[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11375-11383]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  RELATING TO CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 3009, ANDEAN 
                TRADE PROMOTION AND DRUG ERADICATION ACT

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 450 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 450

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution the bill 
     (H.R. 3009) to extend the Andean Trade Preference Act, to 
     grant additional trade benefits under that Act, and for other 
     purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, be, and the same 
     is hereby, taken from the Speaker's table to the end that the 
     Senate amendment thereto be, and the same is hereby, agreed 
     to with the amendment printed in the report of the Committee 
     on Rules accompanying this resolution. The House shall be 
     considered to have insisted on its amendment to the Senate 
     amendment and requested a conference with the Senate thereon.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Reynolds) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 450 is a functional rule relating to 
the consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 3009 extending the 
Andean Trade Preference Act. The rule allows this House to prepare for 
a conference with the Senate on comprehensive trade legislation.

                              {time}  1445

  The rule provides that H.R. 3009 and Senate amendment thereto shall 
be taken from the Speaker's table and agreed to with the amendment 
printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
resolution.
  The rule provides that the House shall be considered to have insisted 
on its amendment to the Senate amendment.
  Finally, the rule provides that the House shall be considered to have 
requested a conference with the Senate.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues may be wondering why a rule is needed for 
the House to put this conference into action. The answer is really one 
of simplification. The House has passed its version of Trade Promotion 
Authority and Andean Trade while the Senate has passed its own version, 
including some measures the House has not singularly considered.
  This rule prepares the House for conference by giving us an 
appropriate and equitable foothold at the bargaining table. Without 
this amendment and this rule, the House would be at a great 
disadvantage going into conference. But passing this rule will put the 
House at a starting point equivalent with the other Chamber so that we 
can best represent the needs of our constituents during the 
deliberations.
  Mr. Speaker, while this may seem like procedural jargon, I would like 
to remind my colleagues that the House would not be in this position 
had the Senate not taken up the Andean trade bill, stripped out all the 
House-passed provisions, and added countless other trade items, leaving 
the House with no position in the conference on all these measures.
  On a larger scale, this rule is needed so we can proceed with the 
vital trade legislation that is long overdue. Each day that we delay, 
other countries around the world enter into trade agreements without 
us, gradually surrounding the United States with a network of trade 
agreements that benefit their workers, their farmers, their businesses, 
and their economies at the expense of ours.
  How important is this to American jobs and the American economy? In 
my home State, international trade is a primary generator of business 
and job growth. In the Buffalo area, the highest manufacturing 
employment sectors are also among the State's top merchandise export 
industries, including electronics, fabricated metals, industrial 
machinery, transportation equipment, and food and food products. 
Consequently, as exports increase, employment in these sectors will 
also increase.
  In the Rochester area, companies like IBM and Kodak play a 
significant impact on the local economy and employment, and they will 
benefit directly from increased exports and international sales that 
will result from new trade agreements and open markets negotiated under 
Trade Promotion Authority.
  For example, about one in every five Kodak jobs in the United States 
depends on exports. New trade agreements are needed to break down 
foreign barriers and keep American made goods competitive overseas as 
well as opening up foreign markets to domestic companies.
  From family farms to high-tech start-ups to established businesses 
and manufacturers, increasing free and fair trade will keep our economy 
going and creating jobs in our economy. And let us not forget the 
significant impact free trade can have on spreading democracy and 
democratic ideals across the globe.

[[Page 11376]]

  As America perseveres in the war on terrorism, expanding global trade 
and heightening our role in global trade means greater economic 
prosperity and opportunities for Americans and our neighbors worldwide.
  Let us also not forget that the rest of the world is not waiting 
while the United States putters along. Trade Promotion Authority offers 
the best chance for the United States to reclaim leadership in the 
opening of foreign markets, expanding global economic opportunities for 
American producers and workers, and developing the virtues of democracy 
around the world.
  While long overdue, this is the right thing for America. Mr. Speaker, 
I strongly urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Reynolds) for yielding me this time, and I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is no wonder the American people have such disdain 
for politicians. The Republican leadership's rule this afternoon is the 
perfect example of back-room deals gone wrong, legislating under the 
cloak of darkness, and accountability at its most pernicious. The 
leadership has brought us a rule that not only structures the terms of 
debate but actually legislates within the rule.
  My colleagues will hear from the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Ways and Means that much of this amendment has already 
passed the House. That is true, much has, but much has not. What we are 
being asked to do today is to not only weaken U.S. trade laws, and this 
clearly does that, but to completely eviscerate the regular order of 
procedures in this House.
  At the Committee on Rules last week, not one member there could 
remember a time when the House had attempted such chicanery. The 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee 
on Rules, said, and I quote, ``It was unusual.'' Even the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and 
Means, admitted that, quote, ``It was unprecedented.''
  So how did we get here? Well, if we are to believe the chairman of 
the Committee on Ways and Means, it is because of what the other 
Chamber has done to our House-passed trade bills. Last week, the 
chairman accused the other body of all sorts of underhanded legislative 
witchcraft. And how do we answer that in the House? With our own Harry 
Potter-like sorcery.
  If we consider the Senate action, as Chairman Thomas did, as a raw, 
and I quote him, political power play, then just what is it that we are 
doing? I mean, give me a break. This is theater of the absurd. It would 
not have surprised me if this bill was brought to us by Congressman 
George Orwell: up is down, war is peace. And this is serious 
legislation? I do not think so.
  Is the House understanding this? If this rule passes, we will be 
giving the nine majority members of the Committee on Rules the power to 
legislate on all matters of jurisdiction within this House without the 
full House ever truly working its will. They are attempting to add the 
language of H.R. 3010, relating to the general system of preferences, 
to this rule, and having it considered as passed. This bill has never 
passed the House.
  No matter. If it is an important trade bill that does not require 
full-House consideration today, why not a prescription drug bill 
tomorrow? Why not just take a Senate amendment to a House bill, amend 
it with all sorts of tinsel and ornaments, and bring it back to the 
House floor along with other legislation that would not have otherwise 
seen the light of day? This is outrageous.
  Now, let us look seriously at how the House rule today undermines 
trade and the American family. First, as it relates to hardworking 
people who lose their jobs because their job is sent elsewhere or their 
employer closes the American factory to move to some far-off place, the 
Senate-passed bill includes much stronger language to help these types 
of workers.
  Specifically as it relates to the health care provisions, the House 
amendment undermine's the Senate Trade Adjustment Act assistance by 
reducing the level of support from 70 percent to 60 percent. The House 
provision adds a means-testing requirement based on prior-year income 
and providing unusable tax credit to retired steelworkers for use in 
the private insurance market.
  Under the gentleman from California's (Mr. Thomas) plan, TAA and 
steelworker health care benefits would be severely limited in 
availability and cost too much for most workers to afford. Moreover the 
other body's bill would include other industries besides steelworkers 
and other suppliers. Farmers, for instance, a very large group in my 
district in south Florida, would gain from the other body's bill. 
Fishermen, oil and gas producers, other raw goods suppliers, all good 
examples of hard-working people that stand to benefit under the 
compromise reached between the Senate and the Bush administration and 
all of whom stand to lose under the amendment the House is considering 
right now.
  It is just this simple. One had better be the exact right person to 
get any sort of benefit from this House bill. This is what we are doing 
to the American people today. I am embarrassed, as rightly all of us 
should be.
  Another interesting part of this amendment this afternoon is its 
inclusion of the so-called DeMint language. I found it passing strange 
that this language is in here in the first place. Not long ago, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), chairman of the Committee on 
Ways and Means, objected, and strongly objected, to this language. He 
said he did not like it and would not defend it, and yet it is here 
today. Why? Let me borrow another of the chairman's phrases from last 
week when he was alluding to the other body's actions, but equally 
useful here, ``It is a raw political power play.''
  Rank politics is rank politics. It does not matter if it is in the 
House, in the other body, or where this rule belongs, somewhere out in 
the gutter.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this odious rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Just want to remind the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), my 
colleague on the Committee on Rules, each day he brings a motion to 
make something in order, he is actually legislating in the Committee on 
Rules on legislation that he would like to see the Committee on Rules 
intertwine into legislation coming from committees of jurisdiction. I 
also want to take this time to remind all of the body that in the past 
the Committee on Rules has allowed rules providing the following: 
motions to go to conference, disposition of Senate amendments, allowing 
for amendments to the Senate amendments, and nothing on this 
legislation is binding on the Senate.
  But just because we put it all in one package does not mean that we 
cannot do something somewhat unprecedented. We should look at the fact 
that the rulings of this House are deliberately crafted to permit 
flexibility for unique instances such as this and when the question 
comes from my colleagues on other side how did we get here, we got here 
because the Senate stripped all of the House language and sent it back. 
We are now having an opportunity to level the playing field of this 
House as this goes to conference.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thomas).
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for stating 
the case; and the case is, as he indicated, we are asking the House to 
include in this rule to go to conference 191 pages. That is absolutely 
correct. Out of the 191 pages, more than 165 of them, over 80 percent, 
have already been passed by the House, some of these pieces more than 6 
months ago.
  But what the Senate did was to take the House-passed Andean trade 
bill which passed by a voice vote, it was so broadly supported, there 
was no recorded vote and it passed by a bipartisan vote. That Andean 
bill is 40

