SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
June, 21 2019, 12:00am EDT
Contact:
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
WASHINGTON
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) 494-8826LATEST NEWS
Report on US Killer Robots Warns of 'Reckless, Dangerous Arms Race'
"All signs point to the Pentagon developing 'killer robots' via Replicator, despite deflections from Pentagon representatives themselves," according to Public Citizen.
Nov 22, 2024
A report from the government watchdog Public Citizen released Friday gives the who, what, when, where, and why of the Pentagon's flagship Replicator initiative—a program to increase the number of weapons, particularly drones, in the hands of the U.S. military.
In the report, Public Citizen re-ups concerns about one particular aspect of the program. According to the report's author, Savannah Wooten, the Defense Department has remained ambiguous on the question of whether it is developing artificial intelligence weapons that can "deploy lethal force autonomously—without a human authorizing the specific use of force in a specific context." These types of weapons are also known as "killer robots."
"It is not yet clear whether or not these technologies are designed, tested, or intended for killing," according to the report.
"All signs point to the Pentagon developing 'killer robots' via Replicator, despite deflections from Pentagon representatives themselves," wrote Wooten in the summary of the report.
The program, which was announced last year, is part of the Department of Defense's plan to deter China.
"Replicator is meant to help us overcome [China's] biggest advantage, which is mass. More ships. More missiles. More people," said Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks in a speech announcing the project last year. That mission will be achieved specifically by "mastering the technology of tomorrow," Hicks said.
There will soon be a "Replicator 2.0" that will focus on counter-drone technologies—per a memo from the defense secretary released in September—according to Public Citizen's report.
In a letter sent in March, Public Citizen and 13 other civil society groups highlighted remarks Hicks made in 2023 as an example of the ambiguity the Pentagon has created around the issue.
"Autonomous weapons are inherently dehumanizing and unethical, no matter whether a human is 'ultimately' responsible for the use of force or not. Deploying lethal artificial intelligence weapons in battlefield conditions necessarily means inserting them into novel conditions for which they have not been programmed, an invitation for disastrous outcomes," the organizations wrote to Hicks and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin.
Wooten's report reiterates that same call: "The Pentagon owes Americans clarity about its own role in advancing the autonomous weapons arms race via Replicator, as well as a detailed plan for ensuring it does not open a Pandora’s Box of new, lethal weapons on the world by refusing to hold its own operations accountable."
Additionally, "'Artificial intelligence' should not be used as a catchall justification to summon billions more in Pentagon spending, especially when the existing annual budget for the U.S. military already dwarfs every other U.S. agency and is careening towards the $1 trillion mark," Wooten wrote.
The fear that these types of weapons would open a Pandora's Box—and set off a "reckless, dangerous arms race," as Public Citizen warned of Friday—is not new. Back in 2017, dozens of artificial intelligence and robotics experts published a letter urging the United Nations to ban the development and use of so-called killer robots. As drone warfare has grown, those calls have continued.
The report also highlights the public statements of the head of one defense contractor that has been selected to produce for the Replicator initiative as a hint that the program is aimed at creating weapons that are capable of autonomous lethal force.
In early October, CEO of Anduril Palmer Luckey said that, "societies have always needed a warrior class that is enthused and excited about enacting violence on others in pursuit of good aims."
"You need people like me who are sick in that way and who don't lose any sleep making tools of violence in order to preserve freedom," he said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Christian Nationalism Marches on With 'Bible-Infused' Texas Curriculum
"What we're seeing here in Texas with these lessons is a larger national push to promote the idea that American identity and Christian identity are woven together, are one in the same," said one professor.
Nov 22, 2024
Parents, teachers, and other critics of Christian nationalism were outraged by a Texas board's Friday vote to approve a "Bible-infused" curriculum for elementary school students—part of a broader right-wing push to force Christianity into public education.
"They chose politics over what's best for students, promoting an evangelical Christian religious perspective and undermining the freedom of families to direct the religious education of their own children," declared the Texas Freedom Network, accusing the State Board of Education (SBOE) of ignoring warnings from religious studies experts, national media attention, and overwhelming negative feedback from the people they're elected to serve."
Like a preliminary vote Tuesday, eight of the SBOE's 15 members voted to approve Bluebonnet Learning, instructional materials proposed by the Texas Education Agency. Three Republicans joined all four Democrats in opposing the curriculum. The deciding vote in favor of it was cast by Leslie Recine, a Republican recently appointed by GOP Gov. Greg Abbott to temporarily fill a vacant seat.
