Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, a few listening realize that Congress has extraordinary power. One of those powers is to change the calendar and the time of day during a legislative session. So the Republican leadership has declared today to be April Fools Day, if Members have been listening to the speeches. If we take the top 1 percent of the people in this country, they own 40 percent of the wealth. They are telling us from that side of the aisle, if we take the top 1 percent who own 40 percent of the wealth in America and exempt them from all taxation, we will balance the budget. No inheritance taxes for the top 1 percent who own 40 percent of the wealth, no capital gains taxes for the top 1 percent who own 40 percent of the wealth, but we will balance the budget. How is that? Because the little people will pay taxes. All the little people who work for those folks will pay taxes, and we will have a balanced budget. Is it not a wonderful world? Is it not great? We have to love this country. If we exempt the wealthy from paying taxes, we will balance the budget. The problem today that we do not have a balanced budget is because the wealthy are paying a little bit of taxes. If they do not pay any, we will all be better off. Ho, ho, ho, happy April Fools Day.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, the fix is in. The American people are not yet aware of it. If we look on the front page of the Washington Post we see it: ``Greenspan Backs Panel to Rule on Inflation Levels.'' The dirty little back room deal that is about to be cut here between the White House and the Republican leadership is to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy, capital gains, business as usual at the Pentagon, and still balance the budget. How do we do that? We do that through the magic of the CPI. We define away inflation and tell those seniors whose cost of health care is doubling at twice the rate of inflation every year, oh, it is better. It might cost more, you might not be able to afford it, but we are going to reduce your cost of living because it is better health care; that does not count as inflation. We are going to say to the middle class whose taxes are going to go up if they lose indexation, oh well, yes, your taxes went up, but you know, that is because inflation does not really exist. If inflation does not really exist, why are Alan Greenspan and the other members of the Federal Reserve Board paying themselves and their staff healthy 5 and 6 percent salary increases every year? That must not have anything to do with inflation. It is time to play straight with the American people. Let us not politicize the CPI and stick it to seniors, the middle class, and children once again.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join millions of American parents, teachers, doctors, and children's advocates in endorsing a content-based rating system for television viewing among children. For too long Congress and the American people have left programming content decisions to motion picture and broadcasting industry executives. Parents have expressed frustration with the constant barrage of violence, sex, and adult language on television. I am pleased to join Representatives Markey, Burton, Spratt, Moran, and others to introduce a bill that gives parents the ability to determine what type of programming content is appropriate for their children to watch. Parents are tired of having Hollywood tell them what is best for their children. Congress gave the broadcasting industry a golden opportunity to meet this challenge in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Instead of addressing these longstanding concerns, the industry proposed an age-based rating system that is still inadequate because it does not inform parents of objectionable programming content. Furthermore, the age-based proposal will continue to prevent parents from making informed choices about their children's viewing behavior. The rapid growth of network and cable programming has been a mixed blessing for parents. They are left with the daunting task of learning the content of numerous shows and channels. The age-based rating system will not help make this task any easier. I have heard from parents and child advocates all across Oregon who say that they want to know what to expect from a particular television show. They also want to know if the show contains explicit sex, adult language, and excessive violence. Most importantly, they want to make their own decisions about what their own children watch, not leaving the decisions up to television executives. A parent does not want to be told that their child is old enough to watch a ``TV-PG'' rated show. The majority of parents are smart enough to know that this category is quite broad, covering a wide range of shows. According to a nationwide survey conducted by the National Parent Teachers Association [PTA], over 80 percent of parents stated that they want separate ratings for sex, violence, and language content to help parents decide what shows their children can and cannot watch. In fact, a large number of organizations have criticized the age-based rating system including the National PTA, the American Medical Association [AMA], the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Children's Defense Fund [CDF], Family Research Council, and many others. I am confident that this bill will aid parents with these decisions and encourage the broadcasting industry to adopt a content-specific rating system. In an attempt to require broadcasters and manufacturers to help parents block shows they considered too objectionable, Congress passed the V-chip law to the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Until this law takes effect in 1998, this bill is the necessary next step in addressing the concerns of parents in the information age.

