|
Debbie Stabenow on Free Trade
Democratic Jr Senator; previously Representative (MI-8)
|
|
End trade agreements to keep jobs here
Q: Has NAFTA lost us jobs? Should trade agreements end and enter into new ones?STABENOW: Yes. I supported tax cuts for businesses here to keep jobs here. We need to create a race to the top.
BOUCHARD: She’s voted for MFN status for China - but complains about China and Bush.
Source: 2006 Michigan Senate Debate in Grand Rapids
, Oct 15, 2006
Build a rule-based global trading system.
Stabenow adopted the manifesto, "A New Agenda for the New Decade":
Write New Rules for the Global Economy
The rise of global markets has undermined the ability of national governments to control their own economies. The answer is neither global laissez faire nor protectionism but a Third Way: New international rules and institutions to ensure that globalization goes hand in hand with higher living standards, basic worker rights, and environmental protection. U.S. leadership is crucial in building a rules-based global trading system as well as international structures that enhance worker rights and the environment without killing trade. For example, instead of restricting trade, we should negotiate specific multilateral accords to deal with specific environmental threats.
Goals for 2010 - Conclude a new round of trade liberalization under the auspices of the World Trade Organization.
- Open the WTO, the World Bank, and International Monetary Fund to wider participation and scrutiny.
- Strengthen the International Labor Organization’s power to enforce core labor rights, including the right of free association.
- Launch a new series of multinational treaties to protect the world environment.
Source: The Hyde Park Declaration 00-DLC1 on Aug 1, 2000
Rated 17% by CATO, indicating a pro-fair trade voting record.
Stabenow scores 17% by CATO on senior issues
The mission of the Cato Institute Center for Trade Policy Studies is to increase public understanding of the benefits of free trade and the costs of protectionism.
The Cato Trade Center focuses not only on U.S. protectionism, but also on trade barriers around the world. Cato scholars examine how the negotiation of multilateral, regional, and bilateral trade agreements can reduce trade barriers and provide institutional support for open markets. Not all trade agreements, however, lead to genuine liberalization. In this regard, Trade Center studies scrutinize whether purportedly market-opening accords actually seek to dictate marketplace results, or increase bureaucratic interference in the economy as a condition of market access.
Studies by Cato Trade Center scholars show that the United States is most effective in encouraging open markets abroad when it leads by example.
The relative openness and consequent strength of the U.S. economy already lend powerful support to the worldwide trend toward embracing open markets. Consistent adherence by the United States to free trade principles would give this trend even greater momentum. Thus, Cato scholars have found that unilateral liberalization supports rather than undermines productive trade negotiations.
Scholars at the Cato Trade Center aim at nothing less than changing the terms of the trade policy debate: away from the current mercantilist preoccupation with trade balances, and toward a recognition that open markets are their own reward.
The following ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization`s preferred position.
Source: CATO website 02n-CATO on Dec 31, 2002
Extend trade restrictions on Burma to promote democracy.
Stabenow co-sponsored extending trade restrictions on Burma to promote democracy
A joint resolution approving the renewal of import restrictions contained in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003. The original act sanctioned the ruling military junta, and recognized the National League of Democracy as the legitimate representative of the Burmese people.
Legislative Outcome: Related bills: H.J.RES.44, H.J.RES.93, S.J.RES.41; became Public Law 110-52.
Source: S.J.RES.16 07-SJR16 on Jun 14, 2007
Sponsored bill for tariffs against undervalued currency.
Stabenow sponsored H.R.2378 & S.1027
Amends the Tariff Act of 1930 to require the administering authority to determine, based on certain requirements, whether the exchange rate of the currency of an exporting country is undervalued or overvalued (misaligned) against the U.S. dollar for an 18-month period; and to take certain actions under a countervailing duty or antidumping duty proceeding to offset such misalignment in cases of an affirmative determination. Congress makes the following findings: - The strength, vitality, and stability of the US economy and the openness and effectiveness of the global trading system are critically dependent upon an international monetary regime of orderly and flexible exchange rates.
-
Increasingly in recent years, a number of foreign governments have undervalued their currencies by means of protracted, large-scale intervention in foreign exchange markets, and this fundamental misalignment has substantially contributed to distortions in trade flows.
