On the recordSeptember 20, 2019
I thank the gentleman for his question. I don't have a timetable, but I share his view that we want to move this along. As I told him, and the Speaker was on the floor, we were trying to get to ``yes'' on this. Again, we appreciate Ambassador Lighthizer's good faith. We think he has been dealing in good faith on behalf of the administration and on behalf of getting to an agreement, so we appreciate that. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman knows, we are eager to update and improve NAFTA so that it functions better for the American businesses and workers. However, for House Democrats, as the gentleman knows, getting NAFTA 2.0 done right means doing more than just changing its name. We need to make sure it changes actually its work, and by that, we mean enforcement. Both the Speaker and I voted for NAFTA. We were concerned and disappointed that the sidebars were not carried out, so we are pursuing that. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, as the gentleman knows, has said: ``The commitments in the trade pact aren't worth the paper they are written on if they can't be enforced.'' Not only do we agree with that, but that has been our experience, so we are hoping that we get mechanisms to accomplish that objective. In 25 years, we have only had one successful enforcement action under NAFTA--dispute resolution procedures--and none in the past 20 years, so that is why we believe enforcement is so very important. Mr.…





