John McCain on Free Trade Republican nominee for President; Senior Senator (AZ)

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

Free trade with Colombia is something that’s a no-brainer

OBAMA: For far too long, certainly during the course of the Bush administration with the support of Sen. McCain, the attitude has been that any trade agreement is a good trade agreement. And NAFTA did not have enforceable labor agreements and environmental agreements.

McCAIN: I am a free trader. Let me give you another example of a free trade agreement that Sen. Obama opposes. Right now, goods and products that we send to Colombia, which is our largest agricultural importer of our products, because of previous agreements, their goods and products come into our country for free. So Sen. Obama opposes the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. The same country that’s helping us try to stop the flow of drugs into our country that’s killing young Americans. Free trade with Colombia is something that’s a no-brainer. But maybe you ought to travel down there and visit them and maybe you could understand it a lot better.

When have Americans ever been afraid of foreign competition?

That’s why I reject the false virtues of economic isolationism. Any confident, competent government should embrace competition--it makes us stronger--not hide from our competitors and cheat our consumers and workers. We can compete and win, as we always have, or we can be left behind. Lowering barriers to trade creates more and better jobs, and higher wages. It keeps inflation under control and interest rates low. It makes goods more affordable for low and middle income consumers. Protectionism threatens all those benefits.

Globalization is an opportunity--reduce barriers to trade

Consider subsidies a mistake, and oppose them

Every time US went protectionist, we paid heavy price

Supports ethanol, but by exporting, not by subsidies

No environmental provisions in trade agreements

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.

Supports opening border to Mexican trucks

The Democrats argued that the issue was safety, while opponents pointed out that the Teamsters were behind the Democrats on this matter. McCain’s position put him on the side of the administration, which he didn’t mind at all. He looks for such opportunities. Moreover, the co-sponsor of his effort was Phil Gramm, his supposed nemesis.

Against foreign sales corporations (offshore tax breaks)

McCain was asked if he supported a recent ruling by the WTO to eliminate foreign sales corporations, the off-shore subsidiaries that many US companies set up to channel overseas sales, avoiding $4 billion on US taxes & export duties.

McCain took the side of the WTO, saying that that he opposed the corporate tax shelter.“We’re spending millions of dollars to help McDonald’s sell hamburgers overseas,” he said.

McCain said the protections are unnecessary. “We can compete with anybody in any market in the world because our products and our workers are the most productive,” he said. “The answer is not to subsidize with taxpayers’ dollars these major corporations. The answer is to say to every country, ‘Allow our products into your country and we’ll compete on a level playing field.’ ”

Substitute trade treaties for protectionism

Admit China to WTO based on their concessions

Free trade with any country except security risks

Retaliatory protectionism is a “murder-suicide pact”

Chile in NAFTA is good, but Fast Track isn’t

China: Keep open trade & diplomacy; but keep eyes open

Mexico: balancing act between free trade & stopping drugs

NAFTA has had unambiguously positive impact on US

Pro-NAFTA, pro-GATT, pro-MFN, pro-Fast Track

McCain supports the following statements regarding free trade:
• Supports NAFTA, including broadening NAFTA to include other countries in the western hemisphere.
• Supports GATT and the WTO.
• Opposes imposing tariffs on products imported from nations that maintain restrictive trade barriers on American products.
• A nation’s human rights record should not affect its “most favored nation” trading status with the US.
• Supports granting the President “fast-track” authority.

Voted YES on free trade agreement with Oman.

Opponents of the bill say to vote NAY because:
• International trade can confer tremendous benefits on all of its participants. Unfortunately, the Oman Free Trade Agreement fails to live up to that potential.
• In 2001, the US entered into a similar trade agreement with the country of Jordan. The agreement was heralded for its progressive labor standards. However, we have recently seen in Jordan instances of foreign workers forced into slave labor, stripped of their passports, denied their wages, and compelled to work for days without rest.
• These incidents have been occurring in Jordan because Jordanian labor laws preclude protections for foreign workers. My fear in Oman is that they have far weaker labor standards, and that would lend itself to even worse conditions than in Jordan.
• When our trade partners are held to different, less stringent standards, no one is better off. When Omani firms can employ workers in substandard conditions, the Omani workers and American workers both lose. The playing field is not level.

Proponents of the bill say to vote YEA because:
• The Oman Free Trade Agreement sends a very important message that the US strongly supports the economic development of moderate Middle Eastern nations. This is a vital message in the global war on terrorism.
• Since the end of WWII, the US has accepted nonreciprocal trade concessions in order to further important Cold War and post-Cold War foreign policy objectives. Examples include offering Japan and Europe nonreciprocal access to American markets during the 1950s in order to strengthen the economies of our allies and prevent the spread of communism.
• Oman is quickly running out of oil and, as a result, has launched a series of measures to reform its economy. This free-trade agreement immediately removes Oman's uniform 5% tariff on US goods.

Voted YES on implementing CAFTA for Central America free-trade.

• Progressively eliminate customs duties on all originating goods traded among the participating nations
• Preserve US 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
• Recommend that each participating nation uphold the Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work
• Urge each participating nation to obey various international agreements regarding intellectual property rights

Voted YES on establishing free trade between US & Singapore.

Voted YES on establishing free trade between the US and Chile.

Voted YES on extending free trade to Andean nations.

Voted YES on granting normal trade relations status to Vietnam.

Voted NO on removing common goods from national security export rules.

Voted YES on permanent normal trade relations with China.

Voted YES on expanding trade to the third world.

Voted YES on renewing 'fast track' presidential trade authority.

Voted NO on imposing trade sanctions on Japan for closed market.

Promote the Andean Free Trade Agreement.

After a month of debate the Senate passed a The Andean Free Trade Agreement (H.R. 3009) including language to grant the president trade promotion authority. With the unanimous support of all eight Republican Main Street Partnership Senators, H.R. 3009 passed 66 to 30. Included in the legislation is an expansion of Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) providing a tax credit for 70% of the cost of health insurance purchased individually after losing employment as a result of a trade agreement. While the Senate maintained its pro-trade reputation by defeating amendments by Senator Kerry (MA) and Senator Byrd (WV) diluting Trade Promotion Authority, one amendment strongly opposed by Main Street remains in the bill. An amendment offered by Senator Dayton (MN) and Senator Craig (ID) would allow the Senate to remove from fast-track consideration any provision of an agreement that would limit US trade remedy laws. Main Street firmly believes that this negates Trade Promotion Authority entirely, and supports President Bush's veto threat should this language remain intact after a House/Senate conference.

Rated 100% by CATO, indicating a pro-free trade voting record.

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.

Sponsored bill for trade with post-Orange Revolution Ukraine.

OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: To authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade relations treatment) to the products of Ukraine.

SPONSOR'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Sen. McCAIN: The recent Orange Revolution in Ukraine marked a huge victory for the advancement of democracy in the world. The Ukrainian people made clear that they would not stand idle as a corrupt regime sought to deny them their democratic rights. Now that the people of Ukraine have seized control of their destiny, the US must stand ready to assist them as they do the hard work of consolidating democracy.

The purpose of the amendment is to terminate the Jackson-Vanik amendment, with respect to Ukraine. Beyond any benefits to our bilateral trading relationship, lifting Jackson-Vanik for Ukraine constitutes an important symbol of Ukraine's new democracy and its relationship with the US. Tomorrow, Ukrainian President Yushchenko will address a joint session of Congress, an honor which we bestow on few foreign leaders. As we have the privilege of welcoming this true hero of democracy, I can think of no better gesture than terminating the anachronistic & inappropriate Jackson-Vanik restrictions on Ukraine.

EXCERPTS OF AMENDMENT:

Congress finds that Ukraine has--
1. made considerable progress toward respecting fundamental human rights
2. adopted administrative procedures that accord its citizens the right to emigrate, travel freely, and to return to their country without restriction; and
3. been found to be in full compliance with the freedom of emigration provisions in the Trade Act of 1974.

LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Considered by Senate on 4/6/2005; never came to a vote.

Extend trade restrictions on Burma to promote democracy.

A joint resolution approving the renewal of import restrictions contained in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003. The original act sanctioned the ruling military junta, and recognized the National League of Democracy as the legitimate representative of the Burmese people.

Legislative Outcome: Related bills: H.J.RES.44, H.J.RES.93, S.J.RES.41; became Public Law 110-52.

Sponsored sugar quotas & import tariffs to stabilize prices.

Congressional Summary:Sugar Reform Act:

• Requires that sugar allotments be appropriate to maintain adequate supplies at reasonable prices, taking into account all domestic supply sources, including imports.
• Revises sugar tariff-rate quota adjustment provisions so that the ratio of sugar stocks to total sugar use at the end of the quota year will be approximately 15.5%
• Extends flexible marketing sugar allotment authority through crop year 2017
• Repeals the feedstock flexibility program for bioenergy producers.

Proponent's argument for bill:(Senators' opinions reported on politico.com) "We subsidize a handful of wealthy sugar growers at the expense of everybody in America," said Sen. Patrick Toomey (R-Pa.), whose home state boasts the chocolate giant, Hershey's. Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), warned her colleagues against unraveling the commodity coalition behind the farm bill: "We forget that this is much bigger than a sugar program. It's much bigger than any one single commodity. When you single out one commodity, you threaten the effectiveness of the overall farm bill."

Opponent's argument against bill:(Food and Business News, May 2013): Users claim the sugar program nearly doubles the price of sugar to US consumers and has resulted in lost jobs as some candy manufacturers have moved operations to other countries. Producers claim the program has resulted in more stable sugar supplies, provides a safety net for growers and that world prices are often lower because of subsidies in origin countries, which would put US growers at a disadvantage should import restrictions be lifted. Producers also note that US sugar prices have declined more than 50% from late 2011 highs. They also maintain that jobs have been lost or moved out of the US for reasons other than sugar prices, mainly labor and health care costs, noting that candy makers' profits have been strong in recent years.

Voted YES to kill reauthorization of Ex-Im Bank.

Heritage Action summary of vote# S206: The Senate voted to table (kill) an amendment by Sen. Kirk to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank. Sen. Kirk recommends voting NO. Heritage Foundation recommends voting YES because the "Ex-Im Bank is little more than a $140 billion slush fund for corporate welfare."

OnTheIssues explanation: Voting NO would allow a vote on reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank. Voting YES would kill the bill for reauthorizing the Ex-Im Bank.

Congressional Summary from previous Ex-Im bill S.824; the Ex-Im Bank shall:
• Provide technical assistance to small businesses on how to apply for financial assistance;
• Establish programs under which private financial institutions may share risk in loans & guarantees.
• The Bank may enter into up to $25 billion worth of contracts of reinsurance or co-finance.

Cato Institute reason for voting YES to kill the bill:The Ex-Im Bank's reauthorization buffs contend that Ex-Im fills a void left by private sector lenders unwilling to provide financing for certain transactions. Ex-Im's critics [say that] by effectively superseding risk-based decision-making with the choices of a handful of bureaucrats pursuing political objectives, Ex-Im risks taxpayer dollars. It turns out that for nearly every Ex-Im financing authorization that might advance the fortunes of a single US company, there is at least one US industry whose firms are put at a competitive disadvantage. These are the unseen consequences of Ex-Im's mission.

Rated 75% by the USAE, indicating support for trade engagement.

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.