[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 152 (Tuesday, November 4, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H9873-H9881]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             UNITED STATES-CARIBBEAN TRADE PARTNERSHIP ACT

  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
(H.R. 2644) to provide to beneficiary countries under the Caribbean 
Basin Economic Recovery Act benefits equivalent to those provided under 
the North American Free Trade Agreement.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2644

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``United States-Caribbean 
     Trade Partnership Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND POLICY.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act represents a 
     permanent commitment by the United States to encourage the 
     development of strong democratic governments and revitalized 
     economies in neighboring countries in the Caribbean Basin.
       (2) The economic security of the countries in the Caribbean 
     Basin is potentially threatened by the diversion of 
     investment to Mexico as a result of the North American Free 
     Trade Agreement.
       (3) Offering NAFTA equivalent benefits to Caribbean Basin 
     beneficiary countries, pending their eventual accession to 
     the NAFTA or a free trade agreement comparable to the NAFTA, 
     will promote the growth of free enterprise and economic 
     opportunity in the region, and thereby enhance the national 
     security interests of the United States.
       (4) Countries in the Western Hemisphere offer the greatest 
     opportunities for increased exports of United States textile 
     and apparel products.
       (5) Given the greater propensity of countries located in 
     the Western Hemisphere to use United States components and to 
     purchase United States products compared to other countries, 
     increased trade and economic activity between the United 
     States and countries in the Western Hemisphere will create 
     new jobs in the United States as a result of expanding export 
     opportunities.
       (b) Policy.--It is the policy of the United States--
       (1) to offer to the products of Caribbean Basin partnership 
     countries tariffs and quota treatment equivalent to that 
     accorded to products of NAFTA countries, and to seek the 
     accession of these partnership countries to the NAFTA or a 
     free trade agreement comparable to the NAFTA at the earliest 
     possible date, with the goal of achieving full participation 
     in the NAFTA or in a free trade agreement comparable to the 
     NAFTA by all partnership countries by not later than January 
     1, 2005; and
       (2) to assure that the domestic textile and apparel 
     industry remains competitive in the global marketplace by 
     encouraging the formation and expansion of ``partnerships'' 
     between the textile and apparel industry of the United States 
     and the textile and apparel industry of various countries 
     located in the Western Hemisphere.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act:
       (1) Partnership country.--The term ``partnership country'' 
     means a beneficiary country as defined in section 
     212(a)(1)(A) of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (19 
     U.S.C. 2702(a)(1)(A)).
       (2) NAFTA.--The term ``NAFTA'' means the North American 
     Free Trade Agreement entered into between the United States, 
     Mexico, and Canada on December 17, 1992.
       (3) Trade representative.--The term ``Trade 
     Representative'' means the United States Trade 
     Representative.
       (4) WTO and wto member.--The terms ``WTO'' and ``WTO 
     member'' have the meanings given those terms in section 2 of 
     the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3501).

     SEC. 4. TEMPORARY PROVISIONS TO PROVIDE NAFTA PARITY TO 
                   PARTNERSHIP COUNTRIES.

       (a) Temporary Provisions.--Section 213(b) of the Caribbean 
     Basin Economic Recovery Act (19 U.S.C. 2703(b)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(b) Import-Sensitive Articles.--

[[Page H9874]]

       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) through (5), 
     the duty-free treatment provided under this title does not 
     apply to--
       ``(A) textile and apparel articles which were not eligible 
     articles for purposes of this title on January 1, 1994, as 
     this title was in effect on that date;
       ``(B) footwear not designated at the time of the effective 
     date of this title as eligible articles for the purpose of 
     the generalized system of preferences under title V of the 
     Trade Act of 1974;
       ``(C) tuna, prepared or preserved in any manner, in 
     airtight containers;
       ``(D) petroleum, or any product derived from petroleum, 
     provided for in headings 2709 and 2710 of the HTS;
       ``(E) watches and watch parts (including cases, bracelets 
     and straps), of whatever type including, but not limited to, 
     mechanical, quartz digital, or quartz analog, if such watches 
     or watch parts contain any material which is the product of 
     any country with respect to which HTS column 2 rates of duty 
     apply; or
       ``(F) articles to which reduced rates of duty apply under 
     subsection (h).
       ``(2) NAFTA transition period treatment of certain textile 
     and apparel articles.--
       ``(A) Equivalent tariff and quota treatment.--During the 
     transition period--
       ``(i) the tariff treatment accorded at any time to any 
     textile or apparel article that originates in the territory 
     of a partnership country shall be identical to the tariff 
     treatment that is accorded at such time under section 2 of 
     the Annex to an article described in the same 8-digit 
     subheading of the HTS that is a good of Mexico and is 
     imported into the United States;
       ``(ii) duty-free treatment under this title shall apply to 
     any textile or apparel article that is imported into the 
     United States from a partnership country and that--

       ``(I) is assembled in a partnership country, from fabrics 
     wholly formed and cut in the United States from yarns formed 
     in the United States, and is entered--

       ``(aa) under subheading 9802.00.80 of the HTS; or
       ``(bb) under chapter 61, 62, or 63 of the HTS if, after 
     such assembly, the article would have qualified for treatment 
     under subheading 9802.00.80 of the HTS, but for the fact the 
     article was subjected to bleaching, garments dyeing, stone-
     washing, enzyme-washing, acid-washing, perma-pressing, oven-
     baking, or embroidery; or

       ``(II) is knit-to-shape in a partnership country from yarns 
     wholly formed in the United States;
       ``(III) is made in a partnership country from fabric knit 
     in a partnership country from yarns wholly formed in the 
     United States;
       ``(IV) is cut and assembled in a partnership country from 
     fabrics wholly formed in the United States from yarns wholly 
     formed in the United States; or
       ``(V) is identified under subparagraph (C) as a handloomed, 
     handmade, or folklore article of such country and is 
     certified as such by the competent authority of such country; 
     and

       ``(iii) no quantitative restriction or consultation level 
     may be applied to the importation into the United States of 
     any textile or apparel article that--

       ``(I) originates in the territory of a partnership country, 
     or
       ``(II) qualifies for duty-free treatment under subclause 
     (I), (II), (III), (IV), or (V) of clause (ii).

       ``(B) NAFTA transition period treatment of other 
     nonoriginating textile and apparel articles.--
       ``(i) Preferential tariff treatment.--Subject to clause 
     (ii), the President may place in effect at any time during 
     the transition period with respect to any textile or apparel 
     article that--

       ``(I) is a product of a partnership country, but

       ``(II) does not qualify as a good that originates in the 
     territory of a partnership country or is eligible for 
     benefits under subparagraph (A)(ii),

     tariff treatment that is identical to the in-preference-level 
     tariff treatment accorded at such time under Appendix 6.B of 
     the Annex to an article described in the same 8-digit 
     subheading of the HTS that is a product of Mexico and is 
     imported into the United States. For purposes of this clause, 
     the `in-preference-level tariff treatment' accorded to an 
     article that is a product of Mexico is the rate of duty 
     applied to that article when imported in quantities less than 
     or equal to the quantities specified in Schedule 6.B.1, 
     6.B.2., or 6.B.3. of the Annex for imports of that article 
     from Mexico into the United States.
       ``(ii) Limitations on all articles.--(I) Tariff treatment 
     under clause (i) may be extended, during any calendar year, 
     to not more than 45,000,000 square meter equivalents of 
     cotton or man-made fiber apparel, to not more than 1,500,000 
     square meter equivalents of wool apparel, and to not more 
     than 25,000,000 square meter equivalents of goods entered 
     under subheading 9802.00.80 of the HTS.
       ``(II) Except as provided in subclause (III), the amounts 
     set forth in subclause (I) shall be allocated among the 7 
     partnership countries with the largest volume of exports to 
     the United States of textile and apparel goods in calendar 
     year 1996, based upon a pro rata share of the volume of 
     textile and apparel goods of each of those 7 countries that 
     entered the United States under subheading 9802.00.80 of the 
     HTS during the first 12 months of the 14-month period ending 
     on the date of the enactment of the United States-Caribbean 
     Trade Partnership Act.
       ``(III) Five percent of the amounts set forth in subclause 
     (I) shall be allocated among the partnership countries, other 
     than those to which subclause (II) applies, based upon a pro 
     rata share of the exports to the United States of textile and 
     apparel goods of each of those countries during the first 12 
     months of the 14-month period ending on the date of the 
     enactment of the United States-Caribbean Trade Partnership 
     Act.
       ``(iii) Prior consultation.--The President may implement 
     the preferential tariff treatment described in clause (i) 
     only after consultation with representatives of the United 
     States textile and apparel industry and other interested 
     parties regarding--

       ``(I) the specific articles to which such treatment will be 
     extended,
       ``(II) the annual quantities of such articles that may be 
     imported at the preferential duty rates described in clause 
     (i), and
       ``(III) the allocation of such annual quantities among 
     beneficiary countries.

       ``(C) Handloomed, handmade, and folklore articles.--For 
     purposes of subparagraph (A), the Trade Representative shall 
     consult with representatives of the partnership country for 
     the purpose of identifying particular textile and apparel 
     goods that are mutually agreed upon as being handloomed, 
     handmade, or folklore goods of a kind described in section 
     2.3 (a), (b), or (c) or Appendix 3.1.B.11 of the Annex.
       ``(D) Bilateral emergency actions.--(i) The President may 
     take--
       ``(I) bilateral emergency tariff actions of a kind 
     described in section 4 of the Annex with respect to any 
     textile or apparel article imported from a partnership 
     country if the application of tariff treatment under 
     subparagraph (A) to such article results in conditions that 
     would be cause for the taking of such actions under such 
     section 4 with respect to an article described in the same 8-
     digit subheading of the HTS that is imported from Mexico; or
       ``(II) bilateral emergency quantitative restriction actions 
     of a kind described in section 5 of the Annex with respect to 
     imports of any textile or apparel article described in 
     subparagraphs (B)(i) (I) and (II) if the importation of such 
     article into the United States results in conditions that 
     would be cause for the taking of such actions under such 
     section 5 with respect to a like article that is a product 
     of Mexico.
       ``(ii) The requirement in paragraph (5) of section 4 of the 
     Annex (relating to providing compensation) shall not be 
     deemed to apply to a bilateral emergency action taken under 
     this subparagraph.
       ``(iii) For purposes of applying bilateral emergency action 
     under this subparagraph--
       ``(I) the term `transition period' in sections 4 and 5 of 
     the Annex shall be deemed to be the period defined in 
     paragraph (5)(E); and
       ``(II) any requirements to consult specified in section 4 
     or 5 of the Annex are deemed to be satisfied if the President 
     requests consultations with the partnership country in 
     question and the country does not agree to consult within the 
     time period specified under such section 4 or 5, whichever is 
     applicable.
       ``(3) NAFTA transition period treatment of certain other 
     articles originating in beneficiary countries.--
       ``(A) Equivalent tariff treatment.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), the tariff 
     treatment accorded at any time during the transition period 
     to any article referred to in any of subparagraphs (B) 
     through (F) of paragraph (1) that originates in the territory 
     of a partnership country shall be identical to the tariff 
     treatment that is accorded at such time under Annex 302.2 of 
     the NAFTA to an article described in the same 8-digit 
     subheading of the HTS that is a good of Mexico and is 
     imported into the United States.
       ``(ii) Exception.--Clause (i) does not apply to any article 
     accorded duty-free treatment under U.S. Note 2(b) to 
     subchapter II of chapter 98 of the HTS.
       ``(B) Relationship to subsection (h) duty reductions.--If 
     at any time during the transition period the rate of duty 
     that would (but for action taken under subparagraph (A)(i) in 
     regard to such period) apply with respect to any article 
     under subsection (h) is a rate of duty that is lower than the 
     rate of duty resulting from such action, then such lower rate 
     of duty shall be applied for the purposes of implementing 
     such action.
       ``(4) Customs procedures.--
       ``(A) In general.--
       ``(i) Regulations.--Any importer that claims preferential 
     tariff treatment under paragraph (2) or (3) shall comply with 
     customs procedures similar in all material respects to the 
     requirements of Article 502(1) of the NAFTA as implemented 
     pursuant to United States law, in accordance with regulations 
     promulgated by the Secretary of the Treasury.
       ``(ii) Determination.--In order to qualify for such 
     preferential tariff treatment and for a Certificate of Origin 
     to be valid with respect to any article for which such 
     treatment is claimed, there shall be in effect a 
     determination by the President that--

       ``(I) the partnership country from which the article is 
     exported, and
       ``(II) each partnership country in which materials used in 
     the production of the article originate or undergo production 
     that contributes to a claim that the article qualifies for 
     such preferential tariff treatment,

     has implemented and follows, or is making substantial 
     progress toward implementing

[[Page H9875]]

     and following, procedures and requirements similar in all 
     material respects to the relevant procedures and requirements 
     under chapter 5 of the NAFTA.
       ``(B) Certificate of origin.--The Certificate of Origin 
     that otherwise would be required pursuant to the provisions 
     of subparagraph (A) shall not be required in the case of an 
     article imported under paragraph (2) or (3) if such 
     Certificate of Origin would not be required under Article 503 
     of the NAFTA (as implemented pursuant to United States law), 
     if the article were imported from Mexico.
       ``(C) Penalties for transshipments.--If the President 
     determines, based on sufficient evidence, that an exporter 
     has engaged in willful illegal transshipment or willful 
     customs fraud with respect to textile or apparel articles for 
     which preferential tariff treatment under subparagraph (A) or 
     (B) of paragraph (2) is claimed, then the President shall 
     deny all benefits under this title to such exporter, and any 
     successors of such exporter, for a period of 2 years.
       ``(D) Study by ustr on cooperation of other countries 
     concerning circumvention.--The United States Commissioner of 
     Customs shall conduct a study analyzing the extent to which 
     each partnership country--
       ``(i) has cooperated fully with the United States, 
     consistent with its domestic laws and procedures, in 
     instances of circumvention or alleged circumvention of 
     existing quotas on imports of textile and apparel goods, to 
     establish necessary relevant facts in the places of import, 
     export, and, where applicable, transshipment, including 
     investigation of circumvention practices, exchanges of 
     documents, correspondence, reports, and other relevant 
     information, to the extent such information is available;
       ``(ii) has taken appropriate measures, consistent with its 
     domestic laws and procedures, against exporters and importers 
     involved in instances of false declaration concerning fiber 
     content, quantities, description, classification, or origin 
     of textile and apparel goods; and
       ``(iii) has penalized the individuals and entities involved 
     in any such circumvention, consistent with its domestic laws 
     and procedures, and has worked closely to seek the 
     cooperation of any third country to prevent such 
     circumvention from taking place in that third country.

     The Trade Representative shall submit to the Congress, not 
     later than October 1, 1998, a report on the study conducted 
     under this subparagraph.
       ``(5) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
       ``(A) The term `the Annex' means Annex 300-B of the NAFTA.
       ``(B) The term `NAFTA' means the North American Free Trade 
     Agreement entered into between the United States, Mexico, and 
     Canada on December 17, 1992.
       ``(C) The term `partnership country' means a beneficiary 
     country.
       ``(D) The term `textile or apparel article' means any 
     article referred to in paragraph (1)(A) that is a good listed 
     in Appendix 1.1 of the Annex.
       ``(E) The term `transition period' means, with respect to a 
     partnership country, the period that begins on May 15, 1998, 
     and ends on the earlier of--
       ``(i) July 15, 1999; or
       ``(ii) the date on which--

       ``(I) the United States first applies the NAFTA to the 
     partnership country upon its accession to the NAFTA, or
       ``(II) there enters into force with respect to the United 
     States and the partnership country a free trade agreement 
     comparable to the NAFTA that makes substantial progress in 
     achieving the negotiating objectives set forth in section 
     108(b)(5) of the North American Free Trade Agreement 
     Implementation Act (19 U.S.C. 3317(b)(5)).

       ``(F) An article shall be deemed as originating in the 
     territory of a partnership country if the article meets the 
     rules of origin for a good set forth in chapter 4 of the 
     NAFTA, and, in the case of an article described in Appendix 
     6.A of the Annex, the requirements stated in such Appendix 
     6.A for such article to be treated as if it were an 
     originating good. In applying such chapter 4 or Appendix 6.A 
     with respect to a partnership country for purposes of this 
     subsection--
       ``(i) no countries other than the United States and 
     partnership countries may be treated as being Parties to the 
     NAFTA,
       ``(ii) references to trade between the United States and 
     Mexico shall be deemed to refer to trade between the United 
     States and partnership countries, and
       ``(iii) references to a Party shall be deemed to refer to 
     the United States or a partnership country, and references to 
     the Parties shall be deemed to refer to any combination of 
     partnership countries or the United States.''.
       (b) Determination Regarding Retention of Designation.--
     Section 212(e)(1) of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery 
     Act (19 U.S.C. 2702(e)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(1)'';
       (2) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses 
     (i) and (ii), respectively;
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B)(i) Based on the President's review and analysis 
     described in subsection (f), the President may determine if 
     the preferential treatment under section 213(b) (2) and (3) 
     should be withdrawn, suspended, or limited with respect to 
     any article of a partnership country. Such determination 
     shall be included in the report required by subsection (f).
       ``(ii) Withdrawal, suspension, or limitation of the 
     preferential treatment under section 213(b) (2) and (3) with 
     respect to a partnership country shall be taken only after 
     the requirements of subsection (a)(2) and paragraph (2) of 
     this subsection have been met.''.
       (c) Reporting Requirements.--Section 212(f) of the 
     Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (19 U.S.C. 2702(f)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(f) Reporting Requirements.--Not later than 1 year after 
     the date of the enactment of the United States-Caribbean 
     Trade Partnership Act and at the close of each 3-year period 
     thereafter, the President shall submit to the Congress a 
     complete report regarding the operation of this title, 
     including--
       ``(1) with respect to subsections (b) and (c) of this 
     section, the results of a general review of beneficiary 
     countries based on the considerations described in such 
     subsections;
       ``(2) with respect to subsection (c)(4), the degree to 
     which a country follows accepted rules of international trade 
     provided for under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 
     and the World Trade Organization;
       ``(3) with respect to subsection (c)(9), the extent to 
     which beneficiary countries are providing or taking steps to 
     provide protection of intellectual property rights comparable 
     to the protection provided to the United States in bilateral 
     intellectual property rights agreements;
       ``(4) with respect to subsection (b)(2) and subsection 
     (c)(5), the extent that beneficiary countries are providing 
     or taking steps to provide protection of investment and 
     investors comparable to the protection provided to the United 
     States in bilateral investment treaties;
       ``(5) with respect to subsection (c)(3), the extent that 
     beneficiary countries are providing the United States and 
     other WTO members (as such term is defined in section 2(10) 
     of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3501(10)) with 
     equitable and reasonable market access in the product sectors 
     for which benefits are provided under this title;
       ``(6) with respect to subsection (c)(11), the extent that 
     beneficiary countries are cooperating with the United States 
     in administering the provisions of section 213(b); and
       ``(7) with respect to subsection (c)(8), the extent that 
     beneficiary countries are meeting the internationally 
     recognized worker rights criteria under such subsection.

     In the first report under this subsection, the President 
     shall include a review of the implementation of section 
     213(b), and his analysis of whether the benefits under 
     paragraphs (2) and (3) of such section further the objectives 
     of this title and whether such benefits should be 
     continued.''.
       (d) Conforming Amendment.--Section 213(a)(1) of the 
     Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act is amended by inserting 
     ``and except as provided in section 213(b) (2) and (3),'' 
     after ``Tax Reform Act of 1986,''.

     SEC. 5. EFFECT OF NAFTA ON SUGAR IMPORTS FROM BENEFICIARY 
                   COUNTRIES.

       The President shall monitor the effects, if any, that the 
     implementation of the NAFTA has on the access of beneficiary 
     countries under the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act to 
     the United States market for sugars, syrups, and molasses. If 
     the President considers that the implementation of the NAFTA 
     is affecting, or will likely affect, in an adverse manner the 
     access of such countries to the United States market, the 
     President shall promptly--
       (1) take such actions, after consulting with interested 
     parties and with the appropriate committees of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate, or
       (2) propose to the Congress such legislative actions,

     as may be necessary or appropriate to ameliorate such adverse 
     effect.

     SEC. 6. DUTY-FREE TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN BEVERAGES MADE WITH 
                   CARIBBEAN RUM.

       Section 213(a) of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act 
     (19 U.S.C. 2703(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (5), by striking ``chapter'' and inserting 
     ``title''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(6) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the duty-free 
     treatment provided under this title shall apply to liqueurs 
     and spirituous beverages produced in the territory of Canada 
     from rum if--
       ``(A) such rum is the growth, product, or manufacture of a 
     beneficiary country or of the Virgin Islands of the United 
     States;
       ``(B) such rum is imported directly from a beneficiary 
     country or the Virgin Islands of the United States into the 
     territory of Canada, and such liqueurs and spirituous 
     beverages are imported directly from the territory of Canada 
     into the customs territory of the United States;
       ``(C) when imported into the customs territory of the 
     United States, such liqueurs and spirituous beverages are 
     classified in subheading 2208.90 or 2208.40 of the HTS; and
       ``(D) such rum accounts for at least 90 percent by volume 
     of the alcoholic content of such liqueurs and spiritous 
     beverages.''.

     SEC. 7. MEETINGS OF TRADE MINISTERS AND USTR.

       (a) Schedule of Meetings.--The President shall take the 
     necessary steps to convene a meeting with the trade ministers 
     of the partnership countries in order to establish a schedule 
     of regular meetings, to commence as soon as is practicable, 
     of the trade ministers and the Trade Representative, for the 
     purpose set forth in subsection (b).
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of the meetings scheduled under 
     subsection (a) is to reach

[[Page H9876]]

     agreement between the United States and partnership countries 
     on the likely timing and procedures for initiating 
     negotiations for partnership to accede to the NAFTA, or to 
     enter into mutually advantageous free trade agreements with 
     the United States that contain provisions comparable to those 
     in the NAFTA and would make substantial progress in achieving 
     the negotiating objectives set forth in section 108(b)(5) of 
     the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act 
     (19 U.S.C. 3317(b)(5)).

     SEC. 8. REPORT ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND MARKET ORIENTED 
                   REFORMS IN THE CARIBBEAN.

       (a) In General.--The Trade Representative shall make an 
     assessment of the economic development efforts and market 
     oriented reforms in each partnership country and the ability 
     of each such country, on the basis of such efforts and 
     reforms, to undertake the obligations of the NAFTA. The Trade 
     Representative shall, not later than July 1, 1998, submit to 
     the President and to the Committee on Finance of the Senate 
     and the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 
     Representatives a report on that assessment.
       (b) Accession to NAFTA.--
       (1) Ability of countries to implement nafta.--The Trade 
     Representative shall include in the report under subsection 
     (a) a discussion of possible timetables and procedures 
     pursuant to which partnership countries can complete the 
     economic reforms necessary to enable them to negotiate 
     accession to the NAFTA. The Trade Representative shall also 
     include an assessment of the potential phase-in periods that 
     may be necessary for those partnership countries with less 
     developed economies to implement the obligations of the 
     NAFTA.
       (2) Factors in assessing ability to implement nafta.--In 
     assessing the ability of each partnership country to 
     undertake the obligations of the NAFTA, the Trade 
     Representative should consider, among other factors--
       (A) whether the country has joined the WTO;
       (B) the extent to which the country provides equitable 
     access to the markets of that country;
       (C) the degree to which the country uses export subsidies 
     or imposes export performance requirements or local content 
     requirements;
       (D) macroeconomic reforms in the country such as the 
     abolition of price controls on traded goods and fiscal 
     discipline;
       (E) progress the country has made in the protection of 
     intellectual property rights;
       (F) progress the country has made in the elimination of 
     barriers to trade in services;
       (G) whether the country provides national treatment to 
     foreign direct investment;
       (H) the level of tariffs bound by the country under the WTO 
     (if the country is a WTO member);
       (I) the extent to which the country has taken other trade 
     liberalization measures; and
       (J) the extent which the country works to accommodate 
     market access objectives of the United States.
       (c) Parity Review in the Event a New Country Accedes to 
     NAFTA.--If--
       (1) a country or group of countries accedes to the NAFTA, 
     or
       (2) the United States negotiates a comparable free trade 
     agreement with another country or group of countries,

     the Trade Representative shall provide to the committees 
     referred to in subsection (a) a separate report on the 
     economic impact of the new trade relationship on partnership 
     countries. The report shall include any measures the Trade 
     Representative proposes to minimize the potential for the 
     diversion of investment from partnership countries to the new 
     NAFTA member or free trade agreement partner.

     SEC. 9. OVERRULING OF SCHMIDT BAKING COMPANY CASE WITH 
                   RESPECT TO SEVERANCE PAY.

       (a) In General.--The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be 
     applied with respect to severance pay without regard to the 
     result reached in the case of Schmidt Baking Company, Inc. v. 
     Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 107 T.C. 271 (1996).
       (b) Regulations.--The Secretary of the Treasury or the 
     Secretary's delegate shall prescribe regulations to reflect 
     subsection (a).
       (c) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply to 
     taxable years ending after October 8, 1997.
       (2) Change in method of accounting.--In the case of any 
     taxpayer required by this section to change its method of 
     accounting for its first taxable year ending after October 8, 
     1997--
       (A) such change shall be treated as initiated by the 
     taxpayer,
       (B) such change shall be treated as made with the consent 
     of the Secretary of the Treasury, and
       (C) the net amount of the adjustments required to be taken 
     into account by the taxpayer under section 481 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be taken into account in 
     such first taxable year.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Crane] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] each 
will control 20 minutes.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire whether the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Rangel] is opposed to the bill?
  Mr. RANGEL. No, Mr. Speaker, I am not.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Maryland opposed to 
the bill?
  Mr. CARDIN. Yes; and I would ask to claim the time in opposition, Mr. 
Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] 
will be recognized for 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane].
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Rangel], and I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to 
yield further blocks of time in support of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2644, the United 
States-Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act. This bill would allow the 
people of the Caribbean region to compete on a level playing field with 
their counterparts in the rest of North America.
  I firmly believe fostering self-sufficiency through trade, not 
foreign aid, is the best way to assist our 30 million neighbors living 
in the Caribbean Basin countries, especially given the relative lack of 
development in that region.
  The bill accomplishes this by granting to the Caribbean Basin 
partnership countries tariff treatments similar to that accorded to 
Canada and Mexico for a temporary period of 14 months. I believe that 
expanding the benefits of the Caribbean Basin initiative on a temporary 
basis will encourage partnership countries to complete the economic 
reforms that will be necessary for them to qualify for similar trade 
benefits on a permanent basis in the future.
  For my colleagues who are new to this body, the original Caribbean 
Basin initiative, or CBI, was passed in 1983 under the leadership of 
President Reagan and Mr. Sam Gibbons. The program is based on the 
understanding that it is in the national security interests of the 
United States to encourage the development of strong democratic 
governments and healthy economies in neighboring countries of the 
Caribbean and Central America through the expansion of trade.
  Likewise, it is fundamentally in the economic interests of the United 
States to encourage coproduction arrangements with the region in order 
to sustain textile and apparel manufacturing operations in the United 
States under changing competitive conditions.
  Since the CBI became law, U.S. trade policy has focused on other 
geographic areas. The bill before us today assures that our commitment 
to the Caribbean Basin countries fostered by Ronald Reagan nearly 15 
years ago is not eroded over time.

                              {time}  1230

  Furthermore, I believe it is important that the United States develop 
a coherent trade policy that recognizes the economic development needs 
of Caribbean Basin countries and which does not prejudice their 
participation in future trade arrangements.
  My purpose in pursuing this bill is to foster a policy where CBI 
countries receive guidance and the necessary incentives to adopt the 
market opening reforms that will prepare them for further trade 
liberalization.
  I want to emphasize here today that expanding trade with the 
Caribbean through existing CBI provisions has already been a huge 
success for U.S. business and workers. During the life of the program, 
U.S. exports to the region have grown from $5.8 billion in 1983 to over 
$15.4 billion in 1996. Last year, U.S. exports to the Caribbean Basin 
grew by 14.5 percent, a rate more than twice as great as the rate of 
growth in U.S. exports to the rest of the world.
  Prior to the original CBI legislation, the United States ran a 
substantial trade deficit with the region. The United States now has 
almost a $1 billion annual trade surplus with this group of countries. 
Moreover, many of the countries in the region regularly import the vast 
majority of the foreign products they purchase each year from the 
United States.

[[Page H9877]]

  As CBI countries expand their success, it translates directly into 
U.S. economic growth and job creation. Presently, the U.S.-Caribbean 
commercial relationship supports more than 300,000 jobs in the United 
States. Virtually every State in the Union has benefited from this 
relationship. I know my own State of Illinois sold $319 million of 
exports to the region last year.
  Finally, I would remind my colleagues that the provisions of this 
bill were already approved by the House last summer as part of the 
balanced budget reconciliation bill. They were dropped in conference at 
the insistence of the Senate which had not yet considered the measure. 
However, the Senate Committee on Finance recently reported similar 
legislation. So consideration of the bill separately today is highly 
appropriate, now that the other body is beginning to appreciate the 
importance of expanding trade with the CBI region.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2644 was reported from the Committee on Ways and 
Means by voice vote twice this year and has strong bipartisan support. 
Let us build on past success and expand the U.S. partnership with our 
neighbors in the Caribbean Basin. I urge approval of H.R. 2644.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2644.
  As the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane] pointed out, in 1983 we 
saw fit to go into a trade agreement with the small island countries. 
It was really an emotional experience, as the Committee on Ways and 
Means visited island after island, to see the love and affection that 
the people of these countries had. Even though some of them had just 
first started enjoying democracy, most all of them, then as now, are 
living through very fragile economies.
  There were a lot of Members who thought that we would be big losers 
in this trade, but as it turned out, and the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Crane] has pointed out, we have had a tremendous increase in 
exports to these countries, over 150 percent over the last 12 years.
  But the most exciting thing to see when you do visit these countries 
is, every place you go it says, ``Made in the U.S.A.'' It is ``Made in 
the U.S.A.'' because we have been more than just trading partners, we 
have really been friends, and this friendship is now being tested as we 
see the devastating effects that the North American Free Trade 
Agreement has had on these small countries.
  I know that NAFTA had been controversial when it was first passed. I 
know it is controversial today. I know some Members, when they see 
NAFTA, they want to vote against anything that looks like an extension 
of it. But if they would just pause and see that what has happened is 
that the passage of NAFTA has caused the advantages, or the parity, 
that we had hoped to give to the people on these islands to put them at 
a definite disadvantage as we find that trade that normally we would be 
doing with these Caribbean countries is now going on in Mexico.
  So it means that friends of the Caribbean and the United States that 
have promised that we were going to give them a level playing field are 
now coming today saying, ``I do not like NAFTA.'' It seems to me that 
we should not hold these small countries hostage because of a 
disadvantage that they are now suffering because of legislation or 
trade agreements that some Members may have.
  Please remember that we are not talking about North Vietnam. We are 
not talking about North Korea. We are not talking about Communist 
China. We are talking about traditional friends that are going through 
some very hard economic times, that we have never had to beg for their 
friendship, we have never had to pay for their friendship. When the 
whole world seemed like they were going against us, including Europe, 
we always had our friends in the Caribbean. So I hope that the United 
States domestic politics does not override the fact that we should be 
doing the right thing.
  Please remember, we are not talking about giving them any advantages. 
We are talking about keeping our promise that we made to these very 
small island countries when we entered into the 1983 agreement. It is 
good for the people in the Caribbean; it is good for the United States. 
It is good for the free world to see a leader like we are take care of 
our friends who may not be as big and may not be as powerful but, to 
me, and I hope to my colleagues, they are just as important.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote against this 
suspension of the rules. I would like to follow up on some of the 
comments that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] made.
  H.R. 2644, the U.S.-Caribbean Trade Act, is meant to provide parity 
with the nations in the Caribbean with Mexico as it relates to NAFTA.
  First, it is important to point out that the nations that we are 
talking about, they are not just the small island nations but we are 
talking about many of the countries of Central America.
  What is the reason for this bill? Why is there the need for parity? 
What has NAFTA caused harm in the Caribbean nations? If you look at the 
major industry that was created by the Caribbean Basin Initiative, it 
has been the selling of garments that has been one of the principal 
objectives of the CBI initiative.
  Since the passage of NAFTA, the export share from the Caribbean and 
Central American nations in the CBI has increased from 18 percent to 23 
percent their share of U.S. market. They have not been hurt by NAFTA. 
It appears like they have been helped. If you look at the percentage 
increase from the 26 CBI nations to the United States, between 1993 and 
1996, in apparel, it has increased by 63 percent.

  So we have seen a significant increase in exports from these nations 
since the passage of NAFTA. We are not talking about small industries. 
The textile and apparel imports from the CBI nations, namely, from 
Central America, totaled $6.1 billion last year. By contrast, imports 
from Mexico were $3.6 billion. We have more imports from Central 
America and the Caribbean than we do from Mexico.
  But unlike NAFTA, and this is called the NAFTA Parity Act, I think it 
is a misnomer because, unlike NAFTA, there are no obligations on the 
Caribbean nations that are part of the CBI for getting these additional 
benefits. There are no requirements for sanctions against sweatshops or 
child labor, for requirements for cooperation on drug interdiction, 
money laundering or illegal immigration, no requirements to remove 
trade barriers from U.S. exporters.
  This bill has been scored at $243 million for its 14 months. The 
taxpayers of this country should not be subsidizing more loss of jobs 
here in the United States. If we use our 5-year rules, as we should be 
using, this bill costs over $1 billion. At the very least, the Members 
of this body should have the opportunity to offer amendments to this 
legislation.
  The chairman of the subcommittee mentioned that our friends in the 
other body have moved similar legislation. It is quite different in 
that it does provide certain protection to U.S. manufacturers and 
producers. The legislation considered in the other body requires that 
the textiles be made from U.S. fabric. That is not the bill that we 
have before us. Some of us would like to be able to offer that as an 
amendment, but under suspension of rules, we cannot; it is not the 
right process.
  The Members of this House should have the opportunity to fully debate 
this issue and offer amendments. It is a very important bill. I would 
urge my colleagues to resist the suspension of rules. Let it go through 
normal order.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance my time.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Ballenger].
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the U.S. Caribbean 
Trade Partnership Act.
  This bill, introduced by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] and 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane], extends duty-free access for 
14

[[Page H9878]]

months to certain products such as apparel, handbags, and so forth. As 
a member of the Committee on International Relations, I have always 
supported trade with our neighbors in this hemisphere. We have 
consistently worked to reduce tariffs and to ease trade barriers 
between our country and Latin America.
  The United States Caribbean Trade Partnership Act will restore trade 
benefits to our Caribbean neighbors which were lost as a result of 
NAFTA. Ultimately, increased trade will create jobs here and help 
countries like Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala become more stable. 
After years of war and removing dictators, these countries are now 
fragile democracies and need our help.
  However, I do have some reservations about the rule-of-origin 
requirements of this bill. However, my belief is that with this 
guarantee, this bill will create more domestic jobs and opportunities 
for Americans. Reducing tariffs will result in lower consumer prices 
for imported products which benefit all consumers. Americans will 
benefit from these changes, and they will go to purchase clothes and 
other items. Join me in supporting the United States Caribbean Trade 