Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, the President and the Vice President are saying, if only they could get a secret vote on fast track it would pass by a 3-to-1 margin. It is only the power of big labor that is holding Democrats back. Nothing could be further from the truth. Fast track is still in play only because of the extraordinary pressure from the President and the Vice President, the promises of projects, fund-raisers and fantasies, the arm-twisting of the Republican leaders and the lobby of the dozens of corporate CEO's who jetted into town this week in their private jets with their pockets stuffed with cash. A vote on fast track is a referendum on a failed U.S. trade policy, a policy that exports our jobs, drives down wages and destroys the environment. The President says it is about a bridge to the 21st century. I have seen that bridge from the colonias in Mexico at the American border, a bridge across sewage and toxic waste canals, from pallet shacks to state-of-the-art, U.S.-owned manufacturing plants where people are paid 80 cents an hour. That is a bridge the American worker should not be forced to cross. Say ``no'' to fast track.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, last evening and this morning on television, I heard the President and the Vice President say that if there were a secret vote on the extension of fast track authority, they knew that they would win by a 2- or 3-to-1 margin, because in their hearts the 80 percent of the Democratic caucus which is opposing their misbegotten trade policy would change their minds if they were not being pressured by Big Labor. I saw the face of Big Labor here today on the Hill, people in their local union jackets with their ball caps, puzzling over maps of the Capitol, looking worried, going office to office, and I stopped to talk to some of them. That is not what is pressuring or pushing the Democrats on this side of the aisle. We are standing on principle. We have a failed and failing trade policy in this country, a $160 billion trade deficit, a huge and growing trade deficit with Mexico, United States jobs going south of the border to United States-owned firms exporting their capital, exporting their jobs, to access 80-cents-an-hour labor in the maquilladora area; people living in pallet shacks, walking over bridges, I guess the President would call them the bridges to the 21st century, to these beautiful state-of-the-art United States-built manufacturing plants. Eighty cents an hour; is that the future that we want to push American workers toward? I think not. That is a failed trade policy. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth than what the President and the Vice President said today. If a secret vote were held when the pressure was off from the White House, and all the deals they are cutting, and the arm-twisting from the Republican leaders and the CEOs, the dozens of chief executive officers of the Fortune 500 companies who jetted into town this week in the luxury of their private jets to twist arms and offer their own deals to Members of Congress, we would beat fast track 2 or 3 to 1. The White House has turned into a virtual trading bazaar. I cannot believe what I am hearing from my colleagues; offers from the White House of guaranteed $150,000 fund-raisers before the end of the year to replace any money you might lose from your friends in labor after you sell out the American working people. You know, deals of bridges, deals of military projects that no one wants and haven't been funded, pork; pork is available. Every member of the White House Cabinet is calling, burning up the lines. They have got a so-called war room here somewhere on Capitol Hill, I do not know where it is, where the 1 or 2 dozen Democrats supporting this are working the phones with intelligence, things are caught on the floor, two members of the Cabinet and to the White House and the President and the Vice President. They are busing people down to the White House. They are offering them the sun, the moon, the stars, and they can offer it. You know why? Because they offered it to everybody for their vote on NAFTA, and they never delivered it. So they can give it away twice. Is it not beautiful? It is a little bit like Lucy and the football. How many times are Members of Congress going to hear the siren song of President Clinton, and now Vice President Gore, on these issues; the promises that they will fix it all later, or we will have side agreements that take care of the environment and labor, do not worry. And then people buy that, and then, oops, did I ever talk to you before? Do I know you? And now they need us again 3 years later, and suddenly we have got these great deals, side agreements on labor and the environment, because the Republicans will not let us have anything to do with labor and environment in this bill, and they need the Republican votes. Well then they maybe ought to get all their votes on that side of the aisle. But what really made me angry was to hear the President question the motivation of people on this side of the aisle while he is offering people fund-raisers, while he is offering people bridges, while he is offering people other projects. We have a failed trade policy in this country, and perhaps, just perhaps, this weekend the American people will be well-served by this body. We will begin to question up or down votes on trade policy, no amendments allowed, whatever your concerns or perspectives are, giving up our prerogative as Members of the House of Representatives to perpetuate and continue policies that are piling up huge and growing trade deficits. You know, someday those bills are going to come due. The U.S. is a trillion dollars in debt overseas, growing at the rate of $160 billion a year. Someday someone is going to say, we are not so sure of the U.S. economy and the U.S. dollar anymore. We want our money back. What is going to happen to future generations? We are at the point trade with the deficit where we were with the U.S. fiscal deficit about 10 years ago. People are saying, oh, it does not matter. Is it not nice they want to lend us that money and run a deficit? We are losing jobs, prosperity. We need a new policy, and we have an opportunity to get it this weekend if we defeat fast track.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for yielding me this time. I think the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] was most eloquent on this issue. The bottom line here is that the President, under pressure from a failing U.S. nuclear industry, because there has not been a new nuclear plant constructed in the United States in more than a dozen year, and none are proposed, is being pressured to transfer critical nuclear technology to China, a country that has a long-term documented record of transferring technology for weapons of mass destruction to rogue states. China has broken all of its past promises in this area. But now, now, things are different, things are very different. They have signed a new agreement. Here it is. Oh, we cannot see it. Well, neither can I. It is a secret agreement. Now, they broke the written agreements, they broke the verbal agreements, all done publicly, but now they have signed this, this secret agreement here, my colleagues can see, it is quite lengthy, saying that they will not do it again, under certain conditions unspecified to certain nations, which are specified. Now, I do not think that Congress can review this lengthy document in only 30 days and determine whether or not China has complied with all of the conditions of the secret document which we cannot see. I think it will take us a little bit longer. So I am suggesting that our colleagues should support this amendment. Mr. Speaker, 120 days is not too long to certify whether or not China is really complying with conditions that we would like to see for a country to whom we are going to transfer critical nuclear technology, because I tell my colleagues, if we transfer that technology and it is misused, it will seem like a lifetime to people who voted to allow the Chinese to have that technology to transfer to America's enemies around the world. So support this amendment. It is reasonable that Congress should have 120 days before the United States takes this unprecedented step.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, the full court corporate press for fast track legislation is on. The USA NAFTA captains are back. Remember these folks, colleagues? These are the same corporate CEO's that came here and promised NAFTA would be a boon for American workers. We would run trade surpluses with Mexico. Our people would be in full employment. Guess what? These same folks are back. Their salaries are up dramatically, their profits are up, but 43 percent of them have laid off American workers. They have moved the jobs to Mexico. Twenty percent of them are documented for threatening their workers with moving their jobs to Mexico unless they accept lower wages, but for us, is it not wonderful? Twenty percent of them are also in the top givers of soft money to politicians. They are here now in the back rooms and trying to get into your offices. Say no to the corporate money. Say yes to the American workers. Say no to fast track, no, no, no.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Today, coveted nuclear technology for China. But do not worry. They signed a secret nonproliferation agreement. Of course I cannot read it, my colleagues cannot read it, but they will abide by it. Ha. You bet. Next week fast track trade authority. Make no mistake. These policies are inextricably linked by the one overarching principle of U.S. foreign policy, money, corporate profits. That is all it is about. Human rights? The United States does not care. We do not stand for that anymore. U.S. economic interests in the long term, U.S. workers? The United States does not care anymore. And even now national security is subsumed to the profits of a few huge multinational U.S.-based corporations who want to export nuclear technology. It was all last night down at the White House right here: ``Forget diplomacy. Money makes the world go round.'' If you like our policy toward China, you will love fast track. It promises more of the same.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, this motion as I understand it would effectively terminate the 245(i) program which permits immigrants who have overstayed their travel student visas to qualify for legal citizenship by remaining in the United States and paying a $1,000 fee to the INS. I fully understand the concerns of many Oregonians who support extending this program indefinitely. However, I have also heard from some of my constituents who oppose extending this program because it would invite illegal boarder crossings. I do not support any measure that would unravel the progress we have made in enacting tough immigration reform laws passed during the 104th Congress. I have long been a strong advocate of sensible immigration reform. That is why I voted for the Immigration Reform Act of 1996, which increases the number of border patrol agents and cuts the number of legal immigrants entering the United