![Citizens Trade Campaign](https://assets.rbl.ms/32012657/origin.png)
Arthur Stamoulis, (202) 494-8826 or media@citizenstrade.org
Democratic Presidential Candidates United that NAFTA 2.0 Should Not Be Approved As Written
Leading White House Contenders Say Trump’s NAFTA Proposal Needs Stronger Terms on Labor, the Environment, Enforcement & New Monopolies for Big Pharma Must Be Eliminated
Democratic presidential candidates are united in the view that the Trump administration's proposal for a revised North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) should not be approved by Congress without substantive improvements to the text Donald Trump signed last year.
All sixteen candidates -- including Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, Beto O'Rourke, Julian Castro and others -- who responded to a question posed by a national coalition working on trade policy agreed that the new NAFTA proposal "should not be enacted unless and until stronger labor and environmental terms with swift and certain enforcement are added and language on pharmaceutical monopolies that locks in high medicine prices is removed."
"Given how important Trump's trade promises were to his 2016 election, it's not surprising that those looking to unseat him are quick to point out that Trump's proposed NAFTA revision fails to make the changes needed to stop outsourcing and that its new giveaways for pharmaceutical companies would lock in high drug prices," said Arthur Stamoulis, executive director of Citizens Trade Campaign, the coalition of labor, environmental, family farm, faith and consumer organizations that approached the various campaigns on the issue. "Americans deserve a comprehensive NAFTA replacement that actually protects jobs, raises wages, defends worker rights and safeguards the environment. A lot more work is needed to get there."
While some Republicans and corporate lobby groups are pushing for Congress to approve the NAFTA 2.0 text as written this summer, House Democrats are currently urging the White House to make changes to its NAFTA proposal in the areas of labor, the environment, enforcement and access to medicines before introducing the pact for a vote. Democratic Congress members' resolve could be bolstered by the unanimous support of so many Democratic candidates vying for the presidency.
Joe Biden, Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg, Julian Castro, Bill de Blasio, Kirsten Gillabrand, Mike Gravel, Kamala Harris, John Hickenlooper, Jay Inslee, Beto O'Rourke, Tim Ryan, Bernie Sanders, Eric Swalwell, Elizabeth Warren and Marianne Williamson each answered "Yes" to the question, "Do you agree that the revised version of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) signed by President Trump on November 30, 2018 should not be enacted unless and until stronger labor and environmental terms with swift and certain enforcement are added and language on pharmaceutical monopolies that locks in high medicine prices is removed?"
The following candidates also offered these additional comments:
Sen. Cory Booker
"I am opposed to President Trump's new NAFTA deal. It should be renegotiated to strengthen labor protections and environmental standards, and improve access to prescription drugs."
Mayor Bill de Blasio
"America doesn't want NAFTA 2.0 and that is exactly what the agreement President Trump signed is.
"For decades Republicans - and too many Democrats - promised American workers that the benefits of free trade would 'trickle down' to them. It didn't happen and it won't happen under the terms of the deal President Trump has negotiated.
"Trump's new NAFTA will do nothing to address the problems with the old NAFTA. While masquerading as 'America First,' Trump's proposal prohibits 'Buy American' procurement policies. It makes no mention of climate change but gives oil and gas companies new tools to evade Mexican environmental laws. It allows big pharma to lock in higher prescription drug prices. And it doesn't do anything to address the outsourcing of U.S. jobs.
"For Congress to consider approving this trade deal significant changes must be made: removing sweetheart provisions for fossil fuel and pharmaceutical companies, and significantly strengthening enforcement of labor and environmental provisions.
"What America truly needs is an entirely new approach to trade that puts working people and our planet first, not multinational corporations. Trump's NAFTA 2.0 doesn't provide that."
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand
"NAFTA must be completely overhauled in order to establish dependable trading conditions that are fair for our communities and our workers. Any changes to NAFTA must strengthen enforcement provisions and increase protections for labor and the environment because our workers can out-compete anyone in the world on a balanced playing field. Too many drug companies care more about their own profits than whether sick patients have access to medicine. I will advocate that any new deal must break the stranglehold of pharmaceutical companies on high drug prices to help people get access to the medicine they need."
