[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 48 (Tuesday, April 16, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H3414-H3415]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE--RETURNING TO THE SENATE S. 1463
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question on the privileges of the
House and I offer a resolution (H. Res. 402) returning to the Senate
the bill S. 1463.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the resolution.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. Res. 402
Resolved, That the bill of the Senate (S. 1463) to amend
the Trade Act of 1974 to clarify the definitions of domestic
industry and like articles in certain investigations
involving perishable agricultural products, and for other
purposes, in the opinion of this House, contravenes the first
clause of the seventh section of the first article of the
Constitution of the United States and is an infringement of
the privileges of this House and that such bill be
respectfully returned to the Senate with a message
communicating this resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution constitutes a question of the
privileges of the House.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw] will be
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel]
will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw].
{time} 1300
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution is necessary to return to the Senate the
bill S. 1463, because it contravenes the constitutional requirement
that revenue measures shall originate in the House of Representatives.
S. 1463 would create a new basis for applying import restrictions, and
therefore contravenes this constitutional requirement.
S. 1463 proposes to amend title II of the Trade Act of 1974, which
sets forth the authority and procedures for the President to provide
temporary import relief to a domestic industry which has been seriously
injured by imports. Under the so-called ``safeguard'' statute, the
International Trade Commission conducts an investigation upon request,
and, if appropriate, makes a recommendation to the President regarding
what action would address the injury to the industry. This action may
include a tariff, tariff-rate quota, quantitative restriction, or
adjustment measures. The President then must determine what action, if
any, is appropriate. The actions authorized to be taken by the
President include a duty, tariff-rate quota, quantitative restriction,
adjustment measure, or negotiation of trade agreements limiting imports
into the United States.
S. 1463 changes this authority and procedure by authorizing the ITC
to limit its investigation with respect to a domestic agricultural
product produced within a particular growing season. As a result, S.
1463 changes the predicate necessary for achieving access to the
desired trade remedy, which takes for form of an import restriction. As
a result, the proposed change would allow products which do not
currently qualify for import relief to be able to qualify in the
future. This would have the effect of creating a new basis and
mechanism for applying import restrictions under authority granted to
the President, which is not currently available.
Import relief granted under this new authority would have a direct
effect on customs revenues. The proposed change in our tariff laws is a
``revenue affecting'' infringement in the House's prerogatives, which
constitutes a revenue measure in the constitutional sense. Therefore, I
am asking that the House insist on its constitutional prerogatives.
There are numerous precedents for the action I am requesting. For
example, on March 21, 1996, the House returned to the Senate S. 1518,
repealing an existing import restriction in the Tea Importation Act of
1897. On July 21, 1994, the House returned to the Senate S. 729,
prohibiting the import of specific products which contain more than
specified quantities of lead.
[[Page H3415]]
On February 25, 1992, the House returned to the Senate S. 884,
requiring the President to impose sanctions, including import
restrictions, against countries that fail to eliminate large-scale
driftnet fishing. On October 31, 1991, the House returned to the Senate
S. 320, including provisions imposing, or authorizing the imposition of
a ban on imports in connection with export administration. On September
23, 1988, the House returned to the Senate S. 2662, imposing import
quotas on textiles and footwear products.
I want to emphasize that this action does not constitute a rejection
of the Senate bill on its merits. Adoption of this privileged
resolution to return the bill to the Senate should in no way prejudice
its consideration in a constitutionally acceptable manner.
In fact, I introduced companion legislation, H.R. 2795, on December
15, 1995, in order to address the identical issues by S. 1463. In
addition, at my request, the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade will
be holding a hearing on H.R. 2795 on April 25.
Accordingly, the proposed action today is purely procedural in
nature, and is necessary to preserve the prerogatives of the House to
originate revenue matters. It makes it clear to the Senate that the
Appropriate procedure for dealing with revenue measures is for the
House to act first on a revenue bill, and for the Senate to accept it
or amend it as it sees fit.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Florida [Mr. Goss].
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw]
for yielding this time to me.
I rise in strong support of what the gentleman from Florida is trying
to do primarily because of the casualties. We are suffering unnecessary
casualties. There are things we can do to repair that damage, and the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw] has the right answer.
Mr. Speaker, Florida winter fruit and vegetable growers are being
drowned in a flood of cheap Mexican produce. While current U.S. laws
allow other industries in this position to seek relief under a GATT and
NAFTA legal escape clause, this option is not really open to our
growers because of the seasonal nature of their industry. In January,
the Florida delegation made a bipartisan push to attach language to the
continuing resolution to correct this technical, definitional problem
in section 202 of the 1974 Trade Act. While these efforts hit a snag in
the House, Florida's Senators were able to join forces to pass a stand-
alone measure in the Senate.
Today, S. 1463 is being blue-slipped on procedural grounds because it
is the prerogative of the House to originate revenue measures. The
members of the Florida delegation respect the need to proceed under the
regular rules of the House, but believe that this measure must be moved
forward. For this reason, we are pleased to see that the House Ways and
Means Subcommittee on Trade will be holding hearings on Representative
Shaw's section 202 fix next week. From there, we hope to see the
measure return quickly to this floor for full consideration. We hope
that when this measure emerges from committee for a vote, you will join
us in giving fair treatment to American farmers.
Florida growers perform a unique function for this country by
competing head-to-head--not with other American producers, but with
foreign producers--to provide winter fruits and vegetables for
Americans. They deserve our support.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, at this time I have no additional speakers. I
compliment the Senators and the Senate for the passage of this bill,
and hopefully they can expeditiously pass it in the final analysis.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the
balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________