[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 10 (Thursday, January 16, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S262-S265]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            VETERAN TREATMENT COURT COORDINATION ACT OF 2019

  Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of 
H.R. 886 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 886) to direct the Attorney General to 
     establish and carry out a Veteran Treatment Court Program.

  There being no objection, the committee was discharged, and the 
Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. MORAN. I ask unanimous consent that the McSally amendment at the 
desk be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a 
third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered 
made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 1283) in the nature of a substitute was agreed to, 
as follows:

                (Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)

        Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Veteran Treatment Court 
     Coordination Act of 2019''.

     SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that veterans treatment courts 
     are a successful program aimed at helping veterans charged 
     with nonviolent crimes receive the help and the benefits for 
     which the veterans are entitled.

     SEC. 3. VETERAN TREATMENT COURT PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment.--Subject to the availability of 
     appropriations, in coordination with the Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs, the Attorney General shall establish and 
     carry out a Veteran Treatment Court Program to provide grants 
     and technical assistance to court systems that--
       (1) have adopted a Veterans Treatment Court Program; or
       (2) have filed a notice of intent to establish a Veterans 
     Treatment Court Program with the Secretary.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of the Veterans Treatment Court 
     Program established under subsection (a) is to ensure the 
     Department of Justice has a single office to coordinate the 
     provision of grants, training, and technical assistance to 
     help State, local, and Tribal governments to develop and 
     maintain veteran treatment courts.
       (c) Programs Included.--The Veterans Treatment Court 
     Program established under subsection (a) shall include the 
     grant programs relating to veterans treatment courts carried 
     out by the Attorney General pursuant to sections 2991 and 
     3021 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 
     1968 (34 U.S.C. 10651, 10701) or any other provision of law.
       (d) Regulations.--The Attorney General shall promulgate 
     regulations to carry out this section.

  The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  The bill (H.R. 886), as amended, was passed.


                               h.r. 5430

  Mr. CRAWLEY. Mr. President, it is no secret around here that staff 
work is key to any Senator's success. It often goes unnoticed and 
unthanked, but today, as the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement 
Implementation Act passes Congress, I would like to express my 
appreciation to the many Senate staff who work for the people of Iowa 
and the entire country.
  Foremost among them are Kolan Davis, my Finance Committee staff 
director and longtime advisor of 35 years; Jeff Wrase, my deputy staff 
director; and Nasim Fussell, my chief international trade counsel on 
the committee. Their thoughtful, prudent advice, and hard work were 
crucial to helping create the conditions that allow for nearly-
unanimous passage today.
  Nasim led my trade staff on the Finance Committee. Her leadership of 
several other key staff, including Mayur Patel, Brian Bombassaro, 
Andrew Brandt, Rory Heslington, Grace Kim, and Michael Pinkerton, and 
all of their many late nights working at the office, are among the top 
reasons why this modernized trade agreement wasn't just negotiated with 
Canada and Mexico but will actually become law and soon take effect. 
Their diligent work with their Democratic counterparts, as well as the 
administration, is evidenced in the overwhelming vote USMCA received.
  My chief of staff, Aaron Cummings, legislative director, James Rice, 
and director of scheduling, Jennifer Heins, provided consistent 
guidance and helpful input on USMCA throughout negotiations that helped 
me do the job I needed to do for us to get to this point. I am grateful 
for their standing by my side this past year and going above and beyond 
for the people of Iowa.
  I would also like to thank my communications and press staff, 
including Michael Zona, Taylor Foy, George Hartmann, Nicole Tieman, 
Melissa Kearney, and Katelyn Schultz, for helping me communicate the 
many benefits of this trade deal to Iowans and all Americans. Their 
work to deliver that message to the grassroots of this country helped 
create the public pressure needed to encourage Congress to act and 
ratify USMCA.
  We all know that no legislating happens in the Senate without 
bipartisanship. That is why today I say congratulations and thank you 
to Ranking Member Wyden and his staff for all their hard work. They are 
Joshua Sheinkman, staff director; Mike Evans, deputy staff director; 
Jayme White, chief advisor on international competitiveness and 
innovation; and Greta Peisch, Sally Laing, Virginia Lenahan, and Rachel 
Lang.
  Of course, also critical to the bill's passage were Ambassador Bob 
Lighthizer and his hard-working team at the Office of the U.S. Trade 
Representative, particularly John Melle and Maria Pagan.
  Getting the Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO to both endorse this 
trade deal was no easy feat, and it took both sides' good faith efforts 
to get us here.
  You have heard me extol all the good that USMCA will do for this 
Nation's

