Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, to close the debate on our side, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), whose district I had the good fortune of visiting and could see firsthand some of the pain of previous free trade agreements.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, of course, let me thank my very good friend, the distinguished and able chairman of the House Committee on Rules, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) for yielding me time. As the chairman well knows, he and I both share a passion for the types of issues which will be debated today, and while we do not always end up at the same place at the end of the day, I deeply appreciate his commitment to these issues. Mr. Speaker, as the chairman has already pointed out, this rule would allow for consideration of both the U.S.-Chile and U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreements. What the chairman did not point out, however, was that this rule in a very real sense is unnecessary. The Trade Promotion Authority bill, or Fast Track, that was passed last year by Congress very strictly limits the way trade bills can come to the House floor. By law the agreements cannot be amended. They must be debated and moved expeditiously and in numerous other ways restrict the normal rights that Members of this Chamber are normally able to exercise. Despite the restrictions imposed by Fast Track, the majority has decided to impose even more restrictive debate on these important bills today. In fact, few previous trade agreements have been given as little time to be debated as the House will have for these two measures today. Let me repeat for the House what I said to the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier) last night. We should not be setting a precedent for future trade deals by limiting debate to a couple of hours. In the future there will be other trade agreements that will come to this floor with more acrimony than today's do. These should, indeed must be considered for more than a cursory amount of time. While I do not oppose today's rule, I will in the future if the majority again attempts to limit debate, more so than that which is required by law. Substantively, as a member of the Congressional Oversight Group on Trade, I want to commend Trade Representative Robert Zoellick and his staff for the yeoman's work they have put forward over the past 2-plus years putting these agreements together. I have an acute appreciation for the very delicate negotiations that are needed to achieve the success that has brought us to this point. So, again, I congratulate Ambassador Zoellick and his staff. Let me also say that as we move forward with our new Congressional Oversight Group on Trade, I would like Ambassador Zoellick to continue to keep the Members engaged and involved in the process as much as possible. Specifically, it would be helpful if the ambassador and his staff would provide to the oversight group negotiating text several weeks before they are brought to the House of Representatives for tabling. Any less does not provide Members of Congress and our staff the appropriate amount of time to thoroughly review the agreements and offer our substantive insight. Additionally, when members of the Congressional Oversight Group on Trade do offer constructive proposals, if the Trade Representative ultimately rebuffs those suggestions, it would be helpful to know for what reasons congressional insight was rejected; and I might add, counter to that I raised with Ambassador Zoellick, the fact that in Singapore and in the trade agreement that there was a defense component; and I think the government of Singapore is to be complimented by all of us for the extraordinary undertakings that they put forward on behalf of our United States military who make a substantial number of ports of call in Singapore. So I saw and pointed out to the ambassador the defense component; and I might add, I think that it was taken to heart by the ambassador and his staff in their negotiations. Finally, text of proposed trade agreements must be made public as soon as the notice of intent to sign is made, if not sooner. Failing that, it is difficult, if not impossible, for the American people to have meaningful input. Again, though, Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to be nitpicky. These agreements were reached in an admirable fashion by the Trade Representative and those working with him; and I salute him for that, as well as his interlocutors, in what were 2 years of difficult and dynamic negotiations that will affect globally the trade and will affect the United States in substantial ways. I look forward to the spirited debate which I am certain will follow. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), my good friend.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), a leader in this arena as well as of our caucus.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, only to add to the debate that the distinguished chairman was having with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland). There are other things that happened. I voted for NAFTA, Mr. Chairman, and I thought when I did that it would help in many ways. I pointed out to the gentleman last night, and I guess we could cite a lot of things, but the tomato industry in Florida was destroyed ultimately by NAFTA, accounting for the fact that there was a freeze that took place roughly around the same time. But the dumping is what was the death knell. In addition, I genuinely thought in the maquilladoras that there was going to be environmental improvement. I have been down there, and there has not been substantial environmental improvement. And I have talked with a significant number of people from Mexico regarding wages, and I do find that there are still problems with reference to their hourly rate. But I will make the point that the one good thing NAFTA did was get rid of one-party rule in Mexico. But one-party rule or two-party rule does not account for the fact that the workers are not improving.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would urge the Chair, since the gentleman from California has more time, if he is inclined to yield time on his side.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it will be interesting to see what the California wine growers think about this measure. Maybe the chairman will describe that on his time. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez), a new Member of Congress and a leader in this field.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Most respectfully, Mr. Speaker, I would reclaim my time. I understand what the gentleman is saying, but I labored through that with agricultural interests in Florida; and I think that we could point significantly to the North American Free Trade Agreement as causative of our concern. I suggest to him that when CAFTA ultimately comes that he and I will have a very similar, but even more vigorous, debate.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. May I inquire of the Speaker the time remaining on both sides?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time. I have but 30 seconds, and I would first compliment the majority. I think that the exchange during the Committee on Rules debate on these two rules was a spirited one; and it signifies, among other things, part of the division in the House. On the floor, there were spirited exchanges between the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and me; and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller); and between the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur). I think it points out the significance of these two agreements. They are really important for all of us; and as I said, this was demonstrated in the Committee on Rules and here on the floor. There are other trade agreements that are coming down the pike, and the chairman of the Committee on Rules and I have had discussions regarding the fact that I am hopeful that in the future we will have even more time for even more spirited debate. These are important measures, and I would urge Members to pay strict attention to them. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to reconsider.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, would the Chair clarify for me and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) the time remaining.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to discuss a very serious issue, but I may not need to continue my discussion if I could get the attention of the chairman. I might place my remarks in the Record if the Chair would speak with reference to the matter.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.