Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, the amendment does not impose any new requirements on the Secretary of Defense or contracting officers. Therefore, it is not legislating. According to the Federal Acquisition Regulations, FAR 9.409(a), when the contract value is expected to exceed $25,000, contractors are required to disclose honestly, they are already required to disclose honestly, the existence of indictments, charges, convictions, or civil judgments against them in the area of procurement. Further, the contracting officer can come back to the contractor and request specific information on the indictments, charges, convictions, or civil judgments in order to evaluate the business integrity of a contract. This is all under existing law. My amendment is a limitation amendment that merely states if an entity, if a contractor, which again they are required to do under the FAR, admits to more than three convictions for civil or criminal fraud, then the taxpayer dollars spent by the Pentagon cannot be used to support that contractor because of their criminal behavior. The amendment lists a number of offenses that would trigger the contract prohibition. These provisions in my amendment were taken directly from the FAR 9.406-2. So, again, there is no new legislating or authorizing going on in this amendment. I would say that many and most all Members of this House voted for ``three strikes you're out'' on Federal crimes against persons or the State. I would suggest that it would be appropriate to extend that principle to the very critical area of defense.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I would hope the gentleman does not insist on his point of order, because the amendment that is before the House now, which I am offering, would provide for ``three strikes and you're out'' for defense contractors who are convicted of government procurement related fraud only. They can have other offenses of law against their employees, environmental laws, any other Federal law, but more than three government procurement-related fraud convictions would suspend them from bidding on government contracts. I have quite a list of firms here, which I am not going to read through in its entirety, obviously; but the list, from 1988 to 1999, of several hundred convictions consists of $1.125 billion in penalties on firms for both civil and criminal fraud in the area of procurement. I believe that if we are talking about having the best most effective military we can have, the best weapon systems, the most cost-effective weapon systems, and having money adequate to provide training for our young men and women in uniform, we should do everything we can to squeeze fraud out of the system. Fraud is occurring, regularly occurring. Many would be shocked by the numbers and the names on this list, which is available through the Government Accounting Office. If the gentleman's point of order prevails, I will have to offer another amendment on this subject which would provide for ``one strike and you're out,'' which is in order and would also be retroactive. My legislation which is before us now would be ``three strikes and you're out,'' and it is not retroactive. So these hundreds of prior convictions would be forgiven, but the message would be sent to these defense contractors that we will no longer allow them to freely commit fraud in procurement; and if they do, the fourth time they do, they would be barred from further procurement for some period of time. The bill is not specific on the period of time for which they would be barred. There would be discretion available under existing law to the Secretary. I cannot see how anybody could raise an argument against this. Yes, someone can make a point of order and reduce it down to one strike and make it retroactive, which would of course disbar most of our existing contractors, because many have one, two, three or more convictions for prior fraud; but I would hope that everybody here is concerned about fraud. I believe this amendment could be crafted in a way that it would not be deleterious to our national defense. I would hope that the committee would accept the amendment and then perhaps rework it in a conference committee. I attempted to offer this amendment during the authorizing process, and I was precluded by the rule in offering a more sophisticated version of this amendment which would have dealt with a number of the questions that I am certain are going to be raised by members of the committee here. I had hoped to be able to do that during the authorizing process. I was not allowed to offer that amendment by the Committee on Rules, though it was submitted on a timely basis to the Committee on Rules. How can anybody defend continuing fraud? We have limited resources. Some of the fraud jeopardizes the safety of our troops; some of it goes to quality; some of it goes just to ripping off the Federal taxpayers. Either way, we cannot defend it; and we should bring an end to it. So I would suggest strongly that the gentleman withdraw his point of order, accept the amendment, and if they have some problems with some of the details, certainly those details could be provided for in conference with the Senate. Point of Order

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, there is sort of a contradictory vein here raised by the previous gentleman. He expresses concern about readiness, training, basic tools, and things that our men and women in uniform need. In fact, this amendment would follow the recommendations of the Government Accounting Office, the Pentagon, the Investigations Committee of the Armed Services, and slow down procurement of a plane that has yet to meet any significant portion of its testing benchmarks, the same concerns expressed last year. And the GAO says, in fact, things have gotten dramatically worse since December of last year, the concerns raised by the committee. That is the GAO saying that. That is not me. Things have gotten dramatically worse. I am saying it would be prudent before we begin to purchase for production planes that have not yet been proven, planes that are going to cost nearly $200 million a copy, when, as the gentleman says, and I agree with him, we are not meeting the basic needs of our troops, whether it be in the Air Force, which he is particularly concerned with, or the Navy, or the Army, or the Marines, like the young man whose father I met who was issued a garbage bag as a waterproof cover for his $12,000 new super-duper digital radio. I think he should have the digital radio. We need encrypted communications in the field so they would not have to use cell phones like they have in the last couple of conflicts. That is great. But the Pentagon cannot find the wherewithal to get a waterproof cover for his radio and his dad has to go buy him one at G.I. Joe's. There is something wrong. There is something wrong when Hal the Computer at the Pentagon is ordering parts that are in a 100-year supply for wartime and it is ordering more. It is ordering parts for weapons that have been retired at outrageous prices. That steals from the men and women in the field and their basic needs, and it steals from every American and all their needs. The management is broken. That is the statement of the chairman of the Committee on the Budget on that side of the aisle, that they cannot find things, like the $960 million that they mistakenly sent to contractors, which they voluntarily sent back. I think that is wonderful. But we do not know how much money was mistakenly sent to contractors who did not send it back. And we have accounts still of outrageously overpriced items. That steals from the men and women in the field. And to say the response is more, more, more, as opposed to better management, is a mistake. And that is the position I have consistently taken since I have come to this House of Representatives. I want the strongest, most efficient defense this country can buy so we do not steal from the men and women in the field and we do not steal from all the other needs in this country and more and more shoveled after bad management in an attempt not to punish the troops in the field who are being punished, as the gentleman himself pointed out, because they are not getting the training they need which we could fulfill if this amendment passed because we would transfer a billion dollars from a premature acquisition of a weapon that is not yet proven which has significant problems according to a number of very highly reputed sources.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I did not say that the gentleman had. What I said is that the gentleman prevailed on his point of order against the first one, so now I must offer one that goes to one strike, which I admit is very rigorous. But the point I am making is what message are we sending to defense contractors who have committed fraud, and the list is long and it is ongoing, according to the Government Accounting Office, if we say to them we are not going to crack down on you; keep committing fraud, fraud that endangers the lives of young men and women in the military with substandard equipment, fraud that drains precious tax dollars from the training the gentleman from California so eloquently talked about earlier, fraud that takes resources away from the American people, their tax dollars, and diverts it into the coffers that have not been earned by defense contractors? What message are we sending if we cannot crack down on fraud? I cannot believe that Members would vote against such an amendment.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I had hoped to not be required to offer an amendment which would disbar contractors for committing criminal or civil fraud in procurement from the Federal taxpayers in doing business with the Pentagon, and do that with only one offense. I was willing to give them both the opportunity to amend their ways, that is to say, it would not be retroactive. And, secondly, that it would allow three strikes, the same thing allowed in many criminal cases against persons under Federal law. What message are we sending here tonight if the committee objects to this amendment? We have had extensive and emotional discussion about the lack of resources for our young men and women in uniform. What message are we sending to them saying the next time a contractor provides a piece of equipment that does not meet specifications and endangers their lives, their mission, that could strand them behind enemy lines.