Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the actions of terrorists will never cause the date of any Presidential election to be postponed and that no single individual or agency should be given the authority to postpone the date of a Presidential election.

Mr. Speaker, I support this rule. However, I want to make it clear that we do not want this as a precedent that on trade agreements only 2 hours of debate always are allowed. In this case I think 2 hours will be satisfactory. That will not always be true.

There are good reasons to support this FTA, and I do so. There is the historical relationship between our two countries, as mentioned. There are the present realities in our relationship, Morocco's important role in its area and beyond that. Also, there are some important provisions in this agreement; for example, relating to manufacturing goods outside of the textile area. Ninety-five percent of them will become duty-free. There are strong services commitments, strong IPR commitments. So there are good reasons to be supportive of this.

I do want to put in perspective, though, several issues that have come up in our discussion, and these issues really were raised by us on the minority side. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) likes to talk about raising issues as if it is a reflection of economic isolationism. That is the rubric, the mantra, the propaganda of the majority. They try to pin it on Democrats, including John Kerry. It is absurd. We raised several issues because they were legitimate ones, not because we opposed expanded trade, but because we want expanded trade to work for everybody. We want expanded trade to be shaped. We do not think it is some magic bullet that we simply have to shoot and everything will work out. We do not think trade policy should be on automatic pilot. We do not think that what is necessarily appropriate in one trade agreement is appropriate in another. These cookie cutter approaches of this administration are wrong, and surely we do not support this agreement because we think that the economic record of this administration is worthy of support by anybody in this country.

So we raised a couple of issues. And the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) referred to the prescription medicine provision, and I want to talk about it. Before I do that, a brief word and we will have more discussion during the 2 hours about the core labor standard provisions. The gentleman from California said we should not impose U.S. wages, identical laws on other countries. That is not what we are talking about. That again is propaganda from the majority side. What we are talking about are basic core international standards, and countries, including ours, have signed on to a declaration that says that people should have the right to associate, to bargain, to be free from discrimination, there should be no child or forced labor. That is what we are talking about when we say they should be incorporated into free trade agreements.

We asked the question, an important one, where is Morocco? Where is Morocco today in terms of their laws and their enforcement of these core labor standards? And the majority, because of their view that trade always works out for the best, it is always win-win, did not raise any questions about that. In fact, as to the reforms of 2003 in Morocco, there was not even within our government an English translation of these laws. And we asked for one and we looked at them. We talked to the Moroccan government about these laws, and I am pleased to say that we had a very useful discussion, which we initiated and the Moroccan government responded to, regarding the status of these core labor standards in Moroccan law and in Moroccan practice.

The reforms that were inaugurated last year were a major step forward. The Moroccan society has some history of some freedom for workers, and the independent union in Morocco supports this agreement, I think, as a result. But there were issues raised as to the ability of people to associate, to bargain, and to strike, and so we asked the Moroccan government to give us in writing the status, and I want to quote from their letter and I will place that letter in the Record. The letter read this way:

``The government of Morocco is committed to protecting the right to strike in conformance with ILO, International Labor Organization's core principles. In particular, the government will not use Article 288 of our penal code against lawful strikers.''

So I very much disagree with the administration's approach in general. They have in the agreements enforce their own laws. They put these in the agreements regardless of whether the laws incorporate the standards and whether there is implementation of them. And when we have a chance, when we take over, that will change. But in the meanwhile, the question is, is there conformance, is there conformance basically in Morocco with the core labor standards? And I think the realities as we were able to dig them out indicate that they are basically in conformance with the core labor standards.

Now a few words about prescription medicines. Why did we inquire? First of all, there is the same provision here as there is in the previous agreement, including Australia, the general patent provision that could be applied to reimportation of prescription medicines. It turns out in the case of Morocco that that provision is not going to have any potential effect. All of the legislation that has been introduced regarding reimportation does not include Morocco. They have a very small pharmaceutical industry. So I do not think, though I do not like this provision as a general rule, that we should vote against Morocco because of it, but we should make clear that we do not believe these provisions or this provision should be in trade agreements.

