I fought illegal dumping of Chinese steel and aluminum
TRUMP: Our country is stagnant. We've lost our jobs. We're not making things anymore. Our product is pouring in from China, pouring in from Vietnam, pouring in from all over the world. She wants to sign Trans-Pacific Partnership.
CLINTON: When I saw
the final agreement for TPP, it didn't meet my test: Does it create jobs, raise incomes, and further our national security? I'm against it now. There's only one of us on this stage who's actually shipped jobs to Mexico: that's Donald. He's shipped jobs
to 12 countries. But he mentioned China: one of the biggest problems we have with China is the illegal dumping of steel and aluminum into our markets. I have fought against that as a senator. I've stood up against it as secretary of state. Donald has
bought Chinese steel and aluminum. In fact, the Trump Hotel right here in Las Vegas was made with Chinese steel. So he goes around with crocodile tears about how terrible it is, but he has given jobs to Chinese steelworkers, not American steelworkers.
Trade prosecutor to deal with China illegally dumping steel
Q: How will your energy policy meet our energy needs, while at the same time remaining environmentally friendly and minimizing job loss?
TRUMP: Energy is under siege by the Obama administration. The EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, is killing
these energy companies. And you take a look at what's happening to steel and the cost of steel and China dumping vast amounts of steel all over the United States, which essentially is killing our steelworkers and our steel companies.
It's an absolute disgrace.
CLINTON: First of all, China is illegally dumping steel in the United States and Donald Trump is buying it to build his buildings, putting steelworkers and American steel plants out of business.
That's something that I fought against as a senator and that I would have a trade prosecutor to make sure that we don't get taken advantage of by China on steel or anything else.
FactCheck: Yes, called TPP "gold standard," unambiguously
TRUMP said, "You called [TPP] the gold standard of trade deals. And then you heard what I said about it, and all of a sudden you were against it. " Clinton responded, " I did say I hoped it would be a good deal. I was against it once it was finally
negotiated and the terms were laid out."
THE FACT CHECKER: Trump is right. Clinton is subtly adjusting her words here when confronted with a question about her consistency on policy positions. The fact is she never used the word "hoped."
Instead, she was more declarative, using the phrase "gold standard" when she was Secretary of State: "This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and
a level playing field," she said in Australia in 2012. "And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the world's total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment."
Support deals good for US economy & security; not CAFTA!
When I was in the Senate, I had a number of trade deals that came before me, and I held them all to the same test. Will they create jobs in America? Will they raise incomes in America? And are they good for our national security? Some of them
I voted for. The biggest one, a multinational one known as CAFTA, I voted against. And because I hold the same standards as I look at all of these trade deals. But let's not assume that trade is the only challenge we have in the economy.
I think it is a part of it, and I've said what I'm going to do. I'm going to have a special prosecutor. We're going to enforce the trade deals we have, and we're going to hold people accountable.
When I was secretary of state, we actually increased American exports globally 30 percent. We increased them to China 50 percent. So I know how to really work to get new jobs and to get exports that helped to create more new jobs.
I oppose CAFTA & TPP, but global economy needs trade
CLINTON: I voted for a multinational trade agreement, but I opposed CAFTA because I did not believe it was in the best interests of the workers of America. I did hope that the TPP, negotiated by this administration, I was holding out hope that it would
be the kind of trade agreement that I was looking for. Once I saw the outcome, I opposed it. I have a very clear view. We have to trade with the rest of the world. We are 5 percent of the world's population. We have to trade with the other 95 percent.
And trade has to be reciprocal. That's the way the global economy works. But we have failed to provide the basic safety net support that American workers need in order to be able to compete and win in the global economy.
I do not believe in unfettered free trade. I believe in fair trade which works for the middle class and working families, not just large multinational corporations. This is an area where the secretary and I have disagreements.
I absorbed new info and changed my mind to oppose TPP
Q: You supported Obama's trade deal, the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP, dozen of times. You even called it the "gold standard". Now, suddenly, last week, you're against it.
CLINTON: Well, actually, I have been very consistent.
