[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15186-15194]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1030
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5684, UNITED STATES-OMAN FREE TRADE 
                      AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 925 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 925

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5684) to implement 
     the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement. The bill shall 
     be considered as read. The bill shall be debatable for two 
     hours equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. 
     Pursuant to section 151 of the Trade Act of 1974, the 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     to final passage without intervening motion.
       Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 5684 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 in consonance with 
     section 151 of the Trade Act of 1974.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). 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. Speaker, House Resolution 925 is a closed rule providing for 2 
hours of debate in the House, equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the 
bill. It also provides that pursuant to section 151 of the Trade Act of 
1974, the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
to final passage without intervening motion.
  Lastly, the resolution provides that during consideration of the 
bill, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair 
may postpone further consideration of the bill to a time designated by 
the Speaker in consonance with section 151 of the Trade Act of 1974.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 925 provides for the consideration of 
H.R. 5684, a bill to implement the United States-Oman Free Trade 
Agreement, in accordance with trade measures negotiated under the Trade 
Promotion Authority. Under these procedures, once the administration 
formally submits the final legislative language to Congress, it may not 
be amended.
  Former United States Trade Rep Rob Portman signed the United States-
Oman Free Trade Agreement on January 19, 2006. Under the agreement, all 
consumer and industrial goods traded between the U.S. and Oman will 
immediately be duty free, and 87 percent of the U.S. agriculture tariff 
lines will gain immediate duty-free access with the remaining tariffs 
phased out over a 10-year period. It provides wide access and sets a 
strong precedent for opening up opportunities for services for U.S. 
firms, contains robust protections for U.S. intellectual property 
rights holders, and includes strong labor and environmental provisions.
  Oman enacted broad labor reforms in 2003, Mr. Speaker, and has 
followed up with specific commitments to ensure that its laws provide 
strong protections for workers consistent with international standards. 
Oman enacted many of these reforms earlier this month and has pledged 
to enact the remaining reforms by this November. This agreement makes 
it clear that it is inappropriate for Oman to weaken or reduce domestic 
labor protections or environmental laws to encourage trade or 
investment and that this obligation is enforceable through specific 
dispute settlement procedures.
  Mr. Speaker, the United States makes up only 4 percent of the world's 
population. Therefore, we must recognize that we have an opportunity to 
create and expand the marketplace for U.S. goods and services by 
reaching fair trade agreements with our international trading partners. 
This agreement will contribute to economic growth and trade between the 
U.S. and Oman; generate export opportunities for U.S. companies, 
farmers, and ranchers; help create jobs in both countries; and help 
American consumers save money while offering them greater choices.
  My home State of Washington, for example, is one of the most trade-
dependent States in the Nation, and our economy depends on fair trade. 
From agriculture to high tech to manufacturing industries, Washington 
State and our Nation are in a position to benefit by having more 
trading partners.
  One area where trade with Oman shows great promise for America is in 
the area of commercial aircraft. Oman Air recently purchased Boeing 737 
airplanes valued at $200 million at catalog prices. We want to continue 
to encourage these kinds of sales to Oman and in the broader Middle 
East, which, of course, creates new jobs here at home.
  In addition to the new commercial opportunities it provides, this 
agreement will support many of the recent government, legal, and 
economic reforms in Oman, which are important to bringing stability to 
the Middle East region. In 2003 President Bush proposed completion of a 
Middle East Free Trade Area by 2013 as part of a plan to fight 
terrorism by supporting Middle East economic growth and democracy 
through trade.
  The United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act would 
be the fifth bilateral trade agreement reached between the United 
States and a Middle Eastern country. It is yet another step in the 
right direction toward integrating fair trade policies and economic 
reforms to support a more stable and prosperous Middle East. This 
agreement will send a strong signal to countries in that region about 
the benefits of closer economic and political ties to the United 
States.
  The Committee on Ways and Means favorably reported H.R. 5684 last 
May. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House 
Resolution 925 and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for 
yielding me this time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today we debate another free trade agreement. We all 
know well-crafted trade policy is capable of spreading benefits to a 
broad portion of the population while promoting innovation and 
solidifying partnerships between and among nations.
  As a leader in the global economy, the United States has the ability 
and the responsibility to use trade agreements to effect positive 
change here at home and abroad. Unfortunately, the Oman Free Trade 
Agreement, which we are considering, continues the recent trend toward 
divisive partnership on trade.
  Because of the majority's approach on trade policy, you have a lot of 
Democrats, who I believe are inclined to vote for free trade 
agreements, voting against this pact. I am disappointed the 
administration and the Republican leadership have missed another 
opportunity to return to a bipartisan consensus on trade. The majority 
once again cut Democrats out of the

