Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. I prefer to vote it right after the debate, which will end in a few minutes.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters].

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I do. I would prefer if we could vote this after the debate. We will be finished in a few minutes. Let us vote it, Members are here, and then go off to dinner.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown].

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns]. (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me at this point thank both the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] and the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] and Members from both sides of the aisle for their commitment to fairness. I think that is the right thing to do, and I appreciate it. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a tripartisan amendment sponsored by progressives and conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, and an Independent. Mr. Chairman, in my view, our current trade policy is a disaster. This year we are going to run up a $200 billion merchandise trade deficit, the largest in our history, and it is a deficit that is going to cost us millions of decent-paying jobs. But, Mr. Chairman, as serious as the economic implications of our trade policy are, this amendment deals with an issue that is even more important. This amendment deals with democracy and national sovereignty and the right of the American people, through their local, State and nationally elected bodies, to make legislation which the American people believe is in their best interests. The Members of Congress who are cosponsoring this legislation have different political points of view. We disagree on everything, but we agree that it is the people of the United States of America who should decide the important issues and not people in the World Trade Organization meeting behind closed doors in Switzerland who should make those decisions and who should override legislation that we pass, that State government passes, that local government passes. Briefly stated, what is some of the legislation that is being threatened, that has been threatened? The WTO, through the urging of Venezuela, forced changes in our Clean Air Act. Mexico forced changes in the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Southeast Asian countries have filed complaints against American restrictions on shrimp. A Massachusetts law promoting democracy in Burma, which has also been passed by many cities all over America, is now being brought before the WTO by the European Union and Japan. If Massachusetts loses that case, they must take their law off of the books or risk being punished by trade sanctions. The bottom line here is that no matter what Members' political views are, and I disagree with Helms-Burton, voted against it, want to see it repealed, but I want to see that debate take place here in Congress, and not have somebody through the WTO overrule it. That is the issue. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ney].

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that we be allowed to vote the amendment up or down right now.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me in fact talk about the intent of this amendment. Because I am the author of the amendment, I know something about its intent. If we had the ability, we would have brought forth limitation amendments to stop the USTR from doing what they are doing. But we could not do that. So the intent here is to transfer $1 million from Commerce to the USTR only for two purposes: First, to do a much better job of informing all Members of Congress when a formal trade complaint is filed or threatened at the WTO or other international bodies or when entering into new trade agreements which would compel the repeal or changes in our current national, State, local, tribal, territorial, or D.C. laws. Second, to do a much better job of defending and arguing in support of our existing trade and trade-related laws that are in dispute between the WTO and other international bodies. This is as far as we can go. Mr. Chairman, I yield my remaining time to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kucinich].

Mr. SANDERS

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is an amendment of enormous consequence which is supported by people with very different political philosophies. This amendment is cosponsored by the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio], by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ney], by the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns], by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown], and by the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher], by Republicans, Democrats and Independent, by conservatives and progressives, and what this amendment says is that we believe in democracy and we believe that legislation passed at the local level, at the State level, and here in the U.S. Congress should not be overridden by the World Trade Organization. And while we may disagree about this piece of legislation or that piece of legislation, we think that there is something very wrong about our trade policy whereby this Government has abdicated enormous responsibility and whereby major environmental legislation, legislation dealing with human rights and other important issues, is now threatened and has been threatened by the World Trade Organization. We believe that there is something very wrong when important environmental legislation passed by this Congress is overridden by people in Geneva who meet behind closed doors. We think there is something wrong when legislation passed in the State of Vermont, State of Massachusetts designed to bring back democracy in Burma is threatened by the World Trade Organization. Mr. Chairman, let me take a moment now to yield to my friend, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns] who has been very active in this issue.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, let me explain what happened. As I understand it, last night a unanimous consent was agreed to by which the Legal Services amendment would be called up first after the five rollcall votes which we voted upon earlier today, and that was confirmed to me by everybody. I was here on the floor of the House ready to go, and I was told, no, Legal Services is coming up. I went up to my office. For some reason which I do not understand, and I expect it was inadvertent, the Clerk read the first 2 or 3 pages of title 2 of the Justice--Commerce--State appropriation bill before the Legal Services debate began, and the place in the text in which I had an amendment cosponsored by Republicans and Democrats alike was therefore passed. Given that reality and my belief that this error was inadvertent, that everyone here believed that Legal Services was going to be debated first, I have asked for and am asking now for unanimous consent so that we can debate this very, very important issue which concerns millions of Americans who are deeply concerned about our trade policy. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. SANDERS. Absolutely.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 3 additional minutes.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, am I recognized for 5 minutes on my amendment?

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of a provision within the fiscal year 1998 Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary appropriations bill which provides full funding for the Small Business Administration's Small Business Development Center [SBDC] Program. Mr. Chairman, it is clear that in my State of Vermont, and all across the country, small businesses are creating the lion's share of new jobs. And we should be doing more to help those who are most ready to create and invest here at home in our national economy. The SBDC Program is one example where a small Federal investment has paid for itself many times over. With limited Federal funds, SBDC's have been able to leverage additional non-Federal funds in support of their mission and to forge very strong partnerships with State and local government, education, and business leaders to provide a unique array of local counseling, training, and financial services that would not otherwise be attainable in the private sector to small businesses, especially those employing fewer than 25 employees and the self- employed. Ultimately, SBDC's pay off in the form of job creation and new economic development. The SBDC Program also generates increased revenues from a broader base of income and sales tax returns from thousands of new or more profitable small businesses that are helped by SBDC's. Mr. Chairman, the SBDC Program has been very successful in Vermont. In their 1996 annual survey of 1,400 clients, the Vermont SBDC revealed sales increases of almost $83 million, and the creation of 1,750 jobs for Vermont--1,350 full-time and 450 part-time, at average hourly rates of $9.85 and $6.95. Reviewing the results of the survey, the Vermont tax commissioner validated a conservative return of over $1.2 million directly into the State treasury in income and sales taxes. This equates to a 4-to-1 return on the Federal dollars. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately earlier this year the President's budget proposed to cut funding for SBDC's by 24 percent--from $73.5 million to $57.5. This cut would have been particularly devastating for smaller States, such as Vermont, which barely have the resources to meet the current demand for services. I opposed this cut, and wrote a letter to Subcommittee Chairman Harold Rogers, requesting that funding for the SBDC's be sustained at its current level, including a small adjustment for inflation. I am pleased to report that I was joined on my letter to the chairman by 94 Members of the House. Mr. Chairman, I am especially pleased that the chairman and the subcommittee responded to this bipartisan effort by fully funding the SBDC Program for fiscal year 1998, including a $2-million increase for inflation. I urge all of my colleagues to support SBDC's by supporting this provision during floor consideration of the Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary appropriations bill.