States. However, this motion places an arbitrary limit on the hundreds of legal immigrants who are currently being processed for residency status. The 245(i) program applies to immigrants who have overstayed their visa and are eligible for residency status. The program also applies to individuals who are here legally and are seeking citizenship so that they do not have to return to their native country and wait 3 years before they can enter the United States as a legal immigrant. Most applicants of this program are spouses and children of U.S. citizens who would otherwise become eligible for permanent resident status. However, for those who enter illegally, this program should not apply. I will vote present on this motion because it does not let Congress take a more pragmatic approach. I believe we can balance the concerns of both points of view. This motion does not distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants but 245(i) would apply for both. I believe we should make this important distinction so that people entering illegally will not be allowed to enter under the same conditions as those who enter legally. This approach does not let immigrants violate current immigration laws but would allow those currently seeking residency status to complete the process. In the spirit of enacting fair and sensible immigration policy, Congress should adopt a more realistic termination date so that current applicants waiting to join their families here are not forced to leave the U.S. immediately.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I noticed yesterday that the President gave a speech and he said that those who oppose his fast track authority have an ignorance of the new world international economy. I saw the face of the new world economy last weekend, and I would like the President to hear about it. He should go to Juarez, Mexico: a 77-percent increase in maquiladora jobs since fast track passed. Two-earner families living in hovels without water, heat, or even walls. They are made of pallets and packing crates. Working 45 hours a week for U.S. corporations, jobs that were here before NAFTA, for $40 a week. No environmental controls, no labor protections, no right to organize. That is the face of the new world economy, Mr. President. There is one place we are running a surplus today, that is in Latin and South America. And now the President wants fast track authority to go down there and see if he can screw that up too, and take more of our jobs south of the border so our corporations can exploit cheap labor and the environment. No.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I believe there are a number of very significant provisions in this bill, riders added to this bill that have had no review by the House, added by the Senate, that are very much to the detriment of the environment. I spoke about them at length during the rule. Nothing has changed here before us. I would urge Members to vote against this bill. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] is trying to clarify some very complicated provisions added into the bill by the Senate having to do with the export of logs. I still have the opinion of the IG from the Department of Agriculture who says, no, in fact this would allow the virtual explicit export of Federal logs. The gentleman says he is trying to fix that. I appreciate that. Mr. Speaker, that points out the whole problem with doing legislation on appropriations bills. It is an extraordinarily complicated subject. It has not been reviewed by the committee of jurisdiction in either the House or the Senate. It has been added to this bill without any scrutiny. The gentleman is now trying to say that it does not do what this attorney who works for the agency charged to enforce the law says it does do. I do not really know. Who knows? So, Mr. Speaker, we should reject this bill. If we need changes in substitution, we should do it in the regular order, not in an appropriations bill.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the generous grant of time. I would like to go back to the issue of log exports, because the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] tried to obfuscate the issue a little bit. Mr. Speaker, let us say it in simple language. The Inspector General of the Department of Agriculture, a qualified attorney, one versed in the laws of the land and the restrictions on the export of logs at the Department of the Government charged with implementing restrictions on the export of logs harvested on Federal lands says, and perhaps the gentleman can understand this language, ``Implementation of the proposed bill will effectively gut the Forest Resources Conservation and Shortage Relief Act of 1990.'' She goes on at great length. I realize it is two pages, single space, and it might be difficult for some to understand. But in those two pages she comes to no different conclusion. This effectively repeals restrictions on the export of Federal logs so that we can become a log exporting colony of Japan where they do not harvest trees. I do not think that is right. I do not think it is good even for those log exporting companies in Washington State that are pushing this, because it is going to bring about a backlash if this goes into place. Mr. Speaker, when people see the scarcity of logs coming off of Federal lands being diverted into a foreign market which does not allow the import of our finished products, it only wants our raw materials so it can protect its own dying and inefficient industry, outrage will run high in the Pacific Northwest and I believe