[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 75 (Wednesday, June 8, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H4197-H4201]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 27, WITHDRAWING APPROVAL OF 
     THE UNITED STATES FROM AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING THE WORLD TRADE 
                              ORGANIZATION

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 304 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 304

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the joint 
     resolution (H.J. Res. 27) withdrawing the approval of the 
     United States from the Agreement establishing the World Trade 
     Organization. The joint resolution shall be considered as 
     read. The joint resolution shall be debatable for two hours 
     equally divided among and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means, 
     Representative Paul of Texas, and Representative Sanders of 
     Vermont or their designees. Pursuant to section 152 of the 
     Trade Act of 1974 and section 125 of the Uruguay Round 
     Agreements Act, the previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the joint resolution to final passage without 
     intervening motion.
       Sec. 2. During consideration of H.J. Res. 27 pursuant to 
     this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the 
     previous question, the Chair may postpone further 
     consideration of the bill to a time designated by the 
     Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Hastings) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate 
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Matsui), pending which I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded 
is for the purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 304 is a 
rule providing for 2 hours of general debate on H.J. Res. 27, 
withdrawing the approval of the United States from the agreement 
establishing the World Trade Organization, to be equally divided among 
and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), and the gentleman 
from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  The rule provides that during consideration of H.J. Res. 27 pursuant 
to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 
question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the bill to a 
time designated by the Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this fair rule, but in 
opposition to the underlying H.J. Res. 27, withdrawing the approval of 
the United States from the agreement establishing the World Trade 
Organization.
  In 1994, Congress passed the Uruguay Round Table Agreements Act 
establishing the World Trade Organization, an independent body charged 
with monitoring and determining compliance with trade agreements. That 
law authorized the President to accept the United States' membership in 
the WTO and requires a report to be submitted to Congress every 5 years 
on the United States' participation in the WTO.
  The law also offers Congress the opportunity every 5 years to assess 
whether continued membership in this organization is in the best 
interest of the United States. I believe that Members of the House 
should be afforded this opportunity to register their views on this 
question through a vote of the House, which I urge my colleagues to 
vote on in support of this rule.
  The United States already has low tariffs, few subsidies, and a 
history of abiding bylaws and agreements. Our farmers and producers in 
my area in central Washington and across the country are some of the 
most efficient in the world and are capable of competing and winning in 
world markets, so long as they do not face foreign government policies 
like subsidies and dumping practices that stack the deck against them.
  The enforcement of a rules-based trading system through the World 
Trade Organization is our best opportunity to gain access to these 
markets for our Nation's farmers and rural communities. The removal of 
artificial barriers to trade is of critical importance

[[Page H4198]]