[[Page 11377]]

pages. That is what they sent us to go to conference. Under the rules 
of conference, that was what the House would have in front of us. What 
the Senate did was to pass 374 pages. This is what the Senate goes to 
conference with. How many of these pages have previously passed the 
Senate like the more than 80 percent of ours? Absolutely not one. So 
what the gentleman from Florida wants the House to do is to go to 
conference with this to battle the Senate against this, and what we are 
saying is let us just make it a little bit fair.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Will the gentleman from 
California yield for the parliamentary inquiry?
  Mr. THOMAS. Certainly, for parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thomas) yield for that purpose?
  Mr. THOMAS. Is it my time?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has the right to yield.
  Mr. THOMAS. Is it coming out of my time?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California's time.
  Mr. THOMAS. No, I will not yield for a parliamentary inquiry on my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may proceed.
  Mr. THOMAS. I appreciate the gentleman from Florida's (Mr. Hastings) 
attempt to stop the rhythm, but the rhythm will not change when what 
they want us to do is to go to conference on one bill when the Senate 
put 15 different bills together. These are all within the scope of the 
conference. The Senate has these in front of the conference, and the 
House of Representatives would have only 40 pages.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is referring to the other 
body. That is a violation of the House rules.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California will suspend.
  Mr. RANGEL. The gentleman is violating the House rules by referring 
to the other body.
  I ask to be recognized by the Chair. Regular order. Parliamentary 
inquiry. Point of order.

                              {time}  1500

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Rangel) is recognized.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I say that the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Thomas) is violating the House rules by referring to the other 
body, and ask for a ruling.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair advises that Members may describe 
actions of the other body factually on a matter pending before the 
House, but they may not characterize such action. The gentleman from 
California has not characterized Senate action.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I did not characterize. I indicated 
factually what the Senate was doing; and would Members notice, I have 
had two consecutive interruptions on parliamentary procedure which were 
both wrong and simply an attempt to cover up the facts because they 
will not be able to argue on the substance.
  These 191 pages are 80 percent passed already by the House. These 374 
pages by the Senate had not passed the House until they put it together 
this way. The institution of the House should not go to a conference 
with the Senate unilaterally disarming. That is wrong institutionally.
  All this rule does is put bills that we have passed previously 
together so we can have our bills in front of the conference, as the 
Senate has as well. Members might learn something from this. We can 
actually say what we need to do in 191 pages; the Senate needs 374.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), a member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I wish the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thomas) would share with me those 191 pages, because the gentleman's 
admission on this floor means that they are prepared to just tear up 
the House rules. Just saying that 20 percent of it has not been passed 
by the House is like saying someone is half pregnant.
  Mr. Speaker, what gives the gentleman of the Committee on Ways and 
Means the right to decide what is going to go to conference with the 
so-called other body?
  Whatever happened to House conferees going into conference with the 
other body and saying we will not tolerate the other body taking over 
our jurisdiction? Do we have to make up legislation and say, hey, act 
like this has passed because when we meet with the other body, or the 
Senate, as the gentleman calls them, we get weak-kneed.
  If we do not have any legislation passed, we make it up as we go 
along. Sure, 80 percent of the 191 pages are cats and dogs that we 
passed at one time or the other. So that should give us a little more 
weight in terms of the paper, if not the intellect, that we take to the 
conference.
  But the other part, why did not the distinguished chairman from 
California share with us what he made up? He certainly did not make it 
up in the committee. He did not make it up on the House floor. Even 
Republicans do not know what is in it, but we should really count on 
the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means to go in conference 
with, what, 20 percent of paper that he brings to the Committee on 
Rules to legislate.
  What does it mean? That we do not need any more committees? We do not 
need subcommittees? We do not need legislation on the floor, just hope 
and pray Members can get on the Committee on Rules and be on the 
majority because they will be able to not only legislate but dictate 
what goes into conference.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit this is not just an insult to the members of 
the Committee on Ways and Means, this is not just an insult to the 
House rules and traditions, it is an insult to the American people.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I remind Members that there is nothing in this rule that 
is binding on the Senate or the conference committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Crane), a leading expert on trade in America.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule which 
provides a motion to go to conference on the omnibus trade package 
approved by the Senate on May 23. Today's vote is a procedural vote 
that puts the House in the best position to negotiate the most solid 
conference agreement.
  I am gratified that the Senate has finally acted on H.R. 3009, the 
Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act. I agree with the 
President that this bill is central to U.S. national security and our 
efforts to combat drug trafficking both here in the United States and 
in the Andean region. We need this critical legislation to expand U.S. 
trade and to help Andean entrepreneurs find practical and profitable 
alternatives to cultivating crops for the production of illicit drugs.
  Trade promotion authority is about arming President Bush and his team 
with the authority to achieve trade agreements written in the best 
interest of U.S. farmers, companies and workers. It assures that the 
President will negotiate according to clearly defined goals and 
objectives written by Congress.
  The House TPA bill strikes a two-way partnership between the 
President and Congress on our common objective for international trade 
negotiations in which the U.S. participates. Its passage will ensure 
that the world knows that Americans speak with one voice on issues 
vital to our economic security.
  I am also supportive of conferencing with the Senate on the extension 
of the generalized system of preferences, which expired 9 months ago.
  Trade adjustment assistance plays an important role in helping 
workers and the economy adjust themselves to the new economic 
environment fostered by trade, and I support a bipartisan package that 
helps American workers adjust and builds a better, stronger economy.
  Reauthorization of Customs and the other trade agencies will provide 
resources in the war against terrorism,