across the Nation. Mr. Speaker, this is wrong. This is the effect of this legislation. The gentleman from Washington who spoke so eloquently was also an eloquent supporter of the timber salvage rider when it first passed. I was an outspoken opponent when it first passed. A year later, the same gentleman was an eloquent proponent of repealing the timber salvage rider, the one that he had supported so eloquently the year before, because he said he could not have anticipated the impact. Mr. Speaker, it is the same here. I urge Members to read the single spaced, two-page report. If we pass this legislation, not only will we have the giveaways of our oil, not only will we violate the Land and Water Conservation Fund and do a couple of blatant payoffs to a number of congressional districts, not only will the other anti-environment riders contained in this legislation go forward, we will repeal the ban on the export of logs from Federal lands. Plain and simple. We cannot deny it. That is the bottom line. So if Members want to vote for anti-environment riders, if they want to vote for a giveaway of the Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserve, if Members love those sorts of things, if they want to give away the authority of the House of Representatives to the Senate and protect unauthorized provisions in this bill, if we want to set that precedent, if we want to roll over for the Senate, then vote for the rule. But if Members do not, if they want to protect our prerogatives and protect the taxpayers and protect the environment, then Members will vote ``no'' on this rule.

Mr. DeFAZIO. 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.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the conference report. Those who were here who remember the timber salvage rider, or those who were here in support of the timber salvage rider, one of the worse environmental votes of recent Congresses, and in fact something that was even disastrous for the industry that promoted it because of the backlash, will love this bill. Because this bill is rife with special interest, antienvironment riders, in addition to a rider which effectively repeals the ban on the export of Federal logs. That is right, we are now going to supply the Japanese with logs from our Federal lands. There is deep denial on the part of a few who promoted this amendment, particularly our colleague from Washington State, but that is true. I will read later from a report which documents that. It has a provision that would prevent the Forest Service from updating and revising its forest management plans. No matter which side of the forest debate you are on, you should be opposed to that provision. Even if you want higher harvest on the Federal lands, you would freeze in place the current regime. You will not update the plans. You will fall in conflict with other Federal laws. It overturns a court injunction against the Forest Service on one- half of the grazing leases on 11 southwestern national forests. It has a provision delaying the completion of the Pacific Northwest interior Columbia ecosystem management process, which may well put us again in conflict with the Endangered Species Act and bring more court injunctions against activities in the Pacific Northwest. It has a provision preventing the reintroduction of grizzly bears into the Bitter-root ecosystem and on and on. Also, for the first time, it takes land and water conservation funds and not acquiring lands that we need to protect the wildlife of this country, sensitive wetlands and others that are threatened with development, taking things from the huge list of backlogs and land and water conservation funds. No. It gives $10 million to Humboldt County in the district of the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs], and $12 million for a road maintenance fund in Montana for the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Hill], and $10 million to the State of Montana in terms of Federal mineral holdings. Why? To offset the impact of actual land water conservation purchases promoted by the administration for the headwaters area and in the new world mine. These are payoffs, these are unprecedented, and a very, very bad use, and an unauthorized use of land and water conservation funds, but they are protected by the rule, as are these other unauthorized provisions in this bill. But the worst and least understood provision is one that the Department of Agriculture's own inspector general, despite what some here will protest, who are apologists for the log exporters, say, and I quote, ``They will effectively gut the 1990 law banning the export of unprocessed logs from National Forests in the West.'' Let me repeat that. Effectively gut the 1990 law. She goes on to say? Her opinion, it would basically make enforcement dependent upon voluntary compliance, voluntary compliance, when there are millions of dollars to be made by diverting these scarce Federal resources into export to the Japanese, who do not harvest a single log. Fifteen thousand mills operating in Japan, 350 struggling to operate in the Pacific Northwest. And, guess what? They do not cut any trees. Why? Because we give them the logs. And under this bill we will give them more logs and they will come off of our Federal lands. It will increase pressure on those Federal lands. This is a horrible provision, a horrible precedent. Again, the apologists will say, no, we are just fussing it up a little bit. These 12 pages that we put in there, these provisions that the inspector general says will gut the law, they will not really gut the law; do not worry about it, or we will fix the problems later. Not a single hearing was held in the House or Senate by the authorizing committees. Not a single hearing. No discussion on things previously stuck in by the Senate. We are being told we cannot control the Senate. Two Senators from Washington State and one Representative from Washington State are particularly promoting this provision. Again, they are denying the reality of it. We have the opposition of 60 national and local environmental groups to the provisions of this bill; we have the opposition of the National Carpenter's Union to this bill. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record these statements in opposition.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, freight rail service in large parts of the Western United States is at the point of collapse. Shipments have been delayed for weeks, even lost for months. That is not uncommon. Rail car shortages are so bad that plants in my district and throughout the Northwest are laying off workers, curtailing production for which they have orders because they cannot ship the product and they have got no place to put it. Union Pacific's response has been, we are a monopoly now. We really do not care very much about your problems because you have got no place else to turn. Shippers have turned to the Service Transportation Board of the Government in desperation and now Union Pacific has a response, a suggested form letter with a carbon copy to President Dick Davidson of UP saying, we do not want any help or intervention, things might get better. UP is going to fix things now. They are paying attention. They are being coerced into signing these letters, they are telling me, for fear that the dribble of rail cars they are now getting will be totally shut off. The Government has to step in and get the attention of this monopoly and straighten this out.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, those of lesser intellect might question the wisdom and efficacy of our trade policy. After all, our deficit rose last month. In fact, the $10.4 billion deficit in August was the worst in 7 months. We are headed toward a $114 billion budget deficit this year, eclipsing last year's record of $111 billion. Mr. Speaker, we are headed toward an all-time high deficit with China and our deficit with our NAFTA, free-trade partners increased once again. There was only one spot on the horizon that looked a little dark. We are actually running a surplus, a trade surplus with Central and South America. Imagine that. That is against the principles of free trade. But do not worry, Mr. Speaker. This administration and the Republican leaders want to fix that. They want to jam through a fast track trade agreement so we can have free trade and the same principles with Central and South America that we do with the rest of the world. That means trade deficits for the United States, job exports for the United States, and disaster for the American workers. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to say no to fast track and let us get a real trade policy that makes sense for American workers in this country.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, what happened to the Federalists in the Congress? We were going to empower the States. This is the most extraordinary preemption of local and State laws in my 11 years in the Congress. This is unbelievable. We heard horror stories from people from States that do not have a regular land use process. Those States should adopt a land use process. Those local jurisdictions should adopt a land use process, and it should be regular. It should have process of appeal and litigation through their States. But not the Federal Government. Do we want the Federal Government wading into every single local land use dispute? Peep shows next to schools, liquor stores next to high schools? I think not. I do not think the people on that side of the aisle really believe that. They are playing here to an audience of special interests, very well-funded special interests. This is horrible legislation for small town America. It is horrible legislation for our States and States' rights. Reject this legislation.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. I would first like to congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] for their work on essential parts of this bill that contribute to the national infrastructure and to vital concerns of ports and other infrastructure concerns in my region. I would like to go back to something that was vigorously debated in a somewhat confusing manner during the original consideration of the bill, and that was the DeFazio-Fazio amendment process regarding Animas la Plata. Besides confusing the pronunciation of our names, many Members were confused over exactly what they were voting on, and when I look at the report from the committee, I think it is not quite on target if one refers back to the debate and would like to make that point here today. The key point in the debate made with the Fazio amendment to the DeFazio amendment was that we were funding a process, the Romer- Schoettler process, to go forward and come up with a new proposal, all sides having admitted that the original Animas La Plata project was not affordable and was not going to go forward in its entirety. Yet the report urges that the Corps of Engineers or Bureau of Reclamation go ahead with great dispatch in terms of beginning parts which were proved under the Endangered Species Act should be constructed without delay. I think that contradicts the debate we had here on the floor. Later on it does mention the Romer-Schoettler process and working toward a compromise. I think it would be a great mistake if construction went forward at this point in time when the emphasis in the debate, in the close vote we had here on the floor of the House, was, no, we are going to develop an alternative that is cost effective and environmentally responsible. So I would like to suggest that perhaps the drafting of the report is such that there could be a problem in dealing with the Bureau of Reclamation and would want the Bureau to refer back to the debate and the vote rather than looking at the report language.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The arguments are interesting. First off, this gives preference and we are being told it would be too difficult for a U.S. agency, for the Export-Import Bank, with our tax dollars, to determine preference. Well, we do that in many other areas of Federal procurement. I do not think that would be too tough to deal with. It would put U.S. firms at a severe disadvantage, a severe disadvantage if they avoided child-enforced labor. I do not believe that for a moment. I do not believe that there are any responsible U.S. firms sanctioning the use of child-enforced labor, or discrimination based on religion, race, gender and national origin. So I do not believe that should put our firms at a disadvantage. These are big corporations. They are getting a very nice gift from the taxpayers through the Export-Import Bank, and we are saying, in return for that, here is a carrot. We will give preference to those firms that comply with this code, and that have an audit done independently and submit that audit to the Export-Import Bank. All the Export-Import Bank staff has to do is look at and verify that the independent audit was done. Yes, there will be a little expense in doing the audit, but nowhere near the subsidy that is being given to those firms by the U.S. taxpayers. It is just to ask some consideration for the use of our dollars by these huge corporations, that they follow some standards of basic international decency. I heard it would worsen the trade deficit. It is not going to worsen the trade deficit. The trade deficit with China is going through the roof. The goods that are being produced in China that are driving the trade deficit through the roof are in good part being produced by United States firms in China. It is not going to worsen the deficit in any manner. There are other problems with our trade policy. The fact that there is no reciprocity, the fact that the Chinese levy a 40-percent tariff on our goods, when we add in the VAT, and we levy 4 percent on goods coming from China, those are the causes of the trade deficit. This would not worsen the trade deficit. The United States needs to stand for something, and when these corporations are getting U.S. taxpayer dollars, we should stand for something. We are against child enforced labor. We do not want discrimination based on religion, race, gender, and national origin, particularly not promoted by United States firms getting subsidies to operate in China.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my motion to rise.

Mr. DeFAZIO. If they give us the vote, I withdraw the motion.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I have a preferential motion at the desk.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I did. I would love to rebut.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, we need to unearth and understand any provisions of any pending trade agreements which might undermine the sovereignty of the United States or our many States or our local governments. According to Renato Ruggiero, Director General of the WTO, in referencing the pending MAI agreement, we are writing the Constitution of a single economy. That is the man in charge. He is saying, the Constitution of a single economy. That is not our Constitution. It is not compliant with our Constitution or our sovereignty. They have so far challenged the Helms-Burton law, the Clean Air Act, a Massachusetts law that is promoting democracy in Burma, and restrictions on shrimp, and buy-America provisions and buy-Oregon provisions, or buy-California or buy-Arizona provisions will all be held to be non-compliant with this MAI. We are asking for $1 million to the United States Trade Representative to have them fully investigate, unearth, and report to us in the Congress, the representatives of the people of this country, what the reality of these agreements and these threats are, so we may be more fully informed. Mr. Chairman, I have one agreement with the gentleman from Virginia, we should have this money and we should know what we are voting on.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from California yield?

Mr. DeFAZIO

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, we need to understand what is at risk here: The Buy American Act is at risk; the Helms-Burton Act supported so strongly by some of my colleagues on that side of the aisle is at risk here; all local State laws which go to local preference and purchasing are at risk here; the sovereignty not only of our Nation but of our States and our local communities is at risk. We need this amendment to get additional money to the U.S. Trade Representative so that they can defend our interests and unearth these ticking time bombs in some of these trade agreements and prevent the overturning of these laws by secret tribunals in Geneva. This amendment should be heard and should be voted on on the floor.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.