to apple growers and tree fruit farmers in the agricultural-based 
economy in central Washington that I represent.
  I am pleased that in 2003, the World Trade Organization stood up for 
the apple growers in central Washington and across the Nation by 
leveling the playing field in a dispute over Japan's import 
restrictions on imported U.S. apples. For nearly a decade, U.S. apple 
growers dealt with Japan's unjustified import requirements, which are 
imposed with no scientifically sound evidence. Trade restrictions 
should be based on scientific evidence and should be implemented on a 
limited basis, not used merely as tools to create unfair trade 
barriers.
  The World Trade Organization ruled that Japan's restrictions were not 
justified and were in breach of their World Trade Organization 
obligations. This United States victory brought the hopes of meaningful 
access to Japan's markets to the domestic apple industry and will help 
us fight similar trade barriers in markets throughout the world.
  Withdrawing from the World Trade Organization would result in our 
farmers, growers, and producers being shut out of these export 
opportunities and the loss of millions of jobs depending on them. 
Therefore, I believe that we must support our Nation's continued 
membership in the WTO and must continue aggressive enforcement of the 
rules of international trade. Our Nation's economy can continue to grow 
if we have access to global markets on a level playing field.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and to 
oppose the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues look around the world today, I have no 
doubt most would agree that whether the subject is fully engaging our 
allies on matters of national security and diplomacy, working to 
protect our shared environment from global warming and other threats or 
striving to grow our economies in a fashion that is both efficient and 
humane, the United States should be playing a larger role in the world 
arena, not withdrawing from it.
  Clearly, there are many areas in which the WTO needs reform. However, 
our continued participation is far too important for walking away to be 
considered a real option. Simply put, if America were to pull out of 
the WTO, we would be relegated to the small community of nations who 
are not members, losing any ability to influence the organization and 
its negotiations on a wide range of issues.
  Ninety-seven percent of all U.S. trade is with other WTO members. No 
matter where you fall on trade issues these days, it is clear that our 
economic interests continue to lie with engaging our preeminent trading 
partners. And we must keep working to ensure that American companies 
that create jobs here at home by doing business overseas are able to do 
so in the most transparent, lawful, and predictable business 
environment possible.
  In short, America's long-term economic interests are too important to 
disengage from this organization, and America is too great a Nation to 
send yet another signal to the world that we are withdrawing from the 
community of nations. In recent years we have already done that all too 
often.
  So I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), and all of the members of both 
parties on the Committee on Ways and Means for unanimously reporting 
this legislation with an adverse recommendation. I am pleased that both 
parties are prepared to make a strong statement about the importance of 
this Nation's continued engagement in the world economy.
  Trade issues today are stirring a great deal of concern among Members 
of both parties, and my opponents in this debate are men and women of 
goodwill with real concerns that the American people's ability to 
maintain appropriate standards for their communities on issues from 
food safety to environmental protection will be undermined by the lower 
standards of other countries. These are worthy and real concerns, 
concerns that reflect the complexity and seriousness of these issues 
which have real consequences for our economy and our citizens.
  America must be tough and smart and represent the interests of all 
our people in the trade arena, especially as we negotiate new trade 
agreements. Many Members of both parties in this Chamber have valid and 
important questions about whether our trade policymakers are doing 
that. But withdrawing from the WTO is not the answer.
  Americans are right to demand that our negotiators look out for the 
broader community as the United States engages the world economically, 
but engage it we must. I am hopeful that today the House is prepared to 
reject this resolution on a bipartisan basis with a vote that will help 
preserve our leadership role in the world.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such 
time as he may consume to the distinguished chairman of the Committee 
on Rules, the gentleman from San Dimas, California (Mr. Dreier).
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in very, 
very strong opposition to what this resolution is attempting to do.
  The great economist Milton Friedman once said, ``Underlying most 
arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom 
itself.'' Now, Mr. Speaker, if we listen carefully to the reasons we 
commonly hear for abandoning our open trade agenda, it becomes very 
clear that Milton Friedman was absolutely right.
  We hear these claims all the time: Free trade agreements will leave 
working families without good jobs. Trade liberalization will weaken 
worker rights in developing countries. Lowering barriers to open trade 
will devastate the environment.
  The underlying claim is that greater economic freedom will harm 
Americans and our trading partners alike, but this fear of freedom is 
not based in fact.
  Following World War II, the world's major trading partners came 
together, the global leaders, and established the General Agreement on 
Tariffs and Trade, the GATT. This agreement was designed to establish 
an international system of fair trade rules, pursuing that goal of the 
complete elimination of tariff and nontariff barriers, providing a 
forum for trading partners to settle any disputes that existed. The 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade was the predecessor to what is 
now known as the World Trade Organization. Through trade liberalization 
that the GATT and the WTO have enabled, with the existence of those, 
have seen average tariffs in industrialized countries go from 40 
percent down to 4 percent, spurring a six-fold increase in global GDP.
  And, of course, remember, a tariff is a tax, so by reducing that 
tariff burden, through the goal of the GATT and now the WTO, we have 
been able to reduce the tax burden on consumers throughout the world. 
So we have seen, by virtue of that 40 percent to 4 percent reduction, a 
six-fold increase in gross domestic product growth.
  Since the creation of the World Trade Organization 11 years ago, U.S. 
exports have increased by $300 billion. We have seen our exports since 
the establishment of the WTO increase by $300 billion. Over this time 
period, exports have come to support over 25 percent of the economic 
growth that we enjoy in the United States. Remember, we have a, 
virtually, almost $11 trillion economy here in the United States. 25 
percent of the growth in that economy is due to exports. Open trade and 
investment has netted an extra $1 trillion in U.S. income every year, 
or about $10,000 per household, as a result of those reductions that we 
have seen in tariff and nontariff barriers.
  As the world's largest exporter and importer, the United States has 
the most to gain from the lower trade barriers and fairer global trade 
rules that the WTO brings. By reducing tariffs,