- This exchange depreciation serves as a subsidy for, and facilitates dumping of, exports from countries that engage in this mercantilist practice.
- It is consistent with the agreements of the World Trade Organization and the International Monetary Fund that US trade law make explicit that fundamental undervaluation by an exporting country of its currency is actionable as a countervailable export subsidy and alternatively can be offset by antidumping duties.
Source: Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act 09-HR2378 on May 13, 2009
Insist on access to post-mad-cow Japanese beef markets.
Stabenow signed S.RES.452 & H.RES.1196
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--- it is not in the interest of either the US or Japan to arbitrarily restrict market access for their close partners;
- trade between the US and Japan should be conducted with mutual respect and based on sound science;
- since banning US beef in Dec. 2003, Japan has not treated US beef producers fairly;
- both Japan and the US should comply with guidelines based on sound science;
- 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
- the President should insist on increased access for US exporters of beef and beef products to the market in Japan.
Source: Resolution on Japanese trade 10-SR452 on Mar 11, 2010
Impose tariffs against countries which manipulate currency.
Stabenow signed Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act
- 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:
- the amount of currency provided by a foreign country in which the subject merchandise is produced; and
- 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:
- the government of the country engages in protracted, large-scale intervention in one or more foreign exchange markets
- the country`s real effective exchange rate is undervalued by at least 5%
- the country has experienced significant and persistent global current account
surpluses; and
- 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.
Source: HR.639&S.328 11-S0328 on Feb 14, 2011
Fight Chinese predatory trade practices on car tires.
Stabenow signed fighting Chinese predatory trade practices on car tires
Excerpts from Letter from 31 Senators to the Secretary of Commerce: We are writing in strong support of the Department`s decision to initiate antidumping and countervailing duty investigations of passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China.
China has targeted the tire sector for development and there are several hundred tire manufacturing facilities now operating in that country. In 2009, the United Steelworkers (USW) sought relief from a flood of similar tires from China that were injuring our producers and their workers.
Unfortunately, shortly after relief expired in 2012, imports of these tires from China once again skyrocketed. In June 2014, the USW alleged dumping and subsidies, identifying dumping margins as high as 87%. Our laws need to be fairly and faithfully enforced to ensure that workers can be confident that, when they work hard and play by the rules, their government will stand by their side to fight foreign predatory trade practices.
America`s laws against unfair trade are a critical underpinning of our economic policies and economic prosperity. Given the chance, American workers can out-compete anyone. But, in the face of China`s continual targeting of our manufacturing base, we need to enforce our laws.
Opposing argument: (Cato Institute, `Burning Rubber`, Sept. 11, 2009) USW and the unions feel that they have earned the president`s support. The president is presumed to owe Big Labor for his election last November. Will the president do what is overwhelmingly in the best interest of the country? Or will he do what he thinks is best for himself politically? The president should reject the recommendations of the USITC and deny import restrictions altogether. A decision to reject trade restraints in the tires case would be reassuring to a world that is struggling to grow out of recession. The costs of any protectionism under these circumstances could unleash a protectionist backlash in the US an
Source: Car Tire Letter 14LTR-USW on Sep 16, 2014
Voted FOR reauthorizing Ex-Im Bank.
Stabenow voted NAY Export-Import Bank Reform and Reauthorization Act
Heritage Action summary of vote# S206: The Senate voted to table (kill) an amendment by Sen. Kirk to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank. Sen. Kirk recommends voting NO. Heritage Foundation recommends voting YES because the `Ex-Im Bank is little more than a $140 billion slush fund for corporate welfare.`
OnTheIssues explanation: Voting NO would allow a vote on reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank. Voting YES would kill the bill for reauthorizing the Ex-Im Bank.
Congressional Summary from previous Ex-Im bill S.824; the Ex-Im Bank shall:- Provide technical assistance to small businesses on how to apply for financial assistance;
- Establish programs under which private financial institutions may share risk in loans & guarantees.
- The Bank may enter into up to $25 billion worth of contracts of reinsurance or co-finance.