[[Page S263]]

farmers, ranchers, manufacturers and workers of all stripes--hundreds 
of thousands jobs, billions of dollars added to the economy, new market 
access, and a framework for the future of international trade. It is 
these staff members who also deserve to share in the Nation's gratitude 
and celebration.
  Thank you all.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, the Senate considers the ``new 
NAFTA'', a bill now reviewed by seven Senate committees on which more 
than 85 Senators serve. Surely the vote count is clear: This 
implementing legislation will be adopted today and sent to the 
President. In Vermont, that will mean important wins for our State's 
economy and, in particular, our dairy farmers. I will support this 
bill.
  Vermont is a border State, and the commercial and cultural exchanges 
with Canada are woven into the fabric of the State. Vermont's largest 
export destination is Canada. In 2018, Vermont exported $1.3 billion--
billion--in goods to Canada. That is 43 percent of Vermont's exports. 
Trade with our neighbors to the north is essential to Vermont, just as 
trade throughout North America is important to our national economy.
  This agreement is far from perfect, but reflects a compromise that 
results when parties come together with a desire to make progress. It 
makes important updates to the more than 25-year-old North American 
Free Trade Agreement to reflect the advances in digital trade and 
intellectual property. The agreement will protect our ability 
domestically to increase the availability of affordable drugs. 
Importantly, to Vermont and the struggling dairy industry across the 
country, the agreement will increase U.S. access to markets in Canada 
and Mexico for our high-quality dairy products.
  The new NAFTA also includes funding to promote clean water 
infrastructure on the U.S.-Mexico border, and to improve environmental 
infrastructure on both sides of the southern border. It also includes 
funding to support reforms to the labor justice system in Mexico, to 
reduce the use of child labor and forced labor, to reduce human 
trafficking, and for international labor activities. These are 
important aspects of the deal that we should all strongly support.
  This agreement is a compromise. For all its gains, it lacks important 
accountability measures to address the escalating threat of climate 
change. No one surprised that an administration that announced from the 
start its intention to remove the United States from the landmark Paris 
agreement would not agree to binding limits on pollution. It should not 
surprise us that the Trump administration would not agree to any system 
to enforce environmental regulations. It is the greatest flaw of this 
agreement and a startling missed opportunity. We can no longer deny 
that climate change is real. The United States has a real opportunity 
to be a world leader in developing the green jobs and green economies 
that must drive our future. So while I am grateful that House Democrats 
were able to secure some concessions from the administration that will 
ensure that at least consider environmental impacts in terms of trade, 
the new NAFTA, unfortunately, misses that chance.
  I have heard from Vermont businesses concerned about our trade 
future, particularly with our neighbors to the north. They support this 
deal, and I ask unanimous consent to place a letter of support from the 
Vermont Chamber of Commerce and Vermont employers in the Record. It is 
because our trading relationships throughout North America are so 
vitally important to our national economy, and to local economies like 
those in Vermont, that I will support this agreement.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                  Vermont Chamber of Commerce,

