Kirsten Gillibrand on Free Trade Democratic Senator (NY); Democratic Candidate for President (withdrawn)

NAFTA 2.0 is a disaster; trade war harms producers

GILLIBRAND: I'm concerned because I think NAFTA 2.0 is a disaster. I think it was a giveaway to drug companies in Mexico. It's going to harm our jobs. President Trump said no bad trade deals. Not only has he entered into them, but he's started a trade war with China. And it's really harming producers.

Don't use tariffs to pressure countries

FIVE CANDIDATES HAVE SIMILAR VIEWS: Joseph Biden, Jr.; Steve Bullock; Peter Buttigieg; Kamala Harris; Beto O`Rourke.

The majority of Democrats have broadly slammed Trump's use of tariffs. Candidates such as Sens. Kamala Harris and Kirsten Gillibrand have criticized the president's move to impose tariffs on China and U.S. allies, arguing they hurt American consumers, workers and companies.

Renegotiate NAFTA; add environmental protections

Protect American jobs from going overseas

Labor
• Protect American jobs from going overseas
• Supports indexing the minimum wage to inflation
• Reject trade agreements that hurt our workers

Declare Turkish rebar subject to anti-dumping duties.

Excerpts from Letter from 31 Senators to the Secretary of Commerce: We write to you regarding countervailing duty and antidumping investigations being conducted by the Department of Commerce on imports of steel reinforcing bar (rebar) from Turkey and Mexico.

Rebar is one of the largest volume steel products produced in the US, employing more than 10,000 workers in over 30 states. With nearly 7 million tons of domestic production, a healthy rebar industry is critical to a strong economy. However, it is our understanding that imports from Turkey and Mexico are surging into the US, nearly doubling from 2011 to 2013.

The ITC recently found that Mexican and Turkish rebar producers are consistently underselling US producers, resulting in substantial lost sales and depressed; [plus] a preliminary finding that the Government of Turkey bestows energy subsidies to its rebar industry, but that such subsidies are only de minimis in value. This seems surprising given the inherently energy-intensive nature of steel production.

Opposing argument: (Heritage Foundation, `Guide to Antidumping Laws`, July 21, 1992) One of the pillars of the `fair trade` approach is a set of so-called antidumping and countervailing duty laws. Antidumping laws seek to prevent products manufactured overseas from being sold by foreign firms in the U.S. at `less than fair value.` Countervailing duties seek to offset subsidies provided by foreign governments by imposing duties at the U.S. border.

The antidumping laws are confusing and arbitrary, and in many instances merely allow American firms to secure punitive tariffs against competing importers where no unfair trade practices are involved. Worse, these laws drive up the costs of imported components used by other American enterprises, making their products less competitive in world markets. As a result, American consumers pay higher prices for both imported and domestically produced goods.

Fight 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

Voted FOR reauthorizing Ex-Im Bank.

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.

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.

Oppose USMCA until more environmental & job protections.

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

Block NAFTA Superhighway & North American Union.

This resolution urges disengaging from the NAFTA Superhighway System and the North American because these proposals threaten U.S. sovereignty:

• Whereas US trade deficits with Mexico and Canada have significantly increased since the implementation of NAFTA;
• Whereas a NAFTA Superhighway System from the west coast of Mexico through the US and into Canada has been suggested as part of a North American Union to facilitate trade;
• Whereas the State of Texas has already begun planning of the Trans-Texas Corridor, a major multi-modal transportation project beginning at the US-Mexico border, which would serve as an initial section of a NAFTA Superhighway System;
• Whereas it could be particularly difficult for Americans to collect insurance from Mexican companies which employ Mexican drivers involved in accidents;
• Whereas future unrestricted foreign trucking can act collaterally as a conduit for illegal drugs, illegal human smuggling, and terrorist activities; and
• Whereas a NAFTA Superhighway System would likely include be controlled by foreign management, which threatens the sovereignty of the US:
• Now, therefore, be it Resolved: that the US should not engage in the construction of a NAFTA Superhighway System;
• that the US should not allow the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) to implement further regulations that would create a North American Union with Mexico and Canada; and
• the President should indicate strong opposition to these acts or any other proposals that threaten the sovereignty of the United States.

Rated 38% 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.