[[Page H4199]]

strengthening intellectual property protection, and increasing 
transparency in all of the 148 member countries, the WTO is our 
largest, most comprehensive, and most effective forum for expanding 
markets and creating new opportunities for Americans.
  The WTO has also been an important tool for the United States in 
ensuring that international trade commitments are honored. Of the 47 
WTO cases brought by the United States that have been concluded, 44 
have been resolved in our favor. That is a 94 percent success rate for 
the United States of America within the structure of the World Trade 
Organization.
  Our WTO membership has been absolutely critical in maintaining our 
global economic leadership. With 80 percent of the world's economy and 
95 percent of the world's consumers outside of the United States, our 
role in the WTO remains essential to opening new markets and expanding 
existing ones for U.S. producers, service providers, and investors.
  But the WTO is not our only forum for liberalizing trade rules and 
expanding foreign markets for American goods and services. The Free 
Trade Agreement negotiating process has long been highly successful in 
opening up new opportunities for Americans. We are on the forefront of 
I hope passing the Dominican Republic Central American Free Trade 
Agreement, which is critical to continuing on that path of prosperity 
that began with the GATT back in 1947 and has continued through the 
WTO, the North American Free Trade Agreement, and a wide range of 
bilateral agreements that we have put together over the past several 
years with Israel, Jordan, Chile, Singapore, Australia and Morocco, 
among others.
  DR-CAFTA will make our trading relationship with the region 
reciprocal by granting U.S. producers the same access to their markets 
that the Dominican Republic-Central American producers have long 
enjoyed in ours. It will boost the competitiveness and productivity of 
American companies and workers by providing an export and investment 
destination that fully respects the rule of law and protects 
intellectual property rights.
  But even more important, Mr. Speaker, it will empower the Dominican 
Republic-Central American countries to experience the economic growth, 
increased prosperity, and rising living standards that Americans have 
long enjoyed. All of the benefits of trade that I have described, 
greater family incomes, export-supported growth, transparent and fair 
trading rules for U.S. companies that participate in the global 
marketplace, these are all benefits, these are all benefits that our 
neighbors in Latin America deserve to enjoy along with us.
  Again, there are many who will argue against greater economic 
freedom. They will say that it will cost American jobs. They will say 
that workers and the environment and the DR-CAFTA bill will be 
devastating. They will in effect argue that the region is too poor to 
trade with us. But we cannot let this unfounded fear of economic 
freedom cause us to abandon our very important open trade agenda.
  We are very fortunate to have our former colleague, Rob Portman, now 
serving as our ambassador, as the representative, the head of focusing 
on the whole issue of trade, the U.S. Trade Representative for us. We 
have to work closely with him, through the World Trade Organization, to 
tear down tariff and nontariff barriers to trade. We must continue to 
utilize this very important forum to ensure that our trading partners 
stick with their commitment. Living with a rules-based trading system 
is the only way that we are going to be able to vigorously pursue the 
diminution of those barriers to the free flow of goods and services 
throughout the world.
  So, for the sake of the American people, for the sake of those 
throughout the world who are seeking to get onto the first rung of the 
economic ladder, it is absolutely imperative that the United States of 
America maintain its leadership role in the World Trade Organization.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for us to understand why this 
resolution is before us that brings forward H.J. Res. 27.
  We are now celebrating the tenth anniversary of the creation of the 
World Trade Organization, the WTO. When Congress passed the legislation 
for us to join the WTO, Bill Clinton was President of the United 
States, and Newt Gingrich, Congressman Gingrich, thought it was 
important to have a mechanism in place where the Congress can exercise 
its independent authority over trade and that we should have an 
opportunity to carry out that responsibility by evaluating whether we 
want to stay in the World Trade Organization or not.
  Mr. Speaker, I must tell my colleagues that when that issue was 
before us I had mixed thoughts as to whether we should have a nuclear 
option of withdrawing from the WTO or whether there are more effective 
ways for Congress to exercise its constitutional responsibility in an 
independent way over trade. I must tell my colleagues that I think that 
this process is going to be helpful.
  So let me make it clear. I support the resolution to bring forward 
H.J. Res. 27 that has come out of the Committee on Rules. I very much 
oppose the passage of H.J. Res. 27, which would withdraw us from the 
WTO.
  As the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) pointed out and as the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui) pointed out, it is in the 
United States' interests to be in a rules-based trading system, and we 
need to make sure that we continue United States participation within 
the WTO. However, we also need to understand that we need to improve 
and make more effective the WTO, and we also need to strengthen the 
manner in which we review the operations of the WTO.
  We have had legislation that we could have acted on that would do 
that. I heard the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) give his 
analysis of the rulings within the WTO. Quite frankly, my score sheet 
is different. In two-thirds of the cases that have gone to dispute 
resolution panels or appellate panels, we have seen that they have 
overreached. That is, they have gone beyond the negotiated terms and 
ruled against U.S. interests.
  I think we should have a review process of the WTO dispute settlement 
process. Senator Dole had suggested that when he was in the United 
States Senate. I think we should look at that, and that would be a more 
effective way to have a continuing review in carrying out our 
responsibility as to whether the WTO is acting effectively to open up 
markets to all producers and manufacturers and farmers.
  We also need to look at the enforcement of our trade rules. We need 
to spend more effort on enforcement. China's manipulation of currency 
should be a direct interest to this body. The protection of 
intellectual property rights of American companies should be more 
aggressively pursued. We need to be more aggressive against European 
subsidies. We need to deal with the enforcement of our antidumping 
laws. All this can be done and should be done, and we should not wait 
every 5 years in order to review that.
  We also need to expand the opportunities within the Doha Round that 
will be presented to us. We have to help U.S. service industries so 
they can gain access to foreign markets. We need to work on tariff and 
nontariff barriers for U.S. manufacturers.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution, to 
vote against House Joint Resolution 27 so that we can move forward to 
improving the WTO. I urge us to look at ways in which we can help U.S. 
manufacturers, U.S. producers, and U.S. farmers to gain greater access 
to the international markets. We need to do that on an ongoing basis, 
and the Congress needs to exercise its authority to make sure that we 
are as aggressive as possible at opening up markets for U.S. interests.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for 
yielding me this time.