Over the course of my entire life, I have always fought for the same values and principles, but, like most human beings--including those of us who run for office--I do absorb new information. I do look at what's happening in the world.
Take the trade deal. I did say, when I was secretary of state, three years ago, that I hoped it would be the gold standard. It was just finally negotiated last week, and in looking at it, it didn't meet my standards.
My standards for more new, good jobs for Americans, for raising wages for Americans. And I want to make sure that I can look into the eyes of any middle-class American and say, "this will help raise your wages." And I concluded I could not.
Trans Pacific trade deal doesn't meet my standards
The Trans Pacific Partnership, which includes the US and 11 other nations, is the largest regional trade agreement in history. But as of today, I am not in favor of what I have learned about it. I don't believe it's going to meet the high bar
I have set for creating jobs and advancing national security. I am also worried about currency manipulation not being part of the agreement, and that pharmaceutical companies may have gotten more benefits from the deal than their patients.
Source: PBS.org on 2015 presidential hopefuls
, Oct 7, 2015
TPP must produce jobs, raise wages, & protect security
An MSNBC reporter asked Clinton on April 21 whether she had concerns about the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade agreement the Obama administration is in the process of negotiating, According to CBS,
Clinton responded, "Any trade deal has to produce jobs and raise wages and increase prosperity and protect our security.
We have to do our part in making sure we have the capabilities and the skills to be competitive. It's got to be really a partnership between our business, our government, our workforce, the intellectual property that comes out of our universities,
and we have to get back to a much more focused effort in my opinion to try to produce those capacities here at home so that we can be competitive in a global economy."
Chief advocate for Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)
Within the populist Democratic movement, there is a rising tide against once-popular trade deals. Clinton has been involved with many of the pacts from her time as first lady, in the Senate and finally, as part of the Obama administration.
Clinton saw herself in the middle of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) during her husband's presidency. She supported deals with Oman, Chile and Singapore during her tenure in the Senate.
As secretary of State, she was a chief advocate as talks commenced surrounding the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), one of the largest worldwide deals in recent history.
Many proponents of the agreements argue that negotiations need
to take place in secret in order to protect the fragile interests of participating countries. This has not sat well with public interest groups and more liberal members of the Democratic Party.
Source: Megan R. Wilson in TheHill.com weblog, "Clinton vs. Warren"
, Aug 24, 2014
TPP agreement creates more growth and better growth
Many proponents of the agreements argue that negotiations need to take place in secret in order to protect the fragile interests of participating countries.
At the State Department, Clinton didn't address specifics in the negotiating process,
but told attendees at an Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum conference that she hoped it would "create a new high standard for multilateral free trade."
Critics have said that the agreement would ease regulations protecting both laborers &
the environment, despite claims from Clinton to the contrary: "Our goal for TPP is to create not just more growth, but better growth. We believe the TPP needs to include strong protections for workers, the environment, intellectual property, and
innovation," Clinton said at the event in 2011. "It should also promote the free flow of information technology and the spread of green technology, as well as the coherence of our regulatory system and the efficiency of supply chains."
Source: Megan R. Wilson in TheHill.com weblog, "Clinton vs. Warren"
, Aug 24, 2014
Global trading system isn't up to standards of fairness
America worked to create a global economy. The current global trading system is distorted not only by barriers to entry in developing and emerging economies, but by the power of special interests in developed countries, including the US. To make trade
fairer as well as freer, developing countries have to do a better job of improving productivity, raising labor conditions, and protecting the environment. In the US, we have to do a better job of providing good jobs to those displaced by trade.
Source: Hard Choices, by Hillary Clinton, p.509
, Jun 10, 2014
China benefits from WTO and should play by WTO rules
We should focus on ending currency manipulation, environmental destruction and miserable working conditions [in China]. I acknowledge the challenge of lifting millions of people out of poverty. China argued this outweighed any obligation to play by
established rules. I countered that China and other emerging economies had benefited greatly from the system the US had helped create, including their membership in the World Trade Organization, and now they needed to take their share of responsibility.
Source: Hard Choices, by Hillary Clinton, p.513
, Jun 10, 2014
Have a trade prosecutor to enforce the trade agreements
Q: What would you do differently than a Pres. Obama would when it comes to the economy?
