Dennis Kucinich on Free Trade

Democratic Representative (OH-10)


We need a policy of constructive engagement with China

Q: Does China’s size & manufacturing capability give them more leverage than us?

A: What we’ve seen is that without solid trade policies, we’re undermined. Without a strength-through-peace doctrine of rejecting war as an instrument of policy, we’re going to keep borrowing money from China. We’re borrowing money from China to finance the war in Iraq. And in addition to that, the speculation on Wall Street has weakened our economy. We need a policy of constructive engagement with China.

Source: 2007 Des Moines Register Democratic debate , Dec 13, 2007

Either buy America or bye-bye America

Q: Are you willing to state frankly that that Americans are going to pay more for consumer goods at Wal-Mart, and you believe that tradeoff is worth it?

A: Yes. Either buy America or bye-bye America. We have to recognize that, and a Kucinich administration will rebuild American industry. And while I’m listening to this debate, I’m the only one up here who voted against China trade. It is critical that we rebuild America’s industry, that we not get in an arms race with China.

Source: 2007 Des Moines Register Democratic debate , Dec 13, 2007

NAFTA accelerated immigration from Mexico, in search of jobs

Q: Are undocumented immigrants necessary? Will Americans work on a farm 10 hours in 105-degree weather for only $8.50 per hour?

A: Well, first of all, we have to understand why so many people came north of the border to seek work. I talked about the connection between NAFTA, trade and our immigration policies. When NAFTA was passed, there was an acceleration of immigration from Mexico because people were in search of jobs. They were told their wages were going to go up. Wages collapsed in Mexico. Now, there were many corporations north of the border who were ready to receive a supply of cheap labor. We understand that. So of course we need to provide people a path to legalization. But if we do not look at NAFTA while we’re looking at immigration, we’re going to keep having the same problems. A new trade agreement with Mexico that has those principles will help workers in Mexico, help workers in the US, create conditions where we finally gain control of our economic destiny again.

Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate on Univision in Spanish , Sep 9, 2007

FactCheck: NAFTA coincided with (not caused) peso collapse

Kucinich asserted a relationship between NAFTA and the collapse of the Mexican peso that many economists say doesn’t exist. Kucinich said, “When NAFTA was passed, there was an acceleration of immigration from Mexico because people were in search of jobs. They were told their wages were going to go up. Wages collapsed in Mexico.”

His chronology is correct; his economic theory is highly debatable. NAFTA went into effect Jan. 1, 1994. The Mexican peso collapsed late that year, leading to large job losses and reduced wages. Most economists, including the World Bank and the Congressional Budget Office, describe the peso collapse as coincidental.

However, Kucinich is not the only one to espouse a NAFTA-peso relationship. The liberal Economic Policy Institute argued the connection in a 1997 report titled “NAFTA and The Peso Collapse: Not Just a Coincidence.” They wrote, “The peso had to be devalued in order to implement the Mexican strategy for export-led growth that NAFTA was intended to promote.”

Source: FactCheck on 2007 Democratic primary debate on Univision , Sep 9, 2007

Manufacturing policy: trade based on workers right

I want a new American manufacturing policy, where the maintenance of steel, automotive, aerospace and shipping is seen as vital for our national security. And I want to see America take a new direction in trade as part of this, and that means it’s time to get out of NAFTA and the WTO--and have trade that’s based on workers right: the right to organize, the right to collective bargaining, the right to strike, the right to decent wages and benefits and on and on. I’m here for workers standards.
Source: 2007 AFL-CIO Democratic primary forum , Aug 7, 2007

Base trade on worker rights, human rights & environment

Q: Would you scrap NAFTA or fix it?

A: In my first week in office, I will notify Mexico and Canada that the US is withdrawing from NAFTA. We need a president who knows what the right thing is to do the first time, not in retrospect. And I think that we need to go forward to trade that’s based on workers’ rights, human rights and environmental quality principles. No one else on this stage could give a direct answer because they don’t intend to scrap NAFTA. We’re going to be stuck with it

Source: 2007 AFL-CIO Democratic primary forum , Aug 7, 2007

Go back to trade based on worker’s rights

Q: Are you going to raise taxes?

A: No. We’re going to stop the tax increases that Bush gave to people in the top brackets. We’re going to end war as an instrument of policy. So we’re not going to borrow money from China to fight wars in Baghdad. We’re going to lower our trade deficit by ending NAFTA & the WTO and going back to trade based on worker’s rights. We’re going to change our economy so people will be able to get something for the taxes they pay but they’re not going to have to pay more.

