Sheldon Whitehouse on Free Trade Democratic Jr Senator, previously attorney general

Opposes NAFTA and CAFTA; supports fair trade

A: I would have opposed NAFTA and CAFTA, and was disappointed in Senator Chafee's vote for CAFTA. I believe in free trade if it's fair trade, and our trade policy should enforce tough environmental, ethics, and labor standards to prevent a race to the botto

Extend 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.

Review free trade agreements biennially for rights violation.

Trade Reform, Accountability, Development, and Employment Act or the TRADE Act:
1. review biennially certain free trade agreements (including Uruguay Round Agreements) between the US and foreign countries to evaluate their economic, environmental, national security, health, safety, and other effects; and
2. report on them to the Congressional Trade Agreement Review Committee (established by this Act), including analyses of specified aspects of each agreement and certain information about agreement parties, such as whether the country has a democratic form of government, respects certain core labor rights and fundamental human rights, protects intellectual property rights, and enforces environmental laws.

Declares that implementing bills of new trade agreements shall not be subject to expedited consideration or special procedures limiting amendment, unless such agreements include certain standards with respect to:
1. labor;
2. human rights;
3. environment and public safety;
4. food and product health and safety;
5. provision of services;
6. investment;
7. procurement;
8. intellectual property;
9. agriculture;
10. trade remedies and safeguards;
11. dispute resolution and enforcement;
12. technical assistance;
13. national security; and
14. taxation.

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.

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.

$25B more loans from Export-Import Bank.

This bill raises the cap on outstanding loans, guarantees, and insurance of the Export-Import Bank of the United States for FY2015-FY2022 and afterwards. The Bank shall:

• Provide technical assistance to small businesses on how to apply for financial assistance from the Bank;
• Establish programs under which private financial institutions may share risk in the loans, guarantees, and other Bank products in exchange for receiving fees received from program participants.
• The Bank may enter into up to $25 billion worth of contracts of reinsurance, co-finance, or other risk-sharing arrangements on its portfolio or individual transactions with insurance companies, financial institutions, or export credit agencies.

Opponents reasons for voting NAY: (Washington Examiner, 12/2/12): The Export-Import Bank is a taxpayer-backed agency that finances U.S. exports, primarily though loan guarantees. You`d think the bank would spread the money around to nurture up-and-coming businesses. You`d be wrong, very wrong. In fact, 83% of its taxpayer-backed loan guarantees in 2012 went to just one exporter: Boeing. Welcome to the `New Economic Patriotism,` where the big get bigger and taxpayers bear the risk. Ex-Im is at the heart of Obama`s National Export Initiative and is a pillar of the economic patriotism that Obama pledged in a second term. When government hands out more money, the guys with the best lobbyists and the closest ties to power will disproportionately get their hands on that money. Obama has spent four years pushing more subsidies, more bailouts and more regulations. `New Economic Patriotism` basically amounts to a national industrial policy -- Washington championing certain major domestic companies and industries, as if the global economy were an Olympic competition.

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

Rated 50% by the USAE, indicating a mixed record on trade.

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.