Did Edwards Vote To Give Bush Fast Track?

[DrFunkenstein]

Trade: “Fast Track” Final Passage

Passed: 66-30
Edwards: Yea

This was a vote on the Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act, which would give the president "Fast Track" trade negotiating authority. Fast Track legislation does not require the president to include enforceable protections for the environment and workers’ rights in our trade agreements, lacks adequate procedures for consultation with Congress and the public, harms independent farmers and limits democratic debate about trade policy.

http://action.citizen.org/pc/issues/votes/?votenum=130&chamber=S&congress=1072

Edwards might want to think twice about going after Kerry on free trade.

In Edwards defense, he did vote for the amazing Kerry Amendment to Fast Track (guess who wrote the Kerry Amendment).

http://action.citizen.org/pc/issues/votes/?votenum=121&chamber=S&congress=1072

To learn more about how Kerry proves you can support free trade and still be progressive, check this out:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=373102

[goobergunch]

1. Edwards voted against the final version of the Trade Act

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00207

The vote I link to above is on the Conference Report, which is the final version - the vote you link to is the pre-conference version.

[SangamonTaylor]

2. thanks...I can't stand the misinformation in here...

[DrFunkenstein]

4. Sorry, But You Are Wrong

Your link goes to the conference report which refers to H.R. 3009, which is the Andean Trade Preference Act.

Fast Track is H.R. 3004, or the Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act. They are related, but distinct. H.R. 3004 was incorporated into H.R. 3009, but Edwards had no problems with H.R. 3004.

Whatever problems he had with the Andean Trade Preference Act, it wasn't with giving Bush Fast Track.

[AP]

8. NY Times summary of difference (Edwards ultimately voted No on fasttrack):

"{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

[Mick Knox]

3. Some of us cant stand ANY information

... please stop posting voting records.. they are so nasty.

[waldenx]

5. they both voted to destroy the constitution

fast track is just as evil as patriot act.

[AP]

6. Not even Feingold, the one Dem voting against the PA, felt that way.

Some Feingold quotes on the bill:

The administration's proposed bill contained vast new powers for law
enforcement, some seemingly drafted in haste and others that came from
the FBI's wish list that Congress has rejected in the past. You may
remember that the Attorney General announced his intention to introduce
a bill shortly after the September 11 attacks. He provided the text of
the bill the following Wednesday, and urged Congress to enact it by the
end of the week. That was plainly impossible, but the pressure to move
on this bill quickly, without deliberation and debate, has been
relentless ever since.

It is one thing to shortcut the legislative process in order to get
Federal financial aid to the cities hit by terrorism. We did that, and
no one complained that we moved too quickly. It

<

is quite another to press for the enactment of sweeping new powers for
law enforcement that directly affect the civil liberties of the
American people without due deliberation by the peoples' elected
representatives.

Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed at least to some extent, and
while this bill has been on a fast track, there has been time to make
some changes and reach agreement on a bill that is less objectionable
than the bill that the administration originally proposed.
 

...

As I will discuss in a moment, I have concluded that this bill still
does not strike the right balance between empowering law enforcement
and protecting civil liberties. But that does not mean that I oppose
everything in the bill. By no means. Indeed many of its provisions are
entirely reasonable, and I hope they will help law enforcement more
effectively counter the threat of terrorism.
 
...

For example, the original administration proposal contained a
provision that would have allowed the use in U.S. criminal proceedings
against U.S. citizens of information obtained by foreign law
enforcement agencies in wiretaps that would be illegal in this country.
In other words, evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search
overseas was to be allowed in a U.S. court.

Another provision would have broadened the criminal forfeiture laws
to permit--prior to conviction--the freezing of assets entirely
unrelated to an alleged crime. The Justice Department has wanted this
authority for years, and Congress has never been willing to give it.
For one thing, it touches on the right to counsel, since assets that
are frozen cannot be used to pay a lawyer. The courts have almost
uniformly rejected efforts to restrain assets before conviction unless
they are assets gained in the alleged criminal enterprise. This
proposal, in my view, was simply an effort on the part of the
Department to take advantage of the emergency situation and get
something that they've wanted to get for a long time.

As I have indicated, the foreign wiretap and criminal forfeiture
provisions were dropped from the bill that we considered in the Senate.
 
...

"So the bill before us is certainly improved from the bill that the
administration sent to us on September 19, and wanted us to pass on
September 21."

[DrFunkenstein]

9. Fantastic Post

Much better than my cheap vitriol.

I've never seen those statements before. It's a valuable resource.

[AP]

10. Here are the links:

This is the (last?) floor debate in the Senate:
http://www.cdt.org/security/011025senate.txt

Here's a list of links for the entire legislative history:
http://www.cdt.org/security/usapatriot/history.shtml

This was posted in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=354765#361204

[DrFunkenstein]

7. Actually, Pretty Much The Whole Senate Are Constitution-Haters

We needed more people like yourself in positions of responsibility.

BTW, didn't we all blast Bush for being a little flippant about the whole "evil" thing? Just a thought.

