Do Kerry and Edwards have the same policy on trade?

[DjTj]

In an interview on the campaign trail, Kerry said, "We have the same policy on trade. Exactly the same policy. He voted for the China Trade Agreement. So did I."

Several Kerry advisors have echoed this sentiment, but do Kerry and Edwards really have the same policy on trade?

They have shared 5 years in the Senate. When it came to trade, their voting record differs in a few spots:

Fast-Track Authority for Bush: (Kerry Yea, Edwards Nay)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00207

Trade with Singapore: (Edwards Nay, Kerry was campaigning)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00318

Trade with Chile: (Edwards Nay, Kerry was campaigning)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00319

Trade with Africa and Caribbean: (Kerry Yea, Edwards Nay)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=2&vote=00098

They both voted for PNTR for China:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=2&vote=00251
...but they disagreed on this amendment: "To require that the Congressional-Executive Commission monitor the cooperation of the People's Republic of China with respect to POW/MIA issues, improvement in the areas of forced abortions, slave labor, and organ harvesting, and for other purposes." (Edwards Yea, Kerry Nay)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=2&vote=00249
...also on this amendment: "To require the Secretary of Commerce to consult with leaders of American businesses to encourage them to adopt a code of conduct for doing business in the People's Republic of China." (Edwards Yea, Kerry Nay)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=2&vote=00244
...and this amendment: "To improve the certainty of the implementation of import relief in cases of affirmative determinations by the International Trade Commission with respect to market disruption to domestic producers of like or directly competitive products." (Edwards Yea, Kerry Nay)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=2&vote=00240
...and this one: "To require the President certify to Congress that the People's Republic of China is in compliance with certain Memoranda of Understanding regarding prohibition on import and export of prison labor products and for other purposes." (Edwards Yea, Kerry Nay)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=2&vote=00238
...then there's this one: "To require the United States to support the transfer of United States clean energy technology as part of assistance programs with respect to China's energy sector, and for other purposes." (Edwards Yea, Kerry Nay)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=2&vote=00235

So while Kerry is a free trader, Edwards has voted against several trade agreements. When the Senate tried to put in amendments to the China bill to protect human rights, worker standards, and environmental protections, Edwards voted for them while Kerry voted against them.

Do you believe Kerry when he says, "We have the same policy on trade. Exactly the same policy?"

[Must Win 2004]

1. Impressive research!

BTW, I don't believe Kerry without at least 10 other independent sources! O8)

I hope the establishment (DNC) wakes up and sees Edwards has a real possibility of beating Bush; while I doubt Kerry does.

Who does the DNC think the independents would prefer to turn to? It's obviously Edwards, but I have little faith in the brains of their 'powers that be.'

[katieforeman]

2. Ditto

How do you do such impressive research so quickly. You should be doing research for the Edwards campaign? I hope you are also writing letters to columnists and reporters.

[bigtree]

3. Each one of these amendments that Edwards supported was rejected

Yet, Edwards still voted for the legislation.

Here is the rationale for delinking the pursuit of human rights by withholding trade:

The bill's authors argued that withholding the MFN classification from China would force human rights reform in the country and would ensure China follows through with its pledge to grant Hong Kong some autonomy.

Appearing before the Committee on behalf of the Administration were Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright and U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky. The thrust of the administration's position was encapsulated in Barshefsky's statement that: "the vote on MFN is thus a vote on how best to protect U.S. interests, not an endorsement of China's policies. Engagement is not an end unto itself. Engagement is a means by which we can expand the areas of cooperation with China and deal face-to-face with the Chinese on areas of difference." Responding to the pro-human rights position of some MFN opponents, Albright argued that "the revocation of normal trade relations would eliminate prospects for U.S.-China cooperation on a wide range of issues."

http://www.calinst.org/bulletins/bull420i.html

[DjTj]

8. True.

...but the question still remains: Why did Kerry vote against all those amendments?

[bigtree]

13. I can't find his statements on this, but his objections were likely

related to the rationale given above by Albright. They were delinking trade because of the widely held view that human rights monitoring was not served by eliminating trade which they viewed as an opening for such dialouge. The amendments were mostly attempts to keep the linkage.

[DjTj]

15. but that is Kerry's stance now...

...he says in his campaign that he wants to link trade with human rights and worker's rights and environmental protections and what not. That's what he calls "fair trade".

So does this mean he has flip-flopped on this issue?

[revcarol]

17. There was never a possiblity of linkage, IMHO.

Clinton didn't want it. "Just vote for the bill, and forget about the human rights," seems to have been the mantra of those who voted for it.

If they were serious about this, they could have voted NO. But gotta keep those big contibutors and banks that finance them happy.

Kerry is talking a good game now that the AFL/CIO is trying to twist his arm, but where was he when it counted?

[JohnLocke]

4. Thanks!

[JohnLocke]

5. Kick

[JohnLocke]

11. Kick

[revcarol]

6. Edwards: against trade that he thought would harm mills in his

HOME STATE. soooooooo, NOT against core trade agreement with China.

funny thing is, a lot of those jobs that were in NAFTA-Mexico(the NAFTA that he would have voted against if he had been in the Senate) have NOW GONE TO CHINA.

He paints himself as concerned about American manufacturing jobs, but votes for THE BIGGEST job giveaway we have ever had:CHINA!!His policies had nothing to do with what was good for the nation, only his constituency.

Over 10% of our trade deficit is with China.Have you checked WalMart recently? CHINESE GOODS

Kerry is hopelessly for free trade. He offered one amendment against
Chapter 11 of NAFTA. When it didn't pass, he voted for the core bill anyway.Voted for everything else...lock,stock,and barrel.

Voters should be outraged at BOTH these candidates for allowing whole factories and industries to be shipped out.

[bigtree]

14. The China vote was an expensive betrayal of the NC textile workers

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=373198&mesg_id=373839

ATMA announced in late September 2003 that its U.S. textile mill customers have suffered more damage in the past five years than the industry did during the Depression of the 1930s. ATMA's analysis shows that from 1929, just prior to the Depression, to the low point in U.S. textile performance in 1932, U.S. production of cotton fabric dropped from 8.4 billion square yards to 6.3 billion, a decline of 25.3 percent.
http://www.textilenews.com/news/020204_8.html

You're absolutely right that both candidates were wrong on the China vote.

[revcarol]

16. More than that: China agreement is horrible for the whole NATION.

Remember the Congressional testimony?

Multi-nationals, supposedly American businesses, stood up, one after another, and testified that they wanted free trade with China to SELL them American goods!!

And workers(NO UNIONS) and small businesses spoke up and said that the real reason for free trade with China was so that multi-nationals and others wanted to get slave, prison and cheap labor. And further, that this would result in thousands of jobs lost and reduced wages for Americans.

KERRY AND EDWARDS DIDN'T LISTEN TO THEM. Result: whole industries moved to China. And we have ALWAYS been a net purchaser of Chinese goods and never a net seller.

THANKS FOR NUTHIN', GUYS. FOR THE BIGGEST JOBS GIVEAWAY EVER.

[DjTj]

18. Edwards has a proposal to protect them...

He wants to keep the textile quotas in place instead of letting them expire at the end of this year:

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/page.asp?id=597

[bigtree]

22. How does that differ from Kerry

who has said that he will fix the bad bills that he voted for?

[DjTj]

23. It's a specific proposal...

...backed up by a legislative record of protecting textile workers in other trade agreements.

If Edwards is elected, I can guarantee that this provision in the China deal is one promise he will keep, while all Kerry will do is have a 120-day review of the agreements, whatever that means.

[bigtree]

26. What it means

You heard it here again last week. Secretary Evans complained about China’s promises to stop their trading abuses. And over and over again, he said, “We’re still waiting.” Well how long do we have to wait? How many jobs do we have to lose until this Administration stops waiting? How much of our manufacturing base do we have to see whittled away before this Administration uses the laws and tools that are sitting there available? We need to stop waiting and start acting.

But just this summer, this Administration said they opposed efforts to increase the funds for enforcing China’s trade agreements. They said the money just was “unnecessary.” Sounds like the Cabinet members need to come out here for some more town meetings.

As President, I’ll take on the countries that are manipulating their currency to undermine American exports. These countries are supposed to be playing by the same rules as we do and they’ll feel the full force of our trade laws if they don’t. I will open markets in key export areas for manufacturing – like Japan and China. I will make sure that if we have to lower our tariffs, our competitors have to do the same. We don’t need idle talk – we need action – and we need it now.

I’ll order an immediate 120 day review of all existing trade agreements to ensure our trading partners are living up to their labor and environmental obligations – to make sure these agreements are enforceable and to put us on a level playing field. And I will not sign any new trade agreements until the review is done and its recommendations are in place.

And I will appoint a U.S. Trade Representative who is an American patriot and who will put American jobs first.
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_0922.html

[SangamonTaylor]

7. well done djtj......this thread has been bookmarked for future reference

[anti-NAFTA]

9. Here's a link to my thread.

After you read it you might want to explain to me why it was mysteriously locked wihout even a comment from the moderators.

edit: oops. Forgot to give you the link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=315065 :crazy:

[anti-NAFTA]

10. kick

[DjTj]

12. Yeah, I remember that thread.

Thanks for getting us all more informed on the trade issue. I'll have to admit that I never really thought about it much before these past few weeks.

I have absolutely no idea why it was locked, but those were the days of draconian GD04

[citizen snips]

19. Great research DjTj.

Good way to show that Edwards is better when it comes to free trade.

[DjTj]

20. Thanks. Votes are the best evidence there can possibly be.

Votes are solid evidence while rhetoric must be taken with a grain of salt.

[Tinoire]

21. Another one of Kerry's lies. Edwards is much more progressive on trade

unless of course you think NAFTA, GATT and utility privatization are "good" things.

[DemDogs]

24. What a piece of work!

Incredible job pulling this together. Talking points for us all as we go out to make the case for Edwards.
(If you want to phone bank for Edwards or write letters, sign up at the website <http://www.johnedwards2004.com/home.asp> )

[DjTj]

25. I did 100 calls today.

...we should get lists of union members and show them how their union is backing the wrong guy if they want to save their jobs.