Thread: CAFTA SELLOUT

N.C. votes, and a nonvote, crucial to CAFTA
Political pressure from administration finally held sway, giving bill a 217-215 win
By Mary M. Shaffrey
JOURNAL WASHINGTON BUREAU
Friday, July 29, 2005


WASHINGTON

Two N.C. Republicans took heat yesterday after the U.S. House of Representatives narrowly approved the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

Rep. Robin Hayes, R-8th, spent the day defending his decision to switch his "no" vote to a "yes" on the House floor late Wednesday night. And Rep. Charles Taylor, R-11th, said he voted no, but it was not recorded because of a computer malfunction.

Hayes said he changed his vote after Republican leaders reassured him on specific textile provisions and trade-related issues with China. It proved to be decisive. CAFTA passed 217-215.

"Leadership said to me, 'We need this vote and we'll do whatever it takes,'" Hayes said in a phone interview yesterday afternoon.

Democrats were quick to attack him for "flip-flopping" on CAFTA.

It is not the first time Hayes has had a last-minute change of heart on a trade bill. He cast a similarly decisive vote in 2001, when he went onto the floor opposed to President Bush's request for Trade Promotion Authority but was persuaded to switch.

Rep. Charles Taylor, R-11th, said yesterday that he voted "no" to CAFTA alongside Rep. Howard Coble, R-6th. But Taylor's vote never registered, and the final roll-call vote has him as not having voted at all.

Democrats accused Taylor of ducking the important vote. He blamed a computer malfunction.

"Due to an error, my 'no' vote did not record on the voting machine. The clerk's computer logs verified that I had attempted to vote, but it did not show my 'nay' vote," Taylor said in a statement posted on his Web site yesterday afternoon.

Had Taylor's vote been recorded, and had Hayes had not switched, the bill would have failed on a 216-216 tie.

CAFTA eliminates tariffs on U.S. products going to Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua. Almost 80 percent of the products entering the United States from those countries are currently duty-free because of legislation passed in the 1980s to help them with democracy efforts.

Passage of the bill was a key priority for President Bush. He visited Capitol Hill on Wednesday morning, and Vice President Cheney was there Wednesday night.

House leaders kept the vote open nearly an hour - when it was scheduled to last just 15 minutes - in an effort to convince wavering members. The bill passed shortly after midnight.

Rob Portman, the U.S. trade representative and a former Republican member of Congress, was there, too. He stood outside the chamber until the vote was official. The House gallery, which is normally empty at 12:02 a.m., was crowded with spectators on both sides of the issue.

Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-5th, bucked pressure from the White House to vote against the bill.

"I was asked by a variety of people to change my vote, but I couldn't do that. I told them I was sorry," Foxx said.

Both Foxx and Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-10th, said they were sticking with promises to vote against CAFTA. Both thought it was a raw deal.

"Pressure is all a part of politics," McHenry said. "I want people to know when I pledge something, I do it."

Neither said he was worried about political fallout from the vote.

Ferrell Guillory, the director of the Program on Southern Politics, Media and the Public Life at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said that it is unlikely Democrats will use the vote as a campaign issue because of their near-unanimous opposition to it.

The White House was the real loser, Guillory said, because Bush had to spend so much political capital in order to get the deal passed. Also, because of the demographics of the districts, Republican leaders would find it hard to hold representatives' votes against them, he said.

"I can't imagine that the White House is going to take retribution against these folks because they are going to need them for other votes this year," Guillory said.

However, Hayes' situation is a little different, Guillory said. Because Hayes did something similar four years ago, a well-financed Democratic challenger might successfully make an issue of it, he said.

But Guillory noted that Hayes has the power of incumbency behind him, and Democrats have tried before and failed to unseat him. However, were it ever going to happen, 2006 would be the year, Guillory said.

"You won't have a presidential election or statewide election, which always helps Republican turnout, so this would be the year," he said. "But he's a longtime incumbent and he's a part of the fabric of that district, so he has advantages and its very hard to beat an incumbent."

For his part, Hayes is not worried. "I don't have to be here," he said. "I am here because it gives me an opportunity to do some good for the folks back home."

If Democrats try to use his vote against him, they are playing politics. "At the end of the day, my record is very clear," he said.

Hayes said he got the best deal early yesterday morning for his constituents and that's why he switched. In exchange for his vote, House leaders pledged, among other things, to make sure that certain Asian-made products would not be eligible for duty-free status under CAFTA.

Also, trouser manufacturers in Nicaragua would be required to increase their importation of American fabric by as much as 200 percent.

Last-minute calls from local business leaders encouraging him to support the deal helped as well, he said.

Joe Gorga, the chief executive of International Textile Group in Greensboro, spoke with Hayes on Wednesday and was happy the congressman had changed his mind. "This was a real tough vote for him," said Gorga, who did not offer specifics about his conversation.

The Senate again approved CAFTA yesterday by a vote of 56-44, clearing the way for implementation of the accord. It first approved the bill on June 30 but was required to vote again because of a procedural rule.

• Mary M. Shaffrey can be reached in Washington at (202) 662-7672 or at mshaffrey@wsjournal.com

This story can be found at: http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?

Once again, I tried to contact Congressman Robin Hayes to raise hell but he is one of the ones who has his contact options through the House of Representatives site and it won't let you contact anyone except your own representatives.

This man needs not only to be ousted from office but he needs to be LYNCHED. OF ALL PLACES for a representative to sell out, the district he represents includes Kannapolis where they lost THOUSANDS of Cannon Mill jobs. Kannapolis has become a ghost town because of the loss of all those jobs and, for this representative to vote for a "free" trade bill that will effect textile jobs is INEXCUSABLE. I hope the people in his district, IF there are any people LEFT, rise up and IMPEACH him.

http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/st ... 3521c.html

Story from Raleigh News & Observer.

"I am flat-out, completely, horizontally opposed to CAFTA," Hayes said earlier this month. "It's not in the best interests of the core constituency I represent," he said another time. "Every time I drive through Kannapolis and I see those empty plants, I know there is no way I could vote for CAFTA," he said on a third occasion.

Hayes, an heir to one of North Carolina's great textile fortunes and a former GOP nominee for governor, said he voted for CAFTA after wringing concessions from the administration to achieve tougher regulation of textile imports and a stronger negotiating stance on trade issues with China.

He sold out

I just looked at the voting records of reps Hayes, JoAnn Davis and Taylor. Hayes being the one who switched votes and Taylor and Davis being no votes. All three have immigration reduction grades of A+. I have a question here. Tell me what you think. If they are bad on trade, but perfect on immigration reduction, would it still be worth it to go after them in an election? Would we just be merely cutting off our noses to spite our faces? Just asking some questions. Wouldn't it be more worth it to go after an open borders Republican who is consistently bad on these issues instead of going after Republicans who can still help us on the immigration front? Wouldn't it be more worth it to go after a guy like Jim Kolbe or a Chris Cannon who we all know is horrible on like every single issue and needs to be ousted from office immediately?

Just some legitimate questions I have. I'm looking forward to see what people have to say about that. Sure it would be sweet to oust all of them, but it aint gonna happen. I think we should focus on the ones who are the most vulnerable again like a Kolbe or a Cannon who are highly unpopular, went through a primary last year and are ripe to be ousted from office. I think it will only take getting rid of a few Rino's for these buffoons to get the message.

Again these people who have the immigration records of A+, but still sold out on CAFTA, let me be clear, I'm still furious about that so don't think I'm not, but should we just forgive them (but not forget) for this one offense and go after the reps who are a bigger problem and are of no help to us whatsoever? That's what I'm asking.

Hayes said he got the best deal early yesterday morning for his constituents and that's why he switched. In exchange for his vote, House leaders pledged, among other things, to make sure that certain Asian-made products would not be eligible for duty-free status under CAFTA.

Asian-made products in CAFTA, I thought this had to do with Central American FREE TRADE not AISIA. Does this mean that ASIAN MADE will go to Central America and then come in south of the Boarder? Yes it does. And why not, everything else comes in through the boarder.