[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index
Sanders Amendment Debate Transcript
- Subject: Sanders Amendment Debate Transcript
- From: sbillenness@xxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 15:28:00
AMENDMENT PROCESS FOR H.R. 1127, NATIONAL MONUMENT FAIRNESS ACT OF 1997
(House of Representatives - September 25, 1997)
AMENDMENT NO. 22 OFFERED BY MR. SANDERS
The CHAIRMAN. Under the previous order of the Committee, it is in order to
consider amendment No. 22 offered by the gentleman from Vermont [Mr.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 22 offered by Mr. Sanders:
Page 38, line 22, after `$21,700,000' insert `(increased by $1,000,000)'.
Page 54, line 11, after `$28,490,000' insert `(reduced by $1,000,000)'.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] and the gentleman
from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
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
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
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. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane], the very distinguished chairman of the
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. As chairman of
the authorizing subcommittee, I object to the policy which motivates the
original supporters of the amendment, who feel that additional resources
should be provided to the U.S. Trade Representative to identify the effect
of the multilateral agreement on investments [MAI] on State and local laws.
I do not believe that the funds should be used for this purpose. I am
concerned about the use of these funds for any purpose which might alter
the progress of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment.
The MAI is the first comprehensive multilateral agreement on investments.
However, it is not entirely new. The MAI builds on over 1,000, bilateral
investment treaties already in force around the world. Most of those
agreements include investor-to-state dispute settlement procedures. The
agreement will not force the United States to lower standards, and it will
not prevent Congress from regulating the behavior of companies, nor are we
agreeing to a dispute settlement process that can force changes in U.S.
law. There will be no loss of sovereignty under the MAI.
This amendment would deter progress on developing international rules for
investment that mirror our international rules for trade by which U.S.
companies and their workers have benefited from fairness, openness, and
I therefore strongly oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Vermont [Mr. Sanders], and I urge my colleagues to vote `no.'
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
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders]. We have to be honest with the
American people. These trade agreements have a profound effect on them, and
they have a profound effect on local, State, and Federal laws. That is why
the gentleman from Vermont has offered this amendment.
There is great concern that the United States laws, which lawmakers in
Congress, State legislatures, and localities have worked hard to establish
and pass, continue to be overturned by faceless bureaucrats during trade
negotiations. These bureaucrats could be in the World Trade Organization or
they could be anywhere.
What can we do, as elected representatives of this great Nation? We will
stand up for the laws that are on the books. Many of us would obviously
like to stop this constant disregard for U.S. laws, but we are limited in
our ability to make such a stand during consideration of appropriations
bills, and now we have an opportunity.
Make no mistake about it, this vote is a miniature GATT Fast Track II. What
we are saying here today is if Members vote for this, they are saying we
should transfer money out of the administration of the Commerce Department
to the U.S. Trade Representative, and let this department look at the
impact of the World Trade Organization on Members' local and State laws.
Members cannot be against that. They have a fiduciary relationship with the
people in their districts to say, is the World Trade Organization impacting
my congressional district?
The President of the United States is talking up here on the Hill about
pushing fast track. But many of us in this congressional House feel
strongly that we need to have an early vote. I applaud the gentleman from
Vermont [Mr. Sanders] for going ahead and putting this in place.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
We in the Congress have a serious responsibility to make sure that the
principles of American Federalism are not trampled in the rush to approve
new trade agreements under fast track. I support the Sanders amendment
because we need to send U.S. trade negotiators a clear signal that Congress
cares deeply about the fundamental precepts of American sovereignty.
We have worked hard to build a consensus around clean air, safe drinking
water, and a pure safe food supply. We should not give it up. Vote `yes' on
the Sanders amendment.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio
Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, let me just say very quickly that we realize there is a give
and take when we are dealing with the world and trade policies, but most of
it has been a take from this country. What is going to happen in
Switzerland is going to affect township trustees, county commissioners,
Governors, and citizens of the United States.
This is a commonsense approach, it is a commonsense amendment. All it wants
to do is to simply say we should inform people. People have a right to know
in this country. We should support the Sanders amendment. It is the right
thing to do for America, it is the right thing to do to inform people in
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, we need a national economic policy which
protects our nation. We need a national economic policy which respects and
reestablishes America as a sovereign Nation. We need a national economic
policy which places the interests of the American people first among all
international trade agreements.
But the World Trade Organization ruled against U.S. regulations on clean
air, U.S. consumer protections. They ruled violated WTO rules. The WTO
ruled against regulations on hormone-treated beef. Now is the time to take
a stand on behalf of our rights as a people to self-determination.