Source: 2007 YouTube Democratic Primary debate, Charleston SC , Jul 23, 2007

Democrats started NAFTA; Democrats will end it

Q: A lot of Americans are concerned with outsourcing of US jobs. What’s your solution?

GRAVEL: Outsourcing is not the problem. What is the problem is our trade agreements that benefit the management and the shareholders.

One of my first acts in office will be to cancel NAFTA and the WTO and go back to trade conditioned on workers’ rights, human rights and environmental quality principles. That’s what we must do. A Democratic administration started NAFTA. A Democratic administration will end it.

Source: 2007 Democratic Primary Debate at Howard University , Jun 28, 2007

NAFTA and GATT intentionally limit workers rights

One of the things that’s led to a destructive undermining of workers’ rights in this country is our trade agreements. If you go back to when NAFTA was passed, and GATT, and the creation of World Trade Organization, they were written specifically so there wouldn’t be any provisions for workers’ rights. No protection for the right to organize, the right to strike, the right to collective bargaining. Those were all excluded from trade agreements.

Now, why was that? Cheap labor. They also were looking to move it to places where if possible they could have prison labor, slave labor, child labor. They didn’t want environmental restrictions. So what happened is NAFTA and GATT opened up the door for that. And it really undermined workers in this country, it undermined workers in other countries.

My first week in office, I will move to cancel NAFTA and our relationship with the WTO and go back to bilateral trade that will be conditioned on workers’ rights, human rights, environmental quality principles.

Source: 2007 AFSCME Democratic primary debate in Carson City Nevada , Feb 21, 2007

Withdraw from NAFTA and WTO

The global trade regime of NAFTA and WTO has enriched multinational corporations. But for workers, family farmers, and the environment, it has meant a global race to the bottom. Companies leave the US in search of low wages, low commodity prices, anti-union climates, and lax environmental laws. NAFTA has been used to whipsaw workers at the negotiation table, forcing wages and benefit concessions under threat of moving jobs overseas. Trade treaties must be conditioned on workers’ rights, human rights, and environmental principles. The U.S. must withdraw from NAFTA and the WTO--and replace these with bilateral fair trade agreements.
Source: 2006 House campaign website, www.kucinich.us , Nov 7, 2006

Withdraw from WTO because they disallow protecting jobs

Q: Cancel or renegotiate?

KUCINICH: NAFTA and the WTO must be canceled. Let me tell you why. The WTO doesn’t permit any alterations. When we, as members of Congress, sought from the administration a Section 201 procedure to stop the dumping of steel into our markets so we could stop our American steel jobs from being crushed, the World Trade Organization ruled against the United States and said we had no right to do that. Now, the World Trade Organization, as long as we belong to it, will not let us protect the jobs. This is the reason why we have outsourcing going on right now. We can’t tax it. We can’t put tariffs on it. In order to protect jobs in this country and to be able to create a enforceable structure for trade, we need to get out of NAFTA, get out of the WTO.

Q: And you can do that by edict?

KUCINICH: The president has the power to withdraw from both NAFTA and the WTO upon a six-months notice. And I would exercise that authority to help save American jobs.

Source: Democratic 2004 primary debate at USC , Feb 26, 2004

Americans’ social consciousness overrides cheap goods

Q: People have gotten used to the idea of not paying as much for shoes or clothing or any other number of items because they are manufactured offshore. Do you agree?

A: That presumes that people of this country do not have a social consciousness. I believe they do. That’s why we’ve lost hundreds of textile plants in this country. That’s why our steel, automotive, aerospace, shipping and textile industries are in such severe trouble. My first act in office will be to cancel NAFTA and the WTO.

Source: Democratic 2004 primary Debate in Greenville SC , Jan 29, 2004

Free trade encourages privatization, so avoid it

Q: Should the US seek more free or liberalized trade agreements?

A: No, and my first act in office will be to repeal the existing ones. NAFTA has spurred a $418 billion trade deficit, costing 525,000 jobs, most of them in manufacturing. The World Trade Organization forced our president to lift steel tariffs, which will cost us more good jobs and hurt consumers. The Free Trade Agreement of the Americas would encourage the privatization of municipal services, including water.

Source: Associated Press policy Q&A, “Trade” , Jan 25, 2004

Bilateral trade structure to support American manufacturing

Q: If we withdraw from NAFTA and the WTO, under a bilateral trade situation, how do you force progressive trade conditions?

