THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Contents Display    

What you are doing is running down this institution, not only by the process but what you want the end product

[Page: H3957]  GPO's PDF

   Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the committee that has jurisdiction on trade matters.

   Mr. THOMAS. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.

   Mr. Speaker, some of us over here are somewhat baffled because, as we had stated earlier, more than 160 pages that are contained here are bills that have previously passed the House. But the way in which the Senate called us to go to conference, those bills would not have been within the scope of conference. All we are doing is taking previously passed work product of the House and placing it before the conference.

   As far as health credits are concerned, the 60 percent structure was contained in the stimulus bill. As you will recall, this House passed it four times until the Senate finally passed it. Two of those times it had health credits in there. I do not understand why my colleagues do not want to take previously passed House work product and make it in order in front of the Senate so we have a chance that the House-passed work product could be in competition with the Senate-passed product.

   That is all this does is take passed, previously-agreed-to measures like the Andean bill, like the trade promotion bill, and put it in front of the Senate. Why are you so afraid of using a House-passed product as the House's position?

   PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

   Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.

   Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I make a parliamentary inquiry as to whether in the history of this august body has ever before a self-executing rule such as this in wrapping a 191-page bill ever been given to the Committee on Rules to be enacted into law with the exception of the time that the Republicans closed down the House of Representatives?

   Mr. THOMAS. Will the gentleman yield?

   Mr. RANGEL. I made a parliamentary inquiry. Unless the gentleman is the Parliamentarian.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would like to respond to the gentleman from New York. The Chair is not the historian of the House and therefore cannot make any kind of a ruling.

   The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.

   Mr. RANGEL. Could I get a parliamentary answer to my question, Mr. Speaker?

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. The parliamentary answer is that the Chair is not the historian. The Chair is not able to put the issue in historical context.

   Mr. RANGEL. Could I get an answer from the Parliamentarian?

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. If the gentleman from New York would like to ask the Parliamentarian to check the precedents of the House previously, he is more than welcome to do that.

   The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.

   Mr. RANGEL. If the Speaker would yield just for a moment, I have checked with the Parliamentarian to ask what the history was, and I would like it reaffirmed by the Speaker that this has never been done before.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.

   Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, how much time does each side have?

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 13 minutes. The gentleman from New York has 18.

   Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully reserve the balance of my time and ask my colleague if he would use some of the time because of the imbalance of time as it is considered.

   Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

   Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Is the gentleman prepared to yield back the balance of his time?

   Mr. REYNOLDS. If you are intending to yield back the balance of your time, I will follow you with that, and we will move ahead to a vote.

   Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

   First let me become the Parliamentarian of the House. It was Chairman THOMAS who agreed that there was absolutely no precedent for this and Chairman DREIER said the same thing last week. Either it is something different today, or last week up in the Rules Committee it was something else.

   For Chairman THOMAS' benefit, you are attempting to add in that 31 pages that you are not talking about the language of H.R. 3010, the general system of preferences, to this rule and it has never passed this House.

   Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior).

   Mr. BONIOR. I thank my good friend from Florida for yielding me this time.

   Mr. Speaker, today's headlines: ``WorldCom Says Its Books Are Off By $3.8 billion.'' What do WorldCom, Arthur Andersen, Global Crossing, Enron, K-Mart, DCT, CMS Energy, and Merrill Lynch have in common? They support the idea of a fast track, all these trade laws, even though they themselves have been ethically challenged companies that have fleeced their workers, their retirees, have caused the market to take a terrible toll on retirees and those who invest in it. They are the people behind this kind of trade negotiation and deal.

   And in this very bill that we are arguing about today are provisions that will gut health care benefits for steelworkers. You go out there in that 95-degree temperature like we have got today and you work, you pour your heart and soul into every paycheck, you punch a clock and pack a lunch, come home and then have them tell you that you cannot have your health care benefits. They are going to get caught. That is what is wrong with trade readjustment under their proposal, and that is what is wrong with fast track.

