CAFTA: Because You Hafta...It's in the history books: House Republican Leadership kept the vote open until enough votes were tallied to pass the Central American Free Trade Agreement.
The vote was close (naturally) - with the GOP putting together a 217-215 vote total to pass the bill. While we'll now be dealing with the impacts of the vote, we should also note just how this bill passed.
The Washington Post notes the "hold the vote open tactic" used by the House Leadership - extending the typical 15 minute voting period until enough votes were tallied to guarantee passage.
The 217 to 215 vote came just after midnight, in a dramatic finish that highlighted the intensity brought by both sides to the battle. When the usual 15-minute voting period expired at 11:17 p.m., the no votes outnumbered the yes votes by 180 to 175, with dozens of members undeclared. House Republican leaders kept the voting open for another 47 minutes, furiously rounding up holdouts in their own party until they had secured just enough to ensure approval.
What goes on in that extra 47 minutes? A little "arm-breaking", naturally.
Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., said the Bush administration and Republican leaders strong-armed Republican House members into voting for CAFTA. He said they used highway funds and the threat of stripping chairmanships from Republican House members if they didn't support CAFTA.
"I've seen the Republican leadership break arms on close votes before, but nothing quite this ugly," Pomeroy said.
There was also a little bargaining going on to minimize the political impact of passing such a bill, especially in the southern states - where the textile industry is barely holding on.
The New York Times article has an item worth pointing out:
For the next half-hour, Republicans, mostly from textile states, jockeyed over who would be allowed to vote against the bill and save face back home. The final count came minutes after midnight.
An honest question: if this bill is really opposed by the constituency - why the jockeying to determine whose position is most threatened? Just who do the Representatives here represent? Surely not the desires of their consituents, obviously.
How Did Iowa Representatives Vote?
It's hard to find this information easily - a midnight vote guarantees that the final vote will occur too late to make the morning papers - in the hopes that "unpopular" votes will be buried in the next day's news cycle.
The Washington Post listed "aisle-crossers", which leads us to the following:
For CAFTA: Nussle, Leach, King, Latham (all Republican)
Against CAFTA: Boswell (Democrat)
If anyone has access or time - I would love to hear Jim Nussle address the El Salvadoran Ethanol issue that will certainly impact Iowa's agricultural economy, if not deflate that bit of economic development altogether.