"In a state as diverse as Texas, home to millions of people from countless faiths and beliefs, the Texas Republicans on the State Board of Education voted to incorporate Biblical teachings into the state curriculum—completely undermining religious freedom," said Texas Democratic Party Chair Gilberto Hinojosa in a statement after the final vote.
"This move has ultimately violated parents' rights to guide their children's faith while presenting teachers with additional needless challenges," Hinojosa argued. "Our public schools should be focused on equipping students with the education and skills they need to succeed beyond grade school whether it's pursuing a higher education or entering the workforce. The teaching of religious doctrine should stay in our places of worship where it belongs."
Although the curriculum isn't required, The Texas Tribunereported, "the state will offer an incentive of $60 per student to districts that adopt the lessons, which could appeal to some as schools struggle financially after several years without a significant raise in state funding."
"Christian nationalists have bought their way into every governing body of the state, including the SBOE. And they will not stop with inserting Biblical content in English textbooks."
Bluebonnet Learning features lessons from Christianity in reading and language arts materials for kindergarten through fifth grade.
"This curriculum is not age-appropriate or subject matter appropriate in the way that it presents these Bible stories," Amanda Tyler, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, toldThe Associated Press. Children who would read the material, she said, "are simply too young to tell the difference between what is a faith claim and what is a matter of fact."
Zeph Capo, president of the Texas arm of the American Federation of Teachers, urged districts "to resist the dollars dangled before them and refuse to use Bluebonnet Learning materials," arguing that they violate the code of ethics for the state's educators and "the separation of church and state by infusing lessons with Bible-based references more appropriate for Sunday Schools than public schools."
"Moreover, they are assaults on the academic freedom of our classrooms and the sanctity of the teaching profession," he said in a Friday statement. "We have a duty as teachers to make our teaching and learning materials accessible and inclusive of all students in our classrooms. These prescriptive materials cannot meet all learners in all contexts; in fact, they make no effort to do so."
"Perhaps what's most insulting about today's vote is that these materials are not just inappropriate—they're bad at what they proclaim to do. Instructional experts have expressed deep concerns about the age-appropriateness of the materials and whether they will be effective reading instruction," Capo continued. "In short, this is a push coming from idealogues, rather than anyone with expertise in educational best practices."
Noting the current "moment of profound political division," the union leader added that the vote "is the latest evidence that Christian nationalists have bought their way into every governing body of the state, including the SBOE. And they will not stop with inserting Biblical content in English textbooks. We can anticipate what will come next, whether that's the erasure of contributions of marginalized populations in social studies or the minimalization of climate change in science."
The curriculum push coincides with an SBOE effort to restrict library materials. The ACLU of Texas said on social media that "the same politicians censoring what students can read now want to impose state-sponsored religion onto our public schools."
The Tribunereported Thursday that "10 members on the board responsible for determining what Texas' 5.5 million public schoolchildren learn in the classroom voted to call on the Texas Legislature, which convenes in January, to pass a state law granting them authority to determine what books are appropriate for school-age children."
Earlier this week, Mark Chancey, a religious studies professor at Southern Methodist University, toldFox 4 that he supports teaching religion in public schools, but in a fair and unbiased way, and he doesn't agree with the state proposal.
"I think it would be unfortunate to approve these lessons in their current form," he said. "Public schools should reflect the religious diversity of our state. And when teaching about religion, not privilege one religious tradition over others."
"What we're seeing here in Texas with these lessons is a larger national push to promote the idea that American identity and Christian identity are woven together, are one in the same," Chancey pointed out.
For example, in Oklahoma, Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters has set out to put Bibles—specifically, a pricey one peddled by U.S. President-elect Donald Trump—in every classroom in the state. In a recent appearance on CNN, Walters said that "President Trump has a clear mandate. He wants prayer back in school. He wants radical leftism out of the classroom, wants our kids to be patriotic, wants parents back in charge with school choice."
Meanwhile, in Louisiana, state lawmakers passed legislation requiring every public school classroom to display, in large font, a Protestant version of the Ten Commandments. Earlier this month, a judge prohibited enforcement of that requirement, which was on track to take effect in January.