[[Page 15187]]

negotiations and produced another free trade agreement that fails to 
protect the basic rights of workers.
  Like the Central American Free Trade Agreement, CAFTA, which I voted 
against a year ago, the labor provisions of the Oman Free Trade 
Agreement only require Oman to enforce its own labor laws. At this time 
Oman's laws do not come close to meeting International Labor 
Organization standards. This is a threshold that Ways and Means 
Democrats have set for labor provisions in trade agreements, and it is 
quite reasonable. The United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement does not 
meet it.
  Of utmost concern, Oman's laws do not guarantee the freedom of 
association and the right to bargain collectively. It does not even 
prohibit human trafficking and forced labor.
  In Oman today unions do not exist. There are only labor management 
committees where management holds over 70 percent of the leadership 
positions. In no way is this even close to representation the workers 
here have achieved after decades of struggle.
  Ways and Means Committee Democrats tried to work with the Government 
of Oman to revise its labor laws, and they were very clear about what 
steps needed to be taken: Specifically, make sure Oman's laws conform 
to basic labor standards and begin to implement existing laws in a 
manner that complies with the principles established by the 
International Labor Organization. These are not radical requests. Yet 
the majority and Oman have not acceded to them.
  Just yesterday Representative Cardin offered a reasonable amendment 
that would have delayed implementation of this agreement until Oman 
came into compliance with these standards. That amendment was rejected. 
The Omani Government attempted to pacify our labor concerns with an 
11th-hour royal decree. Unfortunately, it fully addressed only one of 
the 10 deficiencies outlined by Ways and Means Democrats. So this is 
not a valid argument.
  The situation I just described is quite a contrast to the United 
States-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement negotiations. Bahrain made 
commitments to modify its laws to adhere to International Labor 
Organization standards and took steps to make sure those standards were 
being adhered to on the ground immediately. Oman has taken no such 
actions. As a result, the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement fails 
workers in Oman and here in the United States.
  This sends a message to the world that the United States does not 
respect the hardworking men and women that fuel the global economy. 
That is extraordinarily unwise, particularly considering the challenges 
we are facing all around the globe today.
  I had hoped that the bipartisan opposition to CAFTA might make it 
clear to the Bush administration that a broad cross-section of this 
House would not accept trade agreements which fail to ensure 
fundamental rights for workers. That is apparently not the case because 
this agreement is another step backwards for workers. Further, it 
demonstrates this administration's refusal to use trade to better the 
lives of the broad portion of working families, not a select few.
  And yesterday at the Rules Committee, Representative Cardin 
highlighted a potentially serious concern about port security. The 
provision imposes a burdensome process should the United States 
Government choose to protect its citizens from potentially dangerous 
foreign control over United States port operations. Representative 
Cardin offered a second amendment yesterday in the Rules Committee that 
would have addressed this concern. However, like his other commonsense 
amendment on labor provisions, it was rejected. This scenario is 
another reason Members should reject this agreement as currently 
written.
  I know these amendments would interrupt the fast-track process. 
However, I believe the issues raised by Mr. Cardin's amendments warrant 
rejecting this agreement as currently written. By doing so, we can put 
together a framework that addresses these very serious concerns on port 
security and workers' rights.
  Congress needs to push the administration to step back and rethink 
its trade policy. The United States cannot afford to abandon its role 
as a leader in the global economy nor can we abandon our duty to 
working families both here and abroad.
  We need to embrace the benefits of trade while still respecting the 
fundamental rights of workers. I sincerely hope that my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle will work together to achieve such a balance in 
considering future trade policy.
  When we debated CAFTA, I said, ``If we do not get CAFTA right, we 
risk undercutting support for all future trade agreements.'' Well, we 
did not get CAFTA right, and now we are doing it again on Oman. The 
majority is just digging us all into a deeper hole, making it that much 
more difficult to establish the trust required for balanced trade 
negotiations.
  I hope the scrutiny that this relatively small free trade agreement 
is receiving leads the majority to reconsider its approach. I hope it 
makes them ask: Is it worth rushing this agreement to passage with 
inadequate assurances on labor protections when we might be able to 
achieve them in a number of weeks? Is it really worth cutting the 
minority out of the negotiations?
  In my opinion, the answers to these questions are obvious. 
Partisanship tears this House apart every week we are in session. Look 
at the tone of the debate on the floor this week. It is time for a new 
direction; and trade, because it is such a critical issue, would be an 
ideal place to start.
  I continue to have hope that we can regain the spirit of cooperation 
on trade that has served this House so well in the past. It is a goal 
that is within reach. I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to 
commit to achieving it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I will respond to a couple of points that my friend from 
California made. Regarding the labor language in this trade agreement, 
it is essentially the same language that was in the Bahrain trade 
agreement that, of course, is in the same part geographically in the 
world as Oman.

                              {time}  1045

  I would just remind my colleagues that that language and that trade 
agreement were acceptable to my friend from California. She voted in 
favor of the Bahrain trade agreement, as did the gentleman from 
Maryland, whom she referenced.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also like to respond to the concerns that this 
agreement poses national security issues and concerns that a third-
party tribunal would have ultimate say over our security issues.
  The U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement, like previous trade agreements, 
treats Omani landside service providers and investors no less favorably 
than our own landside service suppliers. These landside activities 
include unloading vessels, marine cargo handling, and ship cleaning.
  When an entity participates in these landside aspects of port 
activities, it does not control, manage or operate a U.S. port. That 
always remains the responsibility of the port authority.
  Nothing in this agreement, Mr. Speaker, before us today prohibits the 
U.S. from reviewing foreign investment transactions in order to ensure 
our national security. More importantly, it expressly permits the U.S. 
to block a potential port acquisition by claiming national security 
interests.
  As you see, Mr. Speaker, all of our trade agreements, including this 
one, contain an article called ``essential security,'' which is self-
judging, meaning that it is up to an individual country to determine 
whether a particular matter is necessary for the protection of its 
essential security interests. All the commitments that we undertake in 
trade agreements are subject to this provision.

[[Page 15188]]

  Under this article, nothing in an agreement can prevent us from 
applying measures that we consider necessary for the protection of our 
essential security interests. Therefore, the ultimate decision on what 
is necessary to protect our essential services rests with the United 
States, not a third-party tribunal.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, history and precedent also indicate that no 
third-party dispute panel or tribunal has ever heard any arguments, 
much less issued a decision, related to the scope and application of 
any national security exception contained in a national trade or 
investment agreement.
  So those issues, while they may be nice to talk about, really have no 
bearing on the trade agreements that we have had in the past.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed today that we are about to consider a 
free trade agreement with Oman that I would have hoped we would have 
worked out so we could have had strong bipartisan support. 
Unfortunately, the agreement comes up short on international labor 
standards, and I believe we could have achieved those international 
labor standards to make sure that Oman complies with ILO standards. 
But, unfortunately, there was an unwillingness on the part of the 
negotiators to complete the agreement in a way that could have gotten 
more support.
  The second issue that I take, particularly with this rule, because I 
am going to support the gentlewoman's position of opposing the previous 
question, is to deal with a very sensitive issue of port security. So 
let me try to explain the port security issue, because I think there 
have been some misstatements on the floor of the House.
  This agreement permits Oman to operate landside aspects of port 
activities, including operation and maintenance of docks, loading and 
unloading of vessels directly to and from land, marine cargo handling, 
operation and maintenance of piers, ship cleaning, stevedoring, 
transfer of cargo between vessels and trucks, trains, pipelines and 
wharves and waterfront terminal operations.
  That is exactly what Dubai Ports World tried to do in ports in this 
country, including my own Port of Baltimore. We spoke up and the 
American people spoke up against allowing a foreign company to operate 
port facilities here in the United States, and we blocked that 
transaction. It was the right thing to do for the security of America 
and the security of our ports.
  Under this agreement, if Dubai Ports World had an operation within 
Oman, they would be permitted to apply to do those same operations here 
in the United States and they would be permitted to do that under the 
free trade agreement.
  I have heard my colleagues suggest that we can just invoke the 
essential security exception to an agreement, and you are correct, we 
can invoke the essential security exception and block the transaction. 
But then we are subject to dispute settlement procedures. We never give 
up our sovereignty in trade agreements, but we changed our tax laws 
because of international pressure when we thought we didn't have to, 
because otherwise we would have been subjected to tariffs against U.S. 
products. The same thing is true here. If the dispute panel rules 
against us, then we are subjecting ourselves to sanctions.
  Our USTR says this is absolute, they can't do that. But let me remind 
you, we have lost 83 percent of our cases in dispute settlement 
procedures where sanctions have been imposed against our country. So we 
haven't been that successful in these international tribunals.
  Let me also point out that by including this language in this bill, 
there will be continued pressure on this administration to allow 
foreign government companies to operate ports here in the United 
States. We have an administration that is friendly towards that.
  We have the responsibility in Congress to protect our ports and 
protect our Nation. It is our responsibility. I urge my colleagues to 
defeat the previous question so that we can protect the ports here in 
America and make it clear, by simply taking out that one provision that 
would allow the operation of port facilities potentially by companies 
owned by countries that are not friendly to the United States.
  This is an important issue, and I urge all my colleagues to pay 
attention to this. This is our vote and our opportunity, and I urge the 
defeat of the previous question.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for the time.
  I rise in strong support of the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement. 
Following the U.S.-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement last year, Mr. Speaker, 
the U.S.-Oman FTA sends a clear message that we are committed to 
improving our relationship with the Middle East while improving our 
international trade interests.
  The agreement goes beyond addressing trade issues. As part of the 
FTA, Oman commits to intensifying its political reform efforts to 
enhance participation of all of its citizens in the process. Oman has 
also implemented economic changes that will make entry into its 
domestic and international markets more accessible to private citizens.
  Additionally, the FTA has stipulations that Oman complete labor 
reforms by October 31 of this year. However, of its own volition, Oman 
began enacting these reforms beginning in 2003, and earlier this month 
many of the remaining reforms were implemented by a royal decree. Some 
of the recent changes include dispute settlement procedures for labor 
representatives, the ability to call for strikes, and strengthening of 
legal protections for women and foreign workers. Oman has ratified the 
International Labor Organization conventions against child and forced 
labor.
  Not only has Oman undertaken domestic reforms, but it has also made 
strides to change its international policy by pulling out of the Arab 
League boycott of Israel and repealing all aspects of the boycott. This 
shows a clear commitment to Oman's desire to function in accordance 
with international trade norms of equality and full market access.
  The 9/11 Commission report states that economic reforms will be the 
key to changing the cultural landscape in the Middle East. As such, 
this FTA is about much more than trade; it is a tool for advancing U.S. 
strategic interests. Oman is a key ally in the global war on terror and 
has provided critical assistance to our Armed Forces in Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  In short, this U.S.-Oman FTA will help to improve our market access 
and increase national security; and, therefore, I would like to 
reiterate my strong support for this mutually beneficial agreement.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask 
my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question. This would allow 
us to consider the Cardin amendment to close the loophole in the 
agreement that would allow a foreign company based in Oman to operate 
U.S. port facilities.
  Earlier on I was opposed to the Oman Free Trade Agreement because it 
undermines fundamental workers' rights. This free trade agreement is 
another blow to working families, exporting more of our jobs overseas. 
But I was shocked to learn that it could underpin the basic safety and 
security of those who I was sent here to represent.
  I come from a community that is directly tied to this Nation's 
largest port, the Port of Long Beach. The safety and security of this 
port and all other American ports are essential to our country.
  The Oman FTA directly threatens our ability to control our Nation's

