[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.
____________________