Dennis Kucinich on Free Trade Democratic Representative (OH-10)

Sub-sections under Free Trade:
• Voting Record
• Other issues under Free Trade

We need a policy of constructive engagement with China

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.

Either buy America or bye-bye America

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.

NAFTA accelerated immigration from Mexico, in search of jobs

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.

FactCheck: NAFTA coincided with (not caused) peso collapse

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.”

Manufacturing policy: trade based on workers right

Base trade on worker rights, human rights & environment

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

Go back to trade based on worker’s rights

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.

Democrats started NAFTA; Democrats will end it

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.

NAFTA and GATT intentionally limit workers rights

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.

Withdraw from NAFTA and WTO

Withdraw from WTO because they disallow protecting jobs

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.

Americans’ social consciousness overrides cheap goods

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.

Free trade encourages privatization, so avoid it

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.

Bilateral trade structure to support American manufacturing

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.

President has authority to cancel NAFTA and WTO-I will

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.

Push trade deals based on power of US market leverage

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.

First act as president will be to cancel NAFTA

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.

Need specific worker rights written into trade agreements

• the right to collective bargaining,
• the right to strike.
• the right to join a union,
• the right to decent wages and benefits,
• the right to a safe workplace,
• the right to a secure retirement.

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.

Companies profit from trade based on Third World misery

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.

Review & modify all treaties not respecting human rights

No NAFTA, No WTO, No Fast Track

Cancel NAFTA and the WTO

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.

Don’t sacrifice our rights to global corporate ethic

Retaliatory tariffs yes; GATT no

• Q: Do you support the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)?

  A: No.

• Q: Do you support broadening NAFTA to include other countries?

  A: No.

• Q: Do you support the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)?

  A: No.

• Q: Do you support imposing tariffs on products imported from nations that maintain restrictive trade barriers on American products?

  A: Yes.

• Q: Should a nation’s human rights record affect its “most favored nation” trading status with the US?

  A: Yes.

Against China MFN because of $100B trade deficit

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.

Voted NO on promoting free trade with Peru.

• enforcement of textile and apparel rules of origin;
• certain textile and apparel safeguard measures; and
• enforcement of export laws governing trade of timber products from Peru.

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.

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

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:

• pointlessly keep people in trade adjustment assistance longer.
• increase TAA spending by billions of dollars, but would not require any further accountability on how program funds are spent.
• greatly expand TAA and exacerbate the inefficiencies in the program today.
• extend benefits to public sector workers and submit State and local officials to subpoenas and legal proceedings to comply.

Voted NO on implementing CAFTA, Central America Free Trade.

• Progressively eliminate customs duties on all originating goods traded among the participating nations
• Preserve U.S. duties on imports of sugar goods over a certain quota
• Remove duties on textile and apparel goods traded among participating nations
• Prohibit export subsidies for agricultural goods traded among participating nations
• Provide for cooperation among participating nations on customs laws and import licensing procedures
• Encourage each participating nation to adopt and enforce laws ensuring high levels of sanitation and environmental protection
• Recommend that each participating nation uphold the International Labor Organization Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work
• Urge each participating nation to obey various international agreements regarding intellectual property rights

Voted NO on implementing US-Australia Free Trade Agreement.

Voted NO on implementing US-Singapore free trade agreement.

Voted NO on implementing free trade agreement with Chile.

Voted YES on withdrawing from the WTO.

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

Maintain anti-dumping restrictions against foreign importers.

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.

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

Review free trade agreements biennially for rights violation.

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.

Impose tariffs against countries which manipulate currency.

• Amends the Tariff Act of 1930 to include as a "countervailable subsidy" requiring action under a countervailing duty or antidumping duty proceeding the benefit conferred on merchandise imported into the US from foreign countries with fundamentally undervalued currency.
• Defines "benefit conferred" as the difference between:
  1. the amount of currency provided by a foreign country in which the subject merchandise is produced; and
  2. the amount of currency such country would have provided if the real effective exchange rate of its currency were not fundamentally undervalued.
• Determines that the currency of a foreign country is fundamentally undervalued if for an 18-month period:
  1. the government of the country engages in protracted, large-scale intervention in one or more foreign exchange markets
  2. the country's real effective exchange rate is undervalued by at least 5%
  3. the country has experienced significant and persistent global current account surpluses; and
  4. the country's government has foreign asset reserves exceeding the amount necessary to repay all its debt obligations.

[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.

Require open markets for US goods in all trade agreements.

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.

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

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."

USA*Engage at Work
• Developing the Case: USA*Engage explains the benefits of economic engagement, and the high cost of sanctions for American exports, investment and jobs.
• Education: We recruit respected foreign policy and economic experts to speak out against sanctions, actively engage the media and provide outreach to key target states and Congressional districts.
• Contacting Government Officials: USA*Engage directly contacts Congressional, Administration, state and local officials.

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

• 0%-49%: supports trade sanctions;
• 50%-74%: mixed record on trade engagement;
• 75%-100%: supports trade engagement.

No MFN for China; condition trade on human rights.

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.