[[Page 15189]]

ports. The creators of this deal completely ignored Congress' 
overwhelming response to the Dubai Ports World deal because, just like 
that deal, the Oman FTA has a very far-reaching provision hidden 
completely from the public eye.
  Buried deep in the annex of this agreement, our country's right to 
determine who operates our ports of entry is given away. Who gets the 
new right to control vital American infrastructure? Any group of people 
or government that incorporates to do business in Oman.
  The same people who supported the Dubai Ports World deal are now 
telling us that this is, again, nothing to worry about. They were wrong 
then, and they are wrong now. We should not export the safety and 
security of Americans. I urge again my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
previous question.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support today of the Oman Free Trade 
Agreement. It is an important outreach and step that this country ought 
to be making and I think we will make.
  I would like to comment just briefly on a couple of the previous 
speakers. They appear to be relying on stock certificates to protect 
our ports. The truth of the matter is, I agree with them wholeheartedly 
that protecting our ports is in the vital interests of this country. No 
one would argue about that.
  But simply the fact who owns a particular company is scant comfort 
when it comes to control of the ports, as well as the security 
surrounding all of the ports. All the conduct that goes on, the goods 
and services are moved through there. The scheduling and the actual 
control of our security by the Coast Guard, to me is a much better way 
to secure our ports than simply worrying about the stock certificates 
of the companies that provide the services of scheduling, loading and 
unloading.
  The United States free trade agreement with Oman represents more than 
just simple economics and trade. Support for this agreement represents 
building a relationship and strengthening with a peaceful ally in the 
Middle East that has a proven track record.
  Let me run through a couple of things that I think are important when 
we talk about who is Oman and why should we enter into some sort of 
bilateral free trade agreement with Oman.
  Oman has been a proven leader in the Persian Gulf in establishing 
trade and other ties with Israel. Since 1970, Oman has pursued a 
moderate foreign policy and expanded its diplomatic relationships 
dramatically.
  Oman has also worked to develop close ties with its neighbors in the 
Middle East. Oman joined the six-member Gulf Cooperation Council when 
it was established and traditionally supports Middle East peace 
initiatives.
  In 1979, Oman supported the Camp David Accords and was one of only 
three Arab League states which did not break relationships with Egypt 
after the signing of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty in 1979.
  In April of 1994, Oman hosted the plenary meeting of the Water 
Working Group of the peace process and was the first gulf state to do 
so.
  On December 26, 1994, Oman became the first gulf state to host an 
Israeli Prime Minister, again trying to build on a relationship of 
peace with another important ally of ours in the Middle East.
  Oman has eliminated all aspects of the Arab boycott of Israel. In 
2005 and 2006, senior Omani officials issued letters affirming that 
Oman has no boycott in place against Israel. Oman was one of the first 
regional states to offer recognition to the U.S.-appointed Iraqi 
Governing Council in 2003 and backed the Iraqi elections that took 
place in January 2005.
  This agreement with Oman illustrates the importance of trade 
liberalization and security cooperation, both of which further our 
national interests from an economic and security standpoint. We must 
not turn our backs on the peace-promoting leader in this region. Oman 
is dependable, and it is critical that we continue to build on this 
relationship.

                              {time}  1100

  Please join me in supporting the previous question on the rule and in 
support of the Oman Free Trade Agreement that will be brought to the 
floor later today.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
agreement. Unfettered free trade is one of the major reasons why in our 
country today the middle class is shrinking; why for 5 straight years 
family median income has declined, while in the last 5 years 5 million 
more Americans have slipped into poverty; why millions of Americans are 
working longer hours for lower wages.
  Yes, I acknowledge at a time when the CEOs of large corporations earn 
400 times what their workers are making, at a time when large 
corporations are throwing American workers out on the street and moving 
to low-wage countries, yes, free trade has worked very, very well for 
the large multinationals.
  But maybe, just maybe, once in a long while, the Republican 
leadership might want to consider the middle class of this country, 
working families, lower-income people and not just the wealthiest 
people.
  Mr. Speaker, the American middle class should no longer be forced to 
compete against workers in China, Vietnam, and other countries where 
desperate people, through no fault of their own, are forced in some 
cases to work for wages as low as 30 cents an hour. That is not a level 
playing field.
  Throwing American workers out on the street, moving to countries 
where people are paid pennies an hour, is bad public policy. It has 
failed. One of the definitions of insanity is to do the same thing over 
and over again. That is what this Congress does. It fails every single 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, before we vote for unfettered free trade with Oman, we 
should consider this. In Oman, the minimum wage ranges from absolutely 
zero to $1.30 an hour. The average wage in Oman is about $13,200, below 
the poverty line for a single mother with one child living in this 
country.
  Is that fair competition for American workers? In addition, Mr. 
Speaker, we hear a lot from this administration and my Republican 
colleagues about the need to support freedom. Well, are the people in 
Oman free to elect their leader? What was the result in the last 
election? We didn't hear much about that, because they don't have 
elections.
  Oman is a hereditary monarchy. Is there freedom of religion, freedom 
of speech, freedom of the press in Oman? No, there is not. Mr. Speaker, 
in the last 5 years alone, we have lost nearly 3 million decent paying 
manufacturing jobs, 17 percent of our total. In 1993, before NAFTA, our 
trade deficit was over $70 billion. Last year, after unfettered free 
trade, it was over $715 billion. This year it is expected to top $800 
billion.
  The time is now to rethink our policy with regard to unfettered free 
trade.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, as a union member and as a Member of this body, and as 
someone who wants to expand U.S. trade relations, nonetheless I feel 
obligated to oppose this rule and the Oman Free Trade Agreement we will 
consider today.
  The Bush administration and congressional Republicans are again 
trying to force passage of a trade agreement that willfully undermines 
labor rights in Oman and economic and homeland security for hardworking 
Americans in this country.
  Democrats have called for such standards in every agreement 
negotiated by this administration, and each time we have been let down 
by the

