FINAL CAFTA VOTE ROLL CALL - How did your Congressman Vote?

CongressionalRecord ^

[Happy2BMe]

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 443(Republicans in roman; Democrats in italic; Independents underlined)
      H R 3045      RECORDED VOTE      28-Jul-2005      12:03 AM
      QUESTION:  On Passage
      BILL TITLE: Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

	Ayes	Noes	PRES	NV
Republican	202	27		2
Democratic	15	187
Independent		1
TOTALS	217	215		2

---- AYES    217 ---

Aderholt Akin Alexander Bachus Baker Barrett (SC) Bartlett (MD) Barton (TX) Bass Bean Beauprez Biggert Bilirakis Bishop (UT) Blackburn Blunt Boehlert Boehner Bonilla Bonner Bono Boozman Bradley (NH) Brady (TX) Brown (SC) Brown-Waite, Ginny Burgess Burton (IN) Buyer Calvert Camp Cannon Cantor Carter Castle Chabot Chocola Cole (OK) Conaway Cooper Cox Crenshaw Cuellar Culberson Cunningham Davis (KY) Davis, Tom Deal (GA) DeLay Dent Diaz-Balart, L. Diaz-Balart, M. Dicks Doolittle Drake Dreier Duncan Ehlers Emerson English (PA) Everett Feeney Ferguson Fitzpatrick (PA) Flake Foley Forbes Fortenberry Fossella Franks (AZ) Frelinghuysen Gallegly Gerlach

Gibbons Gilchrest Gillmor Gingrey Gohmert Goodlatte Granger Graves Green (WI) Hall Harris Hart Hastert Hastings (WA) Hayes Hayworth Hefley Hensarling Herger Hinojosa Hobson Hoekstra Hulshof Hyde Inglis (SC) Issa Istook Jefferson Jenkins Johnson (CT) Johnson (IL) Johnson, Sam Keller Kelly Kennedy (MN) King (IA) King (NY) Kingston Kirk Kline Knollenberg Kolbe Kuhl (NY) LaHood Latham LaTourette Leach Lewis (CA) Lewis (KY) Linder Lucas Lungren, Daniel E. Manzullo Marchant Matheson McCaul (TX) McCrery McKeon McMorris Meeks (NY) Mica Miller (FL) Miller, Gary Moore (KS) Moran (KS) Moran (VA) Murphy Musgrave Myrick Neugebauer Northup Nunes Nussle

Ortiz Osborne Oxley Pearce Pence Peterson (PA) Petri Pickering Pitts Platts Poe Pombo Porter Price (GA) Pryce (OH) Putnam Radanovich Ramstad Regula Reichert Renzi Reynolds Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rogers (MI) Rohrabacher Ros-Lehtinen Royce Ryan (WI) Ryun (KS) Saxton Schwarz (MI) Sensenbrenner Sessions Shadegg Shaw Shays Sherwood Shimkus Shuster Skelton Smith (TX) Snyder Sodrel Souder Stearns Sullivan Sweeney Tanner Terry Thomas Thornberry Tiahrt Tiberi Towns Turner Upton Walden (OR) Walsh Wamp Weldon (FL) Weldon (PA) Weller Westmoreland Whitfield Wicker Wilson (NM) Wilson (SC) Wolf Young (AK) Young (FL)

---- NOES    215 ---

Abercrombie Ackerman Allen Andrews Baca Baird Baldwin Barrow Becerra Berkley Berman Berry Bishop (GA) Bishop (NY) Blumenauer Boren Boswell Boucher Boustany Boyd Brady (PA) Brown (OH) Brown, Corrine Butterfield Capito Capps Capuano Cardin Cardoza Carnahan Carson Case Chandler Clay Cleaver Clyburn Coble Conyers Costa Costello Cramer Crowley Cubin Cummings Davis (AL) Davis (CA) Davis (FL) Davis (IL) Davis (TN) DeFazio DeGette Delahunt DeLauro Dingell Doggett Doyle Edwards Emanuel Engel Eshoo Etheridge Evans Farr Fattah Filner Ford Foxx Frank (MA) Garrett (NJ) Gonzalez Goode Gordon