                                 Montpelier, VT, January 14, 2020.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     Senator, U.S. Senate.
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy: We, the undersigned, urge you to vote 
     in support of S. 3052, the ``United States-Mexico-Canada 
     Agreement (USMCA) Implementation Act.'' Passage of this bill 
     would provide much needed updates to the North American Free 
     Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which took effect over a quarter of 
     a century ago.
       As you are aware, Vermont depends heavily on trade with our 
     North American neighbors, particularly Canada. USMCA provides 
     a path forward that strengthens these trade relationships and 
     protects the interests of Vermont workers and industry. The 
     proposed agreement promotes job stability and growth, while 
     also providing tariff-free access to sell U.S. products in 
     Canada and Mexico. A fully implemented USMCA also prevents 
     the steep increases in consumer goods prices that would 
     result from inaction. Further, USMCA grows digital trade, 
     including by guaranteeing freedom to move data across 
     borders, while protecting intellectual property.
       Passage of USMCA relieves much of the uncertainty our 
     business community has faced in relation to trade over the 
     last several years. Businesses across Vermont have made clear 
     that the unpredictable imposition of tariffs and the threat 
     of tariffs have added significant, often unsustainable costs 
     to doing business. These added costs have harmed industry and 
     limited growth by discouraging the long-term investments that 
     would have otherwise occurred had it not been for 
     unprecedented levels of volatility in our trade dependent 
     markets.
       Implementation of USMCA would greatly benefit Vermont 
     businesses and their employees by providing the mechanisms 
     necessary for Vermont to continue a prosperous and 
     competitive relationship with our top trade partner. Please 
     promptly approve USMCA.
           Sincerely,
     Vermont Chamber of Commerce.
     Burton Snowboards.
     Cabot Creamery Cooperative.
     Agri-Mark Incorporated.
     MBF Bioscience.
     Liquid Measurement Systems.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, in 1993, I voted against the North 
American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA. At the time, I was concerned 
about a number of issues, including that NAFTA would not adequately 
protect American jobs--manufacturing jobs in particular--and also 
lacked sufficient environmental protections.
  Today, I voted yes on the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement that will 
replace NAFTA because it will substantially improve upon NAFTA, and in 
the process benefit California and the United States.
  There are several provisions in the agreement that will help 
California, including greater access to Canadian agricultural markets, 
including dairy; labor provisions that go far beyond past trade 
agreements; and $300 million to help address pollution from the Tijuana 
River. It also includes $215 million and renewed authorization for the 
North American Development Bank to address pollution along the U.S-
Mexico border, a provision that comes from legislation I introduced 
with Senator Cornyn.
  The agreement sets new standards for labor protections in a trade 
agreement. The agreement will require Mexico to make major improvements 
to its labor laws, including collective bargaining reforms, 
establishing independent labor courts and union dispute-resolution 
bodies, and eliminating compulsory labor. It will substantially improve 
monitoring and enforcement of these labor reforms in Mexico, and make 
the enforcement process easier. For example, the agreement will 
establish benchmarks for Mexico's compliance with its labor obligations 
that will trigger a new labor-specific enforcement mechanism if those 
obligations are not met.
  The updates to NAFTA include several provisions that will help 
California's agricultural producers, including increasing access to 
Canada's dairy market. The agreement also puts wine, beer, and spirit 
products from each country on a more level playing field.
  I recognize that some critics think we can do more to protect the 
environment and fight climate change, and I agree. But we can't make 
the perfect the enemy of the good, and this agreement takes important 
steps in that area. In addition to fighting pollution along the 
southern border, the agreement provides increased funding for 
environmental compliance monitoring and enforcement, helps prevent 
illegal and unregulated fishing and trafficking of wildlife, protects 
marine species, affirms each country's commitments to international 
environmental agreements, and makes it easier for countries to issue 
regulations in the public interest.
  This agreement is a step in the right direction, in large part due to 
important improvements made by House Democrats. Those improvements 
helped secure many of the strong labor