Sen. Mike Gravel
"NAFTA and its updated worker pillaging version signed by Trump are treaties designed to extract the greatest amount of surplus value from workers by slashing wages through relocation and instigating phony race to the bottom competition between workers in North America. The Reagan Administration illegally collaborated with the auto industry to move it out of Detroit and Clinton put the nail in the coffin by signing NAFTA. At a moment when there's a timidly resurgent labour movement in Mexico and the United States, Trump is trying to stifle it through regulatory action and trade sleight of hands like the new treaty."
Sen. Kamala D. Harris
"I believe the purpose of any trade agreement must be to create jobs in America, raise wages, and strengthen the middle class. That's why, as president, I will not sign any trade agreement unless it contains strong and enforceable provisions to protect workers, safeguard our environment, and crack down on trade manipulation by other countries. In my Administration, labor will have a seat at the table to ensure any agreement meets that test. It's clear the so-called 'U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement' does not, and as a result, I will not support it."
Gov. Jay Inslee
"I believe we must revise North American trade policy in a way that directly confronts climate change and implements strong, enforceable labor and environmental standards that help the United States meet climate action goals. Currently, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) negotiated by the Trump Administration does not contain sufficiently enforceable labor or environmental standards, nor does it even mention the term 'climate change.' Clearly, we must do better.
"I also believe that U.S. trade policies, trade agreements, and trade relationships should all be evaluated to ensure they are consistent with the swift and just transition to a global carbon-free future. Historically, American trade policy -- and most international trade agreements -- has often been an impediment to effective climate action. America's trade agreements have frequently preferred corporate profits over protections for workers, consumers, public health, and the climate or the environment. This profits-over-people approach to trade has led to a series of missed opportunities. That is why I have proposed applying a new and enforceable climate standard to American trade agreements, to condition their terms upon each party's commitment to adopt, maintain and implement policies specifically to fulfill their commitments to the Paris Agreement, and to take other actions, such as investing in global climate mitigation and adaptation, and adopting and implementing other agreements such as the Kigali Amendment."
Sen. Bernie Sanders
"The reality is that Trump's NAFTA 2.0 would do nothing to prevent corporations from shipping jobs to Mexico where workers are paid less than two bucks an hour. It includes outrageous giveaways to the fossil fuel and pharmaceutical industries. So, I say to Donald Trump: For once in your life, keep your campaign promises. Go back to the drawing board on NAFTA. Do not send this treaty to Congress until it includes strong and swift enforcement mechanisms to raise the wages of workers to prevent corporations from outsourcing American jobs to Mexico and protect the environment. And take out all of the riders in your treaty that increase prescription drug prices and benefit big oil companies. We need a trade policy in America that works for working families, not the CEOs of multinational corporations."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren
"There's no question we need to renegotiate NAFTA. The federal government has certified that NAFTA has already cost us nearly a million good American jobs - and big companies continue to use NAFTA to outsource jobs to Mexico to this day. But as it's currently written, Trump's deal won't stop the serious and ongoing harm NAFTA causes for American workers. It won't stop outsourcing, it won't raise wages, and it won't create jobs. It's NAFTA 2.0.
"For example, NAFTA 2.0 has better labor standards on paper but it doesn't give American workers enough tools to enforce those standards. Without swift and certain enforcement of these new labor standards, big corporations will continue outsourcing jobs to Mexico to so they can pay workers less.
"NAFTA 2.0 is also stuffed with handouts that will let big drug companies lock in the high prices they charge for many drugs. The new rules will make it harder to bring down drug prices for seniors and anyone else who needs access to life-saving medicine.
"And NAFTA 2.0 does little to reduce pollution or combat the dangers of climate change - giving American companies one more reason to close their factories here and move to Mexico where the environmental standards are lower. That's bad for the earth and bad for American workers.
"For these reasons, I oppose NAFTA 2.0, and will vote against it in the Senate unless President Trump reopens the agreement and produces a better deal for America's working families. The President grabs headlines railing against GM's plans to axe thousands of American jobs in Ohio and Michigan - but his actual policies aren't stopping them or others like them from continuing to put corporate profits ahead of American workers. It's time for real change. We need a new approach to trade, and it should begin with a simple principle: our policies should not prioritize corporate profits over American paychecks. That should be true for NAFTA and true for every deal we cut."