Green, Al Green, Gene Grijalva Gutierrez Gutknecht Harman Hastings (FL) Herseth Higgins Hinchey Holden Holt Honda Hooley Hostettler Hoyer Hunter Inslee Israel Jackson (IL) Jackson-Lee (TX) Jindal Johnson, E. B. Jones (NC) Jones (OH) Kanjorski Kaptur Kennedy (RI) Kildee Kilpatrick (MI) Kind Kucinich Langevin Lantos Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Lee Levin Lewis (GA) Lipinski LoBiondo Lofgren, Zoe Lowey Lynch Mack Maloney Markey Marshall Matsui McCarthy McCollum (MN) McCotter McDermott McGovern McHenry McHugh McIntyre McKinney McNulty Meehan Meek (FL) Melancon Menendez Michaud Millender-McDonald Miller (MI) Miller (NC) Miller, George Mollohan Moore (WI) Murtha Nadler

Napolitano Neal (MA) Ney Norwood Oberstar Obey Olver Otter Owens Pallone Pascrell Pastor Paul Payne Pelosi Peterson (MN) Pomeroy Price (NC) Rahall Rangel Rehberg Reyes Ross Rothman Roybal-Allard Ruppersberger Rush Ryan (OH) Sabo Salazar Sánchez, Linda T. Sanchez, Loretta Sanders Schakowsky Schiff Schwartz (PA) Scott (GA) Scott (VA) Serrano Sherman Simmons Simpson Slaughter Smith (NJ) Smith (WA) Solis Spratt Stark Strickland Stupak Tancredo Tauscher Taylor (MS) Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Tierney Udall (CO) Udall (NM) Van Hollen Velázquez Visclosky Wasserman Schultz Waters Watson Watt Waxman Weiner Wexler Woolsey Wu Wynn

---- NOT VOTING    2 ---

Davis, Jo Ann

Taylor (NC)

---

[Tulane]

Yes and sometimes NATO places american soldiers under the command of foreign generals. It is a stretch (to say the least) to state this is unconstitutional.

[Egon]

If you can name a single instance in which a company or an nation was able to implement this kind of strategy successfully, I'd love to hear about it.

It's happening as we speak with the IT industry. I am aware of a quickly growing number of acquaintances that have left the industry because they can't get hired. The IT shops I've been in are about 40% Indian consultants, and growing. The displaced people are not finding more satisfying careers in more glamorous industries, either. They're retiring, at least for now, or finding TSA jobs, etc.

I don't think it's necessarily a conscious strategy on the part of India to subvert this industry, it's just having the effect of dumping their product on us.

"Dumping" never works because the producer that dumps his product on the market can never raise prices high enough to adequately cover his prior losses.

In general, this is true. But when the producer isn't negatively affected by the fact that his prices are so much lower than his competition, he isn't actually taking any losses, and therefore doesn't have to worry about adequately covering anything.

A uniform standard of living in any closed system results in a stagnant economy -- because it makes no sense to hire someone to do something unless it is cheaper for them to do it than for you to do it.

Right, which is what economies tend to do over time: they seek a balance. Uur standard of living is better, India's is worse. Ours is being dragged lower, theirs is increasing. Nothing wrong with that as long as it's a voluntary process on the part of the better economy.

Our standard of living has become so high in this era of free trade that a personal computer more complex than anything NASA or the U.S. Defense Department used prior to the mid-1980s has become almost as common in U.S. homes as a toaster.

That's just my point. We're not in a period of free trade. True, outsourcing our technology sector has made it possible to see inexpensive products. In the long run, though, we're outsourcing our ability to make products like that, and as we lose the ability, the price of the products will increase.

[jpsb]

China, India, Russia and to a lesser extent Japan are all protectionist states and doing very nicely. The USA until about 30 years ago was a protectionist state and behind protectionist walls built the greatest economy the world has ever seen, now after adopting so called free trade with is not free trade, we are a mere shadow of the economy we once were. We are no longer able maintain shipbuilding, no longer able to maintain steel making, no longer able to maintain auto making, no longer able to maintain textile production, furiture making, etc, etc, etc. We can no longer afford and are no longer capabile of eductioning our childre, wifes can no longer afford to be home makers, we no longer have the skills to be machine makers, engineers are flipping burgers. Yup free trade sure is great.

