[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 15, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Page S203]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              UNITED STATES-MEXICO-CANADA TRADE AGREEMENT

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the majority leader, Senator McConnell, 
also addressed the USMCA. This is characterized as the NAFTA-2 or ``the 
new trade agreement'' 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, IL, I held a 
historic press conference. I brought together the President of the 
Illinois State AFL-CIO, Tim Drea of Christian County in Central 
Illinois, and Dick Guebert, 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 is 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 that the suggestion that somehow Speaker Pelosi, 
in the words of the majority leader, slow-walked the USMCA really, in a 
way, ignores the obvious. In the period of time between the original 
submission of the USMCA and the vote that will take place soon in the 
U.S. Senate, changes have been made to the 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 biological 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 criticizing Speaker Pelosi for slow-walking. I don't 
see it as slow-walking. I see it as bargaining, negotiating, and coming 
up with the 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 has been before Congress, as we 
should--exactly what the American people want. 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.

                          ____________________