Now what about the impact of these provisions not on our important health needs but the important health needs of the people of Morocco? And we were concerned about that. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) talked about AIDS. Look, if we are really concerned, and I think we all are, we need to look at these agreements to see what is the potential impact on the availability of medicines to people in Morocco who are suffering from AIDS and where there is in other cases as well some kind of a health emergency? And there were several provisions in this agreement that raised questions about the accessibility of the people of Morocco in these cases to necessary pharmaceuticals and the ability of the government of Morocco to take the steps necessary to make these drugs available. And these are fairly technical provisions, but they relate to the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. One relates to so-called parallel imports and the other to test data protections.

So I will make a long story short, and, if necessary, we can talk more about this when we have the debate of 2 hours. We entered into discussions with USTR. We on the Democratic side sent a letter to USTR, and they responded. And I include those two letters in the Record. And we said, in a few words, would the provisions in these two cases prevent accessibility to necessary drugs in a real case of emergency or necessity? And essentially what USTR has said: The agreement in the side letters, when read together, would not prohibit action by the Moroccan government to provide access to these drugs. And these side letters do have effect. The USTR has told us the

following, and I want to read them so there is clarity. This is from page 8 of the mentioned letter to me:

``As stated in the side letter, the letter constitutes a formal agreement between the parties. It is thus a significant part of the interpretive context for this agreement and not merely rhetorical.'' And they also then earlier have said: ``Therefore, if circumstances ever arise in which a drug is produced under compulsory license,'' meaning the government of Morocco has given that license to make these drugs available, ``and it is necessary to approve that drug to protect public health or effectively utilize the TRIPS/health solution, the data protection provisions in the FTA would not stand in the way.'' And they say the same as to the parallel import issue.

So I just finish by saying this to make it very clear: We were concerned. There is an AIDS epidemic. There are other health issues of serious import for the lives of children and other citizens of Morocco, and we took the initiative to be sure that this agreement would not prevent the availability of medicines in these circumstances. The Declaration, the language that was worked out in Doha, made it clear as to WTO that countries could protect themselves and their citizens when there was an overriding health need, and we wanted to make sure that nothing in this FTA would override that ability. And I am satisfied because of the exchange of letters. I am satisfied because of what was written to us by USTR. I am now satisfied by their categorical statement at our hearing just a few days ago that there would be nothing that would prevent access to these medicines in the circumstances I mentioned because of the FTA.

For all of those reasons, I believe that the issue for Morocco has been addressed. But I want to make it very clear that when we negotiate these agreements in the first place, as is true for core labor standards, as is true for health needs, as is true for anything else, we should be sensitive to what the possible impact would be. We should not be using cookie cutter approaches when the lives and the livelihoods of people in our country and in other countries are involved.

So I support this agreement. I urge passage of the rule. But I think this has been a healthy process, and I think we have both clarified the meaning of this agreement, and also I think what we have done is to serve notice as to how these agreements should be negotiated in the future.

Embassy of the

Kingdom of Morocco,

Washington, DC, July 14, 2004.

Hon. Sandy Levin,

Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Levin: I have deeply appreciated the

continuing opportunity to work with you on the U.S. Morocco

Free Trade Agreement. In particular, I welcome your interest

in our nation's labor law, specifically the comprehensive

reforms, passed last year.

I want to address through this letter some of the issues

that have been highlighted in conversations with you and your

staff. Under Moroccan law, it is illegal to fire an

individual because they are a member of a labor organization

or have engaged in labor organizing. To fire someone on these

grounds would be arbitrary under the 2003 law and would make

available the full remedies provided under that law.

Under Moroccan law, it is illegal to refuse to hire an

individual because they are a member of a labor organization

or have engaged in labor organizing. It is also illegal to

refuse to rehire or extend the contract of an individual for

these reasons.

Section 473 is a provision in the 2003 Labor Law and the

provision's intent is to ensure that labor representatives do

not undermine the traditional labor organizations. The

government intends to implement this provision to achieve

that goal, consistent with the core provisions of the ILO.