Sierra Club reason for conditionally voting NO (from previous bill S.819):Sen. Shaheen`s bill S.824
reauthorizes the Ex-Im Bank without undermining Obama`s Climate Action Plan. The Sierra Club supports the bill because it makes both financial and environmental sense for the US and all of its taxpayer-backed financial institutions--including Ex-Im--to stop investing in dirty and dangerous fossil fuels like coal.Cato Institute reason for voting YES to kill the bill:The Ex-Im Bank`s reauthorization buffs contend that Ex-Im fills a void left by private sector lenders unwilling to provide financing for certain transactions. Ex-Im`s critics [say that] by effectively superseding risk-based decision-making with the choices of a handful of bureaucrats pursuing political objectives, Ex-Im risks taxpayer dollars. It turns out that for nearly every Ex-Im financing authorization that might advance the fortunes of a single US company, there is at least one US industry whose firms are put at a competitive disadvantage. These are the unseen consequences of Ex-Im`s mission.
Source: Congressional vote 15-S0995 on Oct 19, 2015
Implement USMCA for improved North American trade.
Stabenow voted YEA USMCA Implementation Act
Summary from Congressional Record and Wikipedia:Vote to amend the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and establish the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Rather than a wholly new agreement, it has been characterized as `NAFTA 2.0`; final terms were negotiated on September 30, 2018 by each country. The agreement is scheduled to come into effect on July 1, 2020.
Case for voting YES by Rep. Charlie Crist (D-FL); (Dec. 19, 2019)The USMCA includes stronger protections for American workers and enforceable labor standards, as well as environmental protections. It eliminates the Trump Administration`s threat that the US could walk away entirely from the trade agreement with Canada and Mexico, which would devastate US jobs and our economy.
Case for voting NO by Jared Huffman (D-CA); (Dec. 19, 2019) Democratic negotiators did a lot to improve Donald Trump`s weak trade deal, especially in terms of labor standards and enforcement, but the final deal did not reach the high standard that I had hoped for. The NAFTA renegotiations were a once-in-a-generation opportunity to lift labor and environmental standards across the continent--to lock in serious climate commitments with two of our largest trading partners and dramatically improve labor standards and enforcement to slow the rise of outsourcing.
Legislative outcome: Bill Passed (Senate) (89-10-1) - Jan. 16, 2020; bill Passed (House) (385-41-5) - Dec. 19, 2019; signed at the G20 Summit simultaneously by President Trump, Mexican President Enrique Nieto, and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Nov. 30, 2018
Source: Congressional vote 19-HR5430 on Dec 19, 2019
Rated 38% by the USAE, indicating support for trade sanctions.
Stabenow scores 38% by USA*Engage on trade issues
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.
Source: USA*Engage 2011-2012 ratings on Congress and politicians 2012-USAE on Dec 31, 2012
|
Other candidates on Free Trade: |
Debbie Stabenow on other issues: |
MI Gubernatorial: Dick Posthumus Garrett Soldano James Craig Tudor Dixon MI Senatorial: Elissa Slotkin Gary Peters James Craig John James Leslie Love Marcia Squier Mike Rogers Peter Meijer
