Do you know where your U.S. representative stands on CAFTA?

[JGrubbs]

Where They Stand On CAFTA

Question: How do House members intend to vote on the
Central America Free Trade Agreement when it comes to the floor?


REPUBLICANS

Yes
Barton, Bass, Beauprez, Biggert, Blunt, Boehner, Bonilla, Bono, Bradley, Brady,
Burton, Calvert, Cannon, Cantor, Carter, Castle, Chocola, Cole, Conaway, Cox,
G. Davis, T. Davis, DeLay, L. Diaz-Balart, Doolittle, Drake, Dreier, Ferguson, Flake,
Fortenberry, Goodlatte, Harris, Hastert, Hastings, Hayworth, Hensarling, Herger,
yde, N. Johnson, S. Johnson, T. Johnson, Keller, Kennedy, S. King, Kirk, Kline,
Knollenberg, Kolbe, LaHood, Latham, R. Lewis, Linder, Lungren, Marchant, McCaul,
McCrery, McKeon, Myrick, Neugebauer, Northup, Nussle, Oxley, Pence, Pitts,
Porter, Pryce, Radanovich, Ramstad, Reichert, Ros-Lehtinen, Ryan, Ryun, Sessions,
Shaw, Shays, Shimkus, L. Smith, Thomas, Tiahrt, Weller, Westmoreland, Wicker
and H. Wilson. (83)

Leaning Yes
Akin, Boozman, Culberson, Cunningham, Dent, Gilchrest, Gohmert, Granger,
Istook, Leach, J. Lewis, Lucas, Pearce, Poe, Schwarz, Shadegg and Terry. (17)

No
Cubin, Foxx, Goode, Hunter, Jones, Kingston, LaTourette, McHenry, Norwood,
Otter, Paul, Rehberg, M. Rogers (Ala.), Simpson, Souder, Sullivan, Tancredo,
Taylor and J. Wilson. (19)

Leaning No
Aderholt, Barrett, bonner, Brown-Waite, Coble, Foley, Hayes, McCotter and
Simmons. (9)

Undecided
Bartlett, Bilirakis, Blackburn, Brown, Camp, Crenshaw, M. Diaz-Balart, Duncan,
Ehlers, Emerson, English, Everett, Feeney, Fitzpatrick, Forbes, Franks, Gerlach,
Gibbons, Gillmor, Gingrey, Green, Gutknecht, Hefley, Hobson, Hoekstra, Inglis,
Kuhl, Mack, McHugh, McMorris. G. Miller, J. Miller, Murphy, Musgrave, Osborne,
Petri, Pickering, Putnam, Rohrabacher, Sensenbrenner, Sodrel, Upton, Walden,
Walsh, C. Weldon, Wamp, Whitfield and D. Young. (48)

Declined to Answer
Buyer, Garrett, Issa, Nunes, Platts, Regula, Tibert, Turner and Wolf. (9)

No Response by Presstime
Alexander, Bachus, Baker, Bishop, Boehlert, Boustany, Bergess, Capito, Chabot,
J. Davis, Deal, Fosella, Frelinghuysen, Gallegly, Graves, Hall, Hart, Hostettler,
Hulshof, Jenkins, Jindal, Kelly, P. King, LoBiondo, Manzullo, Mica, C. Miller, Moran,
Ney, Peterson, Pombo, Price, Renzi, Reynolds, Rogers, Mike Rogers (Mich.),
Royce, Saxton, Sherwood, Shuster, C. Smith, Stearns, Sweeney, Thornberry,
D. Weldon and C.W. Young. (46)

DEMOCRATS

Yes
Cuellar, Dicks, Jefferson, Moran and Tanner. (5)

Leaning Yes
None. (0)