A: I would agree with Obama a lot, because it is the Democratic agenda. We are going to rid the tax code of these loopholes & giveaways. We’re going to stop giving
penny of your money to anybody who ships a job out to another country. We’re going to begin to get the tax code to reflect what the needs of middle class families are so we can rebuild a strong & prosperous middle class. The wealthy & the well-connected
have had a president the last 7 years, and it’s time that the rest of the US had a president to work for you every single day. We will have a different approach toward trade. We’re going to start having trade agreements that not only have strong
environmental and labor standards, but also a trade time-out. We’re going to look and see what’s working & what’s not working. I’d like to have a trade prosecutor to actually enforce the trade agreements that we have before we enter into any others.
AdWatch: Supported NAFTA in 1998; opposed CAFTA since 2005
Obama released a radio ad in S.C., in which the narrator says, “Hillary Clinton championed NAFTA even though it has cost South Carolina thousands of jobs. It’s what’s wrong with politics today. Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected.”
The ad’s claim that Clinton “championed NAFTA” is misleading. It is true that Clinton once praised the North American Free Trade Agreement that her husband championed. As recently as 1998, she praised business leaders for mounting “a very effective
business effort in the U.S. on behalf of NAFTA.“
But her position on trade shifted before her presidential run: In 2005, for example, she voted against the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), and she told
Time in 2007 that ”I believe in the general principles [NAFTA] represented, but what we have learned is that we have to drive a tougher bargain.“
Now courting labor and the environmentalist crowd, Hillary Clinton has come out against a trade pact with South Korea, but as senator, she has voted in support of free trade pacts with Oman, Chile and Singapore, even though she criticized them for what
she said was their weak enforcement of international labor standards. In fact, she’s voted for every trade agreement that has come before her except CAFTA, the Central American version of NAFTA, the pact the public has heard the most about.
Source: The Contenders, by Laura Flanders, p. 17
, Nov 11, 2007
FactCheck: for NAFTA while First Lady; now against CAFTA
Barack Obama accused Clinton of flip-flops on trade. Obama said, “Senator Clinton in her campaign has been for NAFTA previously, now she’s against it.”
Obama is partly right concerning the North American Free Trade Agreement. Clinton’s views on
NAFTA have shifted, but they shifted prior to her official run for the White House. Back in 1998, in a keynote speech given at the Davos Economic Summit, Clinton praised business leaders for mounting “a very effective business effort in the
US on behalf of NAFTA,“ adding later that ”it is certainly clear that we have not by any means finished the job that has begun.“ But by 2005 she was expressing reservations about free trade agreements, voting that year against the Central America Free
Trade Agreement (CAFTA). And she told Bloomberg News in March 2007 that, while she still believes in free trade, she supports a freeze on new trade agreements--something she calls ”a little time-out.“
Export from big agribusiness, but also from small farmers
Q: How do you protect American jobs without setting up a situation where other countries discriminate against the things we’re trying to export, particularly agricultural exports?
A: We do export a lot of agricultural goods, many of that through trade
agreements. And I think we’ve got to do three things.
We have to have more focus on family farms. We’ve got to do more to make sure trade agreements are not only good for the exporting of agricultural products from great, big agribusiness,
but also for small farmers.
We’ve got to do more to build up the agricultural and rural areas of our country.
And trade needs to become a win-win. People ask me, am I a free trader or a fair trader?
I want to be a smart, pro-American trader. And that means we look for ways to maximize the impact of what we’re trying to export and quit being taken advantage of by other countries.
This past weekend, you expressed some disappointment that NAFTA, in your words, did not realize the benefits that it promised. How would you fix it?
A: Well, I had said that for many years, that NAFTA and the way it’s been implemented has hurt a lot of
American workers. In fact, I did a study in New York looking at the impact of NAFTA on business people, workers and farmers who couldn’t get their products into Canada despite NAFTA. So, clearly we have to have a broad reform in how we approach trade.
