In a previous vote (Roll Call Vote #415), rules governing debate on two free trade agreements-one between the U.S. and Chile and the other between the U.S. and Singapore-were adopted. In the view of Progressives, the two hours provided in the rules for debate on both measures was an insufficient amount of time for them to detail their objections to the two trade agreements. Progressives opposed the trade agreements on several grounds. First, they argued, the trade agreements would exacerbate the trade deficit in the United States (a trade "deficit" in this context means that the U.S. annually pays more money for imported products-those made in other countries-than it earns in exporting U.S.-made goods to those countries). Second, Progressives contended that similar free-trade agreements (such as NAFTA) have enabled U.S. firms to export jobs to other countries at the expense of U.S. workers. Third, Progressives argued that free-trade agreements (like the proposals under consideration here) weaken labor protections for U.S. workers and encourage environmental degradation by allowing corporations unfettered access to harvest commodities in pristine natural environments. In an effort to allow more time to debate those issues, Representative Hastings (D-FL) motioned reconsider the previous vote on the rules governing debate on the two trade bills. On this vote, Congressman Dreier (R-CA) motioned to table (strike down) the Hastings motion to reconsider (hold another vote on) the rules of debate. Progressives voted in opposition to the tabling motion in an effort to uphold the Hastings motion and impel Republicans to provide additional time for debate on the trade agreements. On a nearly party-line vote of 228-197, Dreier's tabling motion was adopted, the Hastings motion was therefore defeated, and the previous vote on the rules of debate (Roll Call Vote #413) were sustained.