Though the case for free trade can be tricky politically due to erroneous and irresponsible rhetoric from certain political leaders and unions, as a matter of policy its benefits are unequivocal. While Donald Trump has cornered the market on protectionism, Secretary Hillary Clinton’s views on the matter are less clear.
Regrettably, Secretary Clinton’s position on free trade has moved to the left in recent years, especially as she fended off a stronger than expected primary challenge from protectionist Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Given the relative importance the issue has played in the presidential debate, it’s worth taking a look at her position on trade.
{mosads}As First Lady, Clinton supported the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which was finalized during her husband’s presidency. Likewise, in the late 1990s, she encouraged Congress to provide her husband with Trade Promotion Authority, or fast track authority, to negotiate and finalize trade agreements.
As a member of the United States Senate, Clinton’s record on trade was mixed. She voted in favor of free trade agreements with Australia, Morocco, Oman, Chile and Singapore, but voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement. In 2002, she voted against granting President George W. Bush fast track authority, the same authority she urged Congress to grant her husband in the late 1990s.
In 2008, Clinton ran for president. During the Democratic primary, she announced her opposition to free trade agreements pending at the time with Colombia, South Korea, and Panama. Most notably, Clinton reversed her position on NAFTA and urged the United States to attempt to renegotiate the terms with the other parties to the agreement, Canada and Mexico. After losing a bitter primary to President Obama, Clinton became Secretary of State in 2009, a position she held until early 2013.
As Secretary of State, Clinton supported the trade agreements with Colombia, South Korea, and Panama that she previously opposed on the campaign trail. Also during her tenure at the State Department, the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), a massive multilateral trade agreement with 12 Pacific Rim nations, was being negotiated. Throughout the negotiations, Secretary Clinton was an outspoken supporter of the TPP – going so far as to call it the “gold standard” for future trade agreements.
After resigning as Secretary of State, Clinton began preparing to run for president. In 2015, as President Obama and Congress were pushing for renewed fast track authority, Secretary Clinton came out in opposition. This was somewhat surprising for a couple of reasons. First, she supported fast track authority for her husband in the late 1990s. Second, the bill under consideration would grant the president fast track authority for six years, four of which would occur on her watch should she be elected president. Ultimately fast track authority passed after an extremely contentious floor fight and a tight vote in the House of Representatives.
After receiving fast track authority, President Obama’s administration and trade negotiators from the 11 other TPP nations finalized the agreement in October, 2015. Less than 48 hours after the 5,500 page text was released, Secretary Clinton came out in opposition to TPP – disavowing her earlier statements about the high quality of the agreement. The primary reason Secretary Clinton opposed TPP was that the agreement was too generous toward pharmaceutical companies.
If anything, the pharmaceutical and biologics provisions in the TPP became less favorable to pharmaceutical companies after Secretary Clinton left the State Department. While the United States offers 12 years of data exclusivity for biologics for pharmaceutical companies, other TPP nations offer fewer years of protection. Despite the Obama administration’s trade negotiators reportedly pushing for 12 years of data exclusivity for biologics, including during Secretary Clinton’s time as Secretary, the final TPP text provides between 5 and 8 years. While many experts believe it is regrettable TPP does not include lengthier protections for pharmaceutical companies to recoup their investments in expensive biologics, the final TPP draft undercuts Secretary Clinton’s argument that the agreement provides too much protection for pharmaceuticals – it provides less than when she was effusively praising the agreement.
All in all, Secretary Clinton has a mixed record on free trade. Her recent shifts, however, ought to give free traders pause.
Packard is Policy and Government Affairs manager at the National Taxpayers Union.