NAFTA’s a piece of it, but it’s not the only piece of it. I believe in smart trade. Pro-American trade. Trade that has labor and environmental standards, that’s not a race to the bottom but tries to lift up not only American workers but also workers
around the world. It’s important that we enforce the agreements we have. That’s why I’ve called for a trade prosecutor, to make sure that we do enforce them. The Bush administration haven’t been enforcing the trade agreements at all.
It’s important that we have good information to make judgments. And when I looked at some of the trade agreements that the Bush administration sent our way,
I voted against CAFTA. I don’t want to give fast-track authority to this president.
Source: 2007 AFL-CIO Democratic primary forum
, Aug 7, 2007
Better approach: real trade adjustment assistance
We’ve got to have a better approach to trade around the world. And it’s important that we have an idea of how to maximize the benefits from the global economy while minimizing the impact on American workers.
That includes things like real trade adjustment assistance and other support.
Source: 2007 AFL-CIO Democratic primary forum
, Aug 7, 2007
End tax breaks for outsourcing jobs
Q [to Sen. Gravel]: A lot of Americans are concerned with outsourcing of US jobs. What’s your solution?
GRAVEL: Outsourcing is not the problem. What is the problem is our trade agreements that benefit the management & the shareholders.
outsourcing is a problem, and it’s one that I’ve dealt with as a senator from New York. I started an organization called New Jobs for New York to try to stand against the tide of outsourcing, particularly from upstate New York and from rural areas.
We have to do several things: end the tax breaks that still exist in the tax code for outsourcing jobs, have trade agreements with enforceable labor and environmental standards, help Americans compete, which is something we haven’t taken seriously. 65%
of kids do not go on to college. What are we doing to help them get prepared for the jobs that we could keep here that wouldn’t be outsourced--and find a new source of jobs, clean energy, global warming, would create millions of new jobs for Americans.
In India, she defended American outsourcing of jobs--which benefits India enormously--and predicted that it would continue and grow. “Outsourcing will continue,” Mrs. Clinton said in New Delhi. “There is no way to legislate against reality...
We are not in favor of putting up fences.” Hillary acknowledged the pressures to curb outsourcing: “I have to be frank,” she said. “People in my country are losing their jobs, and the US policymakers need to address this issue.”
Source: Condi vs. Hillary, by Dick Morris, p.165
, Oct 11, 2005
Globalization should not substitute for humanization
As with any sweeping change in history, there are those who are great proponents of globalization, [and] there are others who are great opponents. The real challenge is not to engage in an argument, but to try better to understand the forces that are at
work and to harness those forces on behalf of society. To ensure that globalization, however one defines it, is never a substitute for humanization, never a force for marginalization, and not an enemy of the values that have long shaped our society.
Source: Remarks at The Sorbonne, Paris, France
, Jun 17, 1999
Supports MFN for China, despite concerns over human rights
Clinton supported most favored nation trade status despite concerns about China’s human rights record. “We have to use our our moral and material strengths in ways that serve our evolving interests,” she said. “We have to ask ourselves what hope does
the global market hold for the tens of millions of victims of child labor, or for the 100 million street children without homes or families whom I’ve seen everywhere from Brazil to Mongolia who are being left to fend for themselves.”
Source: Dean Murphy, NY Times
, Oct 20, 2000
Hillary Clinton on Voting Record
Though Bill supported it, Hillary opposed NAFTA
Liberal Democrats, including Hillary, opposed NAFTA primarily because it could take jobs away from American workers.
Source: For Love of Politics, by Sally Bedell smith, p.117
, Oct 23, 2007
Voted against CAFTA despite Bill Clinton’s pushing NAFTA
In June 2005, Hillary voted with the bulk of her party against the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). While the vote smacked of hypocrisy for many Democratic senators, it was particularly so for Ms. Clinton, whose husband had staked his
administration’s prestige on pushing NAFTA through Congress. Hillary also voted against giving the president the authority to submit trade agreements for fast-track approval--Bill Clinton pleaded with Congress annually, & in vain, for just such authority
Source: Condi vs. Hillary, by Dick Morris, p. 85
, Oct 11, 2005
Voted YES on free trade agreement with Oman.
