[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.

                          ____________________