KUCINICH: 22,000 jobs lost in N.H. can be directly traced to NAFTA and the WTO, good paying jobs in this state that were lost. [Nationwide, we lost] 3 million American manufacturing jobs because of NAFTA and the WTO. As president, I intend to have a trade structure which supports manufacturing in this country-steel, automotive, aerospace, textiles, shipping. I intend to have a manufacturing policy which stops the hemorrhaging not only of manufacturing jobs, but high-tech jobs as well. As president, my first act in office will be to cancel NAFTA and the WTO and return to bilateral trade conditioned on workers’ rights, human rights and environmental quality principles. I wish that every candidate on this stage would join me in saying that you would agree to cancel NAFTA and the WTO, in light of what it’s cost New Hampshire.

Source: Democratic 2004 Primary Debate at St. Anselm College , Jan 22, 2004

President has authority to cancel NAFTA and WTO-I will

KUCINICH: I will cancel NAFTA and the WTO. We’ve lost over 3 million manufacturing jobs in this country. The president has the authority and power to cancel NAFTA and the WTO. Will you, Governor Dean?

DEAN: I did not vote for NAFTA or the WTO, because I have never served in Congress. But I did support China’s entry into the WTO in 1999 because I believed it was an issue for national security. I believe in constructive engagement. That doesn’t mean these agreements don’t need to be changed. We have stood up for multinational corporations in these agreements, but we have not stood up for workers’ rights, environmental rights and human rights. And until we do, trade doesn’t work.

GEPHARDT: Look, Howard, you were for NAFTA. You came to the signing ceremony. You were for the China agreement. It’s one thing to talk the talk, it’s another thing to walk the walk. We’ve got to get labor and environment in these treaties, when the treaties are before the Congress. That’s when it counts.

Source: Democratic 2004 Presidential Primary Debate in Iowa , Jan 4, 2004

Push trade deals based on power of US market leverage

Q: If the US withdraws from the WTO but no one else does, won’t the US still have to negotiate with the WTO? Won’t withdrawing from the WTO cause the loss of MORE American jobs?

A: The US is not a beggar in international trade relations. The US is the world’s number one consumer market. The world wants to sell to American consumers. That ought to represent leverage. But the US gave up its leverage when it joined the WTO. Withdrawal from the WTO will enable the US to reclaim its leverage. With this leverage, we will ask of our trading partners to buy from us approximately an equivalent amount of what we buy from them-the principle of correspondence. We can also promote workplace, human and environmental rights from around the world by simply telling our trading partners that we are not interested in buying their products when they are made with child labor, or are made in factories which show no regard for environmental protection.

Source: Concord Monitor / WashingtonPost.com on-line Q&A , Nov 4, 2003

First act as president will be to cancel NAFTA

We have to do everything we can to secure our manufacturing base, and that means giving a critical examination to those trade agreements that have caused a loss of hundreds of thousands, in some cases millions of jobs, in this economy. As president of the United States, my first act in office, therefore, will be to cancel NAFTA and the WTO and return to bilateral trade, conditioned on workers’ rights, human rights and the environment.

NAFTA makes it impossible to be able to protect workers’ rights. Now, those people say they’re going to put conditions on NAFTA. If you put conditions on NAFTA, that’s WTO illegal. Unless we cancel NAFTA and withdraw from the WTO, we aren’t going to [improve the economy]. I’m the one, first day in office, cancel NAFTA, cancel the WTO, return to bilateral trade with all those conditions we’ve just spoken about.

Source: Democratic Primary Debate, Albuquerque New Mexico , Sep 4, 2003

Need specific worker rights written into trade agreements

The only way that we can go back to trade which will work for the American people and for people all over North America is to make sure that we have workers’ rights, human rights and environmental quality principles in trade. And by workers’ right I mean this: Those have to be written specifically into our trade agreements and they were not. We had intellectual property written into the trade agreements. And we need specifically written into the trade agreements prohibitions on child labor, slave labor, prison labor.

But unless we cancel NAFTA and withdraw from the WTO, we aren’t going to get there. So all of this is just talk. I’m the one, first day in office, cancel NAFTA, cancel the WTO, return to bilateral trade with all those conditions we’ve just spoken about.

Source: Democratic Primary Debate, Albuquerque New Mexico , Sep 4, 2003

Companies profit from trade based on Third World misery

Q: If we follow your advice and start to pull out of some of NAFTA and the WTO, won’t the price of everything in Wal-Mart and Kmart go up?

KUCINICH: The real question is what kind of profits do the Kmarts and the Wal-Marts of the world make?

Q: Well, Kmart, not too much.

KUCINICH: But on the misery of those people in Third World countries who are working for pennies an hour and are finding themselves unable to support their own families.

