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.
[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.
____________________