Mr. DeFAZIO

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, we are really into the middle of the political silly season here. Nobody knows how many people exactly are impacted by this bill. No one knows exactly what the revenue impact is to the State of Oregon. The State of Oregon has been afforded no opportunity to comment. No hearings have been held. Not a single hearing, not one day, not one minute, not one second of hearings. Before yesterday, nobody had the slightest idea that this bill might come forward. Here we are. Reelect the majority. They can delivery bills at the last minute that no one has read, no one understands, and no one is going to have an opportunity to review. I am going to object to this and call for a vote. Mr. Speaker, this is ridiculous. Just like in a few hours we are going to vote on a continuing resolution for the entire Government of the United States of America larded down with thousands of special interest provisions that no Member of this body will have read. Not a one. The President of the United States has not even read it. He does not know what is in it. His people just made some deals for him. Why are we not doing it tomorrow? Why are we not doing it Monday? Why do they not give us 36 hours to read it? Why do we not hold this bill over? If this is important, let us keep Congress in session until next week. We get paid. We do not get paid to campaign. We get paid to work. Let us stay in Washington and work. Let us not just jam bills through that no one understands. There are a few constitutional implications here. Yes, there are some pretty extraordinary constitutional implications here. The Federal Government is going to tell the State of Oregon that it cannot tax people who it thinks it can rightfully tax given its jurisdiction. What about New York? Let us do away with their commuter tax. We might get a little more excitement if we were doing away with New York's commuter tax. Or let us look at some of the other jurisdictions that levy commuter taxes. This is an extraordinary precedent, possibly unconsititution, but the worst thing is it has not been heard, it has not been understood, it has not been properly noticed, and it is being jammed through here at the last moment. I am going to at least put everybody on record and then when we revisit these issues in the future, a couple of Republicans from Washington State can go home and say, ``Hey, we were able to jam through a bill that would do something for some unspecified number of people from our State. Reelect us.'' I know you have got some tight reelections. Good luck. If you are back, I only hope that you are in the minority so we can discuss this in a different vein next year.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I guess my question would be if this is so simple and such a no-brainer, and there may well be some equity issues here, why was it not brought up under the famous Corrections Day procedure when some scrutiny could have been applied? Why is it being brought up with less than 24 hours notice the day of the adjournment of the House of Representatives to run home for reelections without reading or understanding what we are passing in the last 24 to 48 hours? It is simple. This body is a full-blown majority party, and let us have a process that makes sense for the people of the United States. This bill might have good arguments, but the arguments have not been made. The State of Oregon and the State of Washington have not been heard before the committee. The persons to be impacted have not been heard before the committee. We have not understood the constitutional implications. I always heard States rights from that side of the aisle. States rights, States rights. We are preempting a State here today. What precedent are we setting by presenting one State with this? What other States have transborder issues? Washington State does not have an income tax. That is one of the issues before us is, these people do not pay income taxes in the State of Washington, because they do not have an income tax. There are many thousands of people that live across the border in Washington State who commute over the bridge to go daily to work, all the way over into Portland and other places across the river. So there is a host of issues here. Certain jurisdictions, cities, counties, and others, have commuter taxes. I do not know if any other States have them. I do not know if other States are in a similar situation. I do not believe anybody on that side of the aisle can answer that question if I ask it. No one knows, because no hearings were held, not a single one. If this is such a slam-dunk, you could have had one hearing, 2 hours, brought the bill up under Corrections, last week, the week before, back in July. Why not? This is wrong.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, in response to my colleague on the opposite side of the aisle, there were a number of times when I objected to the procedures under my own majority party, and there were times I voted against continuing resolutions, because I said we had not been given the opportunity to read them and understand them even if they were written by Democrats in the majority. To say that because the Democrats, which I am fully willing to admit, at times abused their power or abused the rush to adjournment, then we should do it too, would it not be nice to change things around here? I thought we were going to have a revolution and do things in regular order. This is not something that began last week, last month, this year, last year. This bill was originally introduced by Jay Inslee from Washington when the Democrats were in the majority. It received no action then. For some reason, whatever reason, it received no action, no hearings, no markup. The esteemed gentleman from Pennsylvania chairs the subcommittee. I am certain in his busy schedule he could have found 2 hours, sometime in the last 6 months, to hold a hearing on this issue, and invite in the opposing parties and understand fully what we are entering into and doing here. But that was not done. That was not done. It was not done under the Democrats, it has not been done under the Republicans. The only difference is in this case a few Members from Washington, despite the fact the former Speaker was from Washington, apparently had more clout with the leadership and they can jam something through that has not had hearings, it has not been heard, and no one fully understands the implications of. The gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez] opened an extraordinary Pandora's box here with what he is proposing, although I think there is a mistake. I think his staffer needs a new accountant. When I was a staffer and lived in Maryland, I paid taxes in Oregon. They once asked me to pay taxes in Maryland and I sent them my Oregon return. They said, are you crazy? Your taxes are much higher. You should be paying taxes here, but since you paid taxes in Oregon, you do not have to pay them here. So I am a bit puzzled by what is happening to his poor staffer. But there are a whole host of issues here and a whole host of commuter taxes out there that are being paid across the country, and what precedent are we setting, if this is legal and constitutional?