Also CAFTA gives control of our trade policy to WTO, Congree is not longer in change of trade policy, that was wht the CAFTA vote was really all about, another brick in the globalist wall, can't wait for international law to insist on arms registration in the usa, yall free traders are gonna really hear from us then.

[Egon]

The Constitution was written to protect individual rights, you understand that, don't you?

All your arguments boil down to protecting "businesses".

Read Article I. Section 8 of the Constitution...

"...provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;..."

"...To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;..."

My arguments aren't about protecting businesses. I could care squat (in this context) about individual businesses. I'm talking about entire industry segments and about the country's economy as a whole.

That does figure directly into the Constitution for the very fact that it eventually effects the individual whom the Constitution is protecting.

[jpsb]

Real simple little one, farmers have to sell their crop to pay thier bills, if prices drop to the point where they can not pay thier bills they go broke, there crop goes bad and they lose the ability to survive. Since survival is a strong instinct the men will look for a way to keep their families fed, and head to the usa or Mexico City or just about any place they think will allow them and thier families to survive.

Once again you have managed to impress me with your great knownledge on the issues of trade and immigration and jobs.

[TheSpottedOwl]

As an international businessman, I am appaled at the ignorance, naivete, and obtusness of many of my fellow Americans. Asia is kicking our a$$ from Malaysia to Singapore, to China. Americans just don't travel very much and fall easy prey to propaganda out of DC. We have been screwed on every "so called" free trade agreement we entered into.

I may not know much, but I do know that someone wants to turn this country into a third world shithole. We have people chanting the mantra of 5% unemployment. Hehehe, if they only knew. People have told me that these figures are gathered by phone calls! Actually these figures are derived from the Unemployment rolls. You exhaust your benefits, drop off the rolls, and therefore no longer count as being unemployed. I know enough unemployed/underemployed people.

The koolaid drinking ostriches simply will not admit that we're being conned. Right now they're safe. They have no problem buying China's goods, and championing the notion that this is good for our economy. China has been our sworn enemy long before radical Islam reared its ugly head.

I have a personal distaste for buying merchandise made by prisoners, or children getting paid 30 cents an hour. Now watch someone chime in on how much the same article would cost if made in America. People didn't have a problem buying American made goods made by Americans, because we didn't have the socialist manipulations of our economy to the extent that we have today. There simply isn't that much being produced in America these days, so why bother comparing?

Of course our greedy overlords whine about the "underground economy". Would that be handcrafting candles and whatnot, and selling the product at a swapmeet? I know a couple of people who adapted(went back to school) after their jobs were shipped off, only to find that age discrimination is practiced everywhere.

I'm starting to think that that cheeseball movie, "Red Dawn", isn't that far off the mark...

[Syds Dad]

Boy, my question went right over your head didn't it.. You really are thick.

I even highlighted the important words for you, but even you seemed unable to grasp it.

[jpsb]

"but even you seemed unable to grasp it. "

Your implication that Mexican farmers should just eat thier crops and be happy was too stupid to respond too. As are you, bye bye.

[Syds Dad]

I'll help you out, since you really are as thick as milkshake.


FIND SOMETHING ELSE TO DO PEDRO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Tulane]

Japan is not doing nicely...if you had invested money there over the last ten years your return would be about zero. Russia, China and India are either former communist or socialist regimes...gee I wonder why their embrace of markets is working.

[Alberta's Child]

As far as usurping the rights of U.S. citizens is concerned, CAFTA is the very least of our troubles.

[Dan from Michigan]

What I really don't get is that one of his aides was at the county EC meeting last night and I could have sworn she said he'd be voting against it

That's different that I heard in the papers a couple of aids back.

I know he told the Argus(or some paper) he was backing it awhile back so I wasn't surprised by his vote, but I was still unhappy with it.

[Dat Mon]

YOU SAID..."Nice strawman...the ratification of CAFTA has nothing to do with the US government's refusal to enforce trade laws against China."

Good point of discussion....enforcement

Consider a country with MFN trading status...such as China. How do we normally enforce our trade agreements with that country...and why have we not done so with China?

Now move over to CAFTA...and contrast the enforcement provisions of this agreement. How does a multilateral agreement such as CAFTA differ from a MFN agreement in terms of enforcement...who..what..how..why...etc.