No
Abercrombie, Allen, Baird, Baldwin, Barrow, Becerra, Berry, Blumenauer, Boucher,
Brady, C. Brown, S. Brown, Capps, Capuano, Cardin, Cardoza, Carnahan, Case,
Cleaver, Costello, Crowley, Cummings, A. Davis, DeFazio, Delahunt, DeLauro,
Dingell, Doggett, Engle, Evans, Farr, Fattah, A. Green, Grijalva, Gutierrez, Harman,
Hastings, Herseth, Higgins, Hinchey, Holden, Holt, Honda, Hooley, Jackson,
Johnson, Jones, Kaptur, P. Kennedy, Kildee, Kind, Kucinich, Lantos, Larsen, Lee,
Levin, Lewis, Lynch, Maloney, Markey, Marshall, Matsui, McCollum, McDermott,
McGovern, McIntyre, McKinney, McNulty, Meehan, Meek, Melancon, Michaud,
G. Miller, Mollohan, G. Moore, Nadler, Napolitano, Neal, Oberstar, Obey, Olver,
Pallone, Pascrell, Pastor, Pelosi, Peterson, Pomeroy, Rahall, Rangel, Ross,
Roybal-Allard, Ryan, Sabo, Salazar, Linda Sanchez, Schakowsky, Schiff, Schwartz,
B. Scott, Serrano, Slaughter, Smith, Solis, Spratt, Stark, Strickland, Stupak,
Tauscher, Taylor, B. Thompson, Tierney, Towns, M. Udall, T. Udall, Van Hollen,
Visclosky, Woolsey, Weiner, Wexler and Wu. (121)

Leaning No
Ackerman, Baca, Berman, Boren, Butterfield, Carson, Clyburn, Langevin, McCarthy,
B. Miller, Payne, D. Price, Rothman, Loretta Sanchez, Watson and Watt. (16)

Undecided
Bean, Berkley, S. Bishop, T. bishop, Clay, Cooper, Costa, D. Davis, J. Davis,
L. Davis, S. Davis, Doyle, Edwards, Hinojosa, Inslee, Israel, Kilpatrick, Meeks,
D. Moore, J. Murtha, Ortiz and Snyder. (22)

Declined to Answer
Chandler, DeGette, Eshoo, Frank, Kanjorski, Lofgren, Lowey, Matheson, Menendez,
Reyes, D. Scott, Sherman, Skelton, M. Thompson, Wasserman Schultz and
Wynn. (16)

No Response by Presstime
Andrews, Boswell, Boyd, Conyers, Cramer, Emmanuel, Etheridge, Filner, Ford,
Gonzales, Gordon, Hoyer, Jackson Lee, Larson, Lipinski, Millender-McDonald,
Owens, Ruppersberger, Rush, Velazquez, Waters and Waxman. (22)

TOTALS
Yes/Leaning Yes: 105
No/Leaning No: 165
Undecided: 70
Declined to Answer/No Response: 93

Note: In addition to the partisan tallies above, the House's one independent, Rep.
Bernie Sanders of Vermont, plans to vote "no." Also, Ohio's 2nd district is vacant
due to the resignation of Republican Rep. Rob Portman to become U.S. trade
representative.

Source: National Journal/Congress Daily, Tuesday, July 19, 2005

 

[KenH]

My representative, Mike Ross, is in the "no" column.

 

[JGrubbs]

If your representative is against CAFTA, tell him "thank you, don't bend under pressure, I support you!" If he is for CAFTA, urge him to change his mind -- it is important you make it clear that you oppose CAFTA.

If your representative is undecided, convince him to vote against it and tell him no matter what payoff he might be offered, there is nothing worth the damage CAFTA will do to America.

CAFTA can be defeated in the U.S. House next week, but you must act. More than ever, what you do matters.

Send an E-mail message to your U.S. representative by going to http://capwiz.com/liberty/issues/alert/?alertid=7860311&type=CO

Then call your U.S. representative. The U.S. Capitol switchboard phone number is 202-224-3121 or use our directory at http://capwiz.com/liberty/dbq/officials/ .

Also, please spread the word. Share a copy of this message by forwarding http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/update07.21.05.htm

 

[KenH]

Looks like the pro-CAFTA forces have their work cut out for them on this one.

Thanks for the listing, Jonathan.

 

[JGrubbs]

I have contacted my Rep. both by email and phone, he is in the "No Response by Presstime" column right now, but I expect him to join the rest of his GOP buddies in their attempts to pass this false trade agreement that will help destroy our Constitutional Republic!

 

[JGrubbs]

Help Save American Jobs and Independence by Stopping CAFTA!

Please join our nationwide movement to STOP Congress from approving the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA).

Although the immediate threat posed by CAFTA is job losses, the most important reason to oppose CAFTA is that it would be a steppingstone to the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). Congressional approval of the FTAA would spell the end of U.S. Independence and our American way of life.

Therefore STOP CAFTA! is a key part of our long-term STOP the FTAA! campaign. Stopping Congress from approving CAFTA this year would likely end any chances for congressional approval of the FTAA any time soon.

http://www.stopcafta.com/

 

[JamesBell]

My Rep is leaning yes on the issue. I plan to urge him to put his name fully under yes. CAFTA will do far less to hurt our economy that people are pretending. It will hurt Mexico, as jobs that have left the US for Mexico will not continue to move to cheaper markets. But, most of the jobs that will be outsources already have been.

I know the view won't be popular here, and I am not trying to change anyone's mind. Just though I would throw my two cents in.

 

[poncho]

"Do you know where your U.S. representative stands on CAFTA?"

It appears Randy Kuhl is undecided about CAFTA. Apparently though he is in favor of the second amendment.

NY state Sen. Randy Kuhl (R) "pulled two shotguns on his wife at a dinner party in 1994 and threatened to shoot her, according to her divorce complaint." Kuhl and his ex-wife, Jennifer Kuhl-Peterson, issued a statement 10/15 calling the disclosure from the court-sealed papers "ugly politics." Steuben Co, NY, officials are investigating "the release of the papers by a courthouse employee to a person who requested them." In a news conference last week, the Kuhls "told reporters there was nothing incriminating" in the papers. Kuhl is running against ex-Hillary Clinton aide Samara Barend (D) for NY 29. "Her campaign has denied having anything to do with the divorce records" (AP, 10/15).
The release of the records "have Kuhl supporters pointing fingers" at Barend. But Dems are "defending" Barend's camp, "saying they had nothing to do with the leak." The papers were obtained 9/9 and later posted on www.rawstory.com. Chemung Co Dem Chair Cindy Emmer: "It isn't anything that the Democrats would on purpose try to get information on. But now that it has become public, it should have an impact" (Murray, Gannett/Ithaca Journal, 10/18).

Many local news organizations still refuse to cover the story. I've contacted them, and gotten a variety of responses, none of them any good. Especially when you consider that they have run Kuhl stories that blame Barend for the outing of the divorce records-- a totally unproven allegation.

SOURCE

 

[JGrubbs]

Republicans push for an early Cafta vote

The US Congress is poised to decide by the end of this month whether to approve a free trade pact with Central America, as Republican House leaders on Tuesday set a deadline for consideration of the deal.

Bill Thomas, chairman of the House ways and means committee, predicted the controversial agreement would pass in spite of nearly united opposition from House Democrats.

Source: Financial Times

 

[JGrubbs]

The Bush administration is doing as much as they can to put the pressure on the members of the House to support CAFTA, we need to keep the pressure on them to oppose it!!

Administration Trying to Build CAFTA Majority Vote by Vote

At a closed-door meeting of House Republicans yesterday, Rep. Bill Thomas (Calif.) sidled up to the lectern and hinted that the leadership might look more favorably on lawmakers' requests for highways and bridges if they vote for the Central American Free Trade Agreement, according to three GOP witnesses.

"Just to let you know, we're having some problems with the highway bill. It probably won't be finished until after the CAFTA vote," the deadly serious chairman of the Ways and Means Committee said to knowing laughter.

In the scope of trade deals, CAFTA is a minor economic matter, extending duty-free trading privileges to six Latin American countries whose combined economies are smaller than the Czech Republic's. But as a political fight, the deal has snowballed into a major showdown ahead of the final House vote next week.

"CAFTA has been given symbolic status by both sides that is well outside its true economic importance," said Rep. Phil English (R-Pa.), who opposed the agreement in the Ways and Means Committee, then promised to support it next week after securing a promised vote on China trade legislation. "But that does not mean it does not have enormous political significance," he said.

Both sides agree a CAFTA defeat would weaken President Bush's hand on the rest of his legislative agenda while casting a pall on looming trade negotiations with far greater significance: the hemispheric Free Trade Agreement of the Americas and the Doha round of global trade talks. The Senate recently approved CAFTA.

"Clearly a CAFTA defeat would have larger implications than just the agreement," said Matthew Niemeyer, assistant U.S. trade representative for congressional affairs. "And that's why we won't fail."

Bush has held eight meetings with House members, three with senators, and appeared at five dedicated CAFTA events, the latest scheduled for today at the Organization of American States. Since U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman took office 2 1/2 months ago, he has held about 100 meetings on and off Capitol Hill.

Source: The Washington Post

 

[JGrubbs]

CAFTA and Dietary Supplements

The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on the Central American Free Trade Agreement in the next two weeks, and one little-known provision of the agreement desperately needs to be exposed to public view. CAFTA, like the World Trade Organization, may serve as a forum for restricting or even banning dietary supplements in the U.S.