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time. There are, indeed, many important parts to this legislation, those that go to security, those that go to the infrastructure of the air traffic system in this country, and a provision which I worked hard to get in my decade here in Congress; that is, to finally say that the FAA's business is to regulate in the public interest and regulate for safety and not promote the airlines. Those are the good parts of this bill. They have merit and they should be enacted into law. Unfortunately, what we have here is one last attempt at the very last moment to put in an extraneous matter, voted on by neither committee of jurisdiction, voted on neither by the House or the Senate, to benefit one very large multinational corporation who has generously filled many campaign coffers of Members of this House and the other body. This is not a technical correction. It is not a technical correction. Do trucks run on rails? No. Well, we are going to classify Federal Express for the purposes of this bill as a rail carrier. Now, Mr. Speaker, there is one very simple reason for that. It makes it a lot harder to organize. So, once again, the working people of this country are going to be screwed by a large corporation, screwed behind the closed doors of a conference committee. Special interest provisions are being put into what is an otherwise meritorious must-pass bill for this Congress. We can defeat this bill and send a message to the big corporations: It is not business as usual here in Washington anymore. What happened to the changes in the revolution? Is this the revolution? Special interest for one large corporation stuck into a bill that otherwise benefits the people of America generally and would not hurt the working people. It is not too much to ask. Reject this bill. If we do not reject it, the President may well veto it. Let us reject it, send it back to conference, get the special interest provision, this provision for one large company, taken out and get a clean bill.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, Americans are tired of being discriminated against by their insurance company. Mental health parity language included in the VA-HUD appropriation bill was recently endorsed by an overwhelming majority in the House. Nearly five million men, women and children suffer from a severe mental illness. Yet, only 2 percent of the mentally ill receive insurance coverage. Unfortunately, greed seems to be the driving force behind efforts to deprive so many of our friends, relatives and neighbors of this basic care. We cannot wait any longer to subject mental health benefits to the same annual and lifetime caps as those for physical health. Currently, private insurers place lifetime limits of $1 million for cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and tuberculosis but lifetime limits on mental illness is typically set at $50,000 or less. This disparity is a straightforward solution that will provide financial relief. A study conducted by Coopers & Lybrand indicates that mental parity legislation would save over $16 million in Medicaid costs annually. People who exhaust their current health care benefits are forced to fall back on the Federal health care system. This is certainly not my idea of responsible fiscal management of our public health care. America's insurance companies can well afford to equalize caps for both mental and medical conditions. We have waited long enough for this comprehensive, financially prudent approach to health care reform. By providing parity for mental health benefits, we are helping millions of Americans move closer toward meaningful recovery. I urge all of my colleagues to listen to the voices of concerned citizens and guarantee mental health parity for all those in need of long-term treatment.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, as a member of the House Aviation Subcommittee, I do not plan to object to the consideration of H.R. 3539 under suspension of the rules because this bill is long overdue and greatly needed by our Nation's airports and air travelers. However, during the subcommittee's consideration of this legislation and the full committee's markup of the bill I offered an amendment that I would have also liked to offer during floor debate. I was disappointed that the House of Representatives planned to consider H.R. 3539--which authorizes $30 billion for the FAA and airport improvements--under suspension of the rules and I would not be permitted to offer my amendment. Although much of H.R. 3539 is not controversial, a section was included in this bill that would authorize a pilot program to facilitate the privatization of publicly owned airports. I strongly object to this provision and believe that many Members would voice similar concerns were a full debate possible. At this time I would like to take a moment to outline my objections and explain what my amendment would have done. The current privatization provisions in H.R. 3539 allow private entities to own and operate airports that have previously been operated as a public entity. However, under the bill, these private companies would have absolutely no obligation to repay the Federal investment in these properties. This is a rip-off for the U.S. taxpayers and corporate welfare at its worst. Since 1946, the Federal Government has awarded over $23.5 billion in airport grants to finance construction, improvements, and maintenance. The U.S. taxpayers funded these grants and should be reimbursed. My amendment would require entities that purchase or lease airports under the pilot program authorized in H.R. 3539 to repay public Federal investments made to the airport. At the discretion of the FAA these Federal grant repayments could be adjusted to account for depreciation. Funds generated by the repayment would be used to finance FAA safety programs. Although my amendment was defeated in committee, I believe