[[Page S264]]

and environmental provisions I have just mentioned.
  These updates to NAFTA will also go a long way toward stabilizing our 
trade relationships with Mexico and Canada--two of the most important 
trading partners for California and the Nation. Canada and Mexico are 
two of the largest trading partners with the United States, each 
accounting for more than $600 billion in trade. The two countries are 
California's two largest export markets, buying nearly $50 billion of 
California's exports each year.
  Finally, it is notable that this agreement has broad bipartisan 
support, which I think is a sign that Congress can still work together 
to get important things done.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, today we consider these amendments to NAFTA. 
I opposed the original NAFTA in 1993 because I believed it would kill 
American jobs and failed to protect the environment. I oppose this 
version now, because it does not substantially improve on what was a 
bad deal all those years ago.
  I appreciate the concessions my colleagues were able to force 
President Trump to accept that strengthen protections for workers, but 
at the end of the day, these changes don't go far enough. I am 
concerned that this trade agreement could continue NAFTA's suppression 
of wages here at home instead of lifting them. This agreement also 
doesn't prioritize protecting our environment and will contribute to 
environmental damage and degradation, and it will continue President 
Trump's failed economic priorities that primarily benefit the wealthy 
and well-connected at the expense of hard-working, middle-class, and 
blue collar taxpayers.
  A well-crafted free trade deal should provide reciprocal benefits, 
contain sufficient labor standards that preserve and create jobs here 
at home, and include environmental and other protections to ensure that 
trade is conducted fairly.
  If well-crafted, trade policy can be a vital part of our economic and 
security efforts. Ideally, it would serve to achieve our Nation's 
policy objectives. The simple fact is that there are winners and there 
are losers in any trade agreement. The loss of economic security as a 
result of trade agreement after trade agreement over decades stems from 
a frequent failure to provide guaranteed and significant assistance to 
dislocated workers and small businesses that are negatively impacted by 
increased trade. A little money for training in a massive economy just 
hasn't cut it.
  In. 1993, I thought that NAFTA failed this test and as a result would 
be bad for Rhode Island's workers, manufacturers, and small businesses. 
I outlined a number of concerns at the time.
  I believed that NAFTA would increase incentives for companies to move 
factories and outsource jobs to Mexico--depressing wages for American 
workers. I also worried that the conditions on the ground in Mexico and 
the disposition of its government were not conducive to a free-trade 
agreement. Sadly, many of these concerns were later realized. NAFTA, 
along with increased globalization, certainly contributed to stagnating 
wages, loss of jobs, and a diminishing manufacturing base. Businesses 
outsourced jobs and moved factories to Mexico where costs and wages 
were lower. Labor standards were not adequate or enforced and workers 
were taken advantage of. Additionally, there were lax environmental 
standards, further incentivizing businesses to move jobs to Mexico, and 
which have proven harmful to our environment.
  Alternating between threatening to withdraw from NAFTA and imposing 
tariffs on dubious national security grounds, President Trump damaged 
critical relationships for, at best, marginal gains. That is what is so 
confounding. Out of the very chaos that President Trump has sown, we 
could have emerged with a much better, stronger NAFTA but that is not 
where we find ourselves.
  According to a report conducted by the U.S. International Trade 
Commission, USITC, released in April, the USITC forecasts that the new 
NAFTA ``would raise U.S. real GDP by $68.2 billion (0.35 percent) and 
U.S. employment by 176,000 jobs (0.12 percent)'' once implemented, 
years in the future. While each new job is critically important, these 
projections in no way match the rhetoric that President Trump spins and 
demonstrate that the new NAFTA is essentially the same as the old NAFTA 
from an economic perspective. It is also not clear that jobs lost as a 
result of NAFTA will be recovered, as has been claimed by some of the 
new NAFTA's proponents.
  Similarly, I believe that many of the concerns that I had with NAFTA 
and other trade agreements remain, particularly with respect to the 
protection of workers and our environment and ensuring tough 
enforcement mechanisms. I note the absence of a specific and robust 
Trade Adjustment Assistance Program to assist workers negatively 
impacted by increased trade in the implementing legislation--such 
assistance was at least included in 1993. The implementing legislation 
