December 19, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 206 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session

[Pages S7223-S7224]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              UNITED STATES-MEXICO-CANADA TRADE AGREEMENT

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am here on the floor again for the 
third time in 3 weeks to talk about the U.S.-Mexico agreement, USMCA.
  Just a few moments ago, this trade agreement passed the House of 
Representatives by a vote of 385 to 41. That is extraordinary. Trade 
agreements sometimes tend to be pretty controversial and, more recently 
in our history, pretty partisan. In this case, Republicans and 
Democrats alike helped negotiate a good agreement, and Republicans and 
Democrats alike supported it.
  Let's now get that agreement over here. Let's not wait. The people in 
Ohio and all around in country who are going to benefit from it need 
those benefits now.
  So I am very pleased that the President and his U.S. Trade 
Representative, Bob Lighthizer, patiently negotiated with Speaker 
Pelosi and House Democrats and were able to get something done, and now 
it is close to becoming the law of the land. All it needs is a vote 
over here from the Senate and then the President will sign it into law.
  Thanks to important measures designed to strengthen our economy, 
create more jobs, and increase market access, this new agreement, the 
USMCA, actually helps to level the playing field between the United 
States and Canada and Mexico.
  First of all, it is going to result in more jobs. The independent 
International Trade Commission has said over 170,000 new jobs. That is 
mid-range. It could be a lot more than that.
  But they have also said that these are good-paying jobs. Jobs in 
trade tend to pay about 15 percent higher on average, and they have 
better benefits. So this is a bunch of good jobs.
  By the way, they estimate that at least 20,000 jobs in the auto 
industry will come to the United States that would not have come 
otherwise. I come from Ohio, a big auto State. It is a State that cares 
a lot about manufacturing and, specifically, autos, and they are both 
going to be helped by this agreement.
  Part of the way that it is going to create jobs here is by leveling 
the playing field on labor standards and enforcing those standards.
  Also, it has higher content requirements for U.S.-made steel and 
intra

[[Page S7224]]