Ms. Marianne Williamson
"We need to protect the interests of American workers, consumers and citizens in any new NAFTA agreement. Before Congress approves the new NAFTA 2.0, we must strengthen both labor and environmental standards, and write them into the core of the agreement so they are enforceable. And we must limit the monopoly control of pharmaceutical companies, so medicines can be more affordable and accessible for people who need them."
The Citizens Trade Campaign (CTC) is a national coalition of environmental, labor, consumer, family farm, religious, and other civil society groups founded in 1992 to improve the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). We are united in a common belief that international trade and investment are not ends unto themselves, but instead must be viewed as a means for achieving other societal goals such as economic justice, human rights, healthy communities, and a sound environment.
(202) 494-8826'Unprecedented' and 'Very Dangerous,' Hurricane Beryl Explodes Into Category 4 Storm
"The climate crisis is here. This is an emergency. Politicians need to start acting like it."
Meteorologists, climate campaigners, and extreme weather experts expressed shock and horror Sunday as Hurricane Beryl exploded into an "extremely dangerous" Category 4 storm as it headed into the warm waters of the southern Caribbean with a level of intensification characterized as unprecedented.
The National Hurricane Center on Sunday morning called it a "very dangerous situation" due to "potentially catastrophic hurricane-force winds, a life-threatening storm surge, and damaging waves" for the numerous mainland and island nations in Beryl's path.
According to the NHC, the Windward Islands of St. Vincent, the Grenadines, and Granada will be the first at highest risk from the storm as well as St. Lucia and Barbados. People on those islands and elsewhere in the region were told that all preparations for the storm "should be rushed to completion" without delay.
Weather Undergroundreports that subsequent locations that may face Beryl's wrath later this week could be Jamaica, the Cayman Islands, Belize and Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula, though noted "there's uncertainty in that exact track" of the hurricane as detailed in the following graphic:
Possible storm tracks for Hurricane Beryl. (Source: Weather Underground / wunderground.com)
Citing records going back to 1851, the Washington Postreported Sunday that there "is no precedent for a storm to intensify this quickly, nor reach this strength, in this part of the ocean during the month of June."
Eric Blake, a hurricane expert, said that Beryl on Sunday was "rewriting the history books in all the wrong ways," as he urged people in its path to "be very safe and take this hurricane seriously" as "very few will have experienced a hurricane this strong" on those islands.
"This is unreal," said Nahel Belgherze, a journalist focused on extreme weather. "Hurricane Beryl continues to defy all known logic, now becoming the first June Category 4 hurricane ever recorded in the Atlantic Basin. I can't even stress enough just how completely absurd that storm is."
"The climate crisis is here," said the Sunrise Movement in a social media post showing the extreme power and historic nature of Hurricane Beryl. "This is an emergency. Politicians need to start acting like it."
The group took the opportunity to re-share its petition calling on President Joe Biden to "declare a climate emergency" as a way to unlock federal funds and escalate the government's response to the crisis of fossil fuels that are the main driving of surging global temperatures.
In May, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) predicted that the 2024 hurricane season—which officially runs from June 1 to the end of November—would be "extraordinary" and "above-normal," largely due to rising ocean temperatures attributable to human-caused global warming couple with La Niña conditions.
'Long Knives Out': Calls Grow for Biden to Step Aside After Debate Disaster
A new post-debate poll out Sunday shows that 72% of registered U.S. voters think Biden does not have 'mental and cognitive health' to be president.
What would be the reaction of voters?
In the approximately 60 hours since Thursday night's stunningly bad debate performance by President Joe Biden, the number of individuals and institutions calling for the incumbent to step aside so that another Democratic Party candidate can be chosen to prevent Donald Trump from ever again stepping into the White House has only grown.
From the elite media offices of The New Yorker and the New York Times to a cacophony of political observers from across the ideological spectrum that makes up the Democratic coalition, a unified message has been clear: the President of the United States has shown he is unfit to challenge Trump and the stakes are simply too high to risk defeat.
"This isn't a progressive or centrist or conservative thing," said Aaron Regunberg, a lawyer and progressive organizer, said in a social media post Sunday morning. "There's no ideological valence to it. We simply cannot afford to lose this election to Trump, which means President Biden must step down as nominee and pass the torch to a new generation of leaders."
"No Democrat—literally no Democrat—is saying 'Oh, I'm with Trump now.' We're saying we have better Democratic options to beat Trump, and beating Trump is absolutely essential."
And a new CBS/YouGov poll out Sunday shows that 72% of registered voters believe Biden does not have the "mental and cognitive health to serve as president," compared to 49% who said the same about Trump. That 72% figure for Biden represents a 12-point jump among voters compared to when the same question was asked on June 9.
The New York Times Editorial Board—an otherwise staunch ally of the liberal establishment that has backed Biden—made a splash Saturday by arguing prominently on its pages, under the unmistakable headline "To Serve His Country, President Biden Should Leave the Race," that the president would be doing the nation a service by bowing out. According to the board:
As it stands, the president is engaged in a reckless gamble. There are Democratic leaders better equipped to present clear, compelling and energetic alternatives to a second Trump presidency. There is no reason for the party to risk the stability and security of the country by forcing voters to choose between Mr. Trump’s deficiencies and those of Mr. Biden. It’s too big a bet to simply hope Americans will overlook or discount Mr. Biden’s age and infirmity that they see with their own eyes.
If the race comes down to a choice between Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden, the sitting president would be this board’s unequivocal pick. That is how much of a danger Mr. Trump poses. But given that very danger, the stakes for the country and the uneven abilities of Mr. Biden, the United States needs a stronger opponent to the presumptive Republican nominee. To make a call for a new Democratic nominee this late in a campaign is a decision not taken lightly, but it reflects the scale and seriousness of Mr. Trump’s challenge to the values and institutions of this country and the inadequacy of Mr. Biden to confront him.
Yanis Varoufakis, former finance minister for Greece and co-founder of Progressive International, said you know "the long knives are truly out" when the Times has slew of weekend opinion essays targeting the Democratic president.
Meanwhile, The New Yorker magazine's editor David Remnick, another oracle of the liberal media, carved a similar path as he described a political "tide roaring at Biden's feet" and a presidential figure who looks "increasingly unsteady" to the voting public.
"It is not just the political class or the commentariat who were unnerved by the debate," wrote Remnick in his Saturday column. "Most people with eyes to see were unnerved. At this point, for the Biden's to insist on defying biology, to think that a decent performance at one rally or speech can offset the indelible images of Thursday night, is folly."
With the president and First Lady Jill Biden at Camp David for the remainder of the weekend—and reports swirling of a " frenzied" damage-control effort by his staff and internal family consultations underway to "discuss the future of his re-election campaign" while gathered at the retreat complex—progressive political observers said that powerful members of the Democratic Party establishment—including elected leaders, donors, and top DNC officials—can only come to one conclusion after Thursday's debate.
"Quite apart from the existential threat of Trump becoming the next president and ending American democracy, there is pure self-interest," arguedThe American Prospect's Robert Kuttner on Friday. "The futures of every other Democrat up for re-election are on the line." He continued:
With Biden heading the ticket, Democrats will likely lose the House, Senate, state legislatures and governorships, and down-ballot races all the way to school board, as well as the presidency. Chuck Schumer cares more about losing his post as majority leader than he cares about the awkwardness of having to tell his president he needs to go. And to quote Shakespeare, "If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done quickly."
Ironies abound. This early debate was the Biden camp's idea. It's evidence of the cluelessness of Biden's inner circle about the president's weakness as a candidate that they thought Biden would triumph. They gloated that they prevailed on the terms—no audience, no on-mic cross talk—and still their man got clobbered.
Biden should have won overwhelmingly—on the issues, on Trump’s lying, and on his own coherence compared to Trump’s. Biden’s policies have been superb and consistent. Trump’s policies, both as president and as future president, are a contradictory medley of disasters.