that after a full public debate on the House floor, many Members would have agreed with my argument and my efforts to make this legislation more fiscally responsible. In addition, other Members had asked to be included in the debate and would have spoken in support of my amendment. Gifting the Federal investment in these airports to private entities is just another example of corporate welfare. The Federal grants amount to a windfall for private investors, at the expense of the U.S. taxpayers. Under the rationale of the privatization section of the bill, all public entities--including highways and office buildings-- should be up for grabs without any obligation to repay the Federal investment. This section of H.R. 3539 is highly controversial and should be carefully reviewed before enacted into law. The only current example we have of airport privatization is from Great Britain's experience. In this case commercial airports were owned and financed directly by the central government, unlike in the United States where airports are owned by local government. The British Government sold these airports for $2.5 billion in a public share offering, generating significant capital for the taxpayers. Even after privatization, the British Government found it necessary to impose a system of price controls on landing fees at the private airports. The airports remain subject to regulation of airlines' access, airports' charges to airlines, safety, security and environmental protection. The Government also maintains the right to veto new airport investment or divestiture. Although I continue to object to the privatization section of this legislation, I will be supporting the bill because it includes authorization for needed Federal expenditures. In addition, I am extremely pleased that the bill also includes, at my request, language eliminating the dual mandate of the FAA. This new language will clearly direct the FAA to promote the safety of air travel, not promote the airline industry. I have long sought this change in the FAA's authorizing statute and I thank the committee for including this in the bill we are considering today.

Mr. DeFAZIO of Oregon

Mr. DeFAZIO of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I have grave concerns with the efficacy of the Federal Aviation Administration's measures to combat terrorism aimed at aviation targets. Over the past decade I have made these concerns known to both present and past administrators at the FAA. We need to address these issues through comprehensive and well thought out legislation. If this bill is a good faith attempt to pass stop-gap-type legislation that we can reconsider and perfect in September, then I support this effort. However, if this legislation is being hailed as the ultimate solution to a serious problem, then this bill is clearly a sham. I understand the desire on the part of many Members of Congress to react swiftly to recent tragedies such as the bombing in Atlanta last week and the downing of TWA Flight 800 last month. We are all anxious to adopt strong security measures to try and correct any current deficiencies in aviation security. But we have had plenty of opportunities to review this type of legislation. I supported many of the measures recommended after the Lockerbie tragedy that have never been adopted by the FAA. For example, we should have adopted recommendations mandating screening of security personnel and development of bomb resistant cargo containers in conjunction with prompt deployment of effective bomb screening devices. However, the United States remains years behind schedule in adopting these proposals. Aviation security is a serious matter concerning the life or death of our citizens. It is far too serious to deal with in a slapdash bill thrown together by Republican staff behind closed doors in a 24-hour period. There are some provisions in this bill that I fully support and do not find objectionable. I am pleased that the bill recommends a commission on airline safety and security, although this seems to be duplicative of the recently created Gore commission. Some provisions are well intentioned but not practicable. There are other provisions that are outright counterproductive. We should not rush to a vote on this legislation on the pretext that this is the most comprehensive effective step we can take to combat terrorism particularly if it precludes more thoughtful legislation in September.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I plan to vote for the conference report to H.R. 3103 because it provides needed relief for Americans by guaranteeing portability of health insurance and limiting pre-existing condition exclusions. This is an important step in improving access to health care for individuals who were previously denied coverage. I am pleased to see the Congress come together to ensure these minimal protections. However, I remain disturbed by important provisions left out of the conference report and by harmful provisions in the bill which need to be corrected. Mr. Speaker, for the past 3 months I have been trying to persuade my colleagues to include the Senate provisions on parity of mental health coverage in the final version of H.R. 3103. These provisions were inserted in the Senate version of the health insurance reform bill by an overwhelming vote of 68 to 32. While the Senate conceded to a compromise on the controversial House-passed medical savings accounts provisions, there was no comparable compromise on the mental health parity provisions. These is absolutely no relief in this bill for the millions of Americans who suffer from mental illnesses. It is with great sadness that I am voting for health care legislation which completely ignores this vulnerable segment of our population. I want my colleagues and the American people to know that I'm not going to give up on this issue. We have a majority of Senators who have gone on record supporting parity coverage for mental