The right to strike is protected in the Moroccan

constitution. Further clarification of these rights is

underway. The government of Morocco is committed to

protecting the right to strike in conformance with the

International Labor Organization's core principles. In

particular, the government of Morocco will not use Article

288 of our penal code against lawful strikers.

Concerning the questions regarding Labor Representatives,

employers have the obligation to organize the elections for

the labor representatives. Employers cannot vote in these

elections and are not able to choose labor representatives.

Only employees can vote and elect freely the labor

representatives.

Employees can join freely the Union of their own choice.

Unions designate their representatives within the companies.

On the ILO involvement, Morocco has always worked with ILO.

For instance, ILO assisted Morocco to write the Labor Code of

2003 and the new law on child labor. Morocco, as in the past,

will continue to ask the support of ILO and work with this

organization in all labor issues such as new laws and will

ask its help in providing assistance for the implementation

of the current rules.

I look forward to continuing to work with you on these

issues and any others of potential concern. Nevertheless, I

wanted to get back to you in a timely manner on the key

issues addressed in this letter.

Sincerely,

Aziz Mekouar,

Ambassador.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 728) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the actions of terrorists will never cause the date of any Presidential election to be postponed and that no single individual or agency should be given the authority to postpone the date of a Presidential election.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today to introduce, I think, an extremely important resolution, House Resolution 728, which expresses the sense of the House that the actions of terrorists will never cause the date of any national election, Presidential election, to be postponed and that no single individual or agency should be given the authority to postpone the date of a national election.

In a great democratic republic such as ours, there is nothing more fundamental than the bond that is forged between citizens and their representatives during the course of regularly scheduled elections. In our country and by design of our Federal Constitution, the people are sovereign. The power that we exercise as representatives derives directly from their consent.

James Madison, writing in Federalist No. 52, stated that ``It is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people.'' According to Madison, ``Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectually secured.''

Congress is authorized by the Constitution to determine the date on which the Presidential election and all other Federal elections will take place. Thus, only an act of Congress, and not the actions of a single individual or agency, could change that date.

The ability of the United States to conduct regularly scheduled Federal elections even during the most difficult and trying of times, for example, such as during the Civil War and during World Wars I and II, is a hallmark of our strength and our resiliency, the great cornerstone of our democracy itself. We would do well to remember the counsel of Abraham Lincoln who, after having been reelected President while the Civil War was raging, stated:

``We cannot have free government without elections. And if the rebellion could force us to forgo, or postpone a national election, it might fairly claim to have already conquered and ruined us. The election, along with its incidental and undesirable strife, has done good. It has demonstrated that a people's government can sustain a national election in the midst of a great civil war. Until now it has not been known to the world that this was a possibility.''

The resolution that we are introducing today reaffirms our national commitment to holding Federal elections, including the election for President, on the date prescribed by law and to stand firm in the face of terrorist enemies who seek to derail the operation of our democracy.

Since the terrible and fateful morning of September 11, 2001, we all have become in this country painfully aware of the destructive intent of our country's terrorist enemies as well as the increasingly sophisticated and devastating methods by which they carry out their deadly work. We were further reminded of al Qaeda's hatefulness and total disregard for innocent life this past March when, in the days leading up to the Spanish national elections, they unleashed a string of lethal bombings that killed scores of civilians in Madrid. Shortly thereafter, the Spanish Government, that had stood shoulder to shoulder with us, was then voted out of office. But it is not a matter of who was voted into office or who was voted out of office. It is the matter of the action that the terrorists took to intimidate a country.

I realize that many factors were at play during that election. However, I have no doubt that al Qaeda believes its actions led directly to the defeat of a government. And I believe, in fact, the threats that we hear about are intimidation factors on us in the United States to attempt to get us to think about the possibility of a national election being changed.

We hope that there are no terrorist attacks, of course, and we hope that our Central Intelligence Agency and FBI and Homeland Security will do everything possible, as we know they will, in conjunction with the States, to make sure that attacks are not carried out.

But if an attack did occur and we in fact postponed an election, what would we do? Would we say it will happen in 1 week? Or it will happen in 2 weeks? And there is another attack and we postpone it for 2 more weeks. One could imagine the chaos that would be caused by this type of action.