[[Page 11378]]

drugs and international child pornography. We also facilitate trade by 
directing funds towards Customs' new computer system; and we help 
Customs protect our borders by giving them better, more sophisticated 
inspection equipment and legal tools to collect critical data.
  This conference provides us an opportunity to send an important 
signal that the United States is committed to our trading partners 
around the world, to U.S. workers here at home, and to the global 
trading system in general. I encourage Members to vote yes on the 
motion to go to conference.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, let no one be fooled by what is going on here 
today. This is horrible process, but it is a smoke screen on substance. 
It is not to level the playing field; it is to rig it.
  Members who vote for this will be voting for provisions that never 
went through any committee: TAA, DeMint, a $50 million dispute fine 
fund.
  Any Member who votes for this is going to be voting against 
meaningful TAA and health care provisions. They are going to be voting 
for foreign investors to have greater rights than U.S. investors. They 
are going to vote to renege on our CBI commitments, and they are going 
to be voting to strip Dayton-Craig.
  Mr. Speaker, just a few days ago, 18 Republicans wrote a letter to 
the Speaker saying we support Dayton-Craig. Members who vote today for 
this bill are voting to take it out.
  Look, Members are voting with this bill to destroy Senate provisions. 
This House got off on the wrong foot 6 months ago on a very partisan 
basis. This is a further misstep. We cannot build viable trade policy 
on a partisan basis. We would be building it on sand. Today, the other 
side is pouring more sand under a viable trade policy.
  For reasons of process and for substance, I urge Members to vote 
against this rule. It is a bill with a rule wrapped around it. Members 
are voting to undercut what was in the Senate provision and voting to 
say to House Members, go and fight sound, viable trade policy. Vote no.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in the history of this House, I do not believe there has 
ever been a time when the House has stripped language from the Senate. 
As we move forward here, we have an opportunity to correct a wrong that 
has occurred on the Senate with us.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on Rules, I 
am extremely troubled by the lengths to which the majority has gone to 
block a real debate on trade. This self-executing rule denies us the 
opportunity to debate, amend or offer a substitute; and if this 
resolution passes, the bill passes.
  Last week, before the Committee on Rules, the leadership kept 
insisting that this 191-page document is necessary to ensure that the 
House is not steamrolled by the Senate in the conference committee. If 
so, then this rule should simply strip away the Senate provisions.
  This measure does not leave us with legislation identical to what the 
House passed by a one-vote margin. It actually alters the substance of 
the Senate version and in some ways weakens our current trade laws.
  With all due respect, I have all the confidence in the world that the 
Members we send to conference will be tenacious, so what is the 
chairman afraid of? A real debate? That Members of the body actually 
reading this document might have some questions or objections?
  Mr. Speaker, I know first hand about the sometime high price of 
trade. In the Rochester, New York, area and throughout upstate New 
York, I hear constantly from constituents who no longer, but used to 
have, well-paying, stable jobs with well-established American firms.
  This rule places new hurdles in front of unemployed families 
struggling to maintain health care coverage. It reduces the health care 
tax credit to 60 percent and means tested based on the prior year's 
income. It simply shortchanges American workers.
  Mr. Speaker, I also believe the omission of the Dayton-Craig 
provision signals to our trading partners that the U.S. is ready to 
cave on U.S. trade remedy laws, and that is absolutely the wrong 
message.
  Moreover, the rule further undermines our trade laws by including new 
language that undermines our existing anti-dumping laws. The inclusion 
of language subjecting ``abusive'' anti-dumping laws of our trading 
partners to negotiations actually undermines our efforts to rigorously 
enforce our anti-dumping trade laws.
  If we ask our trading partners to put their anti-dumping laws on the 
table, we open the door to doing the same.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to defeat this rule. It 
denies Members from engaging in a real trade debate on issues that 
affect real Americans.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I call upon Members of the House to have 
self-respect for this institution and for our rules and for our 
process. This is called a self-executing rule. It is an unfair rule.
  Let me read from the chairman of the Committee on Rules, the 
predecessor to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). He said, 
``The guiding principles will be openness and fairness. The Rules 
Committee will no longer rig the procedure to contrive a predetermined 
outcome. From now on, the Committee on Rules will clear the stage for 
debate, and let the House work its will.''
  This is a self-executing rule. It executes fairness. It executes good 
process. It executes bipartisanship. It executes comity. It executes 
trust. It executes opportunity for partnership on this critical issue.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. There is absolutely 
nothing whatsoever in this that is self-enacting. All we are trying to 
do is strengthen the hand of those negotiators. My friend does 
understand the procedures of this House and the rules of this House. 
Nothing is self-enacting in this rule at all.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, what the gentleman seeks to do is 
create an unfair advantage for the Republican negotiators in the 
conference. That is what he seeks to do. He executes fairness, 
bipartisanship, good process, and an opportunity to provide for the 
bipartisan consideration of this issue. The gentleman and I have been 
together oftentimes on these kinds of issues. He makes a mistake. The 
Committee on Rules makes a mistake.
  My colleagues, do not compound that mistake. Reject this rule.