But from the moment he shuffled onto the set, Biden obviously wasn’t up to it.
In the assessment of other progressives—many of whom have argued for well over a year that Biden was a weak candidate and should be challenged for the nomination—Democratic elites have now caught up to what should have been self-evident.
In a Sunday op-ed at Common Dreams, Sam Rosenthal of the leftist advocacy group RootsAction, which mobilized a "Step Aside Joe" campaign last year in hopes of convincing the president to not seek re-election, argues that the "tide could turn" on Biden in the days ahead if "a few brave elected officials in prominent positions were to speak out" against the president.
"It is not an exaggeration to say that replacing Joe Biden at the top of the ticket is critical to saving our very imperfect democracy," writes Rosenthal. "This is an opportunity for activists and voters to make their voices heard, but an effort needs to take hold quickly, and with urgency, if we want to avoid the coming catastrophe."
In a Sunday newsletter, political journalist Chris Cillizza published in full an email he received from a veteran Democratic political operative who agreed to have his note published so long as he was not named. The email, in part, read:
I just don't understand what in the hell is going on.
As a career Democratic operative who never lived in DC, I can't underscore how different things are outside the bubble. People I talk with who aren't political hacks and just happen to be Democrats or ‘never Trump’ types are mortified and scared after the debate.
My phone hasn't stopped.
These aren't people who are active on Twitter or dedicate their social media feeds to politics, they are just normal folk. They don't understand why the Democratic Party is doing this.
They are horrified and perplexed and absolutely recognize they are being gaslighted...
Albeit anecdotal, Cillizza said the email represents, "a telling sign that all is not well in the Democratic party. And that there are a LOT of worried people out there."
Despite serious questions about who should or would be chosen as the replacement Democrat (including the process by which that decision is made), the widespread anxiety about allowing Trump to march back into the White House due to the Democrats' failure to field a strong and reliable candidate could not be shaken by the Biden's campaign concerted efforts to circle the wagons over the weekend and their appeals for voters (not to mention large donors) to stay calm."We need to have as much discipline as emotion," one unnamed senior Democratic official toldNBC News on Saturday. "It's not politically smart for Biden to step down."
Meanwhile—offering a mirrored counterpoint and not to be overshadowed by the NYT's call for Biden to relinquish the Democratic nomination—the Philadelphia Inquirer on Saturday published an editorial of its own, titled "To serve his country, Donald Trump should leave the race," which acknowledged that even as Biden faltered seriously on Thursday night, those arguing the sitting president should be the one to bow out have it backward.
"Yes, Biden had a horrible night," reads the editorial. "He’s 81 and not as sharp as he used to be. But Biden on his worst day remains lightyears better than Trump on his best."
But progressive pushback to such sentiments ranged from unconvinced to outraged.
"I find the 'Joe had a bad debate but he's still much better than Trump' line so offensive," said Regunberg. "No Democrat—literally no Democrat—is saying 'Oh, I'm with Trump now.' We're saying we have better Democratic options to beat Trump, and beating Trump is absolutely essential."
"If Biden refuses to step aside it will not be an act of high principal or strong character," said journalist and Slate columnist Zachary Carter. "He did not just have a bad night. He is not fit for the job and staying in the race would be the worst kind of vanity and betrayal."
'We Are a Resurrection': Poor People's Campaign Rallies for Low-Wage Voters in DC
"There will be no democracy worth saving if it doesn't lift the lives of poor and low-wage people all over this world," one speaker said.
Thousands of poor and low-wage workers and their supporters from religious, labor, and social justice organizations rallied in Washington, D.C. on Saturday and pledged to "break the silence about poverty" and mobilize 15 million poor and low-income voters ahead of the November 2024 election.
The Mass Poor People's and Low Wage Workers' Assembly and Moral March on Washington, D.C. and to the Polls was hosted by the Poor People's Campaign: A National Call for Moral Revival, which hopes to pressure politicians to embrace a 17-point agenda that prioritizes the well-being of the poor and working class over funding for war and militarism.
"We came here today to represent America's largest potential swing vote: poor and low-wage people who make this country work," Bishop William J. Barber II, co-chair of the Poor People's Campaign and president and senior lecturer of Repairers of the Breach, wrote on social media after the event.