auto parts that go into an automobile. As an example, USMCA requires 
that 70 percent of the steel going into cars come from North America. 
There is no provision like that in the status quo, in the NAFTA 
agreement. So this is a big improvement for us to drive more jobs here 
in America with regard to the steel production that goes into 
automobiles.
  But, second, it says that 75 percent of the overall content in USMCA 
automobiles that are sold through this agreement have to be from North 
America. That is a big jump. In the current agreement, instead of 75 
percent, NAFTA has 62.5 percent.
  What does that mean? It means that if you make a car, say, in Mexico, 
and it has a bunch of parts in it that come from other countries, say, 
Japan or China or Germany, they can't take advantage of the USMCA's 
lower tariffs unless they have at least 75 percent North American 
content. So that is a big difference.
  Now, there are some, including on my side of the aisle, that have 
criticized this provision and said that somehow this is a protectionist 
provision. Let me just make this point. We are agreeing with Canada and 
Mexico that we are going to have a new agreement with them that lowers 
barriers, tariffs, and non-tariff barriers on our borders with Canada 
and Mexico. We are taking advantage of that, with each other trading 
back and forth. That is why we will have more trade. That is why we 
will have more jobs.
  If other countries want to take advantage of that by coming into 
Mexico or Canada and adding parts to the cars, they are free riders 
because they are not giving us the reciprocal access to their markets 
as Canada and Mexico are. That is why I think this agreement makes 
sense.
  Now, I think it will incentivize two things. One, it will incentivize 
more jobs here--auto jobs, manufacturing jobs, steel jobs. But, second, 
it will incentivize those other countries to enter into a trade 
agreement with us.
  We have talked about this with Japan. We have taken the first step in 
starting to put together what is considered a broader free trade 
agreement. I hope we get to one. It would be important.
  But if they can simply free ride on existing agreements by having 
their stuff be transshipped from another country into the United States 
to take advantage of the lower tariffs that we are providing to Canada 
and Mexico, they wouldn't have that incentive to trade with us with 
their own agreement. So I think this is a good thing for encouraging 
more trade agreements and more trade openness.
  The International Trade Commission also tells us that the USMCA is 
going to grow our economy. In fact, they say it is going to grow our 
economy by double the gross domestic product of that which was 
projected under the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Some may remember that 
agreement, the TPP.
  Many of my colleagues, particularly on the other side of the aisle, 
held that agreement up as one that would have been great for America 
and that we should be part of it. I think it is important that we trade 
with our neighbors in Latin America and in the Pacific Rim, but, 
frankly, that agreement that was touted as being so great had less than 
half of the economic growth that we are talking about here. So this has 
more than doubled the economic growth we saw in the TPP.
  Second, the USMCA means new rules of the road for online sales. This 
is really important. So much of our economy today and our commerce 
takes place online, and yet there is nothing in NAFTA on it. If you 
think about it, 25 years ago there was no significant online commerce, 
and so there is nothing in the agreement. Whereas, in this agreement, 
there are a few things that are very important.
  For my State of Ohio and, really, for our entire country, a lot of 
our commerce is done online now. We have a lot of small businesses 
engaged in it. They want to do business with Mexico and Canada, but 
they have no protections--no protections from tariffs. They can be 
assessed on that trade. This says no tariffs.
  Also, data localization is something some countries are doing to 
American online companies. So if you are in online commerce in America, 
another country may say: Do you know what? You can do business in our 
country only if you localize your data, meaning the servers have to be 
in our country--in Mexico or in Canada, as an example.
  This agreement says no. It prohibits that data localization 
requirement, which allows us to sell more to those countries without 
having to place our servers there.
  It also says that the de minimis level on customs duties for sales 
online is increased. This saves money because people can now be 
involved in commerce with Canada and Mexico and not pay as much in 
terms of the customs duties and the tariffs, but there are also 
incredible administrative burdens being lifted by not having to worry 
about that. So this is good for us because we do a lot of online 
commerce here.
  Third, I would say that American farmers are strongly behind this 
agreement for a good reason, which is that it opens up more markets for 
them and adds more certainty for them. Again, the NAFTA accord is 25 
years old, and we had hoped during the last 25 years that we would get 
at some of the protectionist policies, particularly with regard to 
Canada and with regard to dairy and wheat and other issues, but we 
didn't have much success until now. Now, with the USMCA, we have the 
ability to send more of our stuff to these countries, and that is why 
the ag community is so excited about it. Between bad weather, low 
prices, and a shrinking China market, our farmers have been hit hard, 
and this is a light at the end of the tunnel. That is why, by the way, 
over 1,000 farm groups have come out in support of USMCA.

  There are a lot of folks I hear talking who say one side won or one 
side lost in the negotiations over USMCA. I don't think that is it. I 
think because of the hard work of U.S. Trade Representative Bob 
Lighthizer and the Trump administration and President Trump himself 
supporting this and pushing it, I think neither side won but the 
American people won. And isn't that nice to see? I think that is why 
you saw today on the floor of the House of Representatives a vote of 
385 to 41.
  I think now more people are going to be able to benefit from trade 
with these two countries. For Ohio, Canada is, by far, our largest 
trading partner. Mexico is No. 2. So this is a big deal. It is more 
modernized trade. We have replaced an agreement that has shown its age 
with unenforceable labor standards and environmental standards, non-
existent digital economy provisions, and outdated rules-of-origin 
provisions. This changes all that.
  We waited long enough. It is time, now that the House has voted--as I 
said, this evening, which was great news--to get that legislation over 
here to ensure that we do have great victory for American farmers, for 
small businesses, for our manufacturers, for our online businesses, and 
so many others.
  I look forward to the opportunity to be able to vote for it over 
here.

                          ____________________