[[Page H4200]]

  Mr. Speaker, I have no illusions that the resolution that we bring up 
tomorrow is going to win. Five years ago, when the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Paul) brought it up, I think we received 56 votes. I think we will 
probably do better tomorrow, but I do not think we are going to win. 
But I do think that this resolution that is coming up tomorrow, which I 
strongly support, is enormously important, because it is high time for 
the United States Congress to take a tough look at our trade policies, 
our membership in the WTO. I believe that any objective assessment will 
tell every Member of this body and the American people that our trade 
policies have failed the American worker, the American middle class in 
a disastrous way, and that it is high time to rethink our trade 
policies so that they begin to work for the middle class of this 
country and not just the CEOs of our major corporations.
  Mr. Speaker, the middle class of the United States of America is 
collapsing. Poverty is increasing. Our trade deficit is soaring.
  I find it amazing to hear the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) 
give his portrayal of what is going on in America and the world. He is 
very much at odds with what the American people perceive.

                              {time}  1115

  The average American worker is asking why, with an explosion of 
technology, with a huge increase in worker productivity, why is the 
average American worker working longer hours for lower wages? Why is it 
that real wages in the United States today are 7 percent lower than 
they were in 1973 for the bottom 90 percent of American workers?
  Why is it that with all of this globalization and all of this free 
trade there are few middle-class families in America where women no 
longer have the option of staying home with their kids, but they have 
got to go into the workforce, where people in America are working two 
jobs, and three jobs just to pay the bills.
  The reality of what is going on in America today is that 
globalization is not working for ordinary people. In the last 4 years 
alone in the United States, we have lost 2.8 million good-paying 
manufacturing jobs. Just yesterday, we learned that General Motors is 
now going to cut back on another 25,000 good-paying jobs for American 
workers.
  Study after study shows that the new jobs that are being created are 
paying low wages, with minimal benefits, and the jobs that we are 
losing were good-paying jobs that had good benefits.
  Now, the bottom line of this discussion is that, yes, international 
trade is a good thing. But it is a good thing when it benefits ordinary 
Americans. It is not a good thing when it simply makes the CEOs of 
large corporations even wealthier so that they can earn as much as 500 
times what the average American worker in their company makes. That is 
not a good thing.
  When we talk about unfettered free trade, let us remember that every 
single year our trade deficit is going up and up and up. And the 
singular question that we have got to address is, does our trade policy 
work when American workers are being forced to compete against 
desperate people in countries like China who earn 30 cents an hour?
  My friends, that is what this debate is about. Large corporations 
like General Electric, General Motors, all of those companies who are 
throwing American workers out on the street, they think this agreement 
is greet, because they are moving to China lock, stock and barrel, 
hiring desperate people for pennies an hour, people who go to jail when 
they stand up for their political rights when they try to form a union.
  And the result of that is an extremely unfair competitive situation 
against the needs of the American worker.
  My friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), talked about 
the need to pass the Central American Free Trade Agreement, CAFTA. 
Well, I think he is going to be disappointed, because I think that the 
results are so clear in terms of what NAFTA has done for American 
workers, what Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China have done for 
American workers, that not only are the American people catching on 
that CAFTA will be a continuation of a failed policy, I think the 
American people are demanding that it is time for Congress to represent 
workers and not just the big money interests.
  I am not going to suggest that trade alone is the only reason for the 
decline of the middle class. But I will suggest that it is a very 
significant reason. The middle class in America will not survive unless 
we create good-paying jobs here. And what study after study suggests is 
that the new jobs that are going to be available to our kids are not 
going to be the high-tech information technology jobs, because they are 
off to India, they are off to China. The new jobs are going to be in 
Wal-Mart industry, in the service industry, where people are earning 
low wages with low benefits.
  Mr. Speaker, let me simply conclude by saying this: all of the 
objective evidence in terms of job loss, in terms of the loss of good-
paying jobs, in terms of the growing gap between the rich and the poor 
in America which is now wider than in any other industrialized country 
on Earth, wider in the United States than it has been the 1920s, all of 
that suggests that the economy is not working for the middle class.
  My Republican friends talk about a robust economy. President George 
Bush has not created one new job in the private sector since he has 
been in office; he has lost jobs. All of the new jobs have been created 
in the government. And it is obligatory upon us to analyze why our 
economy is failing the middle class, why poverty is increasing, why the 
gap between the rich and the poor is growing wider, why the new jobs 
that are being created are primarily low wage with poor benefits.
  Trade is not the only cause of this problem, but it is a significant 
cause. We need a trade policy that reflects the interests of the middle 
class and working people of this country and not the CEOs who are busy 
sending our jobs to China.
  Let me quote the CEO of General Electric, Jeffrey Immelt, several 
years ago. He said, that when I look to the future of General Electric, 
I see China, China, China.
  Well, I think maybe Mr. Immelt should look to the United States for 
the future of GE, and GM and other corporations should do the same. We 
cannot continue to hemorrhage decent-paying jobs going to countries 
that do not have democracy, where people are forced to work for pennies 
an hour. We and the other industrialized world must do everything we 
can to uplift the poor of the world. But we do not have to sacrifice 
the middle class of this country as part of that process.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I just ask my friend from 
California, I have no more requests for time except for me to close. If 
she is prepared to yield back, I will be prepared to yield back.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The WTO reflects many years of development resulting in broad and 
bipartisan support for expanded trade. Participation is vital to 
America's interest, be it economic, strategic, or as an avenue to 
strengthen the rule of law in the world. There is certainly a need to 
improve the WTO, something I believe can be done.
  But this will only be the case if we maintain an active presence in 
the WTO, engage in negotiations to strengthen American interests. In a 
few weeks, trade issues will again be before us as this Chamber 
considers the Central American Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA.
  We should not confuse the debate today about the WTO and the upcoming 
debate on CAFTA. These are both avenues to advance America's interests 
through trade partnerships. But CAFTA is a very good example of what 
can happen when the United States is not looking out for the interests 
of all of our people and the dangers that can pose for standards that 
previous generations of Americans worked so hard for and that we 
benefit from today.
  CAFTA would undercut existing protections for workers and United 
States trade law by requiring only that countries enforce their 
existing labor laws, which in many cases fail to provide the most basic 
and internationally recognized protections. Our trade policy should 
benefit workers, not undermine them.

[[Page H4201]]

  That is another debate for another day. I mention it only to 
demonstrate that issues related to international trade are complex, 
serious, and with real consequences for our economy and our people.
  Participation in the WTO is vital to America's interest, be it 
economic, strategic, or to strengthen the rule of law in the world.
  I would like to note while this rule provides for 2 hours of debate, 
that under our House rules, this resolution and other bills we debate 
under the procedures established by the Trade Act of 1974 are entitled 
to 20 hours of debate. While in this case, 20 hours is certainly not 
necessary, many Members of both parties in this Chamber have valid and 
important questions about whether our trade policymakers are protecting 
our interests.
  I would hope that when other trade agreements come before this body, 
and they will, that Members will be able to fully debate the issues and 
not be limited by stringent time constraints.
  I intend to vote against the underlying resolution because I believe 
that the WTO is essential to a strong rules-based trading system. I 
hope my colleagues would do as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, American workers produce goods that are second to none. 
However, our success in selling these goods in a global marketplace, 
and we have to admit that we are in a global market, is dependent on 
fair and open markets. The World Trade Organization continues to 
advance and create more fair and open markets.
  While I oppose the underlying bill, Members of the Congress should 
have the opportunity today to examine the merits of the United States' 
participation in the WTO. The debate on House Resolution 27 is an 
important one, and one that should be had.
  So I urge my colleagues to support the rule, House Resolution 304, 
and to oppose the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________