The WTO does not care about the rights of the American people. The WTO does
not care about the rights of our workers, about our environment. It is the
American Congress which must stand up for the people. Outside of America,
the international community does not care. We, the Congress, must protect
we, the people.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
Mr. Chairman, I would ask, as I read the amendment, this would add $1
million to the U.S. Trade Representative's office to continue the good work
they are doing in terms of representing us and furthering the globalization
of our economy, and the progress of our domestic production. I do not see,
I am baffled by some of the things that are being said. But the amendment
itself is only a $1 million increase to the U.S. Trade Representative's
office. If that is what it does, I do not have a problem with it.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sanders
amendment. There is an alarm bell going off all over the United States, and
some people can hear it on the right, and some people can hear it on the
left, and some people are ignoring the alarm bell. Other people are trying
to set the fire.
Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is we are being rushed time and again into
conceding the authority that was vested in us by the Constitution of the
United States to multinational organizations in the name of creating some
global trading system, in the name of facilitating global and international
Mr. Chairman, I may have my disagreements with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Kucinich] on issues of labor and the environment, but the last thing I want
to do is grant authority to some international organization, none of whom
will be voted on by the American people, to make these decisions.
We will rue the day when we have granted authority to someone who has no
obligation to the voters of the United States to make these decisions. Big
business today may think they are getting something in the environmental
area or the labor area, but all the American people will suffer a loss of
freedom if we give it away to these international organizations.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon
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
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. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman
from Oklahoma [Mr. Watkins].
(Mr. WATKINS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
Mr. WATKINS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to say that I agreed with many things
that have been said by the minority side concerning this amendment. I would
like to clarify some matters, though. I think emotionally some people get
I know the gentleman from Ohio stated that it was the WTO that put the
embargo against the growth hormone on beef. That is not true. Mr. Chairman,
that was a unilateral decision by the European Union after the GATT
negotiations. Our own USTR did push for a penalty on the unfair trade
barrier being placed against growth hormones. I have been fighting the
battle to lift the growth hormone ban for 7 months. I have been fighting,
pounding the table, becoming obnoxious about this unfair trade barrier. We
must have stronger people to negotiate and fight for the United States
The point I am making, Mr. Chairman, if it had not been for the WTO finally
recognizing and ruling against this unfair trade practice placed upon our
beef producers by the European Union we would not have a world decision in
our favor. It took several years by the USTR and 7 months of my own effort
and we have to go through a 90-day appeal. Mr. Chairman, I am thankful
under that circumstance the WTO was there to help, or rule against the
European Union--125 million unfair trade balance against our beef
producers. I think our beef people are going to reap a lot of benefit from
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 1/2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Virginia pointed out, this amendment is
very different than the debate that we have been having here tonight. Let
us understand what it is and what it is not. The amendment would shift $1
million from the Department of Commerce to the U.S. Trade Representative's
Office, period. That is all it does. The rhetoric is about a lot of other
stuff, but the rhetoric has nothing to do with the actual amendment.
Since we have just gotten an amended budget request from the President on
the USTR to add money to USTR, it may be not a bad idea. If this amendment
passes, we will certainly use it for that purpose, since the USTR needs the
money to hire some attorneys to carry out their activities, but certainly
not anything dealing with this.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
Mr. KOLBE. No, I do not have the time to yield. The gentleman from Vermont
[Mr. Sanders] has his own time. He got 5 extra minutes on the earlier
Let me just clarify a few other things about what is being proposed. The
earlier `Dear Colleague' letter that Members received from some of the
sponsors, talked about this is dealing with the multilateral agreement on
investment. In fact, it talked about the role that the multilateral
agreement, or MIA as we will call it, has with the World Trade
Organization, or WTO. But there is not any link between the MIA and the
WTO. To say there is a link between those two is simply incorrect.
The fact is, however, that the new multilateral agreement on investments
builds upon 1,000 bilateral investment agreements that are already in force
around the world. All of those agreements have some kind of investor
dispute settlement mechanism in them. Most of them are done through the
World Bank's International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes.
The center has been in existence since 1966. It is one of the primary
forces for settling these kinds of disputes.
We have to have something to settle disputes when investors get into some
kind a dispute. This is the first comprehensive multilateral investment
agreement that we have had, and in that sense it is new, but it is
certainly high time. We have an increasingly complex world of trade out
there, an increasing complex economic situation, and we have to have
agreements and we have to have institutions that can deal with settling
disputes. That is why we have this multilateral agreement on investments,
and that is why we need to have some kind of mechanism for dealing with
Let us talk a little bit about what the WTO has done and what the WTO has
not done. There is a lot of confusion about that. People say that we are
giving up our sovereignty to this organization. But we don't. The WTO is
like a lot of other institutions; we have them in a whole range of other
areas for settling disputes when disputes arise.