[Armstead]

11. But Kerry ultimately goes for Fast Track

Kudos to Kerry for trying to get through that amendment. But, ultimately he went for the easy way out and voted to needlessly give Bush (and all presidents) the fast track authirity. Just like he voted to give Bush war powers in Iraq vote, and went along with Media Deregulation in 1996, etc.

He talks a good game, but when the chips are down he folds and goes with the Corporare Elite Concensus.

Unless one is a total corporate free-trader there was absolutely no reason to vote for Fast Track.

[IrateCitizen]

12. Sorry, but Kerry and Edwards are much the same on trade

Attempts to portray either as somehow "progressive" on this issue are misinformed at best, disingenuous at worst.

The approach that both promote is the "nibbling around the edges" that ignores the root problems and instead concentrates on a few peripheral symptoms. As Armstead pointed out above, kudos to Kerry for proposing the amendment in the first place, but when push came to shove and his amendment was defeated, he STILL voted to enable corporate interests to ravage the public interest.

There's nothing "progressive" about that. Only one candidate in the race has a truly "progressive" stance on trade, and that candidate is Dennis Kucinich -- just for the fact that he states outright that our trade policy must be based on a clear respect and advocacy for democracy, the environment, and human rights. I may not agree with all of his specifics (I don't necessarily view immediate withdrawl from the WTO as a good idea), but he's the only one pointing at the root problem rather than denying its existence.

[Bombtrack]

13. Kerry wishes they were, they are not

Edwards voted against half a dozen agreements that Kerry supported. Edwards has always apposed NAFTA, Kerry voted for it.

Edwards is solidly on the left on trade, Kerry surely isn't

[IrateCitizen]

15. Edwards votes on trade policies:

Fast Track Trade Approval: YEA
China Permanent Normalized Trade Relations: YEA

These were the two biggest, furthest-reaching trade bills during Edwards' time in the Senate. Kucinich voted no on both of them. If Edwards were "solidly on the left on trade", he would have voted no on them as well.

And for the record, Edwards has not "always opposed NAFTA". If he did, he would be (like Dennis Kucinich) calling for a US withdrawl from it (as it cannot be amended unless all parties agree to the amendment, something that is highly unlikely to happen). He has repeatedly said that NAFTA just has to be "tweaked", and he fails to address any of the deep, underlying problems.

Look, I'm happy that at least Kerry and Edwards are just TALKING about some of the downsides of "free trade". This is something that most of us in the fair trade movement would have thought impossible a scant five years ago. But I'm of the same school of evaluating politicians as Molly Ivins -- if you want to know how a politician will behave in office, you do three things: look at the record, look at the record, and look at the record.

Both have rhetoric, but neither has much of a record on the issue. While I try to remain cautiously optimistic, I can't help but remain suspicious of them at the same time. Like I said before, there is only one person in the race whose RECORD shows him to be "solidly left on trade", and that person is Dennis Kucinich.

[Bombtrack]

16. First Edwards voted AGAINST the final passage of fast track

and second, NAFTA was arguably more important than China.

Edwards has always stressed fair balance for the worker and consumer, he hasn't pretended he was a protectionist. But he is much, much, further with the mainstream, if not, progressive left than Kerry is.

March 2 and 9th will be about who is better on what. On this issue, if you aren't a hard-free trade guy, edwards is better

[IrateCitizen]

18. The Senate Roll Call would suggest otherwise

Sen John Edwards voted YEA on the final passage of HR 3009, as amended.

See my post #17 below for details.

[AP]

20. see post 19.

[IrateCitizen]

22. See post 21. (nt)

[AP]

14. The NYT quote in post 8 suggests otherwise.

[IrateCitizen]

17. Well the Senate Roll Call would contradict the NYT quote...

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

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate


Vote Summary

Question: On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 3009, as amended )
Vote Number: 130 Vote Date: May 23, 2002, 08:13 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Bill Passed
Measure Number: H.R. 3009 (Trade Act of 2002 )
Measure Title: A bill to extend the Andean Trade Preference Act, to grant additional trade benefits under that Act, and for other purposes.
Vote Counts: YEAs 66
NAYs 30
Not Voting 4

Edwards (D-NC), Yea

The Senate Roll Call doesn't lie. Edwards voted in favor of Fast Track.

[AP]

19. Maybe that's not Fast Track, but it's this:

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

[IrateCitizen]

21. Nibbling around the edges

Once again, AP -- I am not criticizing any positive efforts by Kerry or Edwards on these trade bills -- but both of them have the "nibble around the edges" approach.

The final bill, while it might have provided for some "retraining credits" and the like, did nothing to address base labor or environmental standards. The end result is that corporate interests can STILL move to developing nations on the basis that there are NO labor nor environmental protections. On that basis, all the job retraining in the world won't do a bit of good to a 45-year old lifetime factory worker, because most jobs his/her skills might transfer over to are fleeing the US like rats from a sinking ship.

ON EDIT: What on earth do you mean, "Maybe that's not fast track, but this is"??? The bill I cited, HR3009 with amendments, WAS the "fast track" bill. I don't know what in the hell you're implying, other than saying that the bill and vote I cited are something entirely different from "fast track".

[AP]

23. Fast Track was passed by 3 votes in July '02, not by over 30 in March.

At 3:28 in the morning on July 27, 2002, in an extended voting session, the House passed the Trade Act of 2002 (H.R. 3009) by a slim 3-vote margin. On August 1st, the bill was passed in the Senate.

The Trade Act’s main provision was Fast Track negotiating authority, also known as Trade Promotion Authority (TPA). The Fast Track mechanism involves special procedures for the negotiation, consideration, and implementation of trade agreements. The U.S. Constitution gives Congress authority over setting the terms of international commerce, and the Executive branch jurisdiction over negotiations with foreign nations. Fast Track, however, delegates Congresses’ authority to the Executive branch so that the Administration is granted the power to negotiate trade agreements, draft implementing legislation to change U.S. law, and sign agreements into international law. Congress’s involvement is restricted to 20 hours of debate and an up or down vote on the final bill with no amendments allowed. Fast Track is an anomaly in terms of legislative procedure in which Congress generally goes through a multi-step process of writing, debating, and amending legislation.

http://www.citizenstrade.org/tpa.php

[IrateCitizen]

24. Wrong again, AP

What you are referring to are the joint resolutions AFTER the conference committee. The initial fast track vote passed the House not by 3 votes, but by one. I remember this specifically because I was so incensed at my Representative for flip-flopping on this issue after I met with her personally on it, that I went running for about an hour and fifteen minutes rather than punch a hole in my wall.

The vote after conference committee was by 3 votes because Rep. Ben Gilman (R-NY) switched from a NAY to YEA.

The vote I have pointed out was taken on May 23, 2002 -- and was the INITIAL Senate vote on passage prior to being sent to conference committee.

[AP]

26. So you're admitting it's not the bill that passed in March?

[IrateCitizen]

27. WTF are you talking about????

The link I provided you was to the vote on the SENATE version of the HOUSE bill, which took place on May 23, 2002. The link I initially gave you points that out clearly. I don't know what game you're playing here other than trying to confuse the issue rather than address the fact head-on that John Edwards voted to APPROVE fast track trade promotion authority.

[AP]

29. See post 28. August 1st vote was the vote on final version &

Edwards voted NO.

[AP]

25. Some info about the July 27 bill (including Edwards's NO vote)

H.R.3009

Title: To extend the Andean Trade Preference Act, to grant additional trade benefits under that Act, and for other purposes.

Sponsor: Rep Crane, Philip M. (introduced 10/3/2001)      Cosponsors: 21
Related Bills: H.RES.289, H.RES.450, H.RES.509, H.R.3005, H.R.3008, H.R.3010, H.R.3129, S.525, S.2485

Latest Major Action: 8/6/2002 Became Public Law No: 107-210.

Note: H.R. 3009 was enacted as the Trade Act of 2002, covering trade adjustment assistance (TAA), trade promotion authority (fast-track procedures), Andean trade preferences, and other trade provisions. As passed House, H.R. 3009 covered Andean trade provisions. S. 525 and S. 2485 were similar bills on Andean trade. The Senate agreed to S.Amdt. 3401, a broader trade legislation package, as a substitute amendment to H.R. 3009 on 5/23/2002. On 6/26/2002, the House agreed to the Senate amendment with an amendment pursuant to H. Res. 450. Differences were resolved at the conference level. As enacted, H.R. 3009 incorporated provisions from H.R. 3005, H.R. 3008, H.R. 3010, and H.R. 3

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

[AP]

28. Here's Edwards's NO vote on the conference report & final bill (8/1):

Final bill:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00203

Conference Report:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00207

And here's the timeline on the bill:

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

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.

[AP]

30. Notice that Kerry voted yes on the final version.

[IrateCitizen]

34. Fine, he voted against the final version.

And I'm aware that the House stripped several of the Senate provisions out in conference committee. Still, the fact remains that the INITIAL version had no specific protections for labor and the environment as NEGOTIATING OBJECTIVES, and that Edwards' position on this can hardly be portrayed as a "solidly left" position on trade.

IOW, I stand by my overall assertion, based on his support of the initial bill. That wasn't undone because of his opposition to the final bill.

[IrateCitizen]

31. What information???

The link you posted was dead, unlike the link that I posted which went directly to the final Senate vote on the bill before it went into conference committee. All you've provided me is a lot of obfuscation with a few press releases.

Why should I even bother, anyway? Since John Edwards has clearly been your chosen candidate, I'm doing nothing but screaming into the wind on this, trying to point out the disconnect between his record on trade and his rhetoric. Your affection for your candidate has blinded your eyes to this harsh reality.

[AP]

32. Post 28 contains the links which dismiss your claims.

[AP]

33. If you delete the space after 3009 and ":" in the link, you can reach the

page.