                announcement by the speaker pro tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair would appreciate it 
if Members would abide by the Chair's announcement of time having 
expired.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just told the chairman of the Committee on Rules, I think we have 
put the previous speaker down as ``undecided.''
  I want to point out as we listened a little earlier from my colleague 
on the Committee on Rules, it becomes very important as we look at why 
we are here today, why this debate will go on. My colleague from New 
York asked why this rule could not simply strip out the Senate 
language. As a fellow member of the Committee on Rules, the gentlewoman 
knows full well that the House cannot strip the Senate position. At the 
very least, we can try to make the House position equitable, as the 
chairman of the Committee on

[[Page 11379]]

Rules has just previously tried to outline. That is why we are here 
today doing what we are today, to give the House an equitable position 
at the bargaining table of the conference.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, once again I ask that the 
Speaker advise the respective parties how much time remains.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 16\1/2\ 
minutes and the gentleman from New York has 19\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute 
to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), my colleague that I came here 
with and we hope to stay here.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, let us call this vote what it is. 
This is a brand-new fast track bill. Rules do not include 191 pages of 
never-before-considered legislative changes to a bill that passed the 
House by a single, weeping, arm-twisted vote.
  No one here can remember any rule that has ever employed the 
procedural deceptiveness of this rule. No hearings on these provisions. 
No opportunity to offer amendments. No opportunity for substantive 
debate.
  Members are being asked to accept that the chairman of the Committee 
on Ways and Means is the best judge of the needs and concerns of House 
Members and their constituents. Right.
  This rule would only complicate efforts to convene a cooperative, 
bipartisan conference on fast track. Defeat the rule.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just want to remind my colleagues that while we do have a 190-page 
amendment before us, the Senate and what some of the Members of this 
body would like to have happen is that we just address 374 pages that 
the Senate did while they stripped out the House language. I also want 
to remind my colleagues both here and throughout the offices that the 
majority of this legislation has passed the House, some as long as 6 
months ago. Members certainly would have read it thoroughly before 
voting on it when it came to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/4\ 
minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise today in opposition to this self-executing rule and 
specifically because of the trade adjustment provisions in it. The TAA 
provisions in this bill are vastly different than the compromise 
reached by the Senate and the Bush administration. I know the TAA 
provisions very well, along with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Bentsen), because we wrote and carried the legislation in the House of 
Representatives. The compromise that was reached was historic in that 
it recognizes the duality to trade and the need to deal with the 
downsides of it in a very real 21st-century way.
  The Senate-White House compromise provides health care for all 
displaced workers at 70 percent while the Thomas bill legislates on 
this rule a means-tested situation based on income and the largest 
benefit would be 60 percent if an individual makes less than $20,000. 
The Senate-White House compromise provides an additional $150 million 
for worker training. This GOP provision only provides for an additional 
$30 million.
  When I was growing up, the nuns used to mark the report card in a 
very important way. That was for conduct. I give my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle an F for conduct on how you have conducted 
yourself on this rule. You are squandering a political opportunity for 
the people of this country. I urge my colleagues to vote against it.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, it is important to remind the gentlewoman 
that the structures referred to on TAA passed this House twice.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, all that passed here was an extension of TAA, 
and for the gentleman to get up here and say otherwise is simply wrong. 
We did not consider anything but the very, very continuation of the 
