Even though the Democrats won some changes to the new NAFTA that are seen as contrary to business interests -- primarily, removing extended patent protection for pharmaceuticals in Canada and Mexico -- business groups celebrated House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's decision to hold a vote on the trade pact. A vote in the House is expected next week, but a Senate vote won't come until next year.
Unions appear ready to endorse the changes Democrats won to the NAFTA rewrite, though the most radical change -- stopping goods at the border for labor violations -- isn't in the deal. On Dec. 9, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said to The Washington Post, “We have pushed them hard and have done quite well,” in getting changes to the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement. The House Democrats pushed for changes to the USMCA on labor, the environment, the biologics data exclusivity period and overall enforcement. If the AFL-CIO endorses their changes -- as seems likely after Trumka's comment -- passage in the House could follow quickly.
A last-minute push to tighten up the steel and aluminum segment of the auto rules of origin has angered Mexico, media reports said Dec. 6. Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, had referred to this last-minute ask as not coming from House Democrats the day before (see 1912050054). The reports say that steel unions asked for a “poured and melted” standard, rather than allowing Mexican processors to take imported slab and make it into sheet metal for cars.
Texas voters send 36 members to the House of Representatives, and 18 attended a press conference Dec. 5 to say they want a U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement vote as soon as possible. But only one of the 13 Democrats in the Texas delegation attended -- Rep. Henry Cuellar, who represents Laredo and McAllen. Cuellar, the biggest booster of the new NAFTA in the Democratic caucus, said he'd been updated about the state of play between Mexicans and the U.S. trade representative at 9:30 a.m. that day, and “we're very, very, very close,” he said, but he said Mexicans tire of what they feel is a “one-more-thing”-style of negotiating from the Americans.
Democrats in the House insisted that their ideas about how to verify compliance with Mexico's labor laws is a balanced one that respects their sovereignty. Chief Mexican negotiator on USMCA, Jesus Seade, wrote a column published Dec. 4 that said, in Spanish, that there will be no “transnational inspectors,” even though the U.S. has pushed so much for that approach. "If the U.S. stops insisting on the pair of unacceptable ideas that the [Mexican trade group CCE] statement yesterday speaks of, we can soon have a treaty, and a very good treaty," he wrote (see 1912030033). He said that the state-to-state dispute settlement system, broken in NAFTA, "will now be 100% repaired, for all topics and sectors under the treaty."
Exactly how the U.S. Trade Representative has agreed to change the 10-year biologics exclusivity period in the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement is unclear, but insiders are saying it will be less favorable to the pharmaceutical industry.
A top dairy lobbying group announced that executives would be visiting Congress Dec. 4 in what they characterized as “a last-ditch effort to save this deal,” and Farmers for Free Trade sent a letter to the top Republican and top Democrat in each chamber asking that the vote on the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement come as soon as possible. The letter, signed by 2,200 farmers around the country, was sent Dec. 3, and said that trade wars have hurt agriculture badly. “We have suffered from retaliatory tariffs, lost market share, and watched while America’s competitors are seen as more reliable trading partners. The reasons for this crisis are manifold but providing certainty about continued trade with two of our three largest export markets would provide America’s farmers and food manufacturers with a needed boost,” the letter said. “We are counting on our elected officials to champion the folks back home and appreciate your urgent action.”
Two prominent Republicans questioned the suitability of switching tariffs for quotas because of currency manipulation in Brazil and Argentina, as President Donald Trump said Dec. 2 he is doing. Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., the leading critic of Trump's trade policy, issued a statement that night that said, “He is justifying these tariffs by citing Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act. This provision is exclusively meant for national security threats. Yet, the President has acknowledged that the real purpose of this action is to combat currency manipulation -- which does not pose a national security threat. Furthermore, even if this action were legitimate, the statutory window for imposing these tariffs has closed. These actions further underscore that Congress should take up my legislation that would reassert congressional authority regarding imposition of national security tariffs.”
A Mexican business group representing manufacturers, agriculture, banking and retailers says it is very concerned that certain labor demands from U.S. politicians in the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement are extreme in nature “and are totally unacceptable,” the Consejo Coordinador Empresarial wrote in a press release Dec. 2, adding bold for emphasis. These proposals could severely affect Mexico's competitiveness, the CCE said. It also said “respect for Mexico's sovereignty is non-negotiable.”
Although the U.S. trade representative found a way to avoid a congressional vote on a U.S.-Japan trade deal by limiting the size of the initial U.S. tariff reductions, Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee are questioning whether the deal is allowed under the fast-track law. A letter sent Nov. 26, led by Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-N.J., and signed by every Democrat on the committee except the chairman and Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., did not explicitly say that Democrats believe the law is not being followed, but repeatedly asked under what authority the agreement was reached. Among the specific issues raised were rules of origin or marking rules and whether there would be changes. The letter also asked if there is such a provision, why wasn't it mentioned in the notification to Congress.