[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 139 (Tuesday, October 1, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1895]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              NAFTA PARITY FOR U.S. WOOL APPAREL INDUSTRY

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. JOHN J. LaFALCE

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, October 1, 1996

  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation that 
will redress a wrong inflicted on an important segment of the U.S. 
textile and apparel industry during NAFTA negotiations.
  During NAFTA negotiations with Canada, changes were made in the 
original United States-Canada Free Trade Agreement [CFTA] with respect 
to imports of men's and boys' wool suits, jackets, and slacks--changes 
which both injure United States manufactures in this sector and give no 
avenue for relief from this injury. My legislation will correct this 
oversight and return to provisions that were originally intended in the 
CFTA.
  When the United States and Canada negotiated the textile and apparel 
provisions of the CFTA, special duty allowances were made for tailored 
men's and boys' wool apparel made from foreign fabric, i.e., fabric not 
produced in either the United States or Canada. A temporary tariff 
preference level [TPL] was established for this category of imported 
apparel for items made from textiles that were not available in either 
the United States or Canada--hence, the special treatment for wool 
apparel made from non-United States or Canadian textiles. At the time, 
Canadian manufacturers of tailored wool apparel constituted only a 
small portion of the Canadian apparel industry, and the TPL was 
intended only to ensure that they had an adequate supply of wool 
fabric. Under the CFTA, renegotiation of the tariff preference level 
was mandated by January 1, 1998.
  During NAFTA negotiations, the CFTA monitoring and renegotiation 
requirements were dropped. Indeed, the Office of the U.S. Trade 
Representative has said that NAFTA negotiations constituted a 
fulfillment of the CFTA mandate. The result of this retention of tariff 
preference levels--and indeed the increase of levels rather than a 
lowering--has resulted in an unacceptable surge in imports of this 
product from Canada. United States industry believes this provision has 
been used by Canadian producers for ``wholesale circumvention of the 
rule of origin''--and the rule of origin is the foundation of a free 
trade agreement. The legislation I am introducing today would restore 
the mandate to monitor and renegotiate the schedule of tariff 
preference levels by January 1, 1998.
  Since 1988, the surge of tailored-wool-apparel imports from Canada 
has devastated the United States industry. U.S. production of men's and 
boy's wool suits has drooped more than 40 percent, and employment has 
fallen almost 50 percent. At the time of CFTA negotiations, United 
States industry voiced concern about establishing tariff preference 
levels for goods made from nonoriginating fabric, but Canada assured 
United States negotiators that preexisting trade patterns would not be 
altered. Clearly, this has not happened. Yet, U.S. industry does not 
have normal access to safeguard actions that would allow it to petition 
the U.S. Government for temporary relief from injurious imports. 
Instead, the wool apparel industry was excluded from NAFTA safeguard 
provisions. The legislation I am introducing would allow the U.S. 
industry for tailored wool apparel to have normal access to safeguard 
provisions under the NAFTA.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe Congress must take corrective action when it 
becomes aware that a major piece of legislation unfairly excludes and 
injuries a sector of U.S. industry, especially when this effect was not 
intended. We owe it to U.S. workers in the tailored wool apparel sector 
to restore legislation to its original intent and to provide for a 
normal avenue under U.S. trade law to redress injury from imports.

                          ____________________