illness. I was joined by over 100 Members of Congress, from both political parties, in a letter to conferees supporting the Senate provisions. We will continue the fight against discrimination by insurance companies of people with mental illness and I believe we will ultimately achieve a victory. In addition, I am very concerned about a provision in the conference report that threaten the continued privacy of our medical records. As Americans we cherish our fundamental right to privacy. Over the past few decades we have seen this right chipped away by technological advances we could never foreseen. We have all seen how legislation ensuring the continued right to privacy has not kept up with these advances. This conference report strikes another blow at our privacy by requiring administrative simplification of medical records without providing adequate protections. The bill imposes national standards for the collection and distribution of data for billing purposes and requires the use of a ``unique identifier'' for medical records. Shockingly, it does not prohibit the use of Social Security numbers for this identifier. If Social Security numbers are used for medical records' access virtually anyone will be able to screen our most private medical history. This must be addressed either through corrective legislation or Administrative action. Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to vote against this bill and deny relief to so many Americans just because of these concerns. But, I'm distressed that we are being forced to swallow these anti-privacy provisions and I think its shameful that the leadership has left out so many of our needy citizens who need adequate insurance coverage. I urge my colleagues to take my concerns to heart and work with me in the future to correct these serious flaws.

Mr. DeFAZIO of Oregon

Mr. DeFAZIO of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to thank the members and staff of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for including language in the Water Resources Development Act which will help advance an important project in my district known as the Lower Amazon Creek restoration and protection project. The project, which received approval previously from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under the Water Resources Development Act section 1135 program, is currently moving into the design and cost estimate phases. Yet a small portion of the project, which was originally constructed jointly by the Corps of Engineers and the Soil Conservation Services, now known as the Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS], had previously been left out of the project because of an apparent lack of statutory authority by the Corps of Engineers. This portion of the project is critical to the restoration of the Lower Amazon Creek and I am encouraged that this language will foster the necessary cooperation between the Corps and the NRCS to complete this important project. Again, I thank my colleagues for their support of this critical legislation and urge my counterparts in the Senate to support this provision of the bill.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Let us try to explain the issue before us. Animas-La Plata. Sounds good. Satisfy Indian claims, Well, actually, it is a project that cannot be built without violating the environmental laws of our Nation, voiding the laws that require local cost for sharing for new Federal water projects. It is a project that has been sold as an Indian water rights settlement, except that it will not deliver affordable or usable water to the Indian tribes in question. It is a project that will deliver a $5,000 an acre irrigation subsidy to non-Indian farmers in the high desert of southwestern Colorado so they can grow low-value crops. Two- thirds of the water will go to them if this project is ever completed, if we void the environmental laws, if we go ahead with a project that will produce 36 cents of benefits for every Federal dollar invested. Thirty-six cents of benefits for every Federal dollar invested. How can that be in a time when we are striving to balance the Federal budget? We will hear a lot from the opposition. They think they have a strategy to get this through, 36 cents of benefits for every dollar that every American taxpayer will invest. And they are going to say that it is because it is satisfying Indian water claims. It is not. What is before us today is called phase I stage A of the Animas-La Plata project. It barely passes muster under the Endangered Species Act. It fails the cost-benefit test. And it does not even come close to satisfying the Indian water rights. That is phase one. Now, if the proponents are successful in pushing through this nearly $500 million project, despite the environmental problems, despite the negative cost/benefit ratio, it still will not satisfy the Indian water claims because it does not deliver the water to those tribes. There is some thought that maybe they can sell the water or they can do something else with it. Colorado law will not allow them to sell it out of State. The water is going to be extraordinarily expensive. It is not going to be delivered in time to satisfy the Indian water claims. In fact, they can back out. The Bureau of Reclamation says we can finish the project by 2003. The tribe has the right, after the year 2000, to back out of this agreement. I believe when they see that they are going to be delivered water at an extraordinary price that they cannot sell to anybody, that they are going to opt out. They are going to pursue their claims in court and a future Congress is going to be where we are today, except they will have spent nearly $500 million, if they void the environmental laws of the land, if they waive all cost share and if they build a project that delivers 36 cents on the dollar, if we pony up all that money. And they will then have to come up with some other proposal to