John Kerry: We Need a New, Common-Sense Approach to Trade

[kerrygoddess]

John Kerry: We Need a New, Common-Sense Approach to Trade
14 June 2005

Late last night, I reported that John Kerry would be offering an amendment to CAFTA today. The AFL-CIO who has strongly opposed CAFTA, supports the Kerry amendment. It should be noted that John Kerry has been opposed to CAFTA, in it’s current form, for over a year. Senator Schumer is a co-sponsor to the amendment.

Below is a statement by Senator John Kerry from the Senate Finance Committee's mark-up this morning of the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA).

Kerry Amendment Would Give Teeth to Existing Labor Standards

"An Administration's job is to make sure that open markets and robust trade benefit America's workers, consumers, corporations and ultimately our security. This Administration has broken that tradition by negotiating trade deals out of step with the globalized world in which we're living and by refusing to enforce the trade agreements we already have.

"The evidence is clear in what's happening in our manufacturing sector and increasingly our service sector. No small part of that impact is very real hardship for working families. I have listened and learned, and I believe that our trade agreements can and must do a better job protecting American workers and our competitive edge. That's why the Jordan free trade agreement was such an important step forward, and that's why CAFTA fails the new test for trade in a globalized world.

"CAFTA includes two sets of provisions relating to workers: First, it requires that nations uphold their own labor laws, but it makes no stipulation as to what those laws require and includes only token enforcement provisions. Second, it calls on countries to 'strive to' achieve the most basic standards, like the 'elimination of the worst forms of child labor,' but includes absolutely no provisions to enforce these negligible standards. This means that a U.S. worker might well lose his or her job to a facility operating at conditions far, far below what anyone would deem acceptable in the modern economy.

MORE & LINKS to supporting documents - http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=1076

[Radical Activist]

1. If he has spoken about this more effectively last year

he probably would have won Ohio, which has lost hundreds of thousands of jobs to NAFTA and the WTO in the last few years. Yes, I'm familiar with all the vote fraud cop-outs, but the fact is that Kerry didn't emphasize what should have been a major wedge issue in a key state. That's what we get for nominating someone who wanted to sound like a moderate.

[kerrygoddess]

3. He did speak effectively about this last year

That's one of the reasons the AFL-CIO was behind him. Here's a link to what he was saying over a year ago about this - http://www.crystalsugar.com/media/news.archives/kerry2.asp

Maybe you were just among those who weren't paying attention last year, because Kerry had been very vocal about this. Of course it's hard to get most of what Kerry says past the Spin Machine who shuts him out!

[Radical Activist]

4. I'm sure everyone reads

the American Crystal Sugar Company website for their news. I know he made statements and issued some position papers on the issue but it was never a central campaign theme in a way that would have made trade a major issue in the election as it should have been. That was hard to do considering his record on the issue and the half measures he proposed at the time for dealing with the problem.

[blm]

5. He spoke forcefully about it at every campaign rally.

The media left real issues on the editing room floor while they hyped the Swiftliars and any insult the Bush camp chose to hurl.

[Radical Activist]

7. I heard what he said

on occasion. Compared to what Kucinich and even Edwards had to say during the primary, it came off as anything but forceful or compelling. But that was an overall problem with Kerry on a lot of issues.

[kerrygoddess]

9. Sorry to rain

on your parade but I do think you weren't paying attention.

[blm]

11. Not the speeches or townhalls that I heard. He was quite moving.

Certainly Kucinich speaks about the working class in the most compelling way - and that is why I have supported him for over 30 years, but Kerry was very compelling and the most detailed on ALL the issues.

[TheFarseer]

2. NO NO NO This is BS

I don't want this door opened at all. If they want to sell us stuff, fine. If we can sell them stuff, no problem. But if jobs are leaving, we should all be pissed as hell and protesting on the White House lawn! That's what this will do. Unless we stipulate that their taxes have to be the same as ours and their wages and that will never happen until we become the stink-hole of radio-active mongrel poor that bush and his friends envision for this country.

[necso]

6. This sort of thing

(amendments to bills) is generally lost on the average voter.

If Dems want some separation (in the eyes of the average voter), this is a good place.

No on compromise (which will most likely turn out to be complete concession in practise, anyway); No on CAFTA.

[zulchzulu]

8. After looking at this, it is a reasoned approach

I am totally against CAFTA (like NAFTA) because of the lack of enforcement and responsibility for the multi-nationals to be policed for good environmental and labor standards, let alone the fact that jobs leave the US and go to near-slave trade conditions in the third world nations to the south of the US.

This at least gets that discussion on the table. We can't be xenophobic...we need to face the fact that we are a globilized World...and we need to make sure that environmental and labor standards are set before anything gets signed.

Frankly, CAFTA will be passed if we continue with the present Repug-controlled conditions. But before Kerry and others (Dems and Repug mods) vote against it, they need to set standards why they would support it...with environmental and labor standards that we could be proud of.

[kerrygoddess]

10. Exactly.

[Mass]

12. the amendment was defeated and Kerry voted AGAINST CAFTA

[karynnj]

13. Is Kerry allowed to raise the amendment in the full Senate

or does it's defeat mean he's not allowed to pursue it further?

His statement was really strong. It would be great if he could get it voted on in the full Senate - both because he is right on this and because it would be great if all the Senators had to be on record about this.

It also puts on record why he's voting No on the trade bill. The Republicans would use this as flip flop, but this amendment is 100% in line with his Senate speech on NAFTA.

[Mass]

14. This is what the Boston Globe proposes in an editorial this morning.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2005/06/15/the_value_of_cafta/

At the Finance Committee session yesterday, Kerry offered an amendment that would toughen the labor standards without mandating absolute adherence to the ILO standards. The amendment failed on a tie vote, 10-10. Kerry should offer it on the floor, and, in the interest of broad-based support for free trade, the administration should encourage Republican senators to support it.