At the federal level, Trump—who is set to return to the White House in January—has advocated for dismantling the U.S. Department of Education. For now, he has named Linda McMahon, a former wrestling executive accused of enabling sexual abuse of children, as his pick for education secretary.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Critics Say 'History of Enabling Sexual Abuse' Makes McMahon Unfit for Top Education Post
"This is someone accused of ignoring rampant sexual abuse under her watch," said one advocate. "It's an insult to survivors and a blatant attack on the safety of students nationwide."
Nov 22, 2024
A group that combats sexual violence on campuses was among those speaking out on Friday against U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's nomination of former wrestling entertainment executive Linda McMahon for education secretary, warning that her own sexual abuse scandal makes her an "appalling" choice to lead the department tasked with protecting students from discrimination and violence.
Kenyora Parham, CEO of End Rape on Campus, said McMahon's "documented history of enabling sexual abuse of children and sweeping sexual violence under the rug" is "disqualifying" for a nominee to lead the Department of Education.
Parham was referring to a lawsuit that was filed in October by five anonymous plaintiffs in Maryland, which alleges that while McMahon was the CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) in the 1980s, she and other executives enabled "open and rampant" grooming and sexual abuse of the company's teenaged "ring boys" by announcer Mel Phillips and others.
The lawsuit alleges that McMahon and her now-estranged husband, WWE co-founder Vince McMahon, knew that Phillips was recruiting boys as young as 12 to work as stagehands and then sexually exploiting them, sometimes in front of wrestlers and executives in the locker area. WWE wrestlers Pat Patterson and Terry Garvin are also named as abusers.
The plaintiffs said they were between the ages of 13-15 when they were abused, and that the McMahons were aware of the sexual exploitation. According to the lawsuit, Vince McMahon admitted the couple was aware of Phillips' "peculiar and unnatural interest" in young boys, and the McMahons fired him briefly in 1988 over allegations of sexual abuse.
They "rehired him six weeks later on the condition that he 'steer clear from kids,'" according to the lawsuit, but the exploitation continued.
Parham spoke out a day after she and other rights advocates celebrated the news that former Rep. Matt Gaetz, who Trump had nominated to be attorney general, was withdrawing from consideration amid allegations that he paid to have sex with a 17-year-old, which were the subject of an investigation by the House Ethics Committee.
"Now can we get Linda McMahon to withdraw her appointment as secretary of education, too?" said Parham on Thursday.
Pete Hegseth, a former Fox News host who Trump has nominated to be defense secretary, has also been accused of sexual assault, the details of which were revealed in a police report that was made public this week. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who Trump nominated to lead the Health and Human Services Department, has been accused by his children's former babysitter of sexual abuse.
Billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk, who Trump has named to run his Department of Government Efficiency, has been named in a lawsuit filed by former SpaceX employees who alleged sexual harassment at work. Trump himself was found liable last year for sexual abuse in a case filed by writer E. Jean Carroll.
Putting McMahon in charge of overseeing Title IX protections, which prohibits sex discrimination and sexual harassment and assault at schools that receive federal funding, "is like handing keys to an arsonist to run the fire department," said Caroline Ciccone, president of government watchdog Accountable.US.
"Donald Trump's nomination of Linda McMahon to lead the Department of Education is indefensible," said Ciccone. "This is someone accused of ignoring rampant sexual abuse under her watch... It's an insult to survivors and a blatant attack on the safety of students nationwide."
Trump chose McMahon to lead the Education Department after President Joe Biden expanded Title IX protections to cover discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation. Trump has pledged to roll back the expanded policy, and has called for the entire department to be dismantled.
"McMahon and her colleagues were reportedly aware of abuse happening right under their noses—and they did nothing," Ciccone said. "Now she's been chosen to oversee, and likely overhaul, the very protections designed to stop this kind of harm? The Senate must put an end to this sham of a nomination. She lacks the experience, the judgment, and the track record to protect students from harm."
Parham said McMahon's nomination signals "a calculated agenda to dismantle the protections afforded by Title IX."
"Appointing someone with such a compromised background is a direct attack on these hard-won rights and threatens to leave countless students vulnerable," she said. "We urge policymakers and fellow advocates to unite against this nomination and demand accountability—to join us in this critical fight to uphold and strengthen the protections that every student deserves."
"It is imperative that leaders are appointed who will genuinely champion the safety and rights of every student," she added, "regardless of their identity and background."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular