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.
A: This is an adversarial relationship today. That needs to change. But when you manipulate your currency as they do, in violation of the WTO here, to the tune of 40%, you've immediately created a huge disadvantage for our country. When you employ slave labor in the production of your manufactured goods, when you deny access on your shelves to the products and services we produce, it is not a competition. It's adversarial.
A: Number one is we've got to get our own fiscal house in order. Number two, when I was visiting Africa, I was told by a group of businessmen that the presence of China is only exceeded by the absence of America in the entire African continent. Number three, we have to be tougher negotiators with China. They are not enemies, but they are competitors of ours. Right now the United States is still the dominant superpower in the world. But the next president can't be thinking about today; he or she also has to be thinking about 10 years from now, 20 years from now, 50 years from now.
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.
A: The reason why it becomes a national security problem is because the bulk of our imbalance of trade is a result of our importation of oil from countries that are not our friends. That's really where it rests. The rest of the stuff we bring in doesn't constitute that kind of threat to the US. But when we supply funds for the people in other countries that have a malicious intent in regard to the US, it's a national security issue.
PAUL: He's not the easiest person to deal with, but we should deal with everybody around the world the same way: with friendship & opportunity to talk & try to trade with people.
GIULIANI: I actually agree with the way King Juan Carlos spoke to Chavez [telling him to "shut up."] That would be the way I would do it. Far better than what Congressman Paul wants to do. But the reality is that Chavez is acting like a dictator. And he should be treated that way. There's a counter-movement going on in Latin America. [The people] don't want to go in the direction that Castro wanted to take Latin America. They don't want to go toward socialism and communism. They want to go to free markets, they want to go to freedom. I think it's the essential nature of the people of Latin America, and I think Chavez is going in actually the opposite direction, kind of a repeat of what Castro tried to do, and it's a disgrace, and we should stand against it.
A: Well, he's not the easiest person to deal with, but we should deal with everybody around the world the same way: with friendship and opportunity to talk and try to trade with people. We talked to Stalin, we talked to Khrushchev, we've talked to Mao, and we've talked to the world, & we get along with people. Actually, I believe we're at a time where we even ought to talk to Cuba and trade and travel to Cuba. We have a problem in South America and Central America: because we've been involved in their internal affairs for so long. We have been meddling in their business. We create the Chavezes of the world, we create the Castros of the world by interfering and creating chaos in their countries, and they respond by throwing out their leader.
A: The reality is that we need to develop friends in the Middle East. We need to develop friendships with the Emirates, with Qatar, with Kuwait. These are countries that we have t get closer to. We should trade more with them, we should be involved more with them as we stand up to Islamic terrorism. If they're asking an American company to help them deal with the Islamic terrorist threat in a more secure way, the people involved in this are people that are some of the biggest experts on Islamic terrorism who had been with the FBI. This is a good thing to do. This is a thing that helps us kind of work on the other side of how do you remain on offense against Islamic terrorists?
A: That's just totally wrong. The relationship is not with any of those people.
A: I want to take you to task at your rhetoric about the tremendous increase in their defense. They're only 10% of American defense. They haven't had a tremendous increase. 10% of our defense. And I want to take all of the other candidates to task--because this amount of demagoguery about China is shameful. The Chinese people have a problem. And when we continue this rhetoric of beggar thy neighbor, where our interests always come first, there should be the interests of human beings. Because when you have a foreign policy that's beggar thy neighbor, we all become beggars. And so when they talk about the currency of China, what about the manipulations we do? What about the American companies that dump things abroad? What about the tariffs?
A: I've been pushing, on the Foreign Relations Committee for the last seven years, that we hold China accountable at the United Nations. At the UN, we won't even designate China as a violator of human rights. Now, what's the deal there? We talk about competition in terms of trade. It's capitulation, not competition. Name me another country in the world that we would allow to conduct themselves the way China has, and not call them on the carpet at the UN
Q: So you would call them on th carpet?
A: Absolutely.
Q: You would appoint a UN ambassador who would press for this?
A: It's the one way to get China to reform. You can't close your eyes. You can't pretend. It is self-defeating. It's a Hobson's choice we're giving people here.
A: You know, 12 years ago, I went to China, and the Chinese didn't want me to come. And they didn't want me to make a speech, and when I made the speech, they blocked it out from being heard within China, where I stood up for human rights and in particular women's rights, because women had been so brutally abused in many settings in China. And I think you do have to call them on human rights. I mean, the Chinese respect us if we actually call them on their misbehavior and their breaches of human rights, economic activities and other kinds of problems that we have with them. That's what I object to about this administration. We've gotten the worst of both worlds. We've gotten neither the kind of smart enforcement nor the kind of cooperation that might lead to changes in behavior.
A: Well, I think there's an ongoing situation. I want to commend the people in Congress who just recently, when the Dalai Lama was here, presented him with a gold medal. We've raised the issue--not often enough--on Tibet and what's happened with the almost genocidal behavior, when dealing with this remarkable culture that's been under assault. And the idea that we'd recognize him and welcome him here as a religious leader in the world is exactly the kind of symbols we need to send--to make them recognize that the Dalai Lama is an international religious leader who's worthy of recognition. And if they, as they apparently did, threaten to deny some ships to able to move in waters off China over that, they need to understand this isn't going to change in a Democratic administration.
A: China is cheating on trade, and they're using that $200 billion trade deficit over the United States to buy ships, planes and missiles. They are clearly arming. Let's buy American this Christmas season.
A: It is illegal to import that kind of thing. The problem is, no one really pays a lot of attention to a lot of our laws, with regard to immigration of both people and, now in this case; items, goods and services. I voted against permanent normalized trade relations with China.
A: Yeah. He's wrong. The answer is that if you look at my record, I've actually been very consistent [against trade deals]. And on the issue of China, bringing China into the WTO, if we have a president that will actually enforce their trading obligations, actually gives us power over controlling their trading obligations. Unfortunately, we've had George Bush for 7 years, who's done none of that. We need a president who will enforce their trading obligations.
Q: A lot of us remember the Al Gore debate with Ross Perot. At that time you opposed NAFTA as well?
A: Yes. I was not in the Senate then. But when I ran for the Senate, I was very vocally opposed to NAFTA because I had seen what effect it had on the people that I grew up with.
A: What is a mistake is allowing China to operate unfettered, to send dangerous products into this country, to not have the president of the US hold them responsible for their trading obligations to the WTO, which has not been done. It was right to bring them into the WTO. It's wrong to not hold them responsible for their obligations.
Obama is partly right concerning the North American Free Trade Agreement. Clinton's views on NAFTA have shifted, but they shifted prior to her official run for the White House. Back in 1998, in a keynote speech given at the Davos Economic Summit, Clinton praised business leaders for mounting "a very effective business effort in the US on behalf of NAFTA," adding later that "it is certainly clear that we have not by any means finished the job that has begun." But by 2005 she was expressing reservations about free trade agreements, voting that year against the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). And she told Bloomberg News in March 2007 that, while she still believes in free trade, she supports a freeze on new trade agreements--something she calls "a little time-out."
President Clinton's general principles on world affairs earned enormous respect around the world. He was seen as a both a leader and team player. The vision of stable nations working together to bring peace to troubled nations seemed to be within our grasp. The US was respected around the world, and working at the UN meant making new friends--not new enemies, as we have seemed to do in more recent years--in our concerted program to maintain world peace, protect human rights, and support civil government around the world.
I was excited about the opportunity to use my background in foreign affairs, energy, and Congress to support his international program.
If China can fairly make shirts cheaper than Americans, we'll need to make something we're better at making. But if the Chinese shirt is cheaper only because their workers make sweatshop wages and the owners pour chemicals into local rivers, we can't go along.
I'm not sure a lot of the advocates of free trade understand the difference between free & fair trade. All goods cost something to make, but it matters what gets calculated in the cost: whether it's raw materials, or human rights, or the cost of defending oil transport routes, or damage to the environment.
In the real world, there is no such thing as completely free trade. All trade needs to have regulatory sideboards to prevent a cost-reduction competition via the exploitation of people and the environment.
A: I think we're on a verge of going in one direction or another. I mean, for example, if you want to get specific, the four trade deals with Peru, Colombia, Panama, South Korea that are in front of Congress right now, which the Democrats are trying to block, would be good deals for the US. In 3 of the 4 of them, we would actually get to export more than we're importing. Why they would want to block this I can't understand. We're already importing about 98% from those countries. [Regarding protectionism], I think you got to almost separate them into two different categories. There's economic protection, and then there's protection for safety, security and legal rights. And I don't think we've done a particularly good job on the second. We can't say because these agreements weren't perfect, because they have problems, because they have issues, we're going to turn our back on free trade.
So we're short on good businessmen, and I would junk those bad trade deals, bring them back to the table, and I'd practice mirror trade. If a country wants to put a 15 percent tariff against the United States, they're going to see that reflected back at them. If they want to take it down to 1 percent, we'll take it down to one, but there's not going to be a one-way street any longer.
And that's why we're losing jobs here, and that's what has to change. This party is going to have to start addressing it, or we're going to get our britches beat next year.
A: Well, I believe in trade, but I believe in opening up markets to American goods and services. And it's been calculated that the average family in America is $9,000 a year richer because we have the ability to sell products around the world, and a lot of people in this country make their living making products that go around the world. I want to make sure that the American worker gets a fair shake. We need to make sure that the Chinese begin to float their currency, and they protect our designs and our patents and our technology. We need to make sure that the American workers don't have to carry the burden of extra taxes as we sell our products around the world. They come here without that tax embedded. We can do a better job, and I want to do a better job for the American worker.
In particular, of course, I'm talking about the immigration-related issues. I offered an amendment on the floor of the House during the debate on CAFTA, the Central America Free Trade Agreement, to say that there will be no immigration issues contained inside of a trade package. It was defeated.
We are talking about trade issues that actually begin to impact our national sovereignty. There's the problem. We are reducing the importance of borders and increasing the threat to national sovereignty with the kind of trade programs that we put through up to this point in time.
A: Not only do I not want a North American Union, I want us out of the U.N., the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO, NAFTA and CAFTA. NAFTA has nothing to do for free trade. It's a pretense to lower tariffs, but it's a reason to go talk to the WTO to raise tariffs. We need free trade. That's very, very important. But you don't get that by world government.
A: I am opposed to open borders. I am opposed to a North American Union that gives up our sovereignty. I am opposed to doing that. So, yes to trade. No to unions. And yes to enforcing the laws when you have agreements between countries.
A: I will never surrender the sovereignty of the United States. We absolutely have to secure the borders. We have to address the illegal immigration problem. We have to do it by putting some CEOs in jail. We have got to start enforcing the law against employing illegal aliens. That's going to solve the problem. But we have to also make sure that we have trade with other countries. So, I'm not interested in giving up our sovereignty, but I am interested in opening up channels of trade, because, you know what, we benefit when we sell Microsoft software and we sell cell phones made by Motorola around the world.
A: I have got an idea for a real North American Union. And that would have been if Canada and Mexico, when America went into Iraq, if they had stood with us instead of running away from us, that would have been a real "North American Union." Now, this isn't free trade. It's only free trade in one direction. China is moving massive amounts of goods into this country, displacing American jobs. They are cheatin on trade by devaluing their currency by more than 40%, and that is sweeping American products off the shelf and taking American jobs away. And this mass of [Mexican] trucks that come into this country will represent exposure to terrorism, because you are going to have massive cargo containers coming in, exposure for criminal elements, and lastly, that American trucking family will lose their jobs with the massive number of trucks coming in with cheap labor and cheap parts. No on the North American Union.
But I also think you gotta enforce your trade laws. And that's something we haven't done, particularly towards China. I think we're having a lot of problems of products coming in because we haven't enforced our trade laws.
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.
A: We do export a lot of agricultural goods, many of that through trade agreements. And I think we've got to do three things.
A: Congress subsidizes these big megafarms and hurts family farmers oftentimes in the process. And we've got to cap those subsidies so that we don't have continued concentration of agriculture in the hands of a few large agribusiness interests. But, on the trade issue generally, we're not going to suddenly cordon off America from the world. Globalization is here, and I don't think Americans are afraid to compete. And we have the goods and the services and the skills and the innovation to compete anywhere in the world. But what we've got to make absolutely certain of is that, in that competition, we are hard bargainers. You know, I'm always struck by the Bush administration touting that this is the MBA president and they're such great businessmen, and they get taken to the cleaners in a lot of these trade agreements. And we've got to have somebody who's negotiating on behalf of workers and family farmers
A: I think we've had a failed trade policy in America. The question seems to have been, on past trade agreements like NAFTA: Is this trade agreement good for the profits of big multinational corporations? And the answer to those questions on the trade agreements we've entered into has been yes. It's been very good for multinational corporations. It has not been good for American workers. And in an Edwards administration, the first question I will ask in every single trade agreement we're considering is: Is this good for middle-class working families in America? That would be the threshold question. And, second, we will have real labor and environmental standards in the text of the agreement, which I will enforce. And then finally we will end these loopholes that actually create tax incentives for companies to leave America and take jobs somewhere else.
A: The time to worry about China trade was really when some of my friends up here on the stage actually voted for most favored nation. Now, as president, my most favored nation is America. And I want to say, you know, there was a myth when I was growing up in Cleveland that if you dig a hole deep enough, you'll get to China. We're there, and we need to have a president that understands that and is ready to take a whole new direction in trade with China.
A: China is a competitor. They hold American debt; there are huge human rights abuses going on in China. But there's also a trade safety issue here. What about 2 million toys that have come into the US and had to be recalled from China? How about the fact that we don't have real country-of-origin labeling that the US actually enforces, so the American people know what they're buying, where it's coming from? We should have a president who enforces country-of-origin labeling. We should have a Consumer Product Safety Commission that's not looking out for big multinational corporations, that's actually looking out for the safety of our children here in America.
A: China is a strategic competitor. And we've got to be tougher on China when it comes to human rights and trade. We've got to say to China: Stop fooling around with currency. Find ways to be more sensitive to your workers, and you've got to do more, China, in the area of human rights around the world, like put pressure on the Sudan to stop the genocide in Darfur. We have to have a relationship that involves both strategic competition and common interests.
A: Look, people don't want a cheaper T-shirt if they're losing a job in the process. They would rather have the job and pay a little bit more for a T-shirt. And I think that's something that all Americans could agree to.
But this raises a larger point, which is: globalization is here. And we should be trading around the world. We don't want to just be standing still while the rest of the world is out there taking the steps that it needs to in order to expand trade.
Congress has a responsibility because we've got right now provisions in our tax code that reward companies that are moving jobs overseas instead of companies that are investing right here in the US. And that is a reflection of the degree to which special interests have been shaping our trade policy. That's something that I'll end.
A: China is a competitor, but they don't have an enemy, as long as we understand that they are going to be negotiating aggressively for their advantage, and we've got to make sure that we're looking after American workers. That means enforcing our trade agreements; it means that if they're manipulating their currency, that we take them to the mat on the that issue; it means that we are also not running up deficits and asking China to bail us out.
That's a disputed estimate. Other economic studies have produced far lower numbers. The million job figure comes from the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank in Washington with ties to the labor movement. EPI estimated that the growth of exports since 1994 has supported an additional 1 million jobs in the US, while imports have displaced domestic production that would have supported 2 million jobs, leaving a net loss of 1 million. EPI's detractors state that EPI's estimate assumes that NAFTA is to blame for 100% of the growth in the trade deficit between the US and both Canada and Mexico and that it ignores other factors.
Whatever the effects of NAFTA, the US has gained nearly 26 million jobs since the agreement took effect on Jan. 1, 1994, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
A: I would immediately call the president of Mexico, the president of Canada to try to amend NAFTA because I think that we can get labor agreements in that agreement right now. And it should reflect the basic principle that our trade agreements should not just be good for Wall Street, it should also be good for Main Street.
A: Well, I had said that for many years, that NAFTA and the way it's been implemented has hurt a lot of American workers. In fact, I did a study in New York looking at the impact of NAFTA on business people, workers and farmers who couldn't get their products into Canada despite NAFTA. So, clearly we have to have a broad reform in how we approach trade. NAFTA's a piece of it, but it's not the only piece of it. I believe in smart trade. Pro-American trade. Trade that has labor and environmental standards, that's not a race to the bottom but tries to lift up not only American workers but also workers around the world. It's important that we enforce the agreements we have. That's why I've called for a trade prosecutor, to make sure that we do enforce them. The Bush administration haven't been enforcing the trade agreements at all.
A: We should never have another trade agreement unless it enforces labor protection, environmental standards and job safety. What we need to do is say that from now on, America will adhere to all international labor standards in any trade agreement--no child labor, no slave labor, freedom of association, collective bargaining--that is critically important--making sure that no wage disparity exists.
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
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.
A: Obviously, no trade agreements that do not include workers' rights and environmental rights. But getting right to it, it seems to me that we have an incredible opportunity here to reassert America's dominance in the world economic system, and that is by significantly investing in a health care policy that takes the burden off of employers.
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.
GRAVEL: Outsourcing is not the problem. What is the problem is our trade agreements that benefit the management & the shareholders.
CLINTON: Well, outsourcing is a problem, and it's one that I've dealt with as a senator from New York. I started an organization called New Jobs for New York to try to stand against the tide of outsourcing, particularly from upstate New York and from rural areas. We have to do several things: end the tax breaks that still exist in the tax code for outsourcing jobs, have trade agreements with enforceable labor and environmental standards, help Americans compete, which is something we haven't taken seriously. 65% of kids do not go on to college. What are we doing to help them get prepared for the jobs that we could keep here that wouldn't be outsourced--and find a new source of jobs, clean energy, global warming, would create millions of new jobs for Americans.
GRAVEL: Outsourcing is not the problem. What is the problem is our trade agreements that benefit the management and the shareholders.
DODD: I disagree. I think it's a huge issue here. The fact of the matter is we're exporting a lot of valuable jobs in this country & we shouldn't be doing it. I offered legislation that was passed that prohibited the Defense Department for outsourcing contracts, going off our shores here when many hard-working Americans ought to be allowed to do those jobs. I talked earlier about providing tax incentives. When you have people literally driving to the international airports to fly to some country to provide some funding for a local project in those nations, bypassing the very communities that could very well use those kind of jobs and economic growth, that is wrong. I will continue to do what I can to see to it that we limit outsourcing American jobs.
GRAVEL: Outsourcing is not the problem. What is the problem is our trade agreements that benefit the management and, of course, the shareholders, and have neglected on either side of the issue, whether it's in Mexico or in other countries or the United States. That's the problem that must be addressed. So, no, it's not outsourcing. But I would add to it, it's the way all of these people want to finance health care, on the backs of businesses, that make them uncompetitive in the world. That's part of the problem. And our system of taxation is also part of the problem because it makes us uncompetitive in the world.
DODD: I disagree. I think it's a huge issue here. The fact of the matter is we're exporting a lot of valuable jobs in this country and we shouldn't be doing it.
BIDEN: The bottom line here is we've got to make it more attractive to have jobs here in America and for corporations to be here.
Wrong on all counts. These are defensive, defeatist policies that have consistently been proven wrong. They are not what America is all about.
We're not afraid of globalization. It works to our benefit. We innovate more and invest in that innovation better than anywhere else in the world. Same thing goes for services. Free trade and market economies have done more for freedom and prosperity than a central planner could ever dream and we're the world's best example of that. So, why do we want to take investment dollars out of growth, and invest it in government?
A: China is cheating on trade. They devalue their currency by 40%. That undercuts the American markets, wipes American products off the shelf not only here but around the world. We've lost 1.8 million jobs in the US, high-paying manufacturing jobs, to China. I would enforce the law with China, the trade rules with China.
Wrong on all counts. These are defensive, defeatist policies that have consistently been proven wrong. They are not what America is all about.
A: Right now our manufacturers are getting killed. We're seeing manufacturing move offshore because a dumb trade deal that we signed with the rest of the world allows all of our exports to be taxed twice while their exports to us are not taxed at all. The only way that we can even come close to leveling that playing field is to eliminate manufacturing taxes. So eliminate all taxes on Americans who will stay in the US and make products and hire American workers.
A: We need to find ways to deal with a post-Castro Cuba. I would bring Cuban-Americans into the dialogue. I would change the Bush administration policy which is limiting family visits, which is limiting remittances from Cubans. We should be re-evaluating the embargo. Also finding ways that we ensure that Cuba becomes democratic, with trade unionism, with free elections. And we should be engaged in a policy right now.
A: Generally a bad idea and generally self-defeating. And certainly not an agenda for the future, kind of an agenda for the past. The best way to deal with the global economy is to take advantage of it in an aggressive way, in an optimistic way. Let's build industries that we can sell in this new part of the world where we have a growing number of consumers.
Let's think of the strength of American health care rather than just the weaknesses of it. We're still the place where more people want to come to get medical treatment. People aren't flooding hospitals in Europe and Asia to get brain surgery and cancer treatment, they're coming to America. We're perilously close to pushing them in the other direction of socialized medicine, but we still have the best health care system in the world. Let's market that. That's a product we can sell. We're ahead of everybody else on that.
So before the international competition in trade even begins, before the opening kickoff of the football game, they've got 34 points on the scoreboard.
Just to make sure the American manufacturer never wins, they devalue their currency by 40%. [That 40% discount causes] the world to buy their products, and it's pushing American products off the shelf. When I'm president, I'm gonna junk the bad trade deal we have with China. I'm gonna force them to the table and we're gonna make a good deal.
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.
A: What I believe we need in this country is fair trade, not just unabashed free trade. What I would do is, first of all, any future international trade agreement should have the following components as part of the law, not as a side agreement.
Three dominant factors in the American economy make it increasingly difficult for jobs to remain here: excess LITIGATION, excess TAXATION, and excess REGULATION combine to ultimately result in the MIGRATION of American jobs to marketplaces beyond our borders.
At that time, Cuba charged $600 for exit documents. This was prohibitive to thousands who wanted to leave. The "Richardson Agreement" cut that figure in half for up to 1,000 Cubans per year who could demonstrate financial hardship. Castro suggested, without making a promise, that we could build on this agreement, perhaps leading to the relaxation of restrictions in other areas. I also succeeded in returning home with several imprisoned dissidents.
I am no fan of Castro's politics and the repression he has visited upon Cubans for the past 46 years. But all in all, he was probably the best-informed foreign leader I met during that period in the mid-1990s.
That didn't mean the absence of dislocation: while NAFTA figured to create more jobs in the US, some jobs would be lost. A key part of the final bill presented to Congress needed to include worker-adjustment programs and other so-called side agreements addressing such issues as labor standards and the environment.
I felt the treaty was crucial to Mexico. I thought NAFTA would create positive economic change and help to stimulate a broader political debate. I thought it also had the potential to affect the immigration issue: if Mexico's economy boomed, beter-paying jobs would provide Mexicans an incentive to stay home.
A: Yes.
Q: Do you support the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you support continued U.S. membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO)?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you support the trade embargo against Cuba?
A: Yes.
Q: Should trade agreements include provisions to address environmental concerns and to protect workers' rights?
A: No.
It is our commonality of interests in the world that can ultimately restore our influence and win back the hearts and minds necessary to defeat terrorism and project American values around the globe. Human aspirations are universal-for dignity, for freedom, for the opportunity to improve the lives of our families.
Let us recognize what unites us across borders and build on the strength of this blessed country. Let us embrace our history and our legacy. Let us not only define our values in words and carry them out in deeds.
SHARPTON: I want to cancel it.
EDWARDS: I think we do need to renegotiate it. The problem with NAFTA is these side agreements don't work. You have to put these labor/environmental protections in the text of the agreement.
Q: Will that be enough?
SHARPTON: No, I don't think so. This cost jobs for Americans. And it is unequivocal evidence that it costs Americans jobs. People were unemployed. It also went below labor and human rights standards abroad. We need to cancel NAFTA unequivocally. We need to have standards that we would not deal with nations that would put laborers in those kinds of situations. We cannot protect American corporations and call that patriotic and not protect American workers and call that protections.
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.
A: I believe we need trade that works for America and the world, and have outlined a new approach to trade agreements that will protect American jobs and require labor and environmental standards in trade agreements. My approach would also establish an international 'right to know,' so that consumers know if corporations have moved jobs overseas or engage in abusive environmental and labor standards. I would also take aggressive measures to make sure foreign markets are open to US goods and include strong environmental and labor standards in all trade deals.
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.
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.
EDWARDS: I didn't vote for NAFTA. I campaigned against NAFTA. I voted against the Chilean trade agreement, against the Caribbean trade agreement, against the Singapore trade agreement, against final passage of fast track for this president. Gephardt has sent out mailings attacking and identifying all of us and putting us in the same category.
GEPHARDT: Well, you weren't in Congress when NAFTA came up. But you voted for China.
A: We have lost over 3 million private sector jobs under President Bush. Two and a half million of those are manufacturing jobs. In order to protect the jobs we have I would do the following.
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.
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.
But it's not enough to just protect the jobs that we have. We have to create jobs, and particularly in those communities where the job loss has been greatest. First, I would stop these tax loopholes that give American businesses a reason to go overseas. Instead, we ought to give tax breaks to companies that'll keep jobs right here in America. Then I would identify those places in America that have been hit the hardest, particularly by trade, and create a national venture capital fund for businesses that will locate there, give tax incentives to existing business and industry that will come there.
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.
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.
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.
Specifically, we have agreed to create a functional New Mexico-Chihuahua Economic Development Commission. The two of us will co-chair this commission that will include cabinet secretaries and business leaders from both states. We will meet monthly-and rotate between Santa Fe, and Chihuahua, and our respective border communities.
The purpose of this commission will be to increase trade. We will do this by developing, and implementing, a regional economic development plan with specific goals, timetables and assignments. The most important message I can deliver today is that we are one region.
A: I am committed to enhancing our alliance and expanding trade with the countries of Latin America. Trade has been an important part of our economic expansion and creates high-paying jobs. As president, I will build on the work that the administration began when the U.S. hosted the first Summit of the Americas to promote hemispheric cooperation on a full spectrum of political, economic, security, and social issues. As we expand our trade agreements, we can achieve more based on what we have learned in the past seven years. I will insist that labor and environmental protections are included as part of future trade agreements.
A: I believe that we must ratify and fully implement important new trade agreements, and as president, I will insist on and use the authority to negotiate and enforce worker rights, human rights and environmental protections in those agreements. I believe that the US-Vietnam Bilateral Trade Agreement provides important benefits to American businesses and workers, including dramatic new market access for American goods, services, and agricultural products; intellectual property protection; investment protection provisions; and transparency and rule-of-law measures. The treaty also represents an important step in the normalization of our relations with Vietnam, a process which will strengthen cooperation on bringing American POW-MIAs home, promoting religious freedom and combating narcotics.