Okay, so fair enough, the CAFTA 15 and their Republican “brothers” are not yet feeling tremendous fallout from their votes. Or so says the piece below from Congressional Quarterly. Though it does make me wonder why they have to “shore up” their messages for 2006–me thinks that they protesteth too much…and if people like Robin Hayes, who really knuckled under at the stroke of midnight, has to use a quote from a CEO to argue he’s getting a lot of love, that sounds a bit thin since, Robin, it’s voters who are losing their jobs who will vote your ass out.
In particular, note comments from one of our favorite CAFTA 15 folks, Rep. Gregory Meeks, who was at the center of what we like to call here L’Affaire McKay. It is interesting that Rep. Edolphus Towns, another CAFTA 15 member from New York (yes, my lovely city accounts for 2 out of the 15, a serious embarassment), is keeping his head down…perhaps Mr. Towns feels a bit vulnerable given the rumors that there are at least one or two primary candidates in the wings?
CQ TODAY – TRADE
Aug. 19, 2005 – 3:10
Lawmakers Reporting No Immediate Political Backlash From Votes for CAFTA
By Stephen J. Norton, CQ Staff
The last-minute votes some House members cast in favor of the Central American Free Trade Agreement have not yet produced political fallout in their districts. But the lawmakers are shoring up their messages on the issue with an eye to the 2006 midterm elections.
Congressional approval of the accord with Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and a linked pact with the Dominican Republic, known as CAFTA (PL 109-53), was a priority of the administration. But to win House passage by a vote of 217-215 just after midnight July 28, the administration worked until the end, designing side deals to allay concerns of lawmakers on issues including sugar, textile imports and China’s trade practices.
The Senate cleared the implementing legislation the following day and President Bush signed it Aug. 2. Some House members who struggled with their decisions in the days, hours or even minutes before the vote ended said during the congressional recess they largely have been getting some credit from constituents for wrestling with the decision, rather than a backlash from opponents of the accord.
GOP Rep. Robin Hayes of North Carolina, a state in which thousands of textile jobs have been lost in recent years, and a scion of a family whose fortune came from textiles, switched his vote from “no” to “yes” during the hourlong vote on CAFTA.
After the CAFTA vote, he said he was satisfied with administration pledges to protect domestic textile makers by ensuring that China would not be allowed to exploit CAFTA. Hayes and other lawmakers wanted the administration to ensure that U.S.-made fabric, not fabric from China, would be used in duty-free apparel assembled in Central America.
Hayes said so far he has received support. On Aug. 8, Joseph L. Gorga, president and CEO of Burlington Industries (now International Textile Group), wrote an op-ed piece for the Fayetteville Observer backing Hayes.
“The negotiated requirements under CAFTA will give our domestic manufacturers a chance against the Chinese and other Asian countries that use virtually no U.S. content,” Gorga wrote.
Yet Hayes has been actively explaining his vote to constituents, eager to pre-empt charges of flip-flopping. “Obviously, it comes up everywhere we go,” said Hayes’ spokeswoman, Carolyn Hern. “And usually the response is pretty good. People say, ‘OK, I get it now.’ ”
For example, Hayes called laid-off textile workers interviewed on a local TV station and invited them to breakfast Aug. 10.
With the aim of protecting more junior members of their party from re-election challenges in 2006, House GOP leadership pressed some members from perceived “safer” districts, like Hayes, to vote in favor of CAFTA.
Hayes won his seat with 55.5 percent of the vote in 2004.
Just the same, Hern said Hayes must continue to explain his vote. “We have a tough race every year,” Hern said.
Another issue that dominated the debate was the additional sugar imports that CAFTA will allow. Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., whose district is home to small cane producers, decided to vote in favor of the pact just days before the vote. Foley has been explaining to his constituents that the administration pledged to insulate domestic sugar producers from additional imports.
Despite objections from sugar producers, he has not faced a serious backlash from constituents. But his spokesman, Jason Kello, acknowledged the CAFTA vote could spur Democrats to target Foley in 2006.
Foley, now in his sixth term, was re-elected in 2004 with over 69 percent of the vote.
The votes of these GOP members were particularly crucial to passage of CAFTA because of solid Democratic opposition.
Democratic House leaders viewed the CAFTA vote as a test of party unity as well as a stand against what they termed a lack of labor protections in the accord. Organized labor also regarded defeat of CAFTA as a priority. In some cases, organized labor has already made clear its disappointment with Democrats who voted for the pact.
One of 15 House Democrats who supported CAFTA, Rep. Gregory W. Meeks of New York said labor leaders have “voiced opposition” to his vote. But he said local Democratic leaders are “100 percent” behind him for his vote, saying it was based on his desire to help promote job growth at and near JFK International Airport, which is in his Queens district. So far, labor unions have not put forward a possible candidate to challenge him in a primary, Meeks said.
“But never say never,” he acknowledged in a recent interview. “I know a lot of the labor leaders are upset. I do not take threats of a primary opponent idly and I will be preparing for someone to run against me, just as I always do.”