[[Page 15190]]

President and his allies here in Congress. In sending the Oman trade 
agreement to the Hill, the Bush administration has also astonishingly 
opted to send Congress an agreement in which he refused to include a 
prohibition on forced or slave labor.
  Is this how we spread democracy in the Middle East? Is this how the 
U.S. best improves the lives in the Middle East and advances our own 
security interests? Another bizarre decision the President made is to 
put in jeopardy the security of our ports and other critical landside 
homeland security functions. This Oman agreement explicitly paves the 
way for companies like Dubai Ports World to gain control of our ports.
  Those who disagree with this argument refuse to acknowledge that the 
fact that in the best-case scenario, with the President utilizing every 
national security waiver at his disposal, the final decision on such a 
matter will be left out of U.S. hands and left to an international 
tribunal.
  I would think the Republican leadership could at least agree that we 
should not outsource our core homeland security functions and 
decisions. In a country like Oman, where meager rights for workers fall 
well below the International Labor Organization's standards, where the 
Sultan can change any law by decree, and where there are no independent 
unions, Congress should be especially vigilant.
  Mr. Speaker, we must ensure that any trade agreement with Oman, or 
any country, contains hard and fast labor standards. The Oman FTA does 
not. This is a loser on homeland security, for job security and for the 
best interests of Omanis. It should be defeated.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my very good friend from 
the Rules Committee for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Ms. Matsui's leadership. Mr. Speaker, this 
legislation needs to pass. This trade agreement is very much in the 
interests of the United States. Oman is our ally. It is an example of 
exactly what we need to help bring about throughout the Arab world.
  Now, I do not know if everyone in this body knows where Oman is 
located. It sits at the Strait of Hormuz and at the entrance to the 
Persian Gulf. It is in a critically strategic location. Across that 
strait lies Iran. More than 20 percent of the world's oil supply passes 
through that strait.
  Oman has remained our ally, notwithstanding all of the pressure that 
it has received over generations. It has been our ally since 1833 when 
we passed the Treaty of Amity and Commerce. It was the first Arab 
country to send an Ambassador to the United States. Today it is the 
first and only Arab country to have a female Ambassador to the United 
States.
  It is one of the most open, liberal societies in the Arab and Muslim 
world. They signed a 10-year military access agreement in 1981 with the 
United States, and they have renewed it twice. They continue to be one 
of the most important logistical and operational support areas for the 
present war in Iraq, and were so in the Persian Gulf.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not know what more they can do. They are an active 
supporter of the United States against terrorism, and as this letter 
from AIPAC says, they have been willing to take on the Arab world and 
break the Arab boycott against Israel, the primary, secondary and 
tertiary boycott. And here we are, we debated all night last night 
about the resolution in the Middle East.
  We know the number of lives that are being lost, the conflagration 
that is taking place, and we will not reach out to an Arab nation that 
is our most important ally, that is exactly what we are hoping to 
achieve in terms of economic and social liberalization.
  They have agreed to comply with all of the International Labor 
Organization's standards. They will have collective bargaining, 
unionization. They are going to open up their industries to outside 
review and competition. And what do they want to buy? They want to buy 
transport equipment and manufactured products, products that generate 
jobs in the United States.
  And what are they going to sell to us? It is primarily oil that does 
not generate jobs in the Arab world. That is part of the problem. But 
the Sultan of Oman understands that the vast majority, more than 60 
percent of his population, are under the age of 18. He gets it. He 
understands. He needs to move into the modern world. But he needs 
American support to do that.
  This trade treaty needs to pass.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) the distinguished 
chairman of the Rules Committee, who is probably one of the individuals 
in this body that works on trade issues more than anybody else.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. I will 
correct him by saying that I take a back seat to the Speaker pro tem, 
Mr. Kolbe, who unfortunately is going to be leaving at the end of this 
Congress. I have been very pleased to work with him on a wide range of 
issues dealing with trade globally, and appreciate his stellar service.
  Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that I want to associate myself, 
my remarks, with my Democratic colleague, Mr. Moran, underscoring the 
fact that this is a very important bipartisan issue. We as Republicans 
within the Republican leadership, are reaching out to Democrats who 
share our vision of pursuing our very, very important goal of free 
trade overall and this very important agreement with Oman.
  Now, my colleague from Vermont was speaking earlier about the fact 
that unfettered free trade has, in fact, jeopardized the livelihood of 
Americans, it has helped the very rich and hurt the middle class. 
Nothing could be further from the truth.
  One has to look at the overall policies of the United States of 
America and look at the economic policies pursued by this 
administration and this Congress. We have to realize the fact that we 
have minority home ownership at an all-time high. We have unemployment 
at a 4.6 percent rate.
  The first quarter of this year, we saw gross domestic product growth 
at 5.6 percent. We have seen inflation, based on the projections 
outlined by the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Mr. Bernanke, 
yesterday, tempering.
  We are seeing predictions for strong economic growth. And, Mr. 
Speaker, it is due in large part to our pursuit of breaking down 
barriers to expand the opportunity for greater trade and for job 
creation right here in the United States of America.
  Now, this agreement that we are going to be facing today, which I am 
very pleased will enjoy bipartisan support, as I said, is an agreement 
that I believe really transcends the simple economic questions that we 
face today, the economic questions of important job creation in the 
United States.
  But the vote that we face today is a very important geopolitical 
question. Now, my friend from Virginia (Mr. Moran) talked about the 
strategic importance of Oman. My friend from Texas (Mr. Conaway) 
earlier talked about the fact that Oman was the first gulf nation to 
host an Israeli Prime Minister.
  We have talked about the fact that over the past many decades, we 
have seen a very important relationship that has existed between Oman 
and the United States of America. And one of the things that is 
important to note is that we, with huge bipartisan numbers, put into 
place the U.S.-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, this agreement is by every account an even stronger, 
better agreement from the perspective of worker rights and the other 
issues that are raised by so many, better than the U.S.-Bahrain Free 
Trade Agreement.
  Now, as I talk about the geopolitical issue, Mr. Speaker, I think it 
is important for us to note that one of the things that we as an 
institution are doing on a regular basis is encouraging the building of 
democratic institutions

[[Page 15191]]

around the world, political pluralism, the rule of law, self-
determination.
  And, frankly, we have as an institution been, I think, doing a great 
job in helping emerging and reemerging democracies. A year ago this 
spring, Speaker Hastert and Minority Leader Pelosi put into place a 
great new commission, which I am privileged to chair, and our colleague 
from North Carolina, David Price, serves as the ranking minority member 
on. It is a bipartisan, 16-member commission.
  The Speaker pro tem is a member of our commission. And what we have 
done is we have said we need to take new and reemerging democracies 
around the world and help them build their parliaments.

                              {time}  1115

  Now, as we look at the geopolitical importance of this issue, Mr. 
Speaker, I have to tell you that we just, 2 weeks ago, had our 
commission in Lebanon, and we just, days before the attack by Hezbollah 
against the Israelis, the kidnapping of the IDF troops, military, we 
were on the tarmac in Beirut, having just come from meetings with the 
Lebanese Parliament. There are parliamentarians in Lebanon and many 
other parts of the world who are hoping very much to be able to build 
those parliaments, to establish their libraries, to put into place a 
committee structure that will allow for adequate oversight of the 
executive branch, and to do many of the things that we have a tendency 
to take for granted around here.
  Now, we know that Oman isn't an American-style democracy; we 
recognize that. A lot of people have been critical because of it. But 
the fact of the matter is, we need to do all that we can to help those 
countries that are moving towards the rule of law, and Oman is clearly 
one of them, living with a rules-based trading system, and other 
countries in the region that are seeking to stand up in this global war 
against Islamofascism to do all possible to help us.
  Mr. Speaker, economic liberalization is a very important part of that 
goal. I can't think of a more important vote after, as Mr. Moran said, 
the debate we had last night on the resolution that we are going to be 
voting on before too terribly long, supporting the State of Israel and 
their action and their right to defend themselves. And now this 
agreement really goes hand in hand with our quest to take on those who 
want to do in our way of life, who want to undermine opportunities for 
freedom.
  This is a very good agreement. It is a good rule that, under the 
standard structure that we have, allows for its implementation. So 
Members should vote ``yes'' on the previous question when that vote 
comes forward, and they should vote ``yes'' for the rule and ``yes'' on 
final passage for the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding me 
this time and wish to say to my colleague from California who just left 
the podium that one of America's problems in the Middle East is that we 
have become too identified with the superrich, undemocratic leaders of 
those countries who ignore the teeming masses of the poor among them. 
That is where ``the resistance'' comes from.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. As I finish my statement, I will yield some time to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, today the House will consider another so-called free 
trade agreement, this time with Oman, a nation that is not a democracy. 
In fact, far from it. It is a sultanate with rule by the superrich. 
This agreement will yield no more liberty.
  We should defeat the resolution and this bill. Oman is not a free 
country. Free trade should only exist among free people. Trade should 
enhance liberty and freedom, not undermine it by enshrining gross 
privilege.
  Exploitation of Oman's working class by its own rulers, along with 
imported labor from poorer countries who have no rights, underpin the 
ugly underbelly of Oman, no matter how the gold on their palaces 
glitters.
  Free trade should benefit America and America's workers, so name me a 
free trade agreement that has done that? The gentleman and I were here 
for the passage of the horrible NAFTA agreement--he voted yes, I voted 
no. It has put hundreds of thousands of our people in this country out 
of work, and it has hurt millions more people in Mexico.
  NAFTA has yielded trade deficits with Mexico when we used to have 
surpluses. Trade deals with Canada, Vietnam, and China have not helped 
America. Free trade deals help a narrow band of invesors this gentleman 
is more than happy to help.
  ``Free trade'' cannot anchor America's democratic principles. Indeed, 
trade with an undemocratic society ultimately crushes liberty's cause.
  Constitutions dedicated to liberties and rights and justice must come 
first. Is America so bankrupt and desperate for a landing pad in the 
Middle East that we cede more of our fundamental values of liberty 
globally with yet another repressive society?
  Free societies exist because people of those nations believed in 
liberty first. America's trade policy should embody our enduring values 
of liberty, not enshrine pecuniary relationships without principle.
  Oman should first take their place at freedom's table, and then let 
us talk about free trade.
  I ask my colleagues to defeat the rule and to defeat the resolution 
on free trade with Oman. It is not a free country, and it is time 
America identified with those in the world who aspire for freedom 
themselves, not just the superrich.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Let me begin by saying I 
have the utmost respect for my friend from Ohio. I greatly revere her 
passionate commitment to her goal.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say that we share the same goals. Those goals 
are to improve the quality of life for the middle class and those 
struggling working Americans here in the United States of America and 
in other parts of the world. I think that we just have a slightly 
different view.
  You know, the gentlewoman pointed her finger at me and began engaging 
in very, very strong language about the North American Free Trade 
Agreement. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I believe that the 
North American Free Trade Agreement has been an overwhelming success. 
Today we enjoy a third of a trillion dollars, with a capital T, in 
crossborder trade between Mexico and the United States.
  As President Bill Clinton said when he was eulogizing Lloyd Bentsen, 
the former Treasury Secretary and Senator from Texas, he said, were it 
not for the North American Free Trade Agreement, this very serious 
problem that we have of illegal immigration would be much, much worse 
today than it is.
  Now, if one realizes that in Mexico we have a burgeoning middle 
class, a middle class that is today larger than the entire Canadian 
population, and it is continuing to grow, those areas that have 
benefited most greatly from the North American Free Trade Agreement in 
the northern states of Mexico have seen tremendous booms in their 
standard of living.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Would the gentleman be happy to yield me a couple of 
seconds on his time?
  Mr. DREIER. I am happy to yield to my friend.
  MS. KAPTUR. You know, it is amazing how two people can live in this 
world and view it so differently. The exploitation of Mexico's rural 
countryside is a continental sacrilege. The reason we have all this 
illegal immigration to our country is NAFTA wiped out the struggling 
poor of Mexico's countryside. Does the gentleman have no conscience for 
them?
  Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker. May I reclaim my 
time?
  Ms. KAPTUR. What about our workers? Millions lost jobs because of 
NAFTA.
  Mr. DREIER. Could I reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker? Am I in control of 
my time?

