John Barrasso on Free Trade Republican Jr Senator

Supports USMCA trade agreement to replace NAFTA

Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY): "President Trump and his trade team have promised to level the playing field for American families, workers, and businesses. The president's announcement of a new, modernized trade agreement with Canada and Mexico represents a major step toward fulfilling that promise. A new approach to North American trade was long overdue."

Voted YES on promoting free trade with Peru.

• enforcement of textile and apparel rules of origin;
• certain textile and apparel safeguard measures; and
• enforcement of export laws governing trade of timber products from Peru.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Rep. RANGEL: It's absolutely ridiculous to believe that we can create jobs without trade. I had the opportunity to travel to Peru recently. I saw firsthand how important this agreement is to Peru and how this agreement will strengthen an important ally of ours in that region. Peru is resisting the efforts of Venezuela's authoritarian President Hugo Chavez to wage a war of words and ideas in Latin America against the US. Congress should acknowledge the support of the people of Peru and pass this legislation by a strong margin.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Rep. WU: I regret that I cannot vote for this bill tonight because it does not put human rights on an equal footing with environmental and labor protections.

Rep. KILDEE: All trade agreements suffer from the same fundamental flaw: They are not self-enforcing. Trade agreements depend upon vigorous enforcement, which requires official complaints be made when violations occur. I have no faith in President Bush to show any enthusiasm to enforce this agreement. Congress should not hand this administration yet another trade agreement because past agreements have been more efficient at exporting jobs than goods and services. I appeal to all Members of Congress to vote NO on this. But I appeal especially to my fellow Democrats not to turn their backs on those American workers who suffer from the export of their jobs. They want a paycheck, not an unemployment check.

Ban Argentine meat imports to avoid foot & mouth disease.

To prohibit the importation of ruminants and swine, and fresh and frozen meat and products of ruminants and swine, from Argentina until the Secretary of Agriculture certifies to Congress that every region of Argentina is free of foot and mouth disease without vaccination. This Act may be cited as the 'Foot and Mouth Disease Prevention Act of 2008'.

Insist on access to post-mad-cow Japanese beef markets.

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--
1. it is not in the interest of either the US or Japan to arbitrarily restrict market access for their close partners;
2. trade between the US and Japan should be conducted with mutual respect and based on sound science;
3. since banning US beef in Dec. 2003, Japan has not treated US beef producers fairly;
4. both Japan and the US should comply with guidelines based on sound science;
5. 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
6. the President should insist on increased access for US exporters of beef and beef products to the market in Japan.

Voted YES to kill reauthorization of 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.

Implement USMCA for improved North American trade.

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.