meet the Indian water claims. There is a better way to do it. The Inspector General of the Interior Department says, cut $170 million out of this particular project and you can just direct it to the Indian claims and you could better meet their claims. Local citizens are looking at other non-dam alternatives. The amendment before us would cut $10 million that is going to irrevocably commit us to this poorly thought out project. It is also about the ultimate $481 million to be spent by the taxpayers to bring a return of 36 cents on the dollar to Federal taxpayers. The proponents cannot say it is economically justified. It is not, by the numbers of the Bureau of Reclamation, who always try to cook the numbers in favor of these projects, they cannot say it is environmentally justified. We will have to waive a whole host of laws to complete the project. So they are staking their hopes on convincing us that this will satisfy the Indian water rights settlement. As I explained earlier, it will not. It is quite simple, in my opinion, Mr. Chairman. This half a billion dollar boondoggle should be stopped now before we waste any more of Federal taxpayers' dollars on this project.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment and in opposition to the bill. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3396, the Defense of Marriage Act. This bill is unnecessary, discriminatory and possibly unconstitutional. There is no question that we have real problems with family disintegration in this country, but this legislation is not intended to defend or improve the success of marriage, rather it is intended to further divide the country over the issue of gay rights. I'm saddened that, at a time when so many important issues face this country we are taking up valuable time discussing a bill that truly is a solution in search of a problem. Same sex marriage is not currently legal anywhere in the United States. And in over 200 years, the Federal Government has never attempted to develop a Federal definition of marriage. That right and responsibility has been left to the States. The Federal Government recognizes any State sanctioned marriage. However, States do not have to give full faith and credit to marriages sanctioned in other States. For instance, my home State of Oregon does not recognize marriages of 12-year-olds, but the State of Massachusetts allows 12-year-old females to marry, and the State of Alabama allows 14-year-olds to marry. In fact, several States even allow first cousins to marry. So if States can already refuse to recognize certain kinds of marriages performed in other States, what is the point of this legislation? If, as the proponents of this legislation claim, States do not have the authority to claim exemption from the full faith and credit clause, then a simple statue is not adequate to circumvent the Constitution's full faith and credit clause--we would need to pass a constitutional amendment. So, again, what is the point of this legislation? And where would this type of legislation lead us? We risk setting a dangerous precedent by crossing the threshold of preempting States by establishing a Federal definition of marriage. Once we cross that threshold, what is to prevent the Federal Government from setting a national age of majority for marriage and preempting all States as in China where the legal marriage age has been set as high as 28 years old, and changes almost annually. Furthermore, what is to prevent the Federal Government from setting new and rigorous standards for divorces preempting all State laws? I have long supported the ability of long-term committed domestic partners to receive some sort of legal recognition. There are a host of areas where family members need legal standing--hospital visitations when someone is critically ill or injured, to be at a loved one's side when they die, decisions about medical care and guardianship for someone who is ill or incapacitated, and the authority to carry out someone's last wishes, to name a few. A number of local jurisdictions around the country have extended legal rights to domestic partners. That is exactly where these types of decisions should be made--by local communities and States, not by the Federal Government dictating and mandating these issues for them. This is not serious legislation to address a real need in this country. It is a cynical political gesture, which has more to do with Presidential election year politics than addressing the needs of the American people. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, the People's Republic of China routinely violates international trade laws, arms sales restrictions, human rights conventions. China continues to illegally export goods made by prison and child labor into the United States. China's domestic markets are effectively closed to our products, even as we open our doors wide for Chinese-made goods, many of them produced by United States companies that have moved jobs into the People's Republic. China is also one of the world's leading pirates of copyrighted software. Our trade deficit with China swelled from $10 billion in 1990 to $33 billion last year, projected to be $41 billion this year. That is more than half a million American jobs lost in their unfair trade practices. Some people call this policy constructive engagement. I call it appeasement. The aging dictators in Beijing know that they can count on our Government's spineless response to their provocations. They understand only too well how effectively their big corporate allies can influence our elected representatives. Our trade policy ought to work for American workers. Instead, the game has been rigged to benefit a new world order in which corporate investments and family-wage jobs flow downhill toward the world's lowest wages, worst working conditions and least restrictive environmental standards.