[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 109 (Tuesday, July 23, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8553-S8555]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Robb, Mr.
Warner, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Helms, Mr.
Faircloth, Mr. Cohen, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Campbell, and Mr. Ford):
S. 1982. A bill to provide a remedy to damaging imports of men's and
boys' tailored wool apparel assembled in Canada from third country
fabric and imported at preferential tariff rates; to the Committee on
Finance.
The Emergency Safeguard Act of 1996
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to
correct a grievous error committed by U.S. negotiations in the final
hours of the NAFTA negotiations. This error has ripped apart the social
fabric of dozens of communities as factory after factory in the wool
and wool apparel industry have shut their doors. Let me state for the
record that I supported the Canadian Free-Trade Agreement, but I was a
vigorous opponent of the North American Free-Trade Agreement. The bill
I introduced today is not aimed at scuttling the NAFTA. At another time
I will debate the merits of the NAFTA. Instead the bill is designed to
close a loophole in the NAFTA that has exposed the wool and wool
apparel industry to a tidal wave of Canadian imports and has left the
industry without a fundamental right to impose a safeguard against
import surges. How this industry lost its right to impose a safeguard
is one of the tragic stories in the history of trade agreements. In the
wee hours of the morning our negotiators bargained
[[Page S8554]]
away the wool and wool apparel industry in order to secure the
Canadians agreement to several provisions of the NAFTA. Mr. President
the NAFTA contains a rule of origin for textile products that was
supposed to benefit and encourage production in North America. A
special tariff preference level was established for fabrics that were
in short supply or unavailable. A gentleman's agreement was reached
that the products coming in under the TPL would be spread out over a
broad range of product categories. Instead, the Canadians have flooded
the United States market in one product category, wool suits. These
suits which have been dumped into the U.S. market are not made of North
American fabric, which is readily available. Instead these suits are
made of fabric produced in China, Turkey, and Italy. The last I
checked, these countries are not in North America.
Since 1988 as a result of the abuse of the TPL, production of wool
suits has declined by 40 percent. Dozens of companies have suffered
losses, layed off employees, or in some cases declared bankruptcy.
Grief, the third largest manufacturer of suits in the United States,
was forced to close plants in Virginia and Pennsylvania. Over 1,300
workers have lost their jobs. The 500 Fashion group, makers of Botany
500, announced that it will close two plants in Pennsylvania and one
plant in Florida. Over 1,000 people are now without work.
Plaid, the second largest manufacturer of suits, was forced into
bankruptcy. Plants were closed in Georgia, Maryland, Delaware, and
Pennsylvania, and 1,500 jobs were eliminated. The same sad story can be
told in the fabric industry. Frostman Co., the second largest producer
of wool fabric, was forced into bankruptcy. Burlington Industries, the
largest producer of wool fabric, has suffered a 30-percent drop in its
menswear wool fabric, business and laid off over 1,000 employees.
What recourse do these companies have? Can they, like every other
industry in America turn to their Government to seek relief? No, that
option was dealt away in the dark of night. So the bill I introduce
will correct that situation. It directs the United States Trade
Representative to negotiate an agreement with the Canadians. The bill
would permit Canada to maintain the same overall level of wool apparel
exports to the United States while at the same time preventing serious
injury to the United States industry by adjusting the distribution
among different product lines. If the Canadians fail to come to an
agreement the bill requires that the President apply MFN duty rates to
all wool apparel TPL imports from Canada as of March 1, 1997. Mr.
President the men and women were unfortunate pawns in an international
negotiation. It's time we stood with them and gave them there rights
back and protect their jobs.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I join Senator Hollings and others as
a cosponsor of the Emergency Safeguard Act of 1996, and call on the
Congress to move this bill with great haste. This is vitally important
to over 600 employees of Corbin Limited in West Virginia, who are
facing an unprecedented threat from a surge in imports of wool suits
from Canada.
Those of us who opposed the North American Free-Trade Agreement
[NAFTA] did not want to find ourselves with situations like this, but
we certainly feared they would occur. In this case, decisive action is
now needed to stand up for American workers and industries facing an
unfair threat.
Three years ago, when explaining my vote against the NAFTA, I pointed
to the disparities between the economies of Canada, the United States,
and Mexico, as a primary reason for opposing the trade agreement. At
that time, I did not think it was right to ask West Virginia and other
States with fragile economies to absorb the brunt of forced integration
with Mexico. I was particularly concerned that workers in our labor
intensive industries would face a considerable threat from much lower
wage Mexican workers.
Since that time, in the last 2-plus years, many of my concerns have
proved well founded. Certainly, last year's bailout of the Mexican peso
is the most conspicuous evidence of problems raised by the NAFTA, but
today I am here for a wholly different reason.
Today, I am forced to discuss a problem with our neighbors to the
North--specifically to textile manufacturers in Canada.
During consideration of the NAFTA, a provision was inserted at the
last minute which allowed Canadian manufacturers to import fabrics from
third countries nearly duty free--compared with the 36 percent duties
that we pay--and then export finished garments to the United States
regardless of the harm they might do to American industry and workers.
Specifically, the provision precluded taking what are known as
``safeguard'' measures under the NAFTA for wool apparel exported to the
United States under the tariff preference levels established during the
Canada-United States Free-Trade Agreement. At that time, the Canadians
assured our negotiators that this loophole was needed simply to protect
the existing levels of exports of various categories of low cost wool
products; things such as caps, sweaters, knits and socks. At that time,
10 percent of Canadian wool exports were high end products such as
suits.
However, Mr. President, since the NAFTA went into effect, nearly all
Canadian wool exports have been suits, and of that, virtually all of
them are coming from one Canadian company. Contrary to the stated
intention of the negotiators, suits now account for 90 percent of
Canada's wool exports, instead of 10 percent when the deal was made.
This has done grievous harm to American suit manufacturers, who were
blindsided by this shift in Canadian export patterns.
Under normal circumstances, when you have an import surge of this
sort, and obvious harm is being done to a domestic, American industry,
the American companies and its workers can seek relief. They can take
action under the trade laws to stem the surge, and get remedies from
unfair and injurious trade. You can do this in every area we trade in
but one, textile and apparel from Canada. In fact, if these very same
imports were from Mexico instead of Canada, the United States industry
and its workers could petition the United States Government for a
safeguard to prevent serious injury.
That is why this legislation is needed, and needed in a hurry. When I
opposed the NAFTA I was afraid this kind of thing would happen. We may
not be able to rewrite history and undo the NAFTA, but we can take
reasonable steps to stem the hemorrhaging. I know the calendar shows
very few days in which this body will be conducting legislative work,
but I hope the majority leader will work with us to make this into law
before even more harm is done.
This Senator counts the creation of new and better paying jobs for
the people of West Virginia as one of the most important things he can
do to help improve the way of life of the good people of his State. But
just as important is maintaining the jobs we already have. This
legislation is necessary, and should be passed.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleague
from South Carolina, Senator Hollings, and several others Senators to
sponsor the Emergency Safeguard Act of 1996. This legislation corrects
a loophole created by the passage of NAFTA that has allowed Canadian
suit makers an unfair advantage in the United States marketplace.
Currently, over 140,000 people are employed in the textile and apparel
industry in South Carolina. Several thousand of these jobs supply or
manufacture men's and boys' wool suits, sport coats, and slacks. These
jobs are in jeopardy due in part to a manipulation of the tariff
preference level [TPL] by Canada.
The TPL, which was established under the Canadian Free-Trade
Agreement, was originally designed to allow special trade benefits to
wool products made in Canada from foreign wool fabric when that fabric
could not be sourced in either Canada or the United States. However,
Canada has begun sourcing wool fabric from other countries, despite the
fact that fabric is available from NAFTA countries. Canada has been
importing fabric from Turkey, Italy, China, and Korea to make items
which are shipped into the United States under the favorable NAFTA
tariffs.
Canada has seized on the TPL loophole to specifically target and
flood the United States market with men's and boys' tailored wool
apparel. The import surges are causing layoffs and is putting the
future of the domestic wool apparel industry in jeopardy.
[[Page S8555]]
Mr. President, this legislation would place a reasonable sublimit on
tailored wool apparel exported through the TPL to the United States by
Canada. The size of the TPL would not change, but Canada would be
prohibited from using it in a damaging way. This language is necessary
because NAFTA eliminated the safeguard for U.S. industries to prevent
injurious imports from flooding the U.S. market. Due to NAFTA, the
domestic apparel industry has no recourse in stemming the damage caused
by Canada while all other industries have this protection. Therefore,
legislation is needed to correct this inequity.
Mr. President, I hope this measure can be expeditiously considered to
bring relief to the domestic textile and apparel industry.
______
By Mr. INOUYE (for himself, Mr. McCain and Mr. Akaka):
S. 1983. A bill to amend the Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act to provide for native Hawaiian organizations, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
The Native American Graves Protection And Repatriation Act Amendment
Act of 1996
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill,
cosponsored by Senators McCain and Akaka, which would amend the Native
American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act to clarify certain
provisions of that act as they pertain to native hawaiian
organizations.
In 1990, the Congress enacted the native American Graves Protection
and Repatriation Act [NAGPRA] to address the growing concern among
Indian tribes, Alaska Native villages, and native Hawaiian
organizations associated with the disposition of thousands of native
American human remains and religious objects currently in the
possession of museums and Federal agencies.
The act requires museums and Federal agencies in the possession of
such cultural items to compile inventories and written summaries of
human remains, associated and unassociated funerary objects, sacred
objects, and objects of cultural patrimony.
The act further establishes a process governing the repatriation of
such items to appropriate Indian tribes or native Hawaiian
organizations.
In the years since its enactment, native Hawaiians have been at the
forefront in the repatriation of ancestral remains.
Hundreds of native Hawaiian kupuna (ancestors) have been returned to
Hawaii --released from the confines of over twenty museums in the
United States, Canada, Switzerland, and Australia --and returned to the
lands of their birth.
Despite these accomplishments, native Hawaiian organizations have
experienced great difficulty in ensuring the act's implementation--
ironically, not abroad--but in Hawaii.
In written testimony submitted to the Committee on Indian Affairs by
Hui Malama I Na Kupuna O Hawaii Nei, a Hawaiian organization recognized
under the act, for a December 9, 1995, oversight hearing on the act, a
number of concerns were raised--concerns which this bill seeks to
address, namely--the lack of written consent where native American
remains are excavated or removed for purposes of study; following an
inadvertent discovery of remains, the lack of assurances that the
removal of native American remains will adhere to the same requirements
as an intentional excavation; and the lack of notification to native
Hawaiian organizations when inadvertent discoveries are made of native
American human remains on Federal lands.
As one of the original sponsors of the act, it is my view that the
amendments which I propose are consistent with the original purpose,
spirit, and intent of NAGPRA, and are necessary to clarify the existing
law.
It is my expectation that, if adopted, these amendments will ensure
better cooperation by Federal agencies in the implementation of the act
in the State of Hawaii.
The responsibility born by those who choose, or who are called upon
to care for the remains of their ancestors is a heavy one.
By acting favorably on this measure, I hope that we can assist these
individuals and organizations as they continue in their efforts to
bring their ancestors home.
Mr. President, I thank you for this time today, and I urge my
colleagues to support this bill when it comes before the Senate for
consideration.
____________________