Kerry and Edwards on trade with China:

[DjTj]

They both voted for PNTR:
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 in the end, they both voted for the same bill, but Edwards gave a little more support to the kind of restrictions that both Kerry and Edwards are now supporting.

[revcarol]

1. And so, in conclusion:

I ask the following questions:

1) which amendments actually passed the Senate and the House and were included in the final bill?

2)which of the amendments, if any, which passed the Senate and the House and were included in the final bill,had enforcement mechanisms which would penalize China for not obeying them? And were those enforcement mechanisms so vague that they couldn't work?

3) if the amendments that either or both of the gentlemen wanted were not in the final bill, why did they vote for it anyway?

[DjTj]

No Senate amendment passed...

Over a week of debate and some 15-odd amendments and none of them passed., so it got through the Senate in the same form as it left the House.

Kerry I think only voted for one of them, so he was more or less in complete support of the bill in its original form.

I suppose Edwards believed that the benefits outweighed the risks; this is what Edwards had to say when he voted for the final bill:

September 19, 2000:

As U.S. goods and services flow into China and as our engagement grows, the opportunity for real change in China grows. We are all aware that China has a long way to go in improving its record on human rights, religious liberty, environmental protection and labor rights. The abuses in that nation are serious. And I am committed to continued efforts to end those abuses. As American ideas, goods, and businesses surge into China , I believe China's record will improve.

But I am mindful that globalization and this bill in particular may have a real downside. As a Senator from North Carolina, I am well-positioned to see both the enormous benefits and the large costs of this measure.

Textile and apparel workers, many of whom live in North Carolina, face real challenges as a result of this measure. While in almost every respect the agreement with China benefits our country, textiles is the major exception. As a result of joining WTO, quotas on Chinese textiles and apparel will be eliminated in 2005. As a result, Chinese apparel will flow into the United States. By and large, the Chinese imports will likely displace imports from other countries. However, there is no doubt that an additional burden will be placed on the textile industry. To be sure, the industry can try to protect itself through the anti-surge mechanism put in place by this legislation. Yet it does us no good to pretend that these remedies are perfect and that people will not be hurt. I know that textile workers will work their hearts out competing with the Chinese. I know these people; I grew up with them. When I was in college, I worked a summer job in a textile mill. My father spent his life working in mills. The impact of PNTR on them is personal to me. Dealing with the impact of this bill on them will always be a top priority for me. And I will fight throughout my career to protect them.

Mr. President, China's entry into the World Trade Organization and its attainment of permanent normal trade relations with America is not without its risks. No one can predict with certainty that China will live up to its commitments. I vote for this bill because I believe that we must turn our face toward the future. But we must be mindful of the risks. So I warn that I will monitor China's compliance with its agreements like a hawk. If they renege, I will lead the charge to force them to live up to their obligations.

But to vote against this measure--to deny PNTR--not only fails to accomplish anything productive but also denies us enormous opportunities. We cannot hide our heads in the sand. China will join the WTO. The Senate has no impact on that decision. The only question we face is whether the U.S. will grant China permanent normal trade relations or whether it will fall out of compliance with its WTO obligations. If we fall out of compliance, the U.S. will be denied the Chinese tariff reductions and rule changes, while every other country in the world takes advantage of the Chinese concessions. We must decide whether the U.S. will be able to compete with other countries--Germany, France, Japan--as they enter the Chinese market. American companies and workers deserve the right to enter those markets. On balance, I believe that China's admission into the World Trade Organization and its attainment of permanent normal trading relations is for the good.

And so I vote for this legislation, mindful of the risks, prepared to watch the results carefully and optimistic about the future.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2000_record&page=S8701&position=all

[PurityOfEssence]

3. Who cares what people fight for; only up or down votes matter.

What people are on the record for fighting is EVERYTHING. By the same logic, what does it matter if someone voted against IWR? It failed, right?