present structure for a short period of time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, article 1, section 8 of the United States 
Constitution states very clearly that the Congress shall have power to 
lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises. If we vote ``yes'' 
on this rule today, the House will be on record abdicating yet another 
constitutionally granted right. This undermines the Congress; this 
undermines this institution as a separate and coequal branch of 
government. In fact, one could question whether we have the right to do 
it.
  In 1980, a President of the United States taxed oil and the courts 
overruled him. We do not have the power to surrender this right now. 
Edmund Randolph put it all very nicely. He worried about the executive 
power, calling it ``the fetus of monarchy.''
  What you are doing is running down this institution, not only by the 
process but what you want the end product to be. We are a people's 
house and should represent the people of the United States in every one 
of our districts.
  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.

[[Page 11380]]

  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. 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}  1530

  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 Senate trade adjustment assistance package. We should reject 
this. If we want to get real TPA, let us take the Bush and the Senate 
bipartisan package and put it together.
  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

[[Page 11381]]

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 House position 
on all of these extra trade measures that the Senate included. Why 
should we allow the House to be put in a weakened position with this 
important legislation?
  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.
  I knew it would take just a little time of this debate to kind of 
pick apart whether one is a free trader and what the perfect debate is 
and how it happens; and whether you are really a trader or whether you 
are not; whether you are a protectionist; or, I wanted to support it, 
but it did not have all of the things I needed in it.
  Well, today as we have a vote on this, the determination in a 
bipartisan solution, as trade has always been in this

[[Page 11382]]

House, we are either going to support free trade and we are going to 
move the agenda forward, or we are going to reject it. But for those 21 
Democratic votes or for others who may consider future votes on trade, 
this is going to end up with a bottom-line deal here.
  The bottom line is you either support free trade and give the House 
the ability to go as a conference and continue to move on trade, or you 
are not. But you cannot go home and tell everybody, I am a free trader, 
but it just was not a perfect way for me to cast my vote. Because it is 
going to be measured. It is going to be measured not only in D.C., but 
throughout the land. You are either voting for free trade or you are 
rejecting it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), my good friend.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me 
this time.
  In response to the previous gentleman's remark, I would suggest that 
the bottom line is jobs. This rule is about jobs; and as far as I am 
concerned, it represents bad policy for America, it represents bad 
policy for people in this country who still make a living wage, and it 
is very bad and horrific policy for all of the people who are going to 
lose their jobs because of the attempt to give any administration this 
type of trade authority.
  One of the fatal flaws is not allowing us consideration of provisions 
that might undermine and weaken our trade remedy laws that are on the 
books today. That includes industries in the United States that used to 
make and may still make some pencils, may grow garlic, may make cement 
clinkers, may produce petroleum wax candles. There are 265 industries 
and growers who have sought relief for these important protections.
  This is about jobs. It is about the 210 people who have no work at 
Calumet Steel in Chicago Heights, Illinois, because of illegal trade 
that takes place.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Issa).
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, my colleague on the other side of the aisle is 
absolutely right, this is about jobs. I have listened for almost an 
hour to people talk about the rule and about what kind of rule this is 
and whether it is fair. I would like to speak about jobs.
  Before I came to this body, I spent over 20 years in the American 
electronics business, and I sold freely in those countries that had 
free trade; and I was either locked out or severely limited in the 
countries that we had not opened trade with.

