Mike Levin: “quickly on process, we are not asking for an open rule; we are asking for the ability to bring up a substitute and three…”

“quickly on process, we are not asking for an open rule; we are asking for the ability to bring up a substitute and three specific amendments, number one. Number two, as to the connection with CAFTA, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) was not in favor of CAFTA until there was an agreement to bring up his bill, and then he said he was for CAFTA. Number three, what you are doing is limiting debate on this and also on CAFTA. We have major trade issues, and you do not want to discuss them. Here is a reason why we need to have long debate on this issue and on CAFTA. We have been limited to 2 hours on CAFTA. Will all the facts get out? I am afraid not. For example, there was discussion in the media about commitments that were made by this administration regarding pocketings and linings, and that there had been an agreement reached with the CAFTA countries. We need a long time to debate so we can show that things are not true sometimes that are said to be true. I just saw an article from La Nacion in Costa Rica about this alleged agreement on textiles, and here is a quote from the Minister, the Trade Minister of Costa Rica. I am quoting: ``It is not true that those consultations, that negotiation, has occurred, and it is not at all true that we in Costa Rica and the rest of Central America have sat down yet for that process of consultations.'' So we need a full airing of CAFTA and of the China bill. Quickly, on the China bill, the gentleman from Florida (Mr.…”