Follow @ontheissuesorg

Adrian Smith on Free Trade Republican

Voted YES on promoting free trade with Peru.

• enforcement of textile and apparel rules of origin;
• certain textile and apparel safeguard measures; and
• enforcement of export laws governing trade of timber products from Peru.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Rep. RANGEL: It's absolutely ridiculous to believe that we can create jobs without trade. I had the opportunity to travel to Peru recently. I saw firsthand how important this agreement is to Peru and how this agreement will strengthen an important ally of ours in that region. Peru is resisting the efforts of Venezuela's authoritarian President Hugo Chavez to wage a war of words and ideas in Latin America against the US. Congress should acknowledge the support of the people of Peru and pass this legislation by a strong margin.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Rep. WU: I regret that I cannot vote for this bill tonight because it does not put human rights on an equal footing with environmental and labor protections.

Rep. KILDEE: All trade agreements suffer from the same fundamental flaw: They are not self-enforcing. Trade agreements depend upon vigorous enforcement, which requires official complaints be made when violations occur. I have no faith in President Bush to show any enthusiasm to enforce this agreement. Congress should not hand this administration yet another trade agreement because past agreements have been more efficient at exporting jobs than goods and services. I appeal to all Members of Congress to vote NO on this. But I appeal especially to my fellow Democrats not to turn their backs on those American workers who suffer from the export of their jobs. They want a paycheck, not an unemployment check.

Voted NO on assisting workers who lose jobs due to globalization.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Rep. RANGEL: In recent years, trade policy has been a dividing force. This legislation develops a new trade policy that more adequately addresses the growing perception that trade is not working for American workers. The Trade and Globalization Assistance Act would expand training and benefits for workers while also helping to encourage investment in communities that have lost jobs to increased trade--particularly in our manufacturing sector. The bill is a comprehensive policy expanding opportunities for American workers, industries, and communities to prepare for and overcome the challenges created by expanded trade.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Rep. McCRERY: We should be considering trade adjustment assistance in the context of trade opportunities generally for US workers. That is to say, I think we should be considering modifications to our assistance network in the context of the pending free trade agreements that are before the Congress. Unfortunately, we are not doing that. We are considering TAA in isolation. [We should instead] restructure TAA from a predominantly income support program into a job retraining program. Other problems include that H.R. 3920 would:

• pointlessly keep people in trade adjustment assistance longer.
• increase TAA spending by billions of dollars, but would not require any further accountability on how program funds are spent.
• greatly expand TAA and exacerbate the inefficiencies in the program today.
• extend benefits to public sector workers and submit State and local officials to subpoenas and legal proceedings to comply.

Insist on access to post-mad-cow Japanese beef markets.

RESOLUTION Supporting increased market access for exports of United States beef and beef products to Japan.
• Whereas, in 2003, Japan was the largest market for US beef, with exports valued at $1,400,000,000;
• Whereas, after the discovery of 1 Canadian-born cow infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy ([known as "mad cow disease"] or BSE) disease in Dec. 2003, Japan closed its market to US beef, and still restricts access to a large number of safe US beef products;
• Whereas for years the US has developed and implemented a multilayered system of interlocking safeguards to ensure the safety of US beef, and after the 2003 discovery, the US implemented further safeguards to ensure beef safety;
• Whereas a 2006 study by the USDA found that BSE was virtually nonexistent in the US;
• Whereas, from 2004 through 2009, US beef exports to Japan averaged roughly $196,000,000, less than 15% of the amount the US sold to Japan in 2003, causing significant losses for US cattle producers; and
• Whereas, while Japan remains an important trading partner of the US, this unscientific trade restriction is not consistent with fair trade practices, nor with US treatment of Japanese imports:

Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--
1. it is not in the interest of either the US or Japan to arbitrarily restrict market access for their close partners;
2. trade between the US and Japan should be conducted with mutual respect and based on sound science;
3. since banning US beef in Dec. 2003, Japan has not treated US beef producers fairly;
4. both Japan and the US should comply with guidelines based on sound science;
5. Japan should immediately expand market access for US exporters of both bone-in and boneless beef beyond the existing standard of beef from cattle 20 months and younger; and
6. the President should insist on increased access for US exporters of beef and beef products to the market in Japan.