Heidi Heitkamp on Free Trade



Tariffs on China cause retaliatory actions

Q: Support President Trump's imposition of tariffs on Chinese steel & other products?

Kevin Cramer (R): "I would prefer a more measured approach." But they are "the one tool [Trump] has," so support them & present a united front for negotiations.

Heidi Heitkamp (D): No. They "severely limit our ability to build the international support need to keep China in check." Retaliatory actions will hurt North Dakota.

Source: 2018 CampusElect.org Issue Guide on North Dakota Senate race , Oct 9, 2018

AdWatch: trade war with China hurts soybean farmers

Heidi Heitkamp and her opponent, at-large Rep. Kevin Cramer (R), are locked in an ad battle. Heitkamp's new ad attacks Cramer for allegedly being indifferent to the effects of President Donald Trump's trade war.

The 30-second ad centers on Cramer's support for Trump's trade war with China, which will hurt North Dakota's large agricultural economy because China has enacted retaliatory tariffs.

A farmer calls out Cramer while standing in a soybean field. "China is canceling their contracts to buy soybean. North Dakota is losing hundreds of millions of dollars worth of business. But when you ask Kevin Cramer why he supports the trade war, he criticizes farmers," the farmer says.

The ad then plays several Cramer soundbites that are ripped from their context in which Cramer seemingly downplays the trade war's impact. "Mr. Cramer, that trade war is costing my family a lot of money and you don't seem to care," the farmer says in response.

Source: The Blaze: AdWatch on 2018 North Dakota Senate race , Sep 18, 2018

Our $50B of tariffs on China caused $34B of retaliation

Heidi Heitkamp and her Heitkamp's new ad attacks Cramer for allegedly being indifferent to the effects of President Donald Trump's trade war. Trump has implemented more than $50 billion in tariffs on Chinese imports. In response, China passed retaliatory measures worth $34 billion that effect American agriculture products, such as soybeans, corn, wheat, and other produce. Agriculture is the top industry in North Dakota, comprising about one-quarter of the state's workforce.

Heitkamp drew a clear line between her and Cramer on tariffs, explaining how they negatively impact her constituents. "I think the first thing when you look at trade, you haven't seen the full impact. Fundamentally everyone had hoped by this time there would have been an agreement that we would have returned to shipping soybeans to China," she said. "That hasn't happened. As time goes on and you scratch the surface, people are getting more angry."

Source: The Blaze: AdWatch on 2018 North Dakota Senate race , Sep 18, 2018

A trade war is bad for jobs, business, and consumers

Heitkamp today released the following statement on the administration's decision to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum:

"Farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, and the energy industry--the lifeblood of economic activity in our state--know that a trade war is bad for jobs, bad for business, and bad for North Dakota. A trade war has dangerous ripple effects across our economy, costing consumers in expensive and unpredictable ways. If the administration wants to strengthen rural America, it should focus on protecting markets for the goods we produce and expanding opportunities for industries in our state. Instead, they're shooting our economy in the foot, stoking fear in our farming communities, and casting a shadow on manufacturers who rely on exports to survive."

Background: Heitkamp has been fighting to protect and expand markets for North Dakota goods, pushing the administration to back off damaging threats to withdrawal from NAFTA and speaking out against tariffs.

Source: Press Release on 2018 North Dakota Senatorial campaign , Mar 8, 2018

Voted FOR reauthorizing Ex-Im Bank.

Heitkamp voted NAY Export-Import Bank Reform and Reauthorization Act

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.

Sierra Club reason for conditionally voting NO (from previous bill S.819):Sen. Shaheen's bill S.824 reauthorizes the Ex-Im Bank without undermining Obama's Climate Action Plan. The Sierra Club supports the bill because it makes both financial and environmental sense for the US and all of its taxpayer-backed financial institutions--including Ex-Im--to stop investing in dirty and dangerous fossil fuels like coal.

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.

Source: Supreme Court case 15-S0995 argued on Oct 19, 2015

Other candidates on Free Trade: Heidi Heitkamp on other issues:
ND Gubernatorial:
Doug Burgum
Jack Dalrymple
Marvin Nelson
Michael Coachman
ND Senatorial:
Dustin Peyer
Eliot Glassheim
John Hoeven
Kevin Cramer
Robert Marquette
Thomas Campbell

ND politicians
ND Archives
Senate races 2019-20:
AK: Sullivan(R,incumbent) vs.Gross(I)
AL: Jones(D,incumbent) vs.Sessions(R) vs.Moore(R) vs.Mooney(R) vs.Rogers(D) vs.Tuberville(R) vs.Byrne(R) vs.Merrill(R)
AR: Cotton(R,incumbent) vs.Mahony(D) vs.Whitfield(I) vs.Harrington(L)
AZ: McSally(R,incumbent) vs.Kelly(D)
CO: Gardner(R,incumbent) vs.Hickenlooper(D) vs.Madden(D) vs.Baer(D) vs.Walsh(D) vs.Johnston(D) vs.Romanoff(D) vs.Burnes(D) vs.Williams(D)
DE: Coons(D,incumbent) vs.Scarane(D)
GA-2: Isakson(R,resigned) Loeffler(R,appointed) vs.Lieberman(D) vs.Collins(R) vs.Carter(D)
GA-6: Perdue(R,incumbent) vs.Tomlinson(D) vs.Ossoff(D) vs.Terry(D)
IA: Ernst(R,incumbent) vs.Graham(D) vs.Mauro(D) vs.Greenfield(D)
ID: Risch(R,incumbent) vs.Harris(D) vs.Jordan(D)
IL: Durbin(D,incumbent) vs.Curran(R) vs.Stava-Murray(D)
KS: Roberts(R,retiring) vs.LaTurner(R) vs.Wagle(R) vs.Kobach(R) vs.Bollier(D) vs.Lindstrom(R) vs.Grissom(D) vs.Marshall(R)
KY: McConnell(R,incumbent) vs.McGrath(D) vs.Morgan(R) vs.Cox(D) vs.Tobin(D)
LA: Cassidy(R,incumbent) vs.Pierce(D)

MA: Markey(D,incumbent) vs.Liss-Riordan(D) vs.Ayyadurai(R) vs.Kennedy(D)
ME: Collins(R,incumbent) vs.Sweet(D) vs.Gideon(D) vs.Rice(D)
MI: Peters(D,incumbent) vs.James(R)
MN: Smith(D,incumbent) vs.Carlson(D) vs.Lewis(R) vs.Overby(g)
MS: Hyde-Smith(R,incumbent) vs.Espy(D) vs.Bohren(D)
MT: Daines(R,incumbent) vs.Collins(D) vs.Bullock(D)
NC: Tillis(R,incumbent) vs.E.Smith(D) vs.S.Smith(R) vs.Cunningham(D) vs.Tucker(R) vs.Mansfield(D)
NE: Sasse(R,incumbent) vs.Janicek(R)
NH: Shaheen(D,incumbent) vs.Martin(D) vs.Bolduc(R) vs.O'Brien(f)
NJ: Booker(D,incumbent) vs.Singh(R) vs.Meissner(R)
NM: Udall(D,retiring) vs.Clarkson(R) vs.Oliver(D) vs.Lujan(D) vs.Rich(R)
OK: Inhofe(R,incumbent) vs.Workman(D)
OR: Merkley(D,incumbent) vs.Romero(R)
RI: Reed(D,incumbent) vs.Waters(R)
SC: Graham(R,incumbent) vs.Tinubu(D) vs.Harrison(D)
SD: Rounds(R,incumbent) vs.Borglum(R) vs.Ahlers(D)
TN: Alexander(R,incumbent) vs.Sethi(R) vs.Mackler(D) vs.Hagerty(R)
TX: Cornyn(R,incumbent) vs.Hegar(D) vs.Hernandez(D) vs.Bell(D) vs.Ramirez(D) vs.West(D)
VA: Warner(D,incumbent) vs.Taylor(R) vs.Gade(R)
WV: Capito(R,incumbent) vs.Swearengin(D) vs.Ojeda(D)
WY: Enzi(R,incumbent) vs.Ludwig(D) vs.Lummis(R)
Civil Rights
Foreign Policy
Free Trade
Govt. Reform
Gun Control
Health Care
Homeland Security
Social Security
Tax Reform

Other Senators
Senate Votes (analysis)
Bill Sponsorships
Policy Reports
Group Ratings

Page last updated: Mar 25, 2020