We 
get an advantage in their market. That is the idea. If you don't have a 
rule of origin where you say stuff can't come in from other countries 
and take advantage of that, then you have basically free riders.
  As an example, China can send a bunch of their auto parts to Mexico 
and produce a car that is a Mexican car that therefore gets the benefit 
of the NAFTA agreement. China has not opened its market at all; it has 
only provided this product to Mexico. But then the product gets the 
advantage of the lower tariffs and lower trade barriers generally. That 
is not fair. Raising it from 62\1/2\ percent to 75 percent is really 
significant. Again, it is the highest number of any trade agreement we 
have, and it avoids this problem.
  Some of us say: Gee, that sounds protectionist. I don't think it is. 
I think what it says to China, Japan, Brazil, or other countries is 
that if you want to get the advantage of the U.S. market that Canada 
and Mexico are getting and that we get reciprocally from them, then 
enter into a trade agreement with us.
  Let's have more trade agreements. Let's lower the barriers for 
everybody. That actually will expand trade. But we ought not to allow 
them to do it without that. This is a big deal.
  It also is true that in this agreement, there is something 
unprecedented with regard to leveling the playing field. Remember, a 
basic concept of our trade laws is that you want to have a balanced 
trade law where you have imports and exports because that makes sense--
keeps consumer prices down and allows us to have good jobs here--but 
you want it to be reciprocal and balanced. You don't want to have a 
situation where a country, because of its low wage rates and lack of 
labor standards or lack of environmental standards, where it is 
polluting a lot, can take advantage by having lower cost goods coming 
into America.
  In this agreement, we do say that there is a minimum wage for between 
40 and 45 percent of the auto production. It is $16 an hour. That will 
end up benefiting us because wages are relatively higher in America and 
Canada than they are in Mexico. That will be good for auto jobs here 
and help to level the playing field. This is why you might have seen 
that some of the labor unions are supporting this agreement and some of 
the U.S. manufacturers are supporting this agreement. They have a lot 
of facilities here in America, and they like that part of it as well.
  There are new markets for farmers. I mean, this is kind of a no-
brainer that has made it, for me, frustrating over the last year 
because we haven't been able to move forward on this agreement while 
farmers have really been suffering because of a few different things.
  One is weather. We have had some lousy weather, particularly in my 
State and across the Midwest, where it is too wet to plant and too dry 
for the crops to grow properly for a harvest, and that has hit us hard. 
We couldn't plant in Ohio in a number of cases this last year because 
of the weather being too wet, and so farmers have been hit by that.
  The second is that prices have been relatively low--not just recently 
but really over the last several years for different commodities such 
as corn, soybeans, and wheat. Part of that is because of the global 
markets.
  Part of it is because of the third issue, which is China. Because of 
our ongoing negotiation with China and disputes with China over what 
they are doing on intellectual property, stealing our technology, and 
other issues, they have bought less of our farm products. For Ohio, as 
an example, our No. 1 market overseas for soybeans is China, and one 
out of every three acres planted in Ohio is planted for export. Think 
about how that affects your prices if you lose that big market share 
and that big customer.
  I am pleased to say that we seem to be making some progress with 
China right now, incidentally, as an aside. It is great to have this 
agreement done. The next agreement I hope we get done is with China and 
get them to play by the rules and open those markets more. This week, 
they started to buy more soybeans, and that is good.
  In the meantime, our farmers are desperate for more markets, and in 
this

[[Page S7007]]

agreement, that is exactly what they get. So if you are an Ohio 
farmer--and we are No. 2 in the country on eggs--you can now have 
access to these markets in Canada and Mexico, on eggs, that you never 
had before.
  On dairy, Canada in particular has some very protectionist provisions 
in place with regard to dairy products--think milk and cheese.
  If you are an Ohio dairy farmer, you can sell stuff into Canada you 
couldn't sell before--also pork, beef, wheat, and other products. This 
is good for our farmers. This is why over 1,000 farm groups around the 
country have supported this agreement. I mean, I don't know a farm 
group in Ohio that doesn't support it strongly. Again, part of it is 
that this is a great agreement for them, and part of it is that they 
are hurting, and this gives them some light at the end of the tunnel, 
an opportunity to see new markets and therefore see some prices 
increase in our ag community.
  This is a good agreement that is good for jobs, good for small 
business, as we talked about, good for farmers, good for workers, and 
good for our economy. It is important that we get it done. I am glad 
the House is going to go ahead and vote on it in the next week. I wish 
we could vote here in the Senate right away, too, but under the process 
called trade promotion authority, we do have some processes we need to 
go through. It is probably best to have it happen after the holidays. 
Right after the holidays, my hope is that here on the floor of the 
Senate, Members will look at this for what it is. This is not a 
Democratic or a Republican victory; this is an American victory.
  Again, I appreciate the efforts of President Donald Trump because he 
was persistent and tough on the negotiations, and then he was 
persistent and patient in working with the U.S. Congress. There were a 
lot of people saying: Go ahead and send the agreement up and try to jam 
the Democrats into doing the right thing. He didn't do that. He waited 
to figure out a way to come up with an agreement, particularly on the 
labor enforcement provisions we talked about, and as a result, we now 
have the ability on a bipartisan basis to get this done. I hope the 
vote in the House will reflect that; likewise, here in the Senate.
  I know there are some of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who 
think this agreement is not perfect. No agreement is perfect; I will 
just say that. I am a former U.S. Trade Representative. I am a former 
trade lawyer. I am a former member of the Ways and Means Committee, 
which is the trade committee over there. I am now on the trade 
committee here, the Finance Committee. No agreement is ever perfect. It 
is not the agreement exactly that you would write or I would write, 
but, boy, this is a good agreement.
  To make perfect the enemy of the good would hurt the farmers and the 
workers and the small businesses that we represent that want this 
agreement badly because they know it is going to help them.
  The other thing I would say is that it also helps our relationships 
with our two biggest trading partners in Ohio, Canada and Mexico, and 
also our neighbors.
  For North America's future, this is a good idea--to have the 
certainty and predictability that comes with an agreement we have all 
been able to coalesce around and improve the status quo. NAFTA was 
negotiated 25 years ago. A lot has happened in the last 25 years. We 
talked about how the digital economy has transformed our economy, and 
we have a competitive and comparative advantage in that. That is one 
small example. So many things have changed.
  We have better protections for intellectual property in this 
agreement, as an example. We have these new trade-opening opportunities 
in agriculture. We have these opportunities in manufacturing to do more 
here in North America and specifically in the United States.
  A vote against this new agreement is a vote for NAFTA, which is this 
25-year-old agreement that has these flaws because that is the status 
quo. My hope is that the next time I come to this floor to talk about 
this, it will be to ask my colleagues in short order to support a vote, 
that it will have come out of the Finance Committee with a strong 
bipartisan vote, that it will have come to the floor with a strong vote 
from the House, and that we can get this done. Then President Trump can 
sign it, and the people we represent will be better off, our community 
of nations here in North America will be better off, and the United 
States of America will have another victory.
  I yield back.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.