Vote on final passage of a bill to implement the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement.
Opponents of the bill say to vote NAY because:
International trade can confer tremendous benefits on all of its participants. Unfortunately, the Oman Free Trade Agreement fails to live up to that potential.
In 2001, the US entered into a similar trade agreement with the country of Jordan. The agreement was heralded for its progressive labor standards. However, we have recently seen in Jordan instances of foreign workers forced into slave labor, stripped of their passports, denied their wages, and compelled to work for days without rest.
These incidents have been occurring in Jordan because Jordanian labor laws preclude protections for foreign workers. My fear in Oman is that they have far weaker labor standards, and that would lend itself to even worse conditions than in Jordan.
When our trade partners are held to different, less stringent standards, no one is better off.
When Omani firms can employ workers in substandard conditions, the Omani workers and American workers both lose. The playing field is not level.
Proponents of the bill say to vote YEA because:
The Oman Free Trade Agreement sends a very important message that the US strongly supports the economic development of moderate Middle Eastern nations. This is a vital message in the global war on terrorism.
Since the end of WWII, the US has accepted nonreciprocal trade concessions in order to further important Cold War and post-Cold War foreign policy objectives. Examples include offering Japan and Europe nonreciprocal access to American markets during the 1950s in order to strengthen the economies of our allies and prevent the spread of communism.
Oman is quickly running out of oil and, as a result, has launched a series of measures to reform its economy. This free-trade agreement immediately removes Oman's uniform 5% tariff on US goods.
Voted NO on implementing CAFTA for Central America free-trade.
Approves the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States-Free Trade Agreement entered into on August 5, 2005, with the governments of Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua (CAFTA-DR), and the statement of administrative action proposed to implement the Agreement. Voting YES would:
Progressively eliminate customs duties on all originating goods traded among the participating nations
Preserve US duties on imports of sugar goods over a certain quota
Remove duties on textile and apparel goods traded among participating nations
Prohibit export subsidies for agricultural goods traded among participating nations
Provide for cooperation among participating nations on customs laws and import licensing procedures
Recommend that each participating nation uphold the Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work
Urge each participating nation to obey various international agreements regarding intellectual property rights
Reference: Central America Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act;
Bill HR 3045
; vote number 2005-209
on Jul 28, 2005
Voted YES on establishing free trade between US & Singapore.
Vote to pass a bill that would put into effect a trade agreement between the US and Singapore. The trade agreement would reduce tariffs and trade barriers between the US and Singapore. The agreement would remove tariffs on goods and duties on textiles, and open markets for services The agreement would also establish intellectual property, environmental and labor standards.
Reference: US-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act;
Bill S.1417/HR 2739
; vote number 2003-318
on Jul 31, 2003
Voted YES on establishing free trade between the US and Chile.
Vote to pass a bill that would put into effect a trade agreement between the US and Chile. The agreement would reduce tariffs and trade barriers between the US and Chile. The trade pact would decrease duties and tariffs on agricultural and textile products. It would also open markets for services. The trade pact would establish intellectual property safeguards and would call for enforcement of environmental and labor standards.
Reference: US-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act;
Bill S.1416/HR 2738
; vote number 2003-319
on Jul 31, 2003
Voted NO on extending free trade to Andean nations.
HR3009 Fast Track Trade Authority bill: To extend the Andean Trade Preference Act, to grant additional trade benefits under that Act, and for other purposes. Vote to pass a bill that would enlarge duty-free status to particular products from Colombia, Bolivia, Peru, and Ecuador, renew the president's fast-track authority and reauthorize and increase a program to make accessible retraining and relocation assistance to U.S. workers hurt by trade agreements. It would also approve a five-year extension of Generalized System of Preferences and produce a refundable 70 percent tax credit for health insurance costs for displaced workers.
Voted YES on removing common goods from national security export rules.
Vote to provide the president the authority to control the export of sensitive dual-use items for national security purposes. The bill would eliminate restrictions on the export of technology that is readily available in foreign markets.
Clinton 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.
Clinton 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.
Extend trade restrictions on Burma to promote democracy.
Clinton 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.