   Vote ``no'' on this proposal.

   Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

   It is an honor and privilege for me to serve on the Committee on Rules, as I think it is on both sides of the aisle. Just because the House has not done something exactly like this before does not mean it should never be done. The rules of this House are deliberately crafted to permit flexibility for unique instances such as this.

   Mr. Speaker, as I stated earlier, but its importance bears repeating, so I am going to say it again: the House would not be in this position had the Senate not taken up the Andean trade bill, stripped out all of the House-passed provisions and added countless other trade items, leaving the House with no position in the conference on all these measures.

   Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

   Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen).

   (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. BENTSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.

   Mr. Speaker, I was one of 21 Democrats who voted for the TPA bill. I think it is a good bill.

[Time: 15:30]

   I want to see the President get Trade Promotion Authority; I voted for it for President Clinton and I will vote for it for President Bush, if it is done the right way. I did that last fall, but what we are doing today is not the way to get there.

   The Senate has passed a substantial trade adjustment assistance package that is good public policy, that helps workers who do lose their jobs to trade. What the House is being asked to do today is to state a new position on the part of the House to strengthen the hand of the Republicans in the conference. There is nothing that precludes the conferees on the part of the House to put forth a position or to hammer out a conference agreement with the other body, including provisions which were not addressed in this body. This is all designed to provide political leverage. It is not a practical rules effect. In fact, the Committee on Rules can waive on the issue of scope.

   The bill before us today is a dramatic rewrite of the Bush-backed, bipartisan

[Page: H3958]  GPO's PDF

   Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means.

   Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, for those of us who really want to know, the Senate passed an Andean trade act bill this month. Into that bill, because they could not pass them separately, they amended the trade promotion act bill that this House passed back in December. They amended into it the trade adjustment assistance that this House passed back in November. They amended into it a Customs border security bill that we passed back in May. They could not pass bills the way we usually do.

   We should have gone to the Trade Promotion Authority conference 5 months ago. We should have gone to the TAA conference 4 months ago. The Senate could not pass individual bills, so in an unprecedented way, they took all of those bills, rolled them into one, and then said, let us go to conference.

   All we are doing are taking the bills we have passed in the past, put them together now, and going to conference in the way the Senate is going to conference, with all of the bills together.

   I guess it is our fault that we did our work earlier this year.

   PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES

   Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman will state it.

   Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the chairman, do the rules of the House preclude conferees on the part of the House, when going into conference on this particular bill that is being discussed as part of this rule, do the rules of the House preclude the House conferees from negotiating other parts of the bill, even though it is being considered under the Senate, the other body's Andean trade bill, or are the House conferees limited only to that portion? Because the argument that is being put forth is, in some respects, that our conferees on the part of the House may only discuss certain portions and not the entire scope of the bill, or bills, as they are packaged together.

   Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California will state it.

   Mr. THOMAS. The Speaker just said that the rules of both the House and the Senate require those bodies in the unique situation under the Constitution, when bills have passed both Houses in different forms, to come together to reconcile the differences. That is a conference.

   The scope of the conference is defined by the bills that are brought to the conference. The Senate brings 374 pages of 15 different bills.

   What the Democrats are asking us to do is to go to conference with one bill, the Andean bill, which is what the Senate requested that we go to conference over.

   What we want to do is take the bills that have been passed, put them into this motion, go to conference with the scope of the conference being fair and equal on both sides, and that is the sum and substance of the response of the Speaker to the parliamentary inquiry of the gentleman from Texas.

   Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas will state it.

   Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, two inquiries. One, may the Committee on Rules suspend rule XXII for purposes of House conferees?

   Question number two is, again, does that preclude in a conference with the other body the House conferees from discussing or bringing up any provisions related to those other items, other than the bill that passed the House?

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Committee on Rules does have the authority to waive certain rules of the House.

   Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, with respect to the other inquiry?

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot judge what will be discussed in the conference or give anticipatory rulings thereon.

   Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary inquiry, and I am trying to get to the point of what the chairman is discussing.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Briefly.

   Mr. BENTSEN. Very briefly. Do the rules preclude House conferees from discussing or bringing up any portion of a conference, other than the portion of the conference related to the Andean trade bill? Are they allowed to vote and make suggestions, make recommendations, make legislative recommendations on the other portions of the conference?

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair can only judge that when the Chair sees the work of the conferees in the conference report.

   Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher), my good friend.

   Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule. I voted for TPA when it was called Fast Track at least twice before, and I am for open and free trade. But I am not for ramming it through the House with this closed, surgically enhanced rule.

   This resolution would send to conference some legislation we have not even voted on and sneaks in Member-to-Member favors. Simply put, this self-executing rule is unnecessary and amounts to parliamentary maneuvering and election year politics at its worse.

   Mr. Speaker, I want the President to have fast track authority, but we also need a robust trade adjustment assistance package to help American workers displaced by expanding trade. This rule effectively guts TAA by reducing health care assistance and only helps workers whose jobs have gone to Mexico or Canada.

   In today's global economy, America needs free trade. We must free our President to negotiate trade deals while assisting American workers who are affected by changing markets. I look forward to voting for a trade bill out of the conference, but I cannot support a rule that plays games with such an important bill.

   Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

   I just think it is important to point out to the previous speaker and to the gentlewoman from California, at first he addressed the thing on the Senate and it is clear that the Senate can do whatever they may wish to do relative to the conference, and our action today would not impede that from doing that. Then I watch him turn on the dime when he wants us to totally reverse a rule.

   I think it is important for Members to know that clause 9 of House rule XXII provides the definition of scope for House conferees. The House rules on the scope of a conference committee are very precise and well defined. The CRS report 98-696 CV on resolving legislative differences between the two bodies of Congress is available to any Member who would like to review the process of going to conference with the other Chamber.

   The report states that there are significant restrictions on the authority of House conferees. Their authority is restricted by the scope of the differences between the House and Senate over the matters in disagreement between them. It goes on to explain how difficult it is to define the scope of the differences, and it also depends on how the second Chamber to act on the measure has cast the matters in disagreement. And the second Chamber that acts on the measure typically casts its version in the form of an amendment in the nature of a substitute. This is exactly what the Senate did. That comes from the CRS report 98-696.

   The report goes on to explain that the second House substitutes make it much harder, if not impractical, to specifically identify each matter in disagreement and the scope of the differences over the matter. This matter could have been easily avoided if the Senate had simply taken up H.R. 3005, the House-passed TPA legislation, and acted on it. Then a conference committee could have been convened and the final bill sent to both bodies.

   Instead, the Senate took up the Andean trade bill, stripped it out of the language, and inserted its own trade agenda. We are left with no alternative but to protect the interests of this House and to assure that our conferees are able to go into conference with a

[Page: H3959]  GPO's PDF

   That is what this debate is about and shortly, when we have a vote, it will reflect the vote of this House.

   Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

   Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, after that procedural gobbledygook, it still does not make what they are doing correct and precedential. There is no precedent for what we are doing.

   Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), my good friend.

   Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, a vote for this rule damages our environment. I am all for trade, but trading clean water for sour, pure air for fouled, open justice for star chamber proceedings, that is not a good trade. Free trade is not ``free'' when it comes at the expense of such imperatives.

   My concern about the failed Chapter 11 NAFTA model that this proposal endorses is similar to my concern about the mismanaging of this fast track trade debate. Both result from a secret, closed-door process, both ignore the Sierra Club, Consumers Union and others concerned with our sovereignty, our environment, and our health and safety; and both relegate important decisions to a self-selected few, although the burden will be borne by many.

   They violate the whole spirit of our Texas open-government laws. We could use a little Texas sunshine in on our trade policy.

   The only thing transparent about this fast track process is the heavy-handed, insular way that it has been handled by the Chairman since day one. A ``no'' vote is a vote for openness, a vote for the democratic process, and for our environment.

   Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Contents Display