Jennifer Dunn Quotes

Trade agreements are what you make of them.

I am a firm believer in free but fair trade. However the United States should not be on the losing end of trade agreements that are not enforced. It is time that we make China play fairly.

We were told by President Obama that in respect of international trade, we would have to get to the back of the queue - not a position that America normally requires the United Kingdom to be in when it comes to other matters, such as the Iraq War.

I think we've been able to establish good relationships with people on President Trump's team, and that gives us an opportunity to do better than what most people expect in terms of the relationship. And we are working towards that on many fronts, particularly on trade.

Congress has the responsibility to ensure that any international trade agreement entered into by the United States must serve the national interest, not merely the interests of those crafting the proposal in secret.

A treaty is only another name for a bargain: and that it would be impossible to find a nation who would make any bargain with us, which would be binding on them absolutely, but on us only so long as and so far as we may think proper to be bound by it ... treaties are made not by one of the contracting parties but by both, and consequently that as the consent of both was essential to their formation at first, so must it ever afterwards be to alter or cancel them.

In all free trade agreements there are winners and losers.

Let's start getting some free trade agreements started as soon as we can. We need to get on with it; we need to get a grip and make progress.

We recognize that NAFTA is a three-country agreement, and we need a three-country negotiation.

If what is on the table is something that is not good for Mexico, Mexico will step away from NAFTA.

If NAFTA goes away, it's not the end of the world. It certainly is not the end of trade between Mexico and the United States.

I'm not going to negotiate with Brazil for its pretty face. I'm going to negotiate with Brazil because they're going to open their car-manufacturing market.

I've always been worried about Justin Trudeau's attitude towards trade. We saw during the softwood lumber negotiations that he failed to get an extension while President Obama was still in office.

All the U.S. is asking for is free, fair trade.

The last thing a Trump administration plans is a trade war. The issue simply is getting a decent trade deal with each of the major trading partners.

We're going to bring a lot of money in on trade. We're going to bring a lot of money on reciprocal. You know, as an example, when you have countries with a big tax and we get nothing for the same product and we're paying - our companies are paying 100 percent tax in some countries and if they send their product to us we pay nothing. Doesn't make sense.

America has to make a new trade deal with Mexico because we're getting clobbered.

The Barack Obama administration had been negotiating with the Canadians to come up with a permanent solution on lumber tariff. And they failed. And so even though this is being portrayed as the first salvo by Donald Trump's tough trade regime, in fact, it's quite possible that, if Hillary Clinton were president, we would be in the same place.

We have people that are political hacks negotiating our trade deals.

NAFTA, by itself, will not collapse. The possibility is that the United States leaves the treaty, but the treaty itself would keep regulating relations between Canada and Mexico.

Trade negotiations require compromise.

Free trade agreements are never for one sector alone.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement is a continuation of other disastrous trade agreements, like NAFTA, CAFTA, and permanent normal trade relations with China.

We know from drafts that the Donald Trump's administration has circulated on Capitol Hill, there are a few things they would like to change about NAFTA. They would like to, for example, have the ability to impose tariffs just because imports are surging from Canada or Mexico, not necessarily because they're being sold unfairly. They want more freedom to use our countervailing the subsidy laws against Canada and Mexico.

I fully understand the One-China policy. But I don't know why we have to be bound by a One-China policy unless we make a deal with China having to do with other things, including trade.