mr. speaker , it is with a combination of perhaps resignation and frustration with which i stand here .  will rogers once said , in explaining the length of a political platform , that it takes a lot of words to straddle an issue , and i have every intention of using a lot of words here this morning .  i think , like many people , like most of us , we have no fear of free trade , that the united states , playing on a level playing field , can easily compete in the world market , and i do not ascribe to some of the statements that i think have been somewhat overzealous or vitriolic in describing policies here .  i also agree that in some respects moving out of the policy we have right now without a substantial alternative would be chaotic .  having said that , this is where the `` but '' comes in .  i intend on either giving a symbolic vote or maybe a symbolic speech in place of that vote with concerns of sovereignty issues that are dealt with here and that some of those voices that are concerned about sovereignty issues are not just simply those fearful of the dark but there are legitimate concerns which require a periodic reanalysis of what we are doing .  i speak specifically about a case which has sent the attorney general from the state of utah to join 28 attorney generals from other states in protest of the situation in which the world trade organization has thrown state statutes in jeopardy .  antigua , with which we had a policy dating back to 1993 , has complained that laws prohibiting internet gambling as well as gambling and betting paraphernalia , which have been for about 100 years the social policy of utah , violate trade organizations ; and the trade organization ruled in favor of antigua .  it is inherently wrong for any adjudicative panel of any organization , internationally or trade , to put in jeopardy the kinds of state laws that we have in place , especially when they deal with social policies that have been there for almost 100 years .  whether this is simply a glitch in negotiations that can easily be worked out or whether this is a systemic problem or whether , as the attorney generals are arguing , that the states need a greater voice in the organization and the application of these trade policies , especially if it is going to relate to state law , that is the discussion that needs to take place .  my state may have lucked out because a clerical error in this particular case did not refer specifically to the utah state law ; and , therefore , it may not be applicable .  but the fear factor is still there , that in the future state efforts , state regulations and state policies may be put in jeopardy not only by our trade policies but also by federal regulations that affect those trade policies when they ought not to be .  that is the issue that needs to be periodically addressed .  i recognize that this particular resolution is very narrow in its application .  it may not be specifically on that point , but it does at least give us the opportunity of saying not only is that an issue and a concern for the future but it is an issue that we should take seriously and we should discuss seriously and we should address seriously so that these particular problems , especially as it deals with state issues and state rights , will not be put in jeopardy with the future .  