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I do not understand how anybody can object to meeting a real need with health care and not putting up money for beginning procurement of a system that is not yet known, it is not a known quantity; it has not had, as far as we know, any successful test. Now, it is true they claim to have had a successful test, but an employee of the contractor filed suit saying, in fact, they had faked the tests and the data. An expert on this sort of missile technology, Ted Postal at MIT, obtained the data, analyzed it, and wrote a letter and said, in fact, she was right, they had faked up the data, it did not work, it could not discriminate among decoys. This is all in the public realm. The first response of the Pentagon and the White House was that Mr. Postal was absolutely wrong, he was working with the wrong data set, his analysis was bad, and they would prove him wrong. But before they proved him wrong, they classified his critique and they now are not trying to prove him wrong, so I guess his critique was right. In fact, the data was faked out by the contractor and, in fact, the system does not work; after $60 billion, it still does not work, a couple more billion this year, and now let us move to procurement. Let us vitiate the only viable arms control we have ever had in terms of the agreements we have reached with the former Soviet Union and vitiate the ABM Treaty and start a new arms race with China and what is left of the Soviet Union, Russia and whoever else can produce these things. Mr. Chairman, this is madness. This is madness. It is almost as mad as the thought that the dictator of North Korea is going to build a missile, if he could, that could possibly wobble its way over to the United States and hit us with one missile, and then if he had that thing, he would shoot it, which would be detected 30 seconds after launch, and the retaliation would turn his country into glass. I do not think he is going to shoot that missile. There are other ways that a dictator or terrorist can threaten our security, and it is not with a missile that can be detected. And, if they were not going to use a missile, then it would be someone who is a little more advanced who would shoot underneath the system. It cannot work against cruise missiles which can carry nuclear warheads; it cannot work against depressed submarine-launched missiles, depressed trajectory missiles. Everyone admits that. No one is saying they are trying to design a system to do that, so we already know. They can use countermeasures, they can bring in ICBMs. If they do not want to use ICBMs, they can use a much cheaper cruise missile, they can use a much cheaper submarine missile, they can go under it, but I do not even think that is a real threat. Mr. Chairman, I am on the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation. We have a real threat. Today, anybody can steam a tramp steamer under a bizarre foreign flag, Libya or some other country that does not exist that has a phoney registry, into any port in this Nation without being checked. Well, that might present a real threat to the security of this country, and I am not going to go on very much more about that, but that is something we ought to be thinking about. We are not dealing with the real threats here. We are dealing with a program that was cynically designed to put expenditures in three- quarters of the congressional districts of this country to provide some profits to some defense contractors and some employment to some scientists that cannot ever successfully defend our Nation. Mr. Chairman, it is time to stop wasting the money. If we want to go ahead and continue to waste the money on testing, do not lock us into procurement, do not vitiate the ABM Treaty, and do not lock us into procurement on a system that has yet to have a successful, honest test.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I have seen the transcript, which uses the word ``some'' people. Obviously, I feel strongly the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) was directly referencing another Member of the House, me. Perhaps he was not. If he is not, then I will remove the objection at this point in time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand that the words be taken down.

Mr. DeFAZIO. The gentleman is inaccurate. They are listed as a reference by another group. Any group, I am sure that the Nazis of America can list people in this House if they want. Anybody can make such lists. It has no affiliation. If the gentleman is alleging an affiliation, he is absolutely wrong, inaccurate.

Mr. DeFAZIO. He does not have the time to make inaccurate statements, and I will be asking to have his words taken down if he continues in this vein.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Is the gentleman familiar with the first amendment? Anybody can list anything. I am going to be asking for a point of personal privilege if the gentleman continues to insult me in the most inaccurate manner and make inaccurate statements.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I think we are going to get into a point of personal privilege very soon if the gentleman continues with his bizarre and inaccurate accusations because he cannot operate a computer properly.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment serves two purposes. We have heard and continue to hear a litany of concerns from our men and women serving in the military about their basic needs not being met. We still know some can receive and are eligible for food stamps. I talked earlier about a Marine's dad who had to buy him a waterproof case for his new digital radio as a communications specialist, because the Pentagon could not afford it. We have problems meeting sea duty pay. We have problems in readiness. This amendment will go to many of those concerns. It is quite modest in its scope, actually, and follows the recommendations of a number of professionals. It says that we should slow down the procurement of a plane that has not yet been successfully tested. We would cut from 10 to six this fiscal year under consideration the procurement of the F- 22, a plane which has failed to meet any of the major benchmarks in its testing and advanced purchases from 16 to eight. Mr. Chairman, this would