Kathy Hochul on Free Trade

Impose tariffs against countries which manipulate currency.

• Amends the Tariff Act of 1930 to include as a `countervailable subsidy` requiring action under a countervailing duty or antidumping duty proceeding the benefit conferred on merchandise imported into the US from foreign countries with fundamentally undervalued currency.
• Defines `benefit conferred` as the difference between:
  1. the amount of currency provided by a foreign country in which the subject merchandise is produced; and
  2. the amount of currency such country would have provided if the real effective exchange rate of its currency were not fundamentally undervalued.
• Determines that the currency of a foreign country is fundamentally undervalued if for an 18-month period:
  1. the government of the country engages in protracted, large-scale intervention in one or more foreign exchange markets
  2. the country`s real effective exchange rate is undervalued by at least 5%
  3. the country has experienced significant and persistent global current account surpluses; and
  4. the country`s government has foreign asset reserves exceeding the amount necessary to repay all its debt obligations.

[Explanatory note from Wikipedia.com `Exchange Rate`]:

Between 1994 and 2005, the Chinese yuan renminbi was pegged to the US dollar at RMB 8.28 to $1. Countries may gain an advantage in international trade if they manipulate the value of their currency by artificially keeping its value low. It is argued that China has succeeded in doing this over a long period of time. However, a 2005 appreciation of the Yuan by 22% was followed by a 39% increase in Chinese imports to the US. In 2010, other nations, including Japan & Brazil, attempted to devalue their currency in the hopes of subsidizing cheap exports and bolstering their ailing economies. A low exchange rate lowers the price of a country`s goods for consumers in other countries but raises the price of imported goods for consumers in the manipulating country.

Require open markets for US goods in all trade agreements.

Reciprocal Market Access Act of 2011: Prohibits the President from agreeing to the reduction or elimination of the existing rate of duty on any product in order to carry out a foreign trade agreement until the President certifies to Congress that the US has obtained the reduction or elimination of tariff and nontariff barriers and policies and practices of such foreign country with respect to US exports of any product that has the same physical characteristics and uses as the product for which the President seeks to modify its rate of duty.

Congress finds the following:
1. One of the fundamental tenets of the World Trade Organization (WTO) is reciprocal market access.
2. The American people have a right to expect that the promises that trade negotiators and policy makers offer in terms of the market access opportunities that will be available to United States businesses and their employees if trade agreements are reached, will, in fact, be realized.
3. With each subsequent round of bilateral, regional, and multilateral trade negotiations, tariffs have been significantly reduced or eliminated for many manufactured goods, leaving nontariff barriers as the most pervasive, significant, and challenging barriers to US exports and market opportunities
4. The US market is widely recognized as one of the most open markets in the world.
5. Often the only leverage the US has to obtain the reduction or elimination of nontariff barriers imposed by foreign countries is to negotiate the amount of tariffs the US imposes on imports from those foreign countries.
6. The purpose of this Act is to require that trade negotiations achieve measurable results for US businesses by ensuring that trade agreements result in expanded market access for United States exports and not solely the elimination of tariffs on goods imported into the US.

Rated 25% by the USAE, indicating support for trade sanctions.

Ratings by USA*Engage indicate support for trade engagement or trade sanctions. The organization`s self-description: `USA*Engage is concerned about the proliferation of unilateral foreign policy sanctions at the federal, state and local level. Despite the fact that broad trade-based unilateral sanctions rarely achieve our foreign policy goals, they continue to have political appeal. Unilateral sanctions give the impression that the United States is `doing something,` while American workers, farmers and businesses absorb the costs.`

USA*Engage at Work
• Developing the Case: USA*Engage explains the benefits of economic engagement, and the high cost of sanctions for American exports, investment and jobs.
• Education: We recruit respected foreign policy and economic experts to speak out against sanctions, actively engage the media and provide outreach to key target states and Congressional districts.
• Contacting Government Officials: USA*Engage directly contacts Congressional, Administration, state and local officials.

VoteMatch scoring for the USA*Engage ratings is as follows :

• 0%-49%: supports trade sanctions;
• 50%-74%: mixed record on trade engagement;
• 75%-100%: supports trade engagement.

Click here for definitions & background information on Free Trade. Click here for a summary of all issue stances of Kathy Hochul. Click here for a Wikipedia profile of Kathy Hochul. Click here for a Ballotpedia profile of Kathy Hochul. Click here for VoteMatch responses by Kathy Hochul. Click here for issue positions of other NY politicians. Click here for NY primary archives. Click here for NY secondary archives.
Other governors on Free Trade:			Kathy Hochul on other issues:
[Title7]	Gubernatorial Debates 2023: KY: Incumbent Andy Beshear(D) vs.State A.G. Daniel Cameron(R) vs.Ambassador Kelly Craft(R) vs.State Auditor Mike Harmon(R) LA: Incumbent John Bel Edwards(D,term-limited) vs.Jeff Landry(R) vs.Shawn Wilson(D) vs.John Schroder(R) vs.Sharon Hewitt(R) MS: Incumbent Tate Reeves(R) vs.Bill Waller(R,withdrew) vs.Brandon Presley(D) Gubernatorial Debates 2024: DE: Gov. John Carney (D, term-limited); Lt. Gov. Bethany Hall-Long (D) vs. Matt Meyer (D) IN: Gov. Eric Holcomb (R, term-limited); Sen. Mike Braun (R) vs. Suzanne Crouch (R) vs. Jennifer McCormick (D) MO: Gov. Mike Parson (R, term-limited): Jay Ashcroft (R) vs. Bill Eigel (R) vs. Mike Kehoe (R) vs. Crystal Quade (D) MT: Gov. Greg Gianforte (R) vs. Tanner Smith (R) vs. Ryan Busse (D)	Gubernatorial Debates 2024 (continued): NC: Gov. Roy Cooper (D, term-limited); Dale Folwell (R) vs. Michael Morgan (D) vs. Mark Robinson (R) vs. Josh Stein (D) vs. Andy Wells (R) ND: Gov. Doug Burgum (R) vs. State Rep. Rick Becker (R) NH: Gov. Chris Sununu (R, retiring) vs. Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R) vs. Joyce Craig (D) vs. Chuck Morse (R) vs. Cinde Warmington (D) UT: Gov. Spencer Cox (R) vs. State Rep. Phil Lyman (R) VT: Gov. Phil Scott (R) unopposed WA: Gov. Jay Inslee (D, retiring); Hilary Franz (D, withdrew) vs. State Sen. Mark Mullet (D) vs. County Chair Semi Bird (R) vs. WA Attorney General Bob Ferguson (D) WV: Gov. Jim Justice (R, term-limited); vs. WV State Auditor JB McCuskey (R, withdrew) vs. WV Secretary of State Mac Warner (R) vs. State Del. Moore Capito (R) vs. WV Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R) vs. Huntington Mayor Steve Williams (D)	Abortion Budget/Economy Civil Rights Corporations Crime Drugs Education Energy/Oil Environment Families/Children Foreign Policy Free Trade Govt. Reform Gun Control Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Infrastructure/Technology Jobs Local Issues Principles/Values Social Security Tax Reform War/Iraq/Mideast Welfare/Poverty [Title9]