contains $843 million dollars in new spending. This includes resources 
to enforce environmental and labor standards in Mexico. Yet it does not 
include funding to assist American workers and small businesses who are 
negatively impacted by trade. As a result of any trade agreement, there 
are those who benefit and those who are hurt. We should always insist 
that there are sufficient provisions to assist workers who will lose 
out.
  Environmental standards and protections were inadequately accounted 
for in 1993, and the fact that they are not sufficiently stringent here 
is very disappointing. Climate change is having a serious impact on our 
environment and our economy. Safeguarding the environment is the right 
thing to do. It also helps ensure our workers can compete on an even 
playing field. Jobs are typically outsourced because it is cheaper to 
do business somewhere else. The absence of stringent and enforceable 
environmental standards in NAFTA contributed to a rush to move the 
production of goods to Mexico. It also hurt our environment. As we 
consider the new NAFTA, Australia is being ravaged by wildfires that 
many scientists argue are exacerbated by climate change. Our trade 
policy should intentionally include efforts to recognize and combat 
climate change. The new NAFTA fails to tackle this challenge that 
today's and every succeeding generation for the foreseeable future will 
have to confront, and my colleague from Rhode Island has made this 
point in greater and granular detail.
  In l993, conditions in Mexico and the disposition of its government 
were not conductive to a free-trade agreement. Mexico's democratic 
institutions and law enforcement agencies were weak and susceptible to 
corruption. As is frequently reported in the news, this remains a 
challenge for Mexico. If Mexico cannot arrest certain of its citizens 
for fear of cartel violence, it seems unreasonable to believe that it 
will be able to effectively inspect factories for alleged labor 
violations in territory controlled by cartels or factories in which 
cartels have an interest.
  In order to revitalize manufacturing in America, we need a commitment 
to workers. We need to make national investments in infrastructure and 
innovation. But, instead, what President Trump is offering is a 
repackaging and rebranding of NAFTA.
  President Trump may not be an expert on a lot of things, but he knows 
the importance of branding. He thinks he can call NAFTA terrible, 
fiddle around the edges, re brand it as the United States-Mexico-Canada 
Agreement, NAFTA 2.0, or whatever name he wants to come up with, and 
then call it great, big, and beautiful, when in reality, he hasn't 
solved a problem.
  Further, the new NAFTA fits neatly into President Trump's habit of 
creating a problem, sowing chaos, and then seeking credit when he 
provides a ``solution'' that is marginally better than where he began 
or worse.
  Many proponents of the new NAFTA explain that an important reason to 
vote in favor of this deal is that if ratified, it will remove 
``uncertainty'' from the economy and our relationship with our NAFTA 
partners. However, the main cause of uncertainty from our relationship 
with Canada and Mexico was created by President Trump through his 
erratic threats to our neighbors and trading partners. The arsonist is 
not a hero for putting out the blaze he intentionally set.

[[Page S265]]

  The President's pattern of behavior is prevalent throughout his trade 
policy. The President's tariffs and tweets are having a damaging 
effect. Indeed, while President Trump continues to assert that China is 
paying the cost, economists, including those from the Federal Reserve, 
have instead proven that these tariffs are being paid by American 
families, workers, farmers, small businesses, and manufacturers.
  These NAFTA amendments are just another example of an economic policy 
that provides crumbs to the middle-class. It goes hand in hand with the 
President and Republicans in Congress choosing to spend $1.9 trillion 
on tax cuts for the biggest companies and the wealthiest one percent of 
Americans who were recently estimated to already control more than a 
third of America's wealth. It is no wonder the President's tax law is 
unpopular. People can read the paper and see the list of those now 
paying little to nothing in taxes, while their taxes remain more or 
less the same and investment in roads and other infrastructure, 
education, or healthcare facilities goes unmet.
  We should be focusing our attention on lifting up working families 
and small businesses and ensuring that our Nation is on sound financial 
footing. While some of my Democratic colleagues had a hand in improving 
the initial agreement, it still fails to provide adequately for Rhode 
Island's workers and small businesses or the environment. Just like the 
old NAFTA, I cannot support this new one.

                          ____________________