follow the recommendations of the General Accounting Office, the Pentagon's Director of Operational Tests and Evaluation and, in fact, the committee's own surveys and investigations staff recommendations. I met this morning with Colonel Riccioni. He was a principal in the development of the F-16, a very decorated fighter pilot. He said in his critique, which was absolutely devastating of the F-22, and perhaps it should be classified like the critiques of Star Wars have recently been by a prominent physicist, his are not classified. He said this plane was designed to be stealthy. It is not stealthy. It is bigger than an F-15. It is visible. It is visible at a longer distance. It is visible from look-down or look-up radar. It has a huge radar signature of its own. It is not stealthy on an infrared basis, and it fails all of those criteria. It does not have, nor does he believe they can prove, a supersonic cruise capability. It was the idea in the designing to fight deep into the Soviet Union against threats which the Soviet Union is not building. The avionics do not work. In fact, what he says will happen here is that if we go ahead with procurement of this plane, which will not meet the standards that were set out, that we will jeopardize our future combat capacity because we will produce so few of these planes and replace so many planes with them. The original plan was for 800 F-22s. Then it was 620. Then it was 460. Then it was 339. Not because of our operational needs. We have always enjoyed numerical air superiority. If we cut down to 339, and I suspect we will end up maybe with 200 the way the prices are running with this plane if it works, we are going to give up the idea of numerical superiority and bet on this plane which is totally unproven. Mr. Chairman, I am not even saying we should not build it. I am not saying we should not go forward. I am saying we should slow down until we meet the benchmarks and the tests. Take a billion dollars and take that billion dollars and put it into needs that were requested by the Pentagon that are not met in this bill. That makes sense to me. I think it would make sense to a lot of the troops on the ground. It may not make sense to some of the brass hats at the top of the Pentagon; and it certainly will not make sense to the contractor who is building this plane, at this point at such an extravagant cost overrun. So I would suggest strongly that my colleagues, if they support the recommendations of the Pentagon in the areas of recruiting, bonus payments for sailors on sea duty, basic allowance for subsistence, that means get the troops and their families off food stamps once and for all; if we are looking at the O&M request of the Marine Corps, the personnel request of the Marine Corps again for basic allowance; O&M requests for the Air Force for maintenance and base operations, recruiting and retention for the Air Force, basic allowance, get the young men and women in the Air Force off food stamps; get the young men and women in the Army off food stamps and look at O&M defense-wide for cooperative threat reduction and for overseas humanitarian disaster and civic aid. We have an extraordinary list of things we could fund if we just followed the advice of the experts and said do not rush into full production at accelerated production with a plane that has not even yet met its basic test requirements. That is what we are talking about here. This was a subject of concern last year. The committee, in fact last year in the House, the House bill did not include funding for this plane. They killed it. They went much further than I am going. They killed the plane because of these similar concerns. I am just saying take and transfer this nearly a billion dollars to these real identified readiness needs of our men and women on the ground. Slow this thing down. Do full testing. And then if it meets those tests, if it operates and can meet the criteria we set out at the beginning, which Colonel Riccioni and others say it will not and cannot do, then go ahead. But if it cannot, then maybe we should think later about canceling it and investing in other projects that are proposed, like the Joint Strike Fighter.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today would in 1 year raise funding for the Pentagon by $24 billion. Given some of the stories I have heard from the troops in the field, some of that money might be well spent. Unfortunately, I do not believe it is in this bill, and I do not believe it is getting to the folks that need it. I met the dad of a Marine who had a fancy new digital radio, that is true, they had acquired that for him; but the Pentagon told him they could not afford a waterproof cover for the nonwaterproof digital radio, and his dad was in GI Joe's in Oregon buying the kid a waterproof cover for his radio. There is something wrong with a Pentagon that can provide the fancy equipment, but it cannot provide the basics. We still have families in the military on food stamps. This bill does not take care of that problem. We have recruitment and retention problems. We have problems for hard duty, sea duty. There were requests by the Pentagon to fund those programs. They are not funded in this budget. This budget does not take care of the young men and women serving us in the military, but it does take care of the defense contractors. Huge new weapons programs will be rushed forward with this bill. More billions for Star Wars that is yet to have one successful test. We are going to rush production of the F-22 aircraft. Yet this is an aircraft that is 2 years behind on its flight tests