Source: Democratic Primary Debate, Albuquerque New Mexico , Sep 4, 2003

Review & modify all treaties not respecting human rights

Our country and all nations must review and modify all treaties which reject national sovereignty in the cause of a global corporate ethic which does not respect human rights, workers rights and environmental quality standards. This means reviewing the practices and the practical impact of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank.
Source: 2004 House campaign website, Kucinich.us, “On The Issues” , Aug 1, 2003

No NAFTA, No WTO, No Fast Track

The restoration of the rights of workers in America and throughout the North American continent will begin when we repeal NAFTA. NAFTA has spurred a $360 billion trade deficit, costing 363,000 high-paying jobs, most in manufacturing. This is called free trade. NAFTA has attacked federal laws meant to protect worker rights, human rights and environmental quality principles. No NAFTA, no Fast Track. I oppose fast track to protect democracy and to protect American jobs.
Source: 2004 House campaign website, Kucinich.us, “On The Issues” , Aug 1, 2003

Cancel NAFTA and the WTO

It’s easy to talk about having a level playing field in trade. The problem is that we’ve lost hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs. In Ohio, steel has been devastated. Here in South Carolina, textiles have been devastated.

I think it’s time, not just to move around the edges of this issue, it’s time to cancel NAFTA and the WTO and return to a trading system that’s conditioned on workers’ rights, human rights and the environment.

Otherwise, workers are undermined at the bargaining table, jobs are going south and out of the county and off of this continent. We’re losing control of our own destiny with a $500 billion trade deficit and with rising unemployment. And I think that a core problem here is our trade policy. It’s time to get rid of NAFTA and the WTO.

Source: Democratic Debate in Columbia SC , May 3, 2003

Don’t sacrifice our rights to global corporate ethic

Our country and all nations must review and modify all treaties which reject national sovereignty in the cause of a global corporate ethic which does not respect human rights, workers rights and environmental quality standards. This means reviewing the practices and the practical impact of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank.
Source: 2004 House campaign website, Kucinich.org, “On The Issues” , Apr 1, 2003

Retaliatory tariffs yes; GATT no

Source: 1996 Congressional National Political Awareness Test , Jul 2, 1996

Dennis Kucinich on Voting Record

Against China MFN because of $100B trade deficit

Q: Would you today revoke China’s most favorite nation trading status?

KUCINICH: I was not in favor of it. I voted against most favored nation status for China for a number of reasons. First of all, we have to keep in mind that there has to be some correspondence in trade. There has to be some relationship between what a country sells in America and what it buys from America.

There has to be some reciprocity. We have $100 billion trade deficit with China, and we have an overall trade deficit of $435 billion. [We should] challenge the underlying structure of our trade, or what does it mean? $435 billion deficit. We need to cancel NAFTA, cancel the WTO, which makes any changes in NAFTA “WTO-illegal.” We need to go back to bilateral trade that’s conditioned on workers’ rights, human rights and the environment.

Source: Debate at Pace University in Lower Manhattan , Sep 25, 2003

Voted NO on promoting free trade with Peru.

Approves the Agreement entered into with the government of Peru. Provides for the Agreement's entry into force upon certain conditions being met on or after January 1, 2008. Prescribes requirements for:

Proponents support voting YES because:

Rep. RANGEL: It's absolutely ridiculous to believe that we can create jobs without trade. I had the opportunity to travel to Peru recently. I saw firsthand how important this agreement is to Peru and how this agreement will strengthen an important ally of ours in that region. Peru is resisting the efforts of Venezuela's authoritarian President Hugo Chavez to wage a war of words and ideas in Latin America against the US. Congress should acknowledge the support of the people of Peru and pass this legislation by a strong margin.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Rep. WU: I regret that I cannot vote for this bill tonight because it does not put human rights on an equal footing with environmental and labor protections.

Rep. KILDEE: All trade agreements suffer from the same fundamental flaw: They are not self-enforcing. Trade agreements depend upon vigorous enforcement, which requires official complaints be made when violations occur. I have no faith in President Bush to show any enthusiasm to enforce this agreement. Congress should not hand this administration yet another trade agreement because past agreements have been more efficient at exporting jobs than goods and services. I appeal to all Members of Congress to vote NO on this. But I appeal especially to my fellow Democrats not to turn their backs on those American workers who suffer from the export of their jobs. They want a paycheck, not an unemployment check.

Reference: Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act; Bill H.R. 3688 ; vote number 2007-1060 on Nov 8, 2007

Voted YES on assisting workers who lose jobs due to globalization.

