Thomas Reynolds

Mr. REYNOLDS

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 472 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, we have had the privilege of hearing from two subcommittee chairmen, and I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairmen of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the former chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation and now the chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.

Mr. REYNOLDS

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, a ``Dear Colleague'' letter has been sent to Members informing them that the Committee on Rules plans to meet on Tuesday, July 9, 2002, to grant a rule for the consideration of H.R. 4635, the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act. The Committee on Rules may grant a rule which would require that amendments be printed in the Congressional Record prior to the consideration on the floor. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has filed its report on the bill today. Members should draft their amendments to the bill as reported by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The text of the reported bill is available on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure's web site. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are properly drafted, and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. REYNOLDS

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the resolution, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering) for the purposes of entertaining a colloquy.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, for the gentleman who is managing the minority side of the rule, I intend to have him speak. I then intend to have the Chairman of the Committee on Rules close. There will be no further speakers other than I as the manager of the rule.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. While the rest of the world speeds ahead when it comes to free trade, the United States desperately needs to get back on track. Trade promotion authority is the most effective way to accomplish that, and this rule simply allows the process to move forward so we can get one step closer to retaining and regaining America's global trade pre- eminence. I ask my colleagues to join me in freeing the hands of our conferees and not restrict our ability to negotiate before they even get to the table. That is why I have urged a yes for this resolution; and when the end of the day comes for a vote in moments, it is going to come down to either my colleagues supported free trade and they have sent that message back to their district and across America or they rejected it. That is what this comes down to, an up or down, yes or no, free trade or no. My colleagues are not going to continue it. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), who is the Chairman of the Committee on Rules and an expert on trade.

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

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

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

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. REYNOLDS

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

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 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. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

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

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

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 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. 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.