It has been suggested that such an attack may require the postponement of this November's election. I strongly disagree. Any delay in the conduct of an election in the aftermath of a terrorist attack would signify weakness rather than strength and would be a victory for the terrorists if they could accomplish that here on our soil. I believe that if such an attack were ever to occur, and I earnestly pray, as we all do, that it never happens, the actions of millions of Americans across this great country casting their ballots in a regularly scheduled election would send a very powerful signal to our terrorist enemies and to all the world about the vigor of our democracy and the fortitude of our citizens to continue on where America does her work, at the ballot box.

With this resolution the House declares on behalf of the American people it represents that the strength and stability of the American democratic system and the values upon which it is founded are much greater than any attempts our terrorist enemies may make to disrupt or destroy them. The message we send is unmistakably clear: we will not shrink in the face of terrorist threats.

And let me add one other point I think that is important to make. As there has been chatter about the possibility of talking about one person or one agency postponing the elections, we live in a democracy. Elections are postponed in countries that have dictators by one individual. We do not operate that way. So there are many good reasons to support this.

I want to thank the Speaker of the House, all of the Republicans. I want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and most of all also the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), our ranking member. This is a truly bipartisan resolution. This is a resolution where everybody has joined together to say that we will not be intimidated and to say that Congress has the authority on the elections, the elections will go forward, and that no one single person or agency will even entertain the idea that, in fact, they can postpone an election. I thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) for his great support.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), and I would also note that the gentleman has introduced House Concurrent Resolution 474 into our committee, and it supports the very same objectives; and I appreciate the gentleman's introducing that resolution.

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am not sure I am going to attempt to actually answer that, but I will say this, and I respect always the gentleman's opinion: when he says the issue is about counting votes, we cannot count votes unless we have an election, I understand where he is coming from. However, there is an issue about the security of the ballots. Let us take terrorists away from it. There could be an earthquake. It could be in California. It could be in Texas. Do we then stop the national elections? Forget terrorism. Would we stop the national elections if on the day of the elections there was an earthquake somewhere? Would we somehow broadcast to the Nation stop, turn around, and go home? But I think, frankly, understanding what he is saying, respecting what he is saying about security, this still goes way beyond that.

At issue tonight is not forgetting about security elections, not forgetting about having accurate elections, but the issue is with the chatter about one person being able to stop elections; the Congress, I think this is the time the Congress is the body that can do that, and this is as a result of the chatter about one person.

Now, whom would we pick? Would we pick you, would we pick the Speaker, would we pick the minority leader, would we pick the Attorney General, would we pick Homeland Security?

So I think the issue of this is stating on the record that Congress will not even entertain one person, because the idea of one person is something so foreign to us, that no one individual in this country ever, ever has the power to stop an election.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, we have gone a long way in this country, and we always continue to look for ways we can better improve security, ways that we can have integrity in the elections, the Help America Vote Act. There are a lot of different things that we continuously do in the history of our country.

On this issue, I am so proud of this House. I want to thank the Speaker for his support, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) for his quick action on this, the Democratic leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

You take Members from all backgrounds in this House and sometimes people say, do you ever agree on anything? Well, you know, we might disagree here and there. But you take Members from the left, the right and the middle, you take Members from the rural and the urban, they have come together so quickly on this resolution on a bipartisan basis, because I believe that this Chamber knows and respects the integrity of our process and the rule of law that we have on the election process and Congress' clear, defined role in that.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman and I urge support of this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement. Let me begin by responding to some of the comments my very good friend, the gentlewoman from Rochester, New York (Ms. Slaughter), offered. Those have to do with HIV/AIDS and with gender inequality. We are all very concerned about dealing with those very serious crises that are out there. Most of us have come to the conclusion that one of the best tools that we can utilize to deal with those challenges is to encourage greater economic growth. Improving the standard of living for people will dramatically enhance the chance to deal with gender inequality, to deal with the challenge of having the resources to tackle greater education when it comes to the proliferation of HIV/AIDS.

So let me say that this agreement is itself a very, very comprehensive, unique and cutting-edge agreement which will create opportunities on both sides of the Atlantic.