and has yet to complete even basic flight testing. But we are going to move ahead to procurement of a weapon that may not be needed that at this point does not work at a cost of $300 million per fighter plane. It is supposed to be stealthy. The only thing stealthy about it is if we spend all our money on F-22s, they will be stealthy, we will hardly see an American fighter plane in the next war because we will not have hardly any and the ones we have might not be able to fly. Let us slow that down. Contractors return voluntarily nearly $1 billion of overpayments sent to them by a Pentagon that cannot keep track of its funds, and the GAO says there were another $5 billion of overpayments at least that were rendered. They cannot even do bookkeeping. The answer is to give them another $24 billion; $24 billion that does not go to the troops, $24 billion that does not go to basic readiness, $24 billion that does not go to recruitment and retention problems, $24 billion that flows to weapons systems that we do not need, that do not work, that are costing outrageous amounts of money. It is time to inject a little common sense into this debate. I am going to offer an amendment on the F-22 to slow that program down and save $1 billion. I am also going to offer another simple common sense amendment, perhaps too common sense for us inside the Beltway here, not for me but maybe for other Members, that would say that any contractor who three times is convicted of procurement fraud against the taxpayers of the United States would not be eligible to further contract with the Department of Defense. I will not even go back in time. If we did it retroactively, it would disqualify all our defense contractors. But let us go from this date forward and say from this date forward defense contractors are not going to commit fraud against the taxpayers of the United States; and if they do, they will lose their contracts.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my congratulations to Umpqua Training and Employment, Inc. (UT&E), which celebrates its 25th anniversary on June 11, 2000. UT&E has been a pillar in the community, offering employment training, guidance, and aid to the citizens of Douglas County. On June 11, 1975, the State of Oregon's Corporation Division of the Department of Commerce issued a certificate of incorporation to the District 6 Manpower Program. The non-profit corporation was organized by a group of Douglas County residents who believed that federal employment and training programs should be administered by a private corporation governed by local directors. In 1981, the corporation began doing business under the name Umpqua Training and Employment, Inc. Although UT&E's original focus was training the structurally unemployed--those who have difficulty getting and keeping jobs under any economic circumstances--they saw an increase in business during the recession of the 1980's. The unemployment rate shot past the 20 percent mark, and residents increasingly began to utilize UT&E services, which include labor market information, testing and assessment, job search training, career counseling, work experience opportunities, and occupational training both in the classroom and on-the-job. In the mid-1980's Alcan Cable moved to Douglas County and established a unique partnership with UT&E by locating their human resource department in UT&E's offices. Applicants who may never have been considered for employment,found good jobs with an excellent local company, and UT&E began to actively participate in industrial recruitment efforts. They have assisted virtually every new employer who has located in Douglas County since 1987, including WinCo Foods, which is currently establishing their food distribution center, and Roseburg Forest Products which is building their new LVL and I-Joist plant. In the early 1990's as the timber industry downsized, UT&E, the local office of the Employment Department, and Umpqua Community College formed a ``rapid response unit'' to assist workers displaced by plant closures and large lay-offs. With federal funds granted to especially hard-hit areas like Douglas County, UT&E helped almost 1,500 residents acquire new skills and new jobs. UT&E has been recognized for its excellence by the Board of Douglas County Commissioners, the State of Oregon, and the Oregon Consortium. I join my colleagues in offering my personal congratulations to all those involved with Umpqua Training and Employment, Inc. on its 25th anniversary. Their tireless work in the community has provided countless jobs for the citizens of Douglas County, and I wish the members and beneficiaries of UT&E continue success in their future endeavors.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. The President and the Republican leaders and Wall Street say this agreement is about jobs. Well, it is about jobs, job gains in China, and lost jobs for American workers. We are running a 60 billion trade deficit with China, and the President's own analysts, in looking at this agreement, the International Trade Commission, say it will reach a $120 billion deficit in 10 years under this agreement, if they live up to it. That is if they live up to the agreement. Does anyone really believe that the Chinese workers at 20 cents an hour constitute a huge market for U.S. goods? No. They represent a huge pool of cheap, oppressed labor that U.S. firms hope to better exploit under this agreement. It is about U.S. capital fleeing to China, manufacturing fleeing to China, to exploit cheap labor. They say it is about trust, this agreement is about trust. The Chinese have