H.R.3920: Trade and Globalization Act of 2007: Amends the Trade Act of 1974 to allow the filing for trade adjustment assistance (TAA) by adversely affected workers. Revises group eligibility requirements for TAA to cover: (1) a shift of production or services to abroad; or (2) imports of articles or services from abroad.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Rep. RANGEL: In recent years, trade policy has been a dividing force. This legislation develops a new trade policy that more adequately addresses the growing perception that trade is not working for American workers. The Trade and Globalization Assistance Act would expand training and benefits for workers while also helping to encourage investment in communities that have lost jobs to increased trade--particularly in our manufacturing sector. The bill is a comprehensive policy expanding opportunities for American workers, industries, and communities to prepare for and overcome the challenges created by expanded trade.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Rep. McCRERY: We should be considering trade adjustment assistance in the context of trade opportunities generally for US workers. That is to say, I think we should be considering modifications to our assistance network in the context of the pending free trade agreements that are before the Congress. Unfortunately, we are not doing that. We are considering TAA in isolation. [We should instead] restructure TAA from a predominantly income support program into a job retraining program. Other problems include that H.R. 3920 would:

Reference: Trade and Globalization Assistance Act; Bill HR3920 ; vote number 2007-1025 on Oct 31, 2007

Voted NO on implementing CAFTA, Central America Free Trade.

To implement the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement. A vote of YES would:
Reference: CAFTA Implementation Bill; Bill HR 3045 ; vote number 2005-443 on Jul 28, 2005

Voted NO on implementing US-Australia Free Trade Agreement.

United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act: implementing free trade with protections for the domestic textile and apparel industries.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Rep Tom DeLay [R, TX-22]; Bill H.R.4759 ; vote number 2004-375 on Jul 14, 2004

Voted NO on implementing US-Singapore free trade agreement.

Vote to pass a bill that would put into effect a trade agreement between the United States and Singapore. The trade agreement would reduce tariffs and trade barriers between the United States and Singapore. The agreement would remove tariffs on goods and duties on textiles, and open markets for services The agreement would also establish intellectual property, environmental and labor standards.
Reference: US-Singapore Free Trade Agreement; Bill HR 2739 ; vote number 2003-432 on Jul 24, 2003

Voted NO on implementing free trade agreement with Chile.

United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act: Vote to pass a bill that would put into effect a trade agreement between the US and Chile. The agreement would reduce tariffs and trade barriers between the US and Chile. The trade pact would decrease duties and tariffs on agricultural and textile products. It would also open markets for services. The trade pact would establish intellectual property safeguards and would call for enforcement of environmental and labor standards.
Reference: Bill sponsored by DeLay, R-TX; Bill HR 2738 ; vote number 2003-436 on Jul 24, 2003

Voted YES on withdrawing from the WTO.

Vote on withdrawing Congressional approval from the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization [WTO].
Reference: Resolution sponsored by Paul, R-TX; Bill H J Res 90 ; vote number 2000-310 on Jun 21, 2000

Voted NO on 'Fast Track' authority for trade agreements.

Vote to establish negotiating objectives for trade agreements between the United States and foreign countries and renew 'fast track' authority for the President.
Reference: Bill introduced by Archer, R-TX.; Bill HR 2621 ; vote number 1998-466 on Sep 25, 1998

Maintain anti-dumping restrictions against foreign importers.

Kucinich co-sponsored a Congressional Resolution to maintain current WTO rules:

Title: Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States Trade Representative should oppose any changes that weaken existing antidumping and safeguard laws at the World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations.

    Summary: Expresses the sense of Congress that:

  1. renegotiation by members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) of existing antidumping and safeguard provisions contained in the GATT Antidumping Agreement is unnecessary and unlikely to result in an agreement that does not weaken the antidumping and safeguard provisions; and

  2. the United States Trade Representative should oppose any changes to such provisions contained in the Antidumping Agreement at the Fourth Ministerial Conference of the WTO to be held at Doha, Qatar, from November 9-13, 2001, and at any subsequent negotiations

  3. The Tarde Representative should oppose any changes that make antidumping relief under these provisions more difficult, uncertain, or costly for domestic industries to achieve and maintain over time.
Source: House Resolution Sponsorship 01-HCR256 on Oct 30, 2001

Rated 39% by CATO, indicating a mixed record on trade issues.

Kucinich scores 39% by CATO on senior issues

The mission of the Cato Institute Center for Trade Policy Studies is to increase public understanding of the benefits of free trade and the costs of protectionism.

The Cato Trade Center focuses not only on U.S. protectionism, but also on trade barriers around the world. Cato scholars examine how the negotiation of multilateral, regional, and bilateral trade agreements can reduce trade barriers and provide institutional support for open markets. Not all trade agreements, however, lead to genuine liberalization. In this regard, Trade Center studies scrutinize whether purportedly market-opening accords actually seek to dictate marketplace results, or increase bureaucratic interference in the economy as a condition of market access.

Studies by Cato Trade Center scholars show that the United States is most effective in encouraging open markets abroad when it leads by example. The relative openness and consequent strength of the U.S. economy already lend powerful support to the worldwide trend toward embracing open markets. Consistent adherence by the United States to free trade principles would give this trend even greater momentum. Thus, Cato scholars have found that unilateral liberalization supports rather than undermines productive trade negotiations.

Scholars at the Cato Trade Center aim at nothing less than changing the terms of the trade policy debate: away from the current mercantilist preoccupation with trade balances, and toward a recognition that open markets are their own reward.

The following ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.

Source: CATO website 02n-CATO on Dec 31, 2002

Review free trade agreements biennially for rights violation.

Kucinich signed H.R.3012

    Trade Reform, Accountability, Development, and Employment Act or the TRADE Act:
  1. review biennially certain free trade agreements (including Uruguay Round Agreements) between the US and foreign countries to evaluate their economic, environmental, national security, health, safety, and other effects; and
  2. report on them to the Congressional Trade Agreement Review Committee (established by this Act), including analyses of specified aspects of each agreement and certain information about agreement parties, such as whether the country has a democratic form of government, respects certain core labor rights and fundamental human rights, protects intellectual property rights, and enforces environmental laws.
    Declares that implementing bills of new trade agreements shall not be subject to expedited consideration or special procedures limiting amendment, unless such agreements include certain standards with respect to:
  1. labor;
  2. human rights;
  3. environment and public safety;
  4. food and product health and safety;
  5. provision of services;
  6. investment;
  7. procurement;
  8. intellectual property;
  9. agriculture;
  10. trade remedies and safeguards;
  11. dispute resolution and enforcement;
  12. technical assistance;
  13. national security; and
  14. taxation.
Requires the President to submit to Congress a plan for the renegotiation of existing trade agreements to bring them into compliance with such standards. Expresses the sense of Congress that certain processes for U.S. trade negotiations should be followed when Congress considers legislation providing special procedures for implementing bills of trade agreements.
Source: TRADE Act 09-HR3012 on Jun 24, 2009

Impose tariffs against countries which manipulate currency.

Kucinich signed Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act

[Explanatory note from Wikipedia.com "Exchange Rate"]:

Between 1994 and 2005, the Chinese yuan renminbi was pegged to the US dollar at RMB 8.28 to $1. Countries may gain an advantage in international trade if they manipulate the value of their currency by artificially keeping its value low. It is argued that China has succeeded in doing this over a long period of time. However, a 2005 appreciation of the Yuan by 22% was followed by a 39% increase in Chinese imports to the US. In 2010, other nations, including Japan & Brazil, attempted to devalue their currency in the hopes of subsidizing cheap exports and bolstering their ailing economies. A low exchange rate lowers the price of a country's goods for consumers in other countries but raises the price of imported goods for consumers in the manipulating country.

Source: HR.639&S.328 11-HR0639 on Feb 14, 2011

Require open markets for US goods in all trade agreements.

Kucinich signed Reciprocal Market Access Act

Reciprocal Market Access Act of 2011: Prohibits the President from agreeing to the reduction or elimination of the existing rate of duty on any product in order to carry out a foreign trade agreement until the President certifies to Congress that the US has obtained the reduction or elimination of tariff and nontariff barriers and policies and practices of such foreign country with respect to US exports of any product that has the same physical characteristics and uses as the product for which the President seeks to modify its rate of duty.

    Congress finds the following:
  1. One of the fundamental tenets of the World Trade Organization (WTO) is reciprocal market access.
  2. The American people have a right to expect that the promises that trade negotiators and policy makers offer in terms of the market access opportunities that will be available to United States businesses and their employees if trade agreements are reached, will, in fact, be realized.
  3. With each subsequent round of bilateral, regional, and multilateral trade negotiations, tariffs have been significantly reduced or eliminated for many manufactured goods, leaving nontariff barriers as the most pervasive, significant, and challenging barriers to US exports and market opportunities
  4. The US market is widely recognized as one of the most open markets in the world.
  5. Often the only leverage the US has to obtain the reduction or elimination of nontariff barriers imposed by foreign countries is to negotiate the amount of tariffs the US imposes on imports from those foreign countries.
  6. The purpose of this Act is to require that trade negotiations achieve measurable results for US businesses by ensuring that trade agreements result in expanded market access for United States exports and not solely the elimination of tariffs on goods imported into the US.
Source: H.R.1749 11-HR1749 on May 5, 2011

Rated 38% by the USAE, indicating support for trade sanctions.