[[Page 15192]]

  She is claiming that I am somehow exploiting the underclass of 
Mexico.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 additional minute 
to the gentleman.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). The gentleman is recognized for 
1 additional minute.
  Mr. DREIER. I would say to my friend, obviously we want to do 
everything that we can to see the standard of living and quality of 
life for that underclass that she refers to, as she leaves the floor, 
as I am trying to engage in this colloquy with her.
  I will say that I believe that our policies have played a big role in 
enhancing the standard of living and quality of life, and I am not 
going to be satisfied until every single one of those individuals does, 
in fact, see their quality of life improve.
  I believe in that economic liberalization and creating economic 
opportunity, which we have done for so much of Mexico, through the 
existence of the----
  Ms. KAPTUR. Would you be kind enough to yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I am happy to yield.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I will just say to the gentleman that post-NAFTA, the 
wages of Mexicans were cut in half. Two million people are streaming 
across this continent because their way of life has been destroyed. 
Travel with me to meet these people. In our Nation, the middle class 
has lost a million jobs to Mexico. Why is it the gentleman refuses to 
see this continental tragedy.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, that is just plain wrong. That is just plain 
inaccurate. If you look at, again, the standard of living and quality 
of life in Mexico, it is substantially greater today than it was before 
the North American Free Trade Agreement.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Not for the ordinary people.
  Mr. DREIER. I believe that these policies are very important for the 
United States and the world.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Only for those at the top.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on the 
previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend 
the rule to make in order a critical amendment that was offered in the 
Rules Committee yesterday by Trade Subcommittee Ranking Member Cardin, 
but unfortunately was rejected by a straight party-line vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to print the text of the 
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the 
previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. MATSUI. The Cardin amendment would close a dangerous loophole in 
the current agreement, a loophole that could jeopardize our Nation's 
port security. In other words, in its present form, this agreement 
would allow a foreign company based in Oman to operate U.S. port 
facilities. The Cardin amendment provides that the U.S.-Oman Free Trade 
Agreement cannot take effect until the U.S. withdraws its commitment to 
allow Omani companies to operate landside aspects of U.S. port 
activities.
  Unless we vote on the Cardin amendment today, we could once again be 
faced with a risk that the management of our vital ports might again be 
handed over to a foreign entity.
  The House must have the chance to weigh in on this matter of national 
security. It is time for this House to stop giving rubber-stamp 
approval to this administration at the expense of our national 
security. The Cardin amendment is the only way to ensure that this free 
trade agreement doesn't compromise our ports.
  Mr. Speaker, some of my colleagues may argue that the adoption of 
this important amendment will shut off the fast-track process in the 
Senate for this bill. True, perhaps, but we should not allow any 
process to trump our national security and the duty of this Congress to 
protect its citizens from harm.
  If we have to send this agreement back to the drawing board, so be 
it. However Members of this House feel about this trade deal, I would 
hope that they would all realize the danger of leaving this loophole in 
place. Vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can protect our 
ports.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, if the issue is on port security, then I would like to 
remind my colleagues of what I had said earlier, that in these trade 
agreements there are articles that speak to essential security, and 
these articles are self-judging, which means it is up to the individual 
country to make the determination as to what their security interests 
are.
  There is nothing in this agreement that can prevent us from applying 
what we consider to be security issues.
  But don't take my word for it. The Congressional Research Service, a 
nonpartisan organization, said, in addressing this issue and having an 
international tribunal judge this, that national security issues have 
never been subjected to review by trade panels. That is a very 
important distinction.
  Further, the Congressional Research Service goes on to say: ``The 
U.S. should appear to be on solid legal grounds for asserting not only 
that the panel does not, the independent panel, does not have legal 
authority to determine the validity of such a matter, but also that the 
inconsistent measure is permitted and justified, given the broad self-
judging language in the national security exemption.''
  So clearly the argument that the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement will 
make our Nation less secure, in fact, has no basis in fact. There is no 
question, however, Mr. Speaker, that fair trade promotes economic 
development and political cooperation.
  In fact, the 9/11 Commission specifically cited Middle Eastern free 
trade agreements and calls for action on a comprehensive U.S. strategy 
that President Bush has, I might add, engaged in that includes economic 
policies encouraging development, more open societies and opportunities 
for people to improve their lives.
  Mr. Speaker, approving this agreement is a vital step towards our 
efforts against the war on Islamofascism and seeks to make our Nation 
more, not less, secure.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Matsui is as follows:

 Previous Question on H. Res. 925--Rule for H.R. 5684, U.S.-Oman Free 
                   Trade Agreement Implementation Act

  Strike all after the resolved clause and insert in lieu thereof the 
following:

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 5684) to implement the United States-Oman Free 
     Trade Agreement. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the bill 
     and shall not exceed two hours equally divided and controlled 
     by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
     on Ways and Means. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     Notwithstanding section 151 of the Trade Act of 1974 and 
     clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the bill shall be in 
     order except the amendment specified in section 2 of this 
     resolution. The amendment may be offered only by 
     Representative Cardin of Maryland or his designee, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for 30 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against the 
     amendment specified in section 2 are waived. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2. The amendment referred to in the first section of 
     this resolution is as follows:

                  Amendment to H.R. 5684, as Reported

                   Offered by Mr. Cardin of Maryland

       At the end of section 101, add the following:
       (c) Additional Condition for Entry Into Force.--In addition 
     to the provisions of subsection (b), the President may not 
     provide

[[Page 15193]]

     for the Agreement to enter into force with respect to the 
     United States until the United States has included in its 
     reservation relating to the provision of maritime 
     transportation services and the operation of U.S.-flagged 
     vessels, beginning on page 5 of the Schedule of the United 
     States contained in Annex II of the Agreement, measures 
     relating to the following: landside operations of port 
     activities, including operation and maintenance of docks; 
     loading and unloading of vessels directly to or from land; 
     marine cargo handling; operation and maintenance of piers; 
     ship cleaning; stevedoring; transfer of cargo between vessels 
     and trucks, trains, pipelines, and wharves; and waterfront 
     terminal operations.

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

  This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a 
special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering 
the previous question is a vote against the Republican majority agenda 
and a vote to allow the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer 
an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
debating.
  Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives, 
(VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the previous question on the rule 
as ``a motion to direct or control the consideration of the subject 
before the House being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the 
previous question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling of January 
13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the 
demand for the previous question passes the control of the resolution 
to the opposition'' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, 
a member of the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House 
defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to a 
parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker 
Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been 
refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the 
gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
recognition.''
  Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican majority they 
will say ``the vote on the previous question is simply a vote on 
whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution * * 
* [and] has no substantive legislative or policy implications 
whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). Here's how 
the Republicans describe the previous question vote in their own 
manual: Although it is generally not possible to amend the rule because 
the majority Member controlling the time will not yield for the purpose 
of offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by voting 
down the previous question on the rule * * * When the motion for the 
previous question is defeated, control of the time passes to the Member 
who led the opposition to ordering the previous question. That Member, 
because he then controls the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, 
or yield for the purpose of amendment.''
  Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, the 
subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a refusal to 
order the previous question on such a rule [a special rule reported 
from the Committee on Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and 
further debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a resolution 
reported from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may offer a proper 
amendment or motion and who controls the time for debate thereon.''
  Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does have 
substantive policy implications. It is one of the only available tools 
for those who oppose the Republican majority's agenda to offer an 
alternative plan.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of 
my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on 
ordering the previous question on H. Res. 925 will be followed by 5-
minute votes on adoption of H. Res. 925, if ordered; and on the motion 
to suspend the rules on H. Res. 921.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227, 
nays 196, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 389]

                               YEAS--227

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--196

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer

[[Page 15194]]


     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Evans
     Fortenberry
     Lewis (GA)
     McKinney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Pence

                              {time}  1153

  Ms. WATERS changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 237, 
nays 187, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 390]

                               YEAS--237

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--187

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Buyer
     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Evans
     Fortenberry
     McKinney
     Northup
     Nussle

                              {time}  1203

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________