Last week this body overwhelmingly passed the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement. There is certainly a great deal of differences between Australia and Morocco. Australia has an economy which is very much like ours. They are a developed, industrialized nation with stringent labor and environmental standards. And like the United States, they have an economy that is increasingly based on services.

Morocco, by contrast, is a developing country facing many of the challenges that confront nations throughout the developing world. They are working very hard in Morocco to modernize their infrastructure and develop new sectors even as they strengthen the traditional industries like agriculture and textiles. They are aggressively pursuing labor and environmental reforms as well as combating piracy and counterfeiting. In short, Morocco is working diligently to climb higher and higher up that proverbial economic ladder.

The very remarkable thing about trade liberalization is these two trade agreements, with vastly different economies, can both be unequivocally good for all parties involved, making it a win/win. Trade is not only beneficial for big economies like the United States or wealthy economies like Australia, but it is very, very important for small, developing economies like Morocco, and I would argue in many ways because of the contrast that exists, trade agreements like this for developing nations create a potential for an even more dramatic improvement in the quality of life and the standard of living in those countries.

Unfortunately, economic isolationists often hide behind the guise of fair trade, an argument that was just put forth by my colleague from New York. They use fair trade to argue that because some countries lack the resources to pay American wages or enforce identical labor standards that we have in America, the most developed nation in the world, that we should somehow not trade with these countries. This is a tragically misguided argument.

It is precisely because these countries have further to go up that economic ladder that we should and must pursue open trade. Trade liberalization provides the tools for economic growth by opening up new markets, by building the legal framework necessary for a healthy business and investment environment by creating the resources to set high labor and environmental standards. Morocco is a perfect example of just such a country.

Mr. Speaker, for many years Morocco has been working to bring its economy into this new and vibrant 21st century. It has been working to increase its standard of living, and it has been striving to raise its labor and environmental standards. In fact, Morocco's aggressive efforts to reform its labor laws since the start of the free trade agreement process began, culminated in a groundbreaking new labor law that was passed just a few weeks ago.

These reforms address issues ranging from child labor to the minimum wage to nondiscrimination of women and the disabled, leading again to deal with the challenge that the gentlewoman from Rochester, New York (Ms. Slaughter) raised. This new labor code makes Morocco a leader in the developing world, and it is a testament both to Morocco's commitment to high standards and the effectiveness and the importance and the dynamism of economic engagement.

Morocco is living up to its commitments even before implementation of this free trade agreement, but I want to make it very clear, while the FTA is critical to helping Morocco stay on its current path of economic development, it is by no means a mere gift from the United States of America. American businesses, American consumers, American workers and investors will all benefit from this agreement. Mr. Speaker, 95 percent of all trade in consumer and industrial goods will immediately become duty free. American farmers will have a huge advantage as they gain greater access than even Morocco's traditional European trading partners currently enjoy. U.S. service providers will benefit from broad-based liberalization across all service sectors, and American producers will benefit from the highest intellectual property protections ever negotiated in a free trade agreement, and that is particularly of concern to those Members from areas like southern California where our entertainment industry is so important. Setting an example and dealing with this issue of intellectual property is key.

The FTA also grants us an opportunity to strengthen our relationship. I want to say that relationship has been dramatically strengthened from the work that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) has done in developing this important relationship we have. He and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) and others he mentioned have been very critical to building this U.S.-Morocco Caucus, and I congratulate them for their hard work in doing what we can to build that relationship which I believe has played a big role in leading us to this point where we, by an overwhelming margin, are going to pass this.

I believe this trade agreement is going to have a chance to deal with one of the challenges that exists in Morocco, and that is dealing with a challenge which has been going on for a long period of time with the Western Sahara. It is my hope that as we strengthen further this relationship between our two countries, we will be able to see a resolution to that.

Mr. Speaker, we know this has been a very important relationship between our two countries. Since 1777, when our

friendship formally began, Morocco has proven to be an important and strategic partner. This friendship has never been more apparent than throughout our recent global efforts to combat terrorism. We all know Morocco has been a critically important ally to us in that effort, and as a Muslim-Arab country, they have been an ardent U.S. supporter in a part of the world where our list of very good friends is not as strong as we would have liked.

Mr. Speaker, on both economic and political fronts, Morocco is making tremendous efforts. Today we are able to strengthen this important relationship while tearing down barriers, creating new opportunities for, as I said, American workers, American investors, American business people, and Moroccans alike. I urge my colleagues to demonstrate their support for our pro-economic growth agenda by voting for this rule and for the underlying measure.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Ney), my good friend.

I rise today in support of this resolution to reaffirm that our Federal elections should not be postponed in the event of terrorist attacks, as our chairman has eloquently stated in his remarks. I stand in support of this resolution because of the matters contained in the resolving clauses. Number one, the actions of terrorists will never cause the date of any Presidential election to be postponed; and, number two, no single individual or agency should be given the authority to postpone the date of a Presidential election. This is the meat of this resolution.

I further join with the gentlewoman (Ms. Pelosi), our distinguished leader, in calling for the United States to be an example for democracies around the world, and that means holding our elections on schedule. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), ranking member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, who spoke out so eloquently on this issue, and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), who has already circulated in the immediate comments following some of the press with respect to this issue and garnered more than 150 signatures, as the chairman has indicated, along bipartisan lines.

The Union has stood for over 225 years and has never had a Federal election postponed or cancelled. Not in time of war, not in time of economic turmoil, and not in time of natural disaster. We should not start now. We as a country will not bend in the face of threats to our democracy. The United States was founded on the ideas of hope and freedom. Those who believe that they will break those pillars with the threat of terror are misguided.

I have requested a briefing from Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge to learn how his Department plans to work with Congress to safeguard the November elections and on reducing the risk of attack. I join with the committee chairman and we share the concerns, and we all hope and pray and abide that no such attacks will occur, and yet we must be prepared for those contingencies. I would suggest that while we are mindful of security and the safety of voters, we should not focus on these issues to the extent that they damage democracy by frightening voters away from the polls. Americans should go to the polls in record numbers to show our determination that we take our democracy seriously.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), who has led the effort here in the House and petitioned to Secretary Ridge.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I just wanted to comment, as well, that I appreciate the spirit of my colleague's comments and what he had to say, and I think that votes being conducted does truly matter.

In the legislative process, would it be that every time we passed a piece of legislation did we not think the problem had been solved? So I agree that we have to continue to follow through on this issue.

But I think the chairman is correct in terms of looking at the gravity of this situation and an individual, and, as the gentleman pointed out in his remarks as well, understanding completely that that authority should derive with the United States Congress.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his thoughtful comments.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee)

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman, and I again want to add both my praise and thanks for the leadership of our distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), in bringing this resolution to the floor.

We are the greatest country on the face of the Earth. We are known throughout the globe for our great strength and resolve. We are known for the great strength of our military and our armies and the shock and awe that they create.

But the most awesome thing that we have, the thing that sticks out in everybody's minds, what makes us the Nation that we are, is our freedom of expression and our right to vote. That is why this is such an important resolution and such an important issue.

In the final analysis, it will not be the strength of our armies; it will be the strength of the individual and collective thoughts of our citizens that are expressed on the day we vote that makes us the Nation that we are.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his leadership.

Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of this resolution to reaffirm that our Federal elections should not be postponed in the event of terrorist attack. I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the Chairman and thank his staff for drafting this resolution. I stand in support of this resolution because of the matters contained in the resolving clauses (1) the actions of terrorists will never cause the date of any Presidential election to be postponed; and (2) no single individual or agency should be given the authority to postpone the date of a Presidential election. This is the meat of the resolution, and others can debate about the meaning of the ``whereas'' clauses--and I am sure there will be lots of different interpretations.

I further join with Leader Pelosi in calling for ``the United States to be an example for democracies around the world, and that means holding our elections as scheduled.'' I would also like to thank the ranking minority member of the Homeland Security subcommittee Jim Turner and Representative Lynn Woolsey for their leadership on this very important issue. This union has stood for over 225 years and has never had a Federal election postponed or cancelled. Not in time of war; not in time of economic turmoil and not in time of natural disaster. We should not start now! We as a country will not bend in the face of threats to our democracy. The United States was founded on the ideals of Hope and Freedom! Those who believe that they will break those pillars with the threat of terror are misguided.