Kucinich scores 38% by USA*Engage on trade issues

Ratings by USA*Engage indicate support for trade engagement or trade sanctions. The organization's self-description: "USA*Engage is concerned about the proliferation of unilateral foreign policy sanctions at the federal, state and local level. Despite the fact that broad trade-based unilateral sanctions rarely achieve our foreign policy goals, they continue to have political appeal. Unilateral sanctions give the impression that the United States is 'doing something,' while American workers, farmers and businesses absorb the costs."

VoteMatch scoring for the USA*Engage ratings is as follows :

Source: USA*Engage 2011-2012 ratings on Congress and politicians 2012-USAE on Dec 31, 2012

No MFN for China; condition trade on human rights.

Kucinich adopted the Progressive Caucus Position Paper:

The Progressive Caucus opposes awarding China permanent Most Favored Nation trading status at this time. We believe that it would be a serious setback for the protection and expansion of worker rights, human rights and religious rights. We also believe it will harm the US economy. We favor continuing to review on an annual basis China’s trading status, and we believe it is both legal and consistent with US WTO obligations to do so. The Progressive Caucus believes that trade relations with the US should be conditioned on the protection of worker rights, human rights and religious rights. If Congress gives China permanent MFN status, the US will lose the best leverage we have to influence China to enact those rights and protections. At the current time, the US buys about 40% of China’s exports, making it a consumer with a lot of potential clout. So long as the US annually continues to review China’s trade status, we have the ability to debate achievement of basic worker and human rights and to condition access to the US market on the achievement of gains in worker and human rights, if necessary. But once China is given permanent MFN, it permanently receives unconditional access to the US market and we lose that leverage. China will be free to attract multinational capital on the promise of super low wages, unsafe workplace conditions and prison labor and permanent access to the US market.

Furthermore, giving China permanent MFN will be harmful to the US economy, since the record trade deficit with China (and attendant problems such as loss of US jobs, and lower average wages in the US) will worsen. For 1999, the trade deficit is likely to be nearly $70 billion. Once China is awarded permanent MFN and WTO membership, the trade deficit will worsen.

Source: CPC Position Paper: Trade With China 99-CPC1 on Nov 11, 1999

Other governors on Free Trade: Dennis Kucinich on other issues:
OH Gubernatorial:
Betty Sutton
Connie Pillich
Jim Renacci
Joe Schiavoni
John Kasich
Jon Husted
Mary Taylor
Mike DeWine
Nan Whaley
Richard Cordray
OH Senatorial:
Jim Renacci
Mike Gibbons
P.G. Sittenfeld
Rob Portman
Sherrod Brown
Ted Strickland