[Alberta's Child]

I don't think it's necessarily a conscious strategy on the part of India to subvert this industry, it's just having the effect of dumping their product on us.

What "product" are you talking about?

But when the producer isn't negatively affected by the fact that his prices are so much lower than his competition, he isn't actually taking any losses, and therefore doesn't have to worry about adequately covering anything.

OK, so that makes sense. I was a little confused about your previous post because what you describe here is not "dumping" in the strict sense of the word. There's a big difference between selling something for a lot less than your competitors and "dumping" your product in your competitors' markets (the word "dumping" implies that the producer is selling at a loss).

Right, which is what economies tend to do over time: they seek a balance. Uur standard of living is better, India's is worse. Ours is being dragged lower, theirs is increasing. Nothing wrong with that as long as it's a voluntary process on the part of the better economy.

This is where I think a lot of people go wrong on this topic. It's not a matter of whether this is "right" or "wrong" at all -- because there is a certain inevitability about it, in the same way that rain always falls downward, and the sun always rises in the east. The basic principles of economics dictate that it's impossible to maintain a high standard of living in a stagnant economic environment (which is precisely why Europe is rapidly sliding into oblivion right now).

. . . we're outsourcing our ability to make products like that, and as we lose the ability, the price of the products will increase.

Again -- can you think of a particular product or service that has grown more expensive over time as a result of this process? It's actually the exact opposite: In the United States today, the two sectors of the economy where costs are rising fastest are those (education and health care) that are almost immune to "outsourcing" just because of their hands-on nature.

[hedgetrimmer]

Read Article I. Section 8 of the Constitution... "...provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;..."


What is looks like is that through international trade agreements, that the federal government is providing for the welfare of business that trade internationally (whether they are based in the US or not), and they do not protect the welfare of the individual or the state, because it is the individual and the state being made to pay for federal government policies through job losses, and loss of economic bases state wide.

The Endangered Species Act operates in the same way, the federal goverment decides that it is best for the nation if a salamander is protected, but it is the individual on whose property the salamander is found that has to bear the cost of the federal government decision. This is inherently unconstitutional, in that the whole of the society must bear the cost of the federal governments policies(equal justice), not just the individual.

In the case of "free trade" the federal government is once again, forcing the cost of "globalization" on private individuals even though Americans as a society have not concluded as a whole, that they even want gobalization.

"Free trade" is another avenue of federal government overstepping authority and denying individuals their rightful protections.

[hedgetrimmer]

It is part of the chain of treaties and agreements that will eventually all lead to the same end. Shall we stop it at CAFTA or continue to let it progress?

[Alberta's Child]

What "end" are you talking about?

[jayef]

Woefully misguided analogy.

[TheSpottedOwl]

As a small manufacturer of 24 employees servicing other companies in 2002 we are now a company of 4 employees. We couldn't compete with $0.38 to $0.72 (we pay more than that in taxes) per hour wages from China, Africa and South America. The remaining companies that we worked for have already sent that machinery to China and So. America. Guess where all the jobs have gone. Then in the great wisdom of our government we decided to help the less than fortunate to get them off welfare. This group is supposed to be self sufficient.....No way; they pay their people minimum wage, under cut the private sector wages by 60-70% and collect our taxes to subsidize this jobs for the poor all the while creating more joblessness of willing to work individuals.....

Thank you Cafta; we have just been advised that one of our customers is going to So. America to manufacture some additional items they kept in the states.........Everything is just fine....The trans national companies will do well. By the way, our state just awarded a contract for prison wear ($300,00.00) to an importing shell company that undercut a local company by $100,000.00..State says sorry; it's cheap. And why? Try to operate a manufacturing business in the US with all the taxes, rules, regulations etc. For those in office land you have no idea what is required out here in the real world.

First of all, I'm very sorry to hear what happened to your business. America's economic backbone was built on private enterprise. These days you'd have to be a fool to attempt it. The taxes, rules, and regulations guarantee that you will barely make it. Compound that with your customers going outside the US to save a few bucks...

[B4Ranch]

"the damn tariff is still there.
"

Start smiling because when CAFTA is accepted by all member states (that's what the UN calls nations and that is the terminology in the document) it will go poof and disappear.