I have requested a briefing from Homeland Security Secretary Thomas Ridge to learn how his department plans to work with Congress to safeguard the November elections and on reducing the risk of an attack.

I would suggest that while we must be mindful of the security and safety of voters, we should not focus on these issues to the extent that it damages democracy by frightening voters away from the polls. Americans should go to the polls in record numbers to show our determination that we take democracy seriously.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 738 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 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. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 738 is a standard, closed resolution for consideration of the underlying trade legislation that provides for fair and extensive debate on H.R. 4842, the United States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.

The rule provides 2 hours of general debate evenly divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, the relationship between the Kingdom of Morocco and the United States of America has existed throughout the history of the United States. In December of 1777, when war raged between the American colonies and Britain, Sultan Sidi Mohammed boldly recognized our young, and not yet free, Republic. That magnanimous act of recognition was cemented in a Treaty of Peace and Friendship between our countries, ratified in July of 1878. That enduring document remains the oldest unbroken treaty in the history of the foreign relations of the United States. Quite simply, the Kingdom of Morocco is our most permanent and enduring friend.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John), and I came together to form the Morocco Caucus in Congress to highlight and to further deepen the truly magnificent and critically important relationship between the United States and the Kingdom of Morocco. The United States has no better friend and ally in the Maghreb, in North Africa and in the Arab world than Morocco.

We are cognizant of, and grateful for, the help Morocco provided during the reign of the great statesman King Hassan II in the dangerous and prolonged struggle known as the Cold War and in the initial and ultimately delicate stages of the peace process between Israel and her neighbors.

We are cognizant of, and grateful for, the unequivocal and decisive help Morocco has provided during the reign of another great statesman, King Mohammed VI, in our common war against the forces of international terrorism. Both our peoples have been victims of the scourge of cowardly attacks upon unarmed civilians, and both nations have answered the challenge of this difficult time with strong leadership and decisive action.

The United States must be cognizant and supportive of the wisdom and experience of Morocco, that great influence for stability in North Africa, in the Middle East, regarding issues related to international terrorism. We must understand that Morocco's insistence upon its territorial integrity and its refusal to accept a terrorist state in the Western Sahara is critically important, not only for the national security of Morocco, but also for the security of the United States and of our European allies.

Today, Mr. Speaker, we celebrate another milestone in the wonderful relationship between the United States and Morocco as we prepare to consider H.R. 4842, legislation to implement the United States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement. This agreement will benefit both our peoples as it facilitates and encourages ever-growing commerce between our countries and the creation of many new jobs in Morocco and in the United States. This agreement will help turn an already solid relationship into an even greater friendship.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to publicly thank a few distinguished leaders for making this important free trade agreement a reality.

Understanding the importance of this agreement and with the August recess quickly approaching, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) made great efforts to expedite the consideration of this agreement in the House. The gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) has been especially solid in his leadership on this critical issue, as has been the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), chairman of the Committee on Rules. Ambassador Bob Zoellick has been and continues to be a stalwart, strong advocate on behalf of the economic interests of the United States and especially job creation in America, and President Bush's leadership has truly been the linchpin for great accomplishments such as this.

While we fight terror across the globe, the United States, under this President, has deepened economic and security-based relationships with our friends for the benefit of our protection and our freedom.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying legislation that we bring before the House today.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Virginia brought up some very important points, and I think they are important to emphasize and not only take note of. This agreement, in addition to the many, many important aspects that it contains for the economy, obviously, of Morocco, and the United States, is a very important agreement politically; and it encourages the extraordinary progress that Morocco has made in the area of labor rights, in the area of a free press, and in the area of democratization.

Morocco has multiple political parties, espousing all conceivable viewpoints. It has an elected parliament and an elected prime minister. It has made commendable progress. It is a great friend and ally of the United States.

For so many reasons, Mr. Speaker, it is important and appropriate for this Congress to be moving forward today passing this implementing legislation for the United States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.