Gubernatorial Debates 2018:
AK: Walker(i) vs.Chenault(R) vs.Huggins(R) vs.Begich(D) vs.Treadwell(D)
AL: Kay Ivey(R) vs.Countryman(D) vs.Tommy Battle (R) vs.George(R) vs.Carrington(R)
AR: Hutchinson(R) vs.Henderson(D) vs.West(L)
AZ: Ducey(R) vs.David Garcia (D) vs.Farley(D)
CA: Newsom(D) vs.Chiang(D) vs.Villaraigosa(D) vs.Delaine Eastin (D) vs.David Hadley (R) vs.John Cox (R) vs.Zoltan Istvan (I) vs.Allen(R) vs.La Riva(P)
CO: Johnston(D) vs.Mitchell(R) vs.Cary Kennedy (D) vs.Doug Robinson (R) vs.Barlock(R) vs.Lynne(R) vs.Polis(D) vs.Coffman(R) vs.George Brauchler(R,A.G.) vs.Stapleton(R)
CT: Malloy(D) vs.Lamont(D) vs.Srinivasan(R) vs.David Walker (R) vs.Lumaj(R) vs.Visconti(R) vs.Lauretti(R) vs.Drew(D)
FL: Gillum(D) vs.Graham(D) vs.Putnam(R)
GA: Kemp(R) vs.Cagle(R) vs.Hill(R) vs.Abrams(D) vs.Levine(D)
HI: Ige(D) vs.Hanabusa(D) vs.Carroll(R)
IA: Kim_Reynolds(R) vs.Leopold(D) vs.Boulton(D) vs.McGuire(D) vs.Glasson(D) vs.Hubbell(D)
ID: Little(R) vs.Fulcher(R) vs.Labrador(R) vs.Ahlquist(R) vs.Minton(D) vs.Jordan(D)
IL: Rauner(R) vs.Kennedy(D) vs.Pawar(D) vs.Daniel Biss (D) vs.Pritzker(D) vs.Ives(R)
KS: Brewer(D) vs.Wink Hartman (R) vs.Colyer(C) vs.Kobach(R) vs.Orman(O)
MA: Baker(R) vs.Gonzalez(D) vs.Setti Warren (D) vs.Bob Massie (R)
MD: Hogan(R) vs.Alec Ross (D) vs.Cummings(D) vs.Madaleno(D) vs.Jealous(D)
ME: Mayhew(R) vs.Mills(D) vs.Boyle(D) vs.Thibodeau(R) vs.Moody(D)
MI: Whitmer(R) vs.El-Sayed(D) vs.Tim Walz (D) vs.Schuette(R) vs.Calley(R)
MN: vs.Smith(D) vs.Coleman(D) vs.Murphy(D) vs.Otto(D) vs.Tina Liebling (DFL) vs.Tim Walz (DFL) vs.Matt Dean (R) vs.Pawlenty(R) vs.Johnson(R)
NE: Ricketts(R) vs.Krist(D)
NH: Sununu(R) vs.Schwartz(R) vs.Steve Marchand (D)
NM: Lujan-Grisham(D) vs.Pearce(R) vs.Cervantes(D) vs.Apodaca (D)
NV: Fisher (R) vs.Sisolak(D) vs.Laxalt(R) vs.Schwartz(R)
NY: Cuomo(D) vs.Nixon(D) vs.Sharpe(L) vs.DeFrancisco(R)
OH: DeWine(R) vs.Husted(R,Lt.Gov.) vs.Kucinich(D) vs.Sutton(D,Lt.Gov) vs.Taylor(R) vs.Jim Renacci (R) vs.Connie Pillich (D) vs.Schiavoni(D) vs.Whaley(D) vs.Cordray(D)
OK: Gary Richardson (R) vs.Johnson(D)
OR: Brown(D) vs.Scott Inman(D) vs.Buehler(R)
PA: Wolf(D) vs.Wagner(R) vs.Barletta(R)
RI: Raimondo(D) vs.Fung(R) vs.Morgan(R)
SC: McMaster(R) vs.McGill(R) vs.Pope(R) vs.Templeton(R) vs.Smith(D)
SD: Noem(R) vs.Jackley(R) vs.Sutton(D)
TN: Green(R) vs.Dean(D) vs.Black(R)
TX: Abbott(R) vs.Glass(L) vs.White(D) vs.Valdez(D)
VT: Scott(R) vs.Stern(D)
WI: Walker(R) vs.Harlow(D) vs.Vinehout(D) vs.Evers(D) vs.Roys(D)
WY: Throne(D) vs.Dahlin(R) vs.Gordon(R)
Newly-elected governors (first seated in Jan. 2017):
DE-D: Carney
IN-R: Holcomb
MO-R: Greitens
NH-R: Sununu
NC-D: Cooper
ND-R: Burgum
VT-R: Scott
WV-D: Justice

Retiring 2017-18:
AL-R: Robert Bentley(R)
(term-limited 2018)
CA-D: Jerry Brown
(term-limited 2018)
CO-D: John Hickenlooper
(term-limited 2018)
FL-R: Rick Scott
(term-limited 2018)
GA-R: Nathan Deal
(term-limited 2018)
IA-R: Terry Branstad
(appointed ambassador, 2017)
ID-R: Butch Otter
(retiring 2018)
KS-R: Sam Brownback
(term-limited 2018)
ME-R: Paul LePage
(term-limited 2018)
MI-R: Rick Snyder
(term-limited 2018)
MN-D: Mark Dayton
(retiring 2018)
NM-R: Susana Martinez
(term-limited 2018)
OH-R: John Kasich
(term-limited 2018)
OK-R: Mary Fallin
(term-limited 2018)
SC-R: Nikki Haley
(appointed ambassador, 2017)
SD-R: Dennis Daugaard
(term-limited 2018)
TN-R: Bill Haslam
(term-limited 2018)
WY-R: Matt Mead
(term-limited 2018)
Civil Rights
Foreign Policy
Free Trade
Govt. Reform
Gun Control
Health Care
Homeland Security
Local Issues
Social Security
Tax Reform

Contact info:
Mailing Address:
Rayburn HOB 2445, Washington, DC 20515
Official Website
Phone number:
(202) 225-5871

Page last updated: Jun 16, 2018