                              {time}  1545

  I would like to remind my friends on both sides of the aisle that we 
cannot pick our friends and enemies on free trade. Some of the most 
protectionist countries are our close allies. In fact, we need this 
kind of trade promotion authority if we are going to open those 
markets, many of them with European countries that today freely trade 
between each other and, in fact, are limiting our products.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I strongly rise in support of this rule and of the 
underlying language. I ask for my Democrat colleagues to please go 
beyond the 22 and vote this up.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I guess what my colleagues are saying is trade, yes; 
House precedents, no.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I wish to say that this Republican-led Congress is trying to enlarge 
NAFTA to all the countries of Latin America and to do so not by regular 
order but by this outrageous tourniquet rule, because the rule 
basically locks in the deals of the powerful few against the workers of 
this country and, indeed, our hemisphere. We have seen it before.
  The leadership knows it cannot win it on the merits, on the up and 
up, so they intimidate Members, or they produce a rule like this that 
even the authors cannot fully understand. But we know what it does is 
it will tie the hands of our conferees so they cannot deal with the 
needs of displaced workers, and they cannot extend health benefits to 
them.
  It reminds me of how the GATT vote was passed. When they could not 
pass it, they figured out, let us do it in a lame duck session after 2 
a.m. in the morning when nobody will know what happens anyway. The 
American people will not pay attention.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people are paying attention. When they 
cannot win on the merits, they rig the rules.
  I say to my colleagues, vote no on this rule. Do not vote for any 
more NAFTAs.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my good 
friend, the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule, 
which would try to silence the voices on both sides of the aisle who 
oppose this fast track legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule, as well as the whole fast track procedure, 
takes Congress out of the equation, takes Congress out of the debate 
and, by doing so, also takes the American people out of the debate. 
Fast track is nothing more than a silent auction, a silent auction of 
American jobs, so I am not surprised that the Republican leadership 
wants this rule. This is not something that they would do in the light 
of day and with open and honest debate.
  There was an interesting story in the Washington Post last week where 
the companies that actually went down to Mexico and ran out on the 
United States are now leaving Mexico and the maquilladoras for Asian 
countries because the Mexican workers have had the audacity to ask for 
$5 an hour in wages.
  This is a race to the bottom. This should not happen. We should be 
protecting American jobs.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would say to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Reynolds), 161 Democrats voted for the fast track 
bill. Do not stand up here and say the issue is whether one is for or 
against free trade. That is nonsense.
  Mr. Speaker, also nonsense is this argument about the Senate 
stripping House language using an Andean bill. That is pure hokum. What 
the Senate did was to take the Andean bill that passed here and put 
other trade bills in it, including their Andean bill.
  So Members do not need this bill. The subjects are on the table for 
the conference. They are trying to load the deck. That is what they are 
trying to do. They are trying to do it by a rule that has 191 pages and 
adding DeMint, which might be the only subject that could not be 
brought in the conference. That is what they are doing here. Be honest, 
they are trying to load the deck as they enter conference, and they 
should not be handling serious trade matters in this way.
  For that reason, because we see through the smoke screen, Members 
should vote no on this bill.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have great respect and admiration for the gentleman 
from Michigan, but, for the life of me, I cannot understand why the 
minority must not have the confidence in the Senate conferees. They 
must not trust their ability to negotiate, the integrity of the Senate 
language.
  But what I find most perplexing is how the minority, with a clear 
conscience, would want to send our own conferees into conference with 
no position, because what is there are the Senate provisions in the 
conference. I have read the report under our rule that was the opinion 
of CRS that clearly talks about definitions of that position.
  It is important for us to reflect on the fact that the chairman of 
the Committee on Ways and Means, in seeing that, clearly brought to 
this House, which we will have a vote on in a moment, but to the 
Committee on Rules

[[Page 11383]]

the fact that we were not on a level playing field, and that was not 
right. It was not right for this House, and it is not right for the 
debate that needs to happen in that conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman from New York to look at me: this 
side of my mouth, that side of my mouth. You are talking out of both 
sides of your mouth. What you are saying is that, on the one hand, you 
have 160 pages that you passed; and then you say we have no position. 
You cannot have it both ways.

                          ____________________