MI politicians
MI Archives
|
Senate races 2024:
AZ:
Kyrsten Sinema(I,incumbent)
vs.Ruben Gallego(D)
vs.Kari Lake(R)
vs.Mark Lamb(R)
CA:
Laphonza Butler(D,retiring)
vs.Adam Schiff(D nominee)
vs.Steve Garvey(R nominee)
vs.Gail Lightfoot(L)
vs.Barbara Lee(D, lost primary)
vs.Katie Porter(D, lost primary)
CT:
Chris Murphy(D,incumbent)
vs.John Flynn(R)
vs.Robert Hyde(R)
DE:
Tom Carper(D,retiring)
vs.Eric Hansen(R)
vs.Michael Katz(I)
vs.Lisa Blunt Rochester(D)
FL:
Rick Scott(R,incumbent)
vs.Debbie Mucarsel-Powell(D)
HI:
Mazie Hirono(D,incumbent)
vs.Bob McDermott(R)
IN:
Mike Braun(R,retiring)
vs.Jim Banks(R nominee)
vs.Valerie McCray(D nominee)
vs.Marc Carmichael(D, lost primary)
MA:
Elizabeth Warren(D,incumbent)
vs.Shiva Ayyadurai(R)
vs.John Deaton(R)
MD:
Ben Cardin(D,retiring)
vs.Larry Hogan(R)
vs.Robin Ficker(R)
vs.Angela Alsobrooks(D)
vs.David Trone(D)
ME:
Angus King(I,incumbent)
vs.Demi Kouzounas(R)
vs.David Costello(D)
MI:
Debbie Stabenow(D,retiring)
vs.Leslie Love(D)
vs.Peter Meijer(R)
vs.James Craig(R)
vs.Mike Rogers(R)
vs.Elissa Slotkin(D)
MN:
Amy Klobuchar(DFL,incumbent)
vs.Royce White(R)
vs.Steve Carlson(DFL)
MO:
Josh Hawley(R,incumbent)
vs.Karla May(D)
vs.Lucas Kunce(D)
MS:
Roger Wicker(R,incumbent)
vs.Dan Eubanks(R)
vs.Ty Pinkins(D)
MT:
Jon Tester(D,incumbent)
vs.Tim Sheehy(R)
vs.Brad Johnson(R,lost primary)
ND:
Kevin Cramer(R,incumbent)
vs.Katrina Christiansen(D)
|
NE:
Peter Ricketts(R,incumbent,2-year seat)
vs.Preston Love(D)
Deb Fischer(D,incumbent,6-year seat)
vs.Dan Osborn(I)
NJ:
Bob Menendez(I,incumbent)
vs.Andy Kim(D)
vs.Curtis Bashaw(R)
vs.Tammy Murphy(D,withdrew)
NM:
Martin Heinrich(D,incumbent)
vs.Nella Domenici(R)
NV:
Jacky Rosen(D,incumbent)
vs.Jim Marchant (R)
vs.Sam Brown(R)
NY:
Kirsten Gillibrand(D,incumbent)
vs.Mike Sapraicone(R)
vs.Josh Eisen(R,withdrew May 1)
OH:
Sherrod Brown(D,incumbent)
vs.Bernie Moreno(R nominee)
vs.Frank LaRose(R, lost primary)
vs.Matt Dolan(R, lost primary)
PA:
Bob Casey(D,incumbent)
vs.David McCormick(R)
RI:
Sheldon Whitehouse(D,incumbent)
vs.Patricia Morgan(R)
vs.Allen Waters(R,withdrew)
TN:
Marsha Blackburn(R,incumbent)
vs.Gloria Johnson(D)
vs.Marquita Bradshaw(D)
TX:
Ted Cruz(R,incumbent)
vs.Colin Allred(D)
vs.Roland Gutierrez(D,lost primary)
vs.Carl Sherman(D,lost primary)
UT:
Mitt Romney(R,retiring)
vs.John Curtis(R)
vs.Trent Staggs(R)
vs.Brad Wilson(R)
vs.Caroline Gleich(D)
VA:
Tim Kaine(D,incumbent)
vs.Scott Parkinson(R)
VT:
Bernie Sanders(I,incumbent)
vs.Gerald Malloy(R)
WA:
Maria Cantwell(D,incumbent)
vs.Raul Garcia(R)
WI:
Tammy Baldwin(D,incumbent)
vs.Eric Hovde(R)
vs.Phil Anderson(L)
WV:
Joe Manchin III(D,retiring)
vs.Don Blankenship(D)
vs.Jim Justice(R)
vs.Alex Mooney(R)
vs.Glenn Elliott(D)
WY:
John Barrasso(R,incumbent)
vs.Reid Rasner(R)
vs.Scott Morrow(D)
|
Abortion
Budget/Economy
Civil Rights
Corporations
Crime
Drugs
Education
Energy/Oil
Environment
Families
Foreign Policy
Free Trade
Govt. Reform
Gun Control
Health Care
Homeland Security
Immigration
Jobs
Principles
Social Security
Tax Reform
Technology
War/Peace
Welfare
Other Senators
Senate Votes (analysis)
Bill Sponsorships
Affiliations
Policy Reports
Group Ratings
|
[Title9]
|
Page last updated: Sep 08, 2024; copyright 1999-2022 Jesse Gordon and OnTheIssues.org