broken every trade agreement they have ever signed with the United States of America. They are violating them today, the 1979, the 1992, the 1994, the 1996. They are saying, oh, they are going to lower tariff barriers. Guess what? The Chinese do not use tariffs to keep our goods out. They have a host of non-tariff barriers that are constantly mutating, unwritten rules to keep out U.S. goods, and, guess what? Their leaders have gone on the radio and in the press and television and told their people not to worry, they can and will maintain those barriers against U.S. manufacturers under this agreement. They have given up nothing but beautiful words. That is the statement of their own chief negotiator. It is about trust. It is about broken trust. They have broken it again and again, and now we are saying, ``Oh, we trust them this time.'' It is about the environment. There is not one word, not one word, in this agreement about the environment. The Chinese are the greatest producers of ozone-depleting chemicals in the world. Not one word. The Chinese are the greatest producers of global warming gases. Not one word. The Chinese are the greatest violators of the CITES Agreement. The last Siberian tiger, the last Asian rhinoceros, will die to go into their medicines. Not one word in this agreement. No to so-called permanent normal trade relations for a nation that does not act normally.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, today the House will not consider the agriculture appropriations bill because the leadership on the Republican side of the aisle so vehemently opposes one tiny provision of that bill. That is the provision that would allow the sale of food, food, to Cuba. Cuba is such a threat to the United States of America that the sale of food could jeopardize our national security. Sell them eggs? They might throw them back at us. Let us compare and contrast their attitude about Cuba to their attitude about China. Tomorrow those same Republican leaders are pushing as hard as they can to have a truncated 3-hour debate on the issue of so-called permanent normal trade relations for China. They want to sell them anything and everything: aerospace technology. They have already stolen the warhead technology. Missile technology. We are helping them improve their missiles, That little flurry we had about preventing that last year? Well, that died in the conference committee. We are selling them missile technology. They have targeted us with 19 missiles, but they are not very accurate. We want to help them with their accuracy, anything they might want to buy. They are not a threat, somehow. We are going to engage them. But Cuba, Cuba is such a threat that food, we cannot sell food to Cuba. Do not worry, they might throw those eggs back at us. A leader on the other side said, it is very easy to see the distinction between the two cases. If we cannot see it, I do not know, maybe we are just blind to it. Let us just look at the distinctions in the State Department report. I have blanked out the countries. See if Members can guess which is an authoritarian state. The blank is an authoritarian state in the blank Communist party is the paramount source of power. Citizens lack both the freedom to peacefully express opposition to the party-led political system and the right to change their national leaders or form of government. Prison conditions at most facilities remain harsh. That is one of these countries. Here is the other. The blank is a totalitarian state controlled by blank who is chief of state, head of government, first Secretary of the Communist party, and Commander in Chief of its armed forces. Citizens do not have the right to change their government peacefully. Prison conditions remain harsh. One of those countries the United States will trade anything and everything with, and the other one we will not even sell them food, but they kind of sound identical, do they not? They oppress their people, they have harsh prison conditions, political prisoners, religious prisoners, prisoners of conscience. One of them presents a threat to the United States of America so grave they cannot buy food. The other, a country of 1 billion people that is selling sensitive nuclear technology to terrorist nations, that has violated every trade agreement it has entered into with the United States of America, that horribly oppresses its people, that crushes students with tanks, well, they are okay. We want to engage them, and we will sell them anything and everything they want. We will be allowed 3 puny hours to debate this issue tomorrow because the Republicans have a big dinner. The biggest trade issue before the United States Congress this year, and 3 hours of debate. It sounds like the deal is cut on that side of the aisle, and it is cut for one thing, campaign contributions from the big business that is pushing this stuff through this body.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. The gentleman mentioned we needed this agreement for regular relations and access to the Chinese market, but has the gentleman read the agreement signed in Beijing July 7, 1979 which says, and I quote, any advantage, favor, privilege or immunity that either of the parties grants to like products originating in or destined for any other country or region in all matters regarding shall be granted to each of the signers of this agreement? We already have an agreement which says they must do that and we must do that with them, and they are violating it.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on that issue? I have a particular question on that issue.