The Codex Alimentarius Commission, organized by the United Nations in the 1960s, is charged with “harmonizing” food and supplement rules between all nations of the world. Under Codex rules, even basic vitamins and minerals require a doctor’s prescription. The European Union already has adopted Codex-type regulations, regulations that will be in effect across Europe later this year. This raises concerns that the Europeans will challenge our relatively open market for health supplements in a WTO forum. This is hardly far-fetched, as Congress already has cravenly changed our tax laws to comply with a WTO order.

Like WTO, CAFTA increases the possibility that Codex regulations will be imposed on the American public. Section 6 of CAFTA discusses Codex as a regulatory standard for nations that join the agreement. If CAFTA has nothing to do with dietary supplements, as CAFTA supporters claim, why in the world does it specifically mention Codex?

Unquestionably there has been a slow but sustained effort to regulate dietary supplements on an international level. WTO and CAFTA are part of this effort. Passage of CAFTA does not mean your supplements will be outlawed immediately, but it will mean that another international trade body will have a say over whether American supplement regulations meet international standards. And make no mistake about it, those international standards are moving steadily toward the Codex regime and its draconian restrictions on health freedom. So the question is this: Does CAFTA, with its link to Codex, make it more likely or less likely that someday you will need a doctor’s prescription to buy even simple supplements like Vitamin C? The answer is clear. CAFTA means less freedom for you, and more control for bureaucrats who do not answer to American voters.

Pharmaceutical companies have spent billions of dollars trying to get Washington to regulate your dietary supplements like European governments do. So far, that effort has failed in America, in part because of a 1994 law called the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act. Big Pharma and the medical establishment hate this Act, because it allows consumers some measure of freedom to buy the supplements they want. Americans like this freedom, however-- especially the health conscious Baby Boomers.

This is why the drug companies support WTO and CAFTA. They see international trade agreements as a way to do an end run around American law and restrict supplements through international regulations.

The largely government-run health care establishment, including the nominally private pharmaceutical companies, want government to control the dietary supplement industry-- so that only they can manufacture and distribute supplements. If that happens, as it already is happening in Europe, the supplements you now take will be available only by prescription and at a much higher cost-- if they are available at all. This alone is sufficient reason for Congress to oppose the unconstitutional, sovereignty-destroying CAFTA bill.

Source: Ron Paul

 

[JGrubbs]

Bush urges CAFTA passage, calls it a jobs program

President Bush on Thursday cast the controversial trade pact with Central America as a "jobs program" that would help the United States and its neighbors better compete with Asian economies.

The U.S.-Central American Free Trade Agreement faces a critical vote next week in the House of Representatives, where some lawmakers fear it will lead to job losses in textile-producing states.

Source: Yahoo! News

 

[Rocko9]

I hope that John Boozman reconsiders his leaning and votes no. I am quite shocked that he is inclined to vote for CAFTA. Have just recently sent faxes to Boozeman and Lincoln and Bush.

 

[JGrubbs]

Alot of the Reps who were planning on voting against CAFTA have been bribed by the Bush administration to support it.

 

[LadyEagle]

Exactly, JGrubbs. They will fall into lockstep behind their Leader and the Lobbyists and ignore their constituents. Democrats and Republicans don't have an ounce of daylight between them (overall) when it comes to this issue or immigration.

And here is something amazing: We lost all kinds of jobs to Mexico during NAFTA for "cheaper" wages. And yet, Mexicans are unionizing in some cases, wanting collective bargaining, just like Americans once did. I think that is an ironic hoot.

 

[KenH]

If you look at the list at the top of this thread, LE, you will see a striking difference between Republicans and Democrats on CAFTA.

 

[KenH]

I have written my Congressman, Mike Ross, to help make sure he stays in the "no" column on CAFTA.

 

[JamesBell]

I wouldn't say they are ignoring their constituents. CAFTA opposition isn't really generating the public support that one would think, especially with the radio ads running often.

LadyEagle said:
And here is something amazing: We lost all kinds of jobs to Mexico during NAFTA for "cheaper" wages. And yet, Mexicans are unionizing in some cases, wanting collective bargaining, just like Americans once did. I think that is an ironic hoot.

That is my point. The US won't suffer from CAFTA, and it isn't intellectually honest to claim that we will. It is these jobs that will be moved. The jobs still in the US are pretty safe. Companies have already had the opportunity to leave for lower wages. If they're here, chances are that they're staying.

 

[JGrubbs]

Click Here to See Where They Stand on CAFTA as of July 26th