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is on the issue of log exports. Log exports are the timber industry's best kept secret. While the industry stands united in its attempt to pass riders to appropriation bills that will accelerate Federal timber harvests, they have maintained an informal truce within their ranks on the continued practice of raw log exports from the Pacific Northwest even though the export of raw logs clearly hurts the nonexporting lumber and timber manufacturing companies in the Northwest. Last year, 1.6 billion board feet of logs were exported from Oregon and Washington to mills in Japan and the Far East. That is more than twice the amount of timber sold on Federal forests during this time. Most of those logs went to supply some of Japan's 16,000 lumber mills, mills that are protected from competition by a dense fabric of trade barriers and subsidies. In 1990 Congress overwhelmingly approved a permanent ban on the export of unprocessed timber from national forests, BLM and State-owned lands. I was one of the primary authors of that legislation. An important part of that law prohibited a law against an exporting company from purchasing Federal timber for its mills as a replacement for private timber the company is exporting. Let me repeat that. The law says a company that exports logs and owns domestic timber mills cannot purchase Federal timber as a replacement for private timber it exports. The practice is known as substitution; it is nothing more than a back-door export of Federal timber. There is one exception, which is called a sourcing area. The Department of Agriculture, the Forest Service, was supposed to upgrade and determine new sourcing areas for the Pacific Northwest with the changes in the forest economy and the prices bid on logs. Unfortunately, last year in the appropriation bill and this year in the appropriation bill is a prohibition on new regulations to implement changes in the sourcing areas. Now, I will admit, I will be one of the first to admit, the Forest Service is not perfect. I think there are some problems with their proposed regulations, but we have seen no progress since last year, and I am afraid that this year, if another prohibition is adopted, the Forest Service will take it as another opportunity to not act and to further promulgate regulations or improve the regulations that they have proposed. So it is my hope, in standing to offer this amendment today, that we can begin to get some movement downtown, and hopefully they are listening at the Department of Agriculture and the Forest Service, on reasonable new sourcing regulations to prevent the back-door export of logs from the Pacific Northwest, where it is prohibited under existing law.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Washington for entering into this colloquy. Would the gentleman agree to work with me and other members of the Northwest congressional delegation to seek an agreement that will allow the Forest Service to move ahead within the next year on regulations that fully implement the ban and deal with the issue of sourcing areas in a reasonable manner?

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

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I am hopeful that we will not be back a year from today with the committee attempting to prevent promulgation of regulation, and at that point I will have to go forward with a vote and would have to go ahead, if I succeed, and implement the problematic regulations now pending. So I am happy to work with the gentleman and try and prod the administration into action on this. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, we are told that the United States of America is engaged in a policy of constructive engagement with the gerontocracy that runs China. We have just completed our second annual negotiations to allow the Chinese to continue to pirate over $2 billion a year in intellectual property rights from American companies. There is no change; they are still producing those disks today. Yes, there was a little show of closing down a few, but that will not last. We are going to run a $41 billion deficit with China, the most unfair trading nation on Earth, the most protectionist society on Earth. That means, according to our own Commerce Department's numbers we are going to lose 800,000 jobs to the unfair trade practices of the People's Republic of China. At some point the policy of constructive engagement starts to look an awful lot like appeasement, and we all know how effective the policy of appeasement was in dealing with Hitler's Third Reich.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, once again the U.S. trade negotiators have taken a page out of history. For the second time in 16 months, we have threatened sanctions to stop the outright piracy of more than $2.3 billion a year in intellectual property rights, software, and CDs from the United States of America. Remember, this is the most unfair trading nation on Earth, with the most protectionist trade policies, as identified by even the World Bank. They are going to run a $41 billion trade surplus with the United States this year. That means we are going to export 800,000 jobs to China because we do not have the guts to stand up to their unfair trade practices. But even worse is the piracy, outright theft and piracy, violating all international standards, $2.3 billion. Where are our negotiators? They finally got tough. They threatened trade sanctions. We were going to retaliate. They negotiated past the deadline. Then, in an all too familiar pattern, they entered into nothing but another meaningless face-saving agreement where the Chinese will continue their piracy and we will continue occasionally to bellow and huff and puff. They took a page out of history, but unfortunately, the page was from Neville Chamberlain at Munich: appeasement. Appeasement will not work.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards].

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks].