Here are Edwards's NO votes on Fast Track:

[AP]

Here's the timeline on the bill:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HR03009:@@@X

Edwards voted NO on every vote regarding this bill in the last few days before it passes

8/1/2002: Conference report considered in Senate. (consideration: CR S7768-7793, S7814-7815)
8/1/2002: Cloture on the conference report to accompany H.R. 3009 invoked in Senate by Yea-Nay. 64 - 32. Record Vote Number: 203.
8/1/2002: Point of order under the CBA raised in Senate with respect to the conference report to accompany H.R. 3009.
8/1/2002: Motion to waive the Budget Act with respect to the conference report to accompany H.R. 3009 agreed in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 67 - 31. Record Vote Number: 206.
8/1/2002: Senate agreed to conference report by Yea-Nay Vote. 64 - 34. Record Vote Number: 207.
...
8/6/2002: Signed by President.
8/6/2002: Became Public Law No: 107-210.


August 1, 2002 is the day they voted on the version of the bill that came out of conferrence, and the conference report.

It looks like Edwards approved of the bill until it came out of committee without the things he voted to include (see the press release).

He voted against this bill in the end, just like the NY Times said.

"{Edwards} did approve China's entry into the World Trade Organization, which opened one of the world's biggest markets to American industry. And he voted initially to give the president authority to negotiate trade agreements as long they contained certain labor provisions. But when those protections were stripped out of the bill, Mr. Edwards voted against final passage, while Mr. Kerry voted for it.

"Mr. Edwards also voted against smaller trade deals for African and Caribbean nations, while Mr. Kerry supported them. Even though these agreements opened up the American market to some of the poorest nations, Mr. Edwards said they would have hurt the textile mills and workers in his home state, North Carolina. The only free trade accord he supported was with Jordan, which has labor standards in the pact.

"Mr. Edwards insists that protection for labor and environmental standards must be part of the texts of trade agreements because that is the only way to enforce them. Mr. Kerry says they can be accommodated in side agreements. This is probably their central dispute.

"Mr. Kerry has voted for all trade agreements since the cold war ended and opened the way for increasing globalization. But on the presidential trail, he has become a skeptic and now promises to review them."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/20/politics/campaign/20ISSU.html

Edwards voted for an earlier version of the bill in May, after which he issued this press release:

SENATE APPROVES TRADE BILL WITH EDWARDS AMENDMENTS
May 23, 2002

WASHINGTON–The Senate on Thursday voted 66 to 30 for strong new protections for workers and communities hurt by unfair trade practices as part of a trade bill that directs U.S. negotiators on textile and apparel agreements to level the playing field with other countries.

"We have made real progress toward helping workers and revitalizing North Carolina communities," Senator Edwards said. "I will continue to fight for people like the ones I grew up with in North Carolina."

The measure included provisions by Senator Edwards to defend North Carolina's textile industry from unfair trade practices and help displaced workers and their communities recover from layoffs and plant closings. Part of an Economic Revitalization Plan that Senator Edwards unveiled last month in North Carolina, his provisions in the legislation would:

Extend trade adjustment assistance for six additional months for displaced workers so they could afford to support their families while completing retraining programs.

Provide emergency grants for community that serve areas affected by plant shutdowns to retrain workers.

Instruct U.S. trade negotiators to seek fairer trade conditions for textiles and apparel.

Senator Edwards also cosponsored amendments added to the final Senate bill that would extend trade adjustment assistance to so-called secondary workers at companies that are direct suppliers of closed plants, and make it easier for communities to apply for trade assistance.

Senator Edwards vowed to continue to fight for his proposals to offer tax incentives to revitalize communities affected by textile plant shutdowns, and to eliminate bureaucratic red tape for laid off textile workers seeking retraining and other benefits.

He was disappointed that the legislation did not include help for displaced workers struggling to make home mortgage payments. Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday cast a deciding vote to kill an amendment by Senators George Allen and Edwards that would have offered low-interest home loans to displaced workers hunting for new jobs.

The final Senate version of the legislation also failed to include amendments filed by Senator Edwards on behalf of Senator Jesse Helms that would have required labels indicating furniture's country of origin and penalized nations that skirt trade agreements by funneling textiles to the United States through third countries.


http://edwards.senate.gov/press/2002/0523b-pr.html

[flpoljunkie]

1. Edwards voted for the Andean Trade Deal which includes fast track

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00130

Although, Edwards later voted against the conference report on H. 3009, Edwards did vote for H.3009 on May 23, 2002, when fast track provisions were indeed, part of the trade bill.

The differences in the positions of John Kerry and John Edward's on free and fair trade today are negligible. Edward's also voted for the China Trade Deal which has caused the bulk of lost manufacturing jobs in the United States. Interestingly, Edwards never brings this up.

[AP]

2. The NYT article shows the stark differences between Kerry and Edwards.

And people always SAY the China trade deal was the worst of the bunch, but they never try to PROVE that's true.

You have a citation?

[SahaleArm]

3. Yeah - Everything I buy seems to be made in China.

China buys a ton of US debt and is running a huge trade surplus against the US.

China-US trade surplus $53.2 billion: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3366983.stm

US-Mexico trade deficit is around $500-million.