I hate either/or thinking. It's ridiculous. It's a complex and nuanced world, and attempts to simplify it are necessary, but radically misleading and often disingenuous.

If they both voted for the final bill, but one fought harder to protect American Jobs in the process of drafting it, then one is more virtuous. Not seeing that is hard to fathom.

[PurityOfEssence]

2. Holy Shit, this is dynamite! Good find.

I always hate how it's so easy to vilify candidates by expressing their votes on complex and elaborate bills in a simplistic way.

Forget NAFTA as an argument; it's not an equivalence, since Edwards wasn't in government at the time.

This shows distinctly that Edwards has had his eye on the interests of American jobs and industry MUCH MORE than Kerry has.

You've done well, chum...

[DjTj]

4. I was actually surprised...

...I didn't really know what I would find when I started digging, but the more I seem to look into trade issues, the bigger the gap between Kerry and Edwards grows.

[katieforeman]

5. Is there a way to get this into the press?

Reporters still minimize the fact that Edwards ran for the Senate opposing NAFTA. There are real differences.

[westcoastbias]

6. Edwards will hammer Kerry in a debate because of these issues

Hopefully, there will be enough people paying attention this Thursday.

If you are a Kerry supporter, you will hope people watch Survivor instead.

[DjTj]

9. I hope he does...

...but bringing this up may be walking the thin line between drawing distinctions and going negative.

[AP]

7. If you don't post this at the Edwards Blog, I will.

[DjTj]

8. I'm on it (nt)

[bigtree]

10. 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=369040&mesg_id=370274

Edwards tries to widen divide on trade issues
http://www.newsobserver.com/edwards/coverage/story/3307716p-2950831c.h ...

In the Senate, Edwards voted in 2000 to grant China permanent normal trade relations and entry to the World Trade Organization. At the time, he expressed sympathy for the textile industry, which feared the move would lead to more job losses. But he said the deal would help North Carolina industries that thrive on exports, including agriculture, furniture and high-tech companies.

On the day last summer when Pillowtex announced the shuttering of 16 textile plants, most in North Carolina, Gephardt fired off a statement saying they closed "because they were unable to compete with competitors in China under the unfair trade deals Congress imposed on them."

Edwards keeps N. Carolina Democrats guessing
http://www.charleston.net/stories/080903/sta_09edwards.shtml

When textile giant Pillowtex Corp. shut down July 30, the bankruptcy resulted in the biggest mass layoff in the state's history, with nearly 5,000 workers affected. Edwards faced criticism for not doing enough.

On Thursday, the senator traveled to Kannapolis to meet with textile workers who lost their jobs.

Asked why he did not visit sooner, Edwards said he had been working behind the scenes for months to try to find a buyer for the troubled textile firm.


Increasing Chinese textile imports threaten US textile industry
http://www.bizasia.com/trade_/bm9ev/china_us_textile_industry.htm

It was not difficult to predict this: the American textile industry is seeking relief from a deluge of Chinese textile imports. The reason for this surge of clothing is cost: an American textile worker earns in less than two weeks what a Chinese worker earns in a year.

According to the American textile Institute, the US textile industry lost 267,000 jobs from January 2001 through March 2003. Chinese sales of textiles to the US rose by 63 percent to 3.15 billion in 2002.

_____________________________

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

___________________________________________________________________

[DjTj]

11. I wonder how much Edwards regrets this vote...

He hasn't come out and said it outright, but I wonder if he will...he has said he regrets his NCLB vote.

On his campaign website, he has this proposal to keep textile quotas in place:

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

The more I think about it, the more I think he was talked into the PNTR vote in the wake of the veepstakes with Gore and with the DLC looking toward the November election.

He had voted against free trade before that:

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

And he has been voting against free trade recently as well:

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

The PNTR vote was definitely an anomaly and you're right, he expressed sympathy and reservations when he voted for it. I wonder how much he regrets it.