CAFTA

House Roll Call Vote 443

2005 Scorecard Vote

Pro-environment vote

No

Votes For

217

Votes Against

215

Not Voting

2

Issues

International trade can be a force for elevating living standards and improving environmental protection in the world’s poorest countries. But unless trade agreements contain strong environmental rules, they may undermine the protection of natural resources. For that reason, environmental groups in both the U.S. and Central America joined in opposing the recent Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA).

One of the world’s most biologically diverse regions, Central America has already lost more than 70 percent of its forest cover. CAFTA’s weak and mostly unenforceable environmental provisions are not adequate to protect these dwindling resources. The treaty only requires countries to enforce their own laws, a provision rendered meaningless by the lack of even basic environmental laws in countries like Guatemala and Honduras.

In addition, CAFTA allows multinational companies to sue countries for compensation if an environmental law reduces their profits. Similar language in the North American Free Trade Agreement has already prompted companies to sue the U.S., Canada, and Mexico over laws that protect public health and natural resources. The threat of more such lawsuits could freeze environmental progress in Central America by discouraging those governments from passing new conservation laws.

On July 28, 2005, the House approved H.R. 3045, CAFTA’s implementing legislation, by a 217-215 vote (House roll call vote 443). NO is the pro-environment vote.

Votes

Show
Show
Export data (CSV)
  • Pro-environment vote
  • Anti-environment Vote
  • Missed Vote
  • Excused
  • Not Applicable

Vote Key

Sort by
Alabama
2005 State Scorecard Average

15%

Alaska
2005 State Scorecard Average

58%

Arizona
2005 State Scorecard Average

30%

Arkansas
2005 State Scorecard Average

4%

California
2005 State Scorecard Average

75%

Colorado
2005 State Scorecard Average

52%

Connecticut
2005 State Scorecard Average

97%

Delaware
2005 State Scorecard Average

100%

Florida
2005 State Scorecard Average

30%

Georgia
2005 State Scorecard Average

35%

Hawaii
2005 State Scorecard Average

98%

Idaho
2005 State Scorecard Average

5%

Illinois
2005 State Scorecard Average

81%

Indiana
2005 State Scorecard Average

24%

Iowa
2005 State Scorecard Average

5%

Kansas
2005 State Scorecard Average

25%

Kentucky
2005 State Scorecard Average

20%

Louisiana
2005 State Scorecard Average

21%

Maine
2005 State Scorecard Average

71%

Maryland
2005 State Scorecard Average

83%

Massachusetts
2005 State Scorecard Average

96%

Michigan
2005 State Scorecard Average

54%

Minnesota
2005 State Scorecard Average

47%

Mississippi
2005 State Scorecard Average

24%

Missouri
2005 State Scorecard Average

21%

Montana
2005 State Scorecard Average

2%

Nebraska
2005 State Scorecard Average

4%

Nevada
2005 State Scorecard Average

72%

New Hampshire
2005 State Scorecard Average

88%

New Jersey
2005 State Scorecard Average

78%

New Mexico
2005 State Scorecard Average

94%

New York
2005 State Scorecard Average

63%

North Carolina
2005 State Scorecard Average

47%

North Dakota
2005 State Scorecard Average

0%

Ohio
2005 State Scorecard Average

33%

Oklahoma
2005 State Scorecard Average

3%

Oregon
2005 State Scorecard Average

68%

Pennsylvania
2005 State Scorecard Average

56%

Rhode Island
2005 State Scorecard Average

100%

South Carolina
2005 State Scorecard Average

17%

South Dakota
2005 State Scorecard Average

0%

Tennessee
2005 State Scorecard Average

13%

Texas
2005 State Scorecard Average

33%

Utah
2005 State Scorecard Average

6%

Vermont
2005 State Scorecard Average

100%

Virginia
2005 State Scorecard Average

55%

Washington
2005 State Scorecard Average

72%

West Virginia
2005 State Scorecard Average

0%

Wisconsin
2005 State Scorecard Average

24%

Wyoming
2005 State Scorecard Average

3%