NAFTA is the boogeyman but Chinese trade is the silent killer.

[AP]

4. And China is cheating on its trade deal. Where's the evidence that a vote

on the China trade deal is bad vote? Or that China's adherence to the trade deal has caused problems.

I can read labels too. But I'd just like to see some evidence greater than a label of what people who make this claim are saying is true.

You all might have contempt for the intelligence of the average voter, but I'm looking for a little more evidence.

[SahaleArm]

5. The joke is calling out NAFTA...

While China is eating our lunch - Since the governement isn't tracking where jobs are heading it's an inexact determination. Chinese currency manipulation and zero labor standards are only part of the problem. Imagine what would happen if they stopped buying US treasury debt? China is a much more pertinent and complex issue but doesn't resonate as well as NAFTA. NAFTA prays on the xenophobic tendencies of Americans with respect to their views about Mexico and Mexicans. If you actually think more jobs are lost to Mexico than China/Asia then I have ocean-front property to sell you in Kansas.

[redqueen]

6. Kucinich always rails on NAFTA / WTO

Not just NAFTA.

[trogdor]

13. That's nice, but DK can't win.

I'm sure he will be mathematically eliminated on Tuesday. The problem is that the top two don't seem to get it.

[redqueen]

19. The problem is that the voting public doesn't get it

or they wouldn't be voting for the top two.

And I think he can win. :)

[AP]

7. What's missing here is an argument supported by fact that

Edwards doesn't appreciate this problem.

[SahaleArm]

8. Where are the facts on NAFTA versus other trade agreements?

Edwards is big on hyperbole and low on facts.

[AP]

9. I'm not sure what you think that sentence means.

[SahaleArm]

10. The question remains...

Do you have quantifiable figures describing job loss caused by NAFTA versus other trade agreements (including China or South America)? Edwards is arguing that NAFTA is what's causing most of the job losses, is this supported by some evidence?

[AP]

11. I don't think Edwards has made that argument. His argument is this:

trade is a good thing, however, trade is driving the value of work if there are no protections on workers.

What's really happening with NAFTA is that companies are lowering the costs of their inputs (labor and raw material) and not passing those savings on to the consumers. They're still getting a huge profit margin, and they're paying that to corporate insiders, rather than to the workers.

(Incidentally, I don't think that's what's happening in China -- the chinese actually price compete, and they deliver a lot of the profit to the people -- but that's not meant as an excuse for China cheating on their trade deals. The fact is that the America companies which benefit from American trade deals outside of China are just using these trade deals to maximize profits which pass to insiders, andn not to their employees in higher wages or to consumers in the form of price competition.)

I think it's perfectly obvious from what Edwards says and how he has voted that his primary concern is in not devaluing labor.

What I want to hear is some evidence that his vote on the China deal is something so awful that it subsumes everything else. I haven't seen that yet.

[SahaleArm]

12. I have no problem with Edwards vote on China...

But to use NAFTA against Kerry while voting for Chinese trade seems a bit hypocritical; he's backed off this a bit lately... China is much more corrupt and profitable than Mexico for most companies, thanks to low labor standards, a currency that's pegged to the US dollar at an absurdly low rate, and a government that will give a company anything it wants for a piece of the action. Profits are going up and finished goods are not getting any cheaper from either China or Mexico so I'm not sure that's an arguable point. The goal of global free trade is to make input and output cheaper regardless of location. One of those inputs is the cost of labor, something that the US can't compete on because of a higher cost of living.

[AP]

16. The us can compete on labor by requiring trade partners to have higher

labor standards which then mandate a transfer in the profits from trade to the people who work in the factories.

Which is why Edwards voted for only the Jordan trade deal.

[flpoljunkie]

14. Some facts and figures for you, AP, on high cost of China Trade Deal

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issuebriefs_ib137

Excerpt from the Economic Policy Institute report in February, 2000:

The growth in exports to China would create 325,000 jobs in this period, but imports would eliminate 1.142 million domestic job opportunities. On balance, 817,000 jobs could be eliminated by the growth in the trade deficit with China over the next decade, and these losses would come on top of the 880,000 jobs the U.S. has already lost due to its current trade deficit with that country.

[AP]

15. Those are projections in article which starts "no one can predict...

...the future."

What really happened? And was it caused by the agreement, or by the fact that China is breaking the agreement?

[AP]

17. By the way, competition from japanese auto manufacturers in the 70s

transferred billions of dollars of wealth into the pockets of American consumers.

The US auto manufacturers were, essentially, price fixing, and slowing down money and life-saving improvements to their cars.

When the Japanese came along, the US mnfgs had to pick up the pace of development and lower the costs of their cars.

Because labor standards are high in Japan, this didn't destory the value of labor in the US. It just meant that the US had to compete. (If the US markets had been competitive in the first place, they would have never have givent the Japanese the huge opening they got.)

I'm not saying that everything that happened with Japan was great, but I'm saying that trade is complicate, and the biggest problem is when it's being used to increase profits for corporations at the cost of increasing wages, the environment and price competition.

As we learned with Japan auto mnfgs in the 70s, price competion and high labor standiards are good for society.

[AP]

18. kick.