On the 9th of June, a bill came to the floor of the House which called for the withdrawal of the U.S. from the WTO.

Of course, the bill did not pass, but the sponsors / cosponsors had no illusions that it would pass... The point was to have a discussion and to force the other Reps to go on record for their support of the WTO...

With that mind, here's the roll call for H J RES 27.
http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp ... number=239

..86 yeas,
338 nays,
....1 present,
....8 not voting

The sponsor was :
I - [VT -1] Rep Sanders, Bernie

The cosponsors were :
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z ... 00027:@@@P
D - [OR -4] Rep DeFazio, Pete
R - [TN -2] Rep Duncan, John
D - [AZ -7] Rep Grijalva, Raul
R - [IN -8] Rep Hostettler, John
R - [NC -3] Rep Jones, Walter
D - [OH-10] Rep Kucinich, Dennis
R - [TX-14] Rep Paul, Ron
R - [WI -5] Rep Sensenbrenner, James
D - [MI -1] Rep Stupak, Bart
R - [CO -6] Rep Tancredo, Tom

Here's a link to write your rep, if the spirit moves you.
http://www.house.gov/writerep/

As shown above, there were 86 yeas out of 433 possible... This represents exactly 20% of the U.S. House.

Not all those who voted with the "nays" are globalists... In fact, many reps who voted "nay" are strongly anti-globalism / pro-American... (I know from looking at their overall, voting records.) I imagine there's a lot of pressure from the party leadership to vote "nay" and so they do, if they feel there's not enough genuine support to have a realistic chance of passing.

Still, it's interesting to see how the reps vote, and which ones are willing to stick their neck out for our democracy.

http://www.fiscalstudy.com/2005-global- ... om-wto.php
U.S. law gives lawmakers the opportunity to vote on WTO membership every five years. Thursday's vote was the second time the House has rejected a withdrawal resolution since the WTO was formed 10 years ago.

http://www.c-span.org/capitolspotlight/archive.asp
Despite Trade Complaints, House Rejects WTO Withdrawal
As expected, the House today rejected a resolution to end U.S. participation in the World Trade Organization (WTO). But members made clear they are increasingly uneasy about U.S. trade policy. The vote was 86-338, with one member voting "present." The "yes" votes were fairly evenly split: 39 Republicans, 46 Democrats and one independent. The Senate will not vote now that the House has rejected the proposal.

Congress is required to vote every five years on whether the United States should remain a member of the global body. When the resolution came up in 2000, it was rejected by a vote of 56-363. Supporters of this year's withdrawal resolution (H J Res 27) argued that free trade agreements have contributed to a loss of American jobs, particularly in the manufacturing sector, and that membership in the WTO has done nothing to stem the outsourcing of jobs overseas. But lawmakers arguing in favor of maintaining membership said the benefits of lower tariffs and access to foreign markets outweigh the downsides.

WTO Resolution Offers Warmup for CAFTA Debate
House members began warming up today for a bruising battle over the Central America Free Trade Agreement as they debated rules for consideration of a resolution that would end U.S. participation in the World Trade Organization. Although CAFTA was not before the chamber, it was on everyone's mind. "We should not confuse the debate today on WTO membership with the upcoming debate on CAFTA," declared Doris Matsui, D-Calif. Matsui said that while the WTO "needs to be improved, that can only be done if we remain active participants." She criticized CAFTA, but said, "That is another debate."

Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., one of the sponsors of the WTO withdrawal resolution (H J Res 27), which will be taken up Thursday, said recent trade policies have been a disaster for the American middle class. "It is high time we take a tough look at our trade policies and our participation in the WTO," he said. "The American middle class is collapsing and poverty is increasing."

http://www.hsconnect.com/news/story/061 ... 061005.asp
Strickland [D, Ohio-6] said, "The economic course our nation takes should be set by those of us who are elected to represent the people, not by a secretive, unelected group of international bureaucrats.

"The United States will continue to see its sovereignty erode at the hands of the WTO until our communities and our nation can no longer make decisions in their own best interests."
...
Strickland said, "The American people and their elected representatives should have the right to determine the level of environmental and food safety standards that they feel are appropriate. These standards should not be subject to challenge through the WTO by other countries with weaker standards, or by companies that seek to save a penny by weakening our standards."
...
"What we have now is an organization which is used to bring down labor and environmental standards in the U.S. rather than lifting the world up to our standard of living," Strickland said.

"America's manufacturing industries and tech industries are hemorrhaging jobs," Ney [R, Ohio-18] said. "It is absolutely crucial that we address this issue before our nation's industries are in a deeper crisis. The WTO rules have made American jobs our No. 1 export."
...
The 1994 legislation authorizing U.S. entry in the WTO requires the president submit a report on the costs and benefits of membership every five years. At that time, any member of either house of Congress can introduce a resolution seeking withdrawal of congressional approval.