January 14, 2020 - Issue: Vol. 166, No. 8 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 2nd Session
All in Senate sectionPrev23 of 50Next
UNITED STATES-MEXICO-CANADA TRADE AGREEMENT; Congressional Record Vol. 166, No. 8
(Senate - January 14, 2020)
Text available as:
Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.
[Pages S185-S186] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] UNITED STATES-MEXICO-CANADA TRADE AGREEMENT Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, last week, the Senate Finance Committee voted on the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement. It is called USMCA. I did something I have never done. I voted for it. I have never voted for a trade agreement in my time in the House of Representatives and my time in the Senate. In fact, I helped to lead the opposition to the original NAFTA among freshmen Members of Congress because I recognized that every single one of these trade agreements basically had the template of corporate interests at the center of them. In other words, these trade agreements--whether it was NAFTA, or the North American Free Trade Agreement, whether a half generation later it was the Central America Free Trade Agreement, whether it was the free trade agreement with South Korea, or whether it was the Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China--all of them were written by corporate interests serving the profitability of the executives and [[Page S186]] the major stockholders of these companies. They all tended to precipitate this under these trade agreements in this Congress, under Presidents of both parties, I might add. I disagreed with the first President Bush, then President Clinton, then the second President Bush, and then President Obama. All of them would submit trade agreements that were written for corporate interests, I believe, at the expense of workers. What happened, typically, was that companies that lobbied Congress to pass these trade agreements would shut down production in Provo, UT, in the Presiding Officer's State, or Cleveland or Dayton, in my State. They would shut down production there, move their production overseas, get their tax breaks, and get their low-wage labor, often worked on by--almost always--nonunion workers, sometimes underage workers who were very inexpensive. The products would be manufactured and then sold back into the United States. That became the business model for company after company after company since the North American Free Trade Agreement, where corporations outsourced jobs in order to save money, always at the expense of communities, particularly in the industrial Midwest, always at the expense of workers, and always at the expense of the middle class. It was welcome news to me when Candidate Trump, with whom I agree with on almost nothing, said he would renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement. So I tried to work with him. I told him that I supported his renegotiation. I worked with Ambassador Lighthizer, the Trade Representative, the Ambassador for President Trump--the so-called U.S. Trade Representative. I said to them that we want workers to be the centerpiece of this trade agreement. Well, what happened? A year into his Presidency, President Trump proposed the same kind of trade agreement that we had seen all along--a trade agreement where corporations were at the center of the agreement and workers were betrayed. This is a President who has betrayed workers day after day after day. He refused to raise the minimum wage. He cut overtime pay for 50,000 Ohio workers. He put people in the courts who put a thumb on the scales of justice, choosing corporations over workers and choosing Wall Street over consumers. It is a White House that looks like a retreat for Wall Street executives except on Tuesdays and Fridays, when it looks like a retreat for a drug company executive. That is what the President proposed. Speaker Pelosi, Senator Wyden and I, and worker representatives--the AFL-CIO, the UAW, the CWA, the machinists, and the steelworkers--all said: No, we are not going to support another trade agreement that sends jobs overseas. We want a trade agreement written for workers. We said to the President and the President's Trade Representative: We are not going to support this unless you include strong labor enforcement standards for workers. They basically ignored us. We had tried to work with them. They basically ignored us. They insisted we pass their bill. Finally, after a year--more than a year--the administration came along kicking and screaming and agreed with us only because they knew they couldn't pass a trade agreement without it. It took the language that Senator Wyden and I submitted for workers. It works in this way: For the first time, a worker is empowered to challenge the violation of labor law. So a Mexican worker, where the company has broken the law by paying them a sub-minimum wage, where the company has broken the law by refusing them to organize or to allow unions to attempt to organize, where a company breaks the law on worker safety--a worker at that company, anonymously, at that worksite, can file a complaint and set off the clock of the process so we can actually challenge when they break the law. We know why companies close factories in Ohio and in the State of my friend from Rhode Island, in Cranston, RI. They close factories and open them in Mexico because they can pay lower wages, and they can take advantage of workers who don't have rights. American workers can't compete with that. We know that, and we get a race to the bottom on wages. What this agreement does is that it puts workers at the center. It allows for real labor enforcement, real enforcement of labor standards. So I voted for this agreement. It passed with only three ``no'' votes in the Senate committee. It will likely pass on the floor either this week or next week. But I want to be straight with American workers. This isn't a perfect agreement. It is one trade deal that Democrats fixed. Democrats and labor fixed it. Republicans opposed the fix but are now voting for it because they still want USMCA, but it will not fix the rest of President Trump's economic policies that put corporations over workers. Let me give you an example. If you are a company in Dayton, OH, you pay a 21-percent corporate tax rate. If you move to Mexico or you move to France or you move to China, you pay only a 10.5-percent corporate tax rate. So our government continues this because of President Trump's tax bill, the tax bill that caused us now to have a trillion-dollar-a- year deficit--the largest deficit we have had, except in times of recession. That tax bill still will make it attractive for companies to shut down and move overseas. This helps with that. As I said, I voted yes for the first time on a trade agreement because by including Brown-Wyden, Democrats have made this agreement, for the first time, pro-worker. We set an important precedent that, from now on, every trade agreement we negotiate--and, I believe, negotiated by Presidents in either party--will include language like Brown-Wyden, making sure that workers are at the table and that trade agreements look out for workers, unlike trade agreements in the past. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island. Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 20 minutes in morning business. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. ____________________
All in Senate sectionPrev23 of 50Next