Speaking at the rally, which took place at Third and Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest and began at 10:00 am ET, Barber emphasized the potential power of the poor as a voting block. He said that poor people represent 30% of the electorate and 40% in swing states.
"Every state where the margin of victory was within 3%, poor and low-wage voters make up over 43% of the electorate," Barber said.
He added that in crucial battleground states Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Georgia, the result of the 2020 election was determined by 178,000 votes, yet more than six million poor people in those states did not vote at all.
"Those most impacted by injustice, organizing together, mobilizing together, and voting together can force the changes that we know we need that will be good for everybody."
"The No. 1 reason they did not vote is they said nobody talked to them," Barber said. "Well, there comes a time when people don't talk to you, you've got to make them talk to you."
That is exactly what the Poor People's Campaign is trying to do. In addition to reaching out to 15 million low-income infrequent voters, Barber said the campaign planned to deliver a statement to the major news networks on Saturday.
"We don't care what kind of debate you have if you don't have a debate that asks candidates where they stand on living wages and labor and healthcare, that's the failure," Barber said.
Barber added that the movement would also deliver a statement to the Democratic and Republican National Conventions saying, "If you want these votes, then you have to talk to us, not about what you've done, but what you're going to do in the days to come, because our votes must rise."
Barber and other speakers argued for putting the concerns of the poor and low-income at the center of national politics.
"There will be no democracy worth saving if it doesn't lift the lives of poor and low-wage people all over this world," Barber said. "This is not a moment, this is a movement that must rise until we lift this nation from the bottom so that everybody rises."
Rev. Dr. Liz Theoharis, co-chair of the Poor People's Campaign and director of the Kairos Center for Religions, Rights, and Social Justice, said: "Those most impacted by injustice, organizing together, mobilizing together, and voting together can force the changes that we know we need that will be good for everybody."
She argued that putting the poor at the center of the struggle for democracy "is what can save this nation."
"We say poverty no more. We demand justice for the poor," she concluded. "Because everybody has got a right to live."
On social media, Barber encouraged others to sign on to the movement's pledge.
"It's time to make our voices heard," Barber wrote. "We call on people of moral conscience to join us by pledging to be a part of this mobilization effort. Together, we can wake the sleeping giant of poor and low-wage voters. We are a resurrection, not an insurrection!"
The movement's 17-point agenda includes calls for abolishing poverty as the fourth leading cause of death in the U.S.; ensuring economic justice policies such as a living wage, labor rights, affordable housing, and universal healthcare; enshrining women's and immigrants' rights; protecting the environment and climate; ending gun violence and domestic extremism; and negotiating a cease-fire in Gaza and limiting the war economy.
In addition, Barber and other speakers responded to political developments over the past week, including concerns about U.S. President Joe Biden's performance in a debate against former President Donald Trump Thursday night.
Barber criticized the media for focusing on issues like Biden's stutter or Trump's sexual indiscretions rather than the bread-and-butter issues that matter to voters.
"In my tradition, Moses stuttered, but he brought down Pharaoh," Barber said at the rally. "Jeremiah had depression, but he stood up for justice. Jesus was acquainted with sorrow. Harriet Tubman had epilepsy. Folks are getting caught up on how a candidate walks—well, let me tell you, I have trouble walking, but I know how to walk toward justice."
Barber continued: "We say to the media, this election is not about foolish things. It is about whether we will have democracy. And it is not about one candidate; it is about the people mobilizing and organizing, and you will not drive us to despair."
Participants also spoke out against the Supreme Court's decision on Friday in City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnsonthat cities can enforce bans on sleeping outside in public even if they are not able to provide shelter space for unhoused individuals.
"A Supreme Court that says you can send somebody to jail for not having a home, you can send them to jail for sleeping, but then they turn around and say those with money can have unprecedented power in our election, that is too low down for a nation," Barber said.
Theoharis agreed.
"It is wrong for the highest court in the land to criminalize homelessness, to rule that you cannot breathe in public on a bench, in your car, or in a park if you do not have a home," Theoharis said.