We have an increasing amount of trade in the world, so we have an
increasing amount of disputes in the world. The first five cases that we
have taken to the WTO we have won. We won against Japan on their liquor
taxes. We won against Canada on their restrictions on magazines. We won
against the European Union on their banana imports. We won against the
European Union on their hormone ban. And we won against India on their
As a result of having been able to threaten actions in the WTO, we have
gotten significant settlements in other disputes with Korea, with the
European Union, with Japan, with Portugal, with Pakistan, with Turkey, with
Hungary, a whole variety of them.
Mr. Chairman, let me just conclude by saying this: This issue does not have
anything to do with the WTO at all. The rhetoric may, but certainly the
amendment does not. This amendment is about policy. It suggests a major
policy change. Thus is the reason why we should not debate this kind of
thing on appropriation bills. It is the kind of thing that needs to be
considered very carefully, in a very complex proposal in the authorizing
committee, and I would urge us to not be misled by the rhetoric we have
heard here today.
(Mr. ROGERS asked and was given permission to speak out of order for 1
LEGISLATIVE SCHEDULE FOR TONIGHT
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, a lot of Members are asking about the schedule
for the evening. We have been discussing that with leadership on both
sides. Here is the intention at the moment as to how to proceed: We would
intend that the vote on this matter be rolled and combined with the vote on
the next amendment, which I understand is the EDA amendment.
If that is so, then Members would have roughly an hour between now and when
the votes would be taken. At that time, there would be the two votes,
presumably, unless there is a motion to rise or some other procedural
motion that takes place. That is the intent of leadership at this point in
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers]
anticipate that the EDA vote would be taken first and be a 15-minute vote
and that the vote on this amendment would be taken second?
Mr. ROGERS. Reclaiming my time, either way. I have no real preference. I
have no preference. If anyone has a preference, I am open.
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. ROGERS. I have no problem with that.
Do I understand the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] to say that he
would prefer not to roll his vote until the EDA vote?
Mr. SANDERS. I prefer to vote it right after the debate, which will end in
a few minutes.
Mr. ROGERS. I would hope that the gentleman could accommodate Members and
perhaps combine the two votes so that we would have some time off between
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, for purposes of instructing Members who are here
and those who are not, I would remind the chairman and those Members that
there may be procedural votes called in between the substantive amendments
that may be voted on as well.
So I doubt very seriously that there will be an hour's worth of time that
people would be able to be gone.
Mr. ROGERS. I would regret that. I would hope that we could proceed with
the business of the House and cease the endless motions to rise and the
like. I would hope that we can accommodate the Members and let everyone
have a few minutes of time perhaps for other duties.
The CHAIRMAN. Who yields time under the Sanders amendment?
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] has 1 minute and 45
seconds, and the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] has 3 minutes
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, we have just one speaker and we have the right to
close. So I will reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Waters].
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] just gave
us a preview of his speech on Fast Track. I do not know what he knows about
I have just spent the last year dealing with the WTO on one of those issues
that he just alluded to, the one that had to do with the European Union. In
our country, we have the opportunity to go to the meetings, we can go to
committee meetings, we can come to this Congress, we can go to school
boards and our state legislatures.
We do not know who is making the decisions at the WTO. We do not know who
is on the panel. Nobody is going to send us a notice. Nobody is going to
give us a telephone call. We do not have the opportunity to give our point
I want to tell my colleagues, they just made a decision that is going to
cause the drug lords in the Caribbean to take over where the banana trade
has been knocked out by the WTO, and we are going to see dope and those
drugs in the districts that we represent in America.
Support this. At least we can get a report on what they are doing, what
they are supposed to do. And perhaps we can all get educated about the WTO
so that we will not go down the line that we apparently are going down to
allow them to make decisions about this country and our laws.
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
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. Chairman, I would ask support for the amendment. The public
has the right to know this information.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] has
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] may wish his
amendment did that, but it does not do that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dreier].
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. I
think that many of the arguments that have been made by a number of my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle are very well-intentioned. But
frankly, they are in large part based on fear.
If one looks at the World Trade Organization, we know what a horrible
acronym that is out there. There are many people who believe that the World
Trade Organization is going to take over the United States of America. But
the fact is, I ask people to name one single instance of where U.S.
sovereignty or the sovereignty of any State has been jeopardized, and the
fact is it has not.
We also, Mr. Chairman, need to look at the fact that there is no tie
whatsoever between the multilateral agreement on investment, the MAI and
the WTO. It seems to me that as we look at where we are going, I want as
much information out as possible. But the United States of America is the
world's only complete superpower of the military, economically and
I happen to have a great deal of confidence. My colleague, the gentlewoman
from California [Ms. Waters] just talked about how closed this is. The fact
is, the United States of America is represented there as the world's
I believe that we need to do everything that we possibly can to break down
barriers. I think that Members on both sides of this aisle want us to
embark on agreements which will reduce the burden of taxes on our working
Americans and on the people.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from California yield?
Mr. DREIER. I have very limited time, and I am in the midst of my closing
remarks. Did the gentleman from Oregon have a chance to speak?
Mr. DeFAZIO. I did. I would love to rebut.
Mr. DREIER. That is why I have been given the opportunity to close here,
and I appreciate having the chance to do that.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that as we look at where we are headed, this
is well-intentioned, but the fact is I think that it would undermine our
attempt to proceed with our attempts in those 1,000 agreements that are in
the process of moving ahead so that we can cut that burden.
So I urge a `no' vote on this and hope my colleagues will join in doing
?Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
gentleman's amendment. Every time the Office of the U.S. Trade
Representative commits this Nation to the provisions of an international
trade agreement, they potentially bind American citizens to changes in
dozens of Federal, State, or local laws. What makes matters worse is that,
if the agreement has been negotiated under fast-track authority, the
elected representatives of those people have no opportunity to amend the
legislation implementing the agreement.
?Let me give you some examples of why this amendment is so important. In
1991, the fishing industry in Mexico decided it did not approve of the
United States law protecting the thousands of dolphins slaughtered each
year in the Pacific tuna fishery. Mexico challenged that law under the
rules of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and a panel of
unselected trade bureaucrats, meeting behind closed doors in Geneva,
decided our popular law, enacted by an open democratic process, was a
barrier to free trade. They told us to change it--and this year, amid
massive controversy and in spite of tremendous opposition from the American
people, we did. Mexico and the GATT got their way, and more dolphins will
die this year as a result.
?In 1993, right after the administration assured us that our entry into the
newly created World Trade Organization would not require any weakening of
United States environmental protection laws, Venezuela challenged EPA
regulations issued under the Clean Air Act, claiming that the regulations
discriminated against foreign refiners. Even though Venezuela's gasoline
produces more smog-emitting chemicals than American refiners are permitted
to sell, in 1996 the WTO ordered the United States to change its
regulations because they were a barrier to free trade, and EPA is now
rewriting the regulations.
?Today, the United States is fighting similar challenges behind closed
doors in Geneva. Several Asian countries have challenged a provision of our
Endangered Species Act that protects sea turtles. On the human rights
front, the United States is currently defending a Massachusetts law
prohibiting companies that do business with the State government from also
doing business with the oppressive regime in Burma . Clearly, even State
laws are subject to challenge by other nations under WTO rules.
?Now let me point to the latest, and perhaps most egregious, example of how
our laws can be held hostage by foreign-owned corporations. Included in the
fast-track request sent to Congress last week by the President is a
little-known item called the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. The MAI
has been under negotiation by the developed nations of the world for the
past 2 years, but these negotiations have been kept so secret that no one
could confirm their existence until this past April. According to the
director of the World Trade Organization, the MAI is `the constitution of a
single global economy.'
?Here in my hand is a list of the State laws that could be challenged under
the MAI as inconsistent with the agreement. They range from California laws
promoting investment in facilities for processing recycled materials to
Alaska laws limiting permits for mineral extraction on public lands.
Federal statutes affected would include laws providing special incentives
for minority-owned businesses or for companies that employ local workers.
?Trade agreements are no longer about lowering tariffs or eliminating
quotas. They cover everything from the contents of the milk our children
drink to the way we manage our fisheries. It's time to update the way we
approve of these agreements as well.
?The democratically elected members of the Congress and State legislatures
have a right to know whether the trade agreements that this or any other
administration commits us to have an impact on our laws, and for that very
important reason I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont [Mr.
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared
to have it.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 239, further proceedings on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] will be
PREFERENTIAL MOTION OFFERED BY MR. DE FAZIO
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I have a preferential motion at the desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. DeFazio moves that the Committee do now rise.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from
Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared
to have it.
Mr. DeFAZIO. If they give us the vote, I withdraw the motion.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Vermont is recognized.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that we be allowed to
vote the amendment up or down right now.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Vermont to renew his request for a recorded vote on his amendment at this
There was no objection.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my motion to rise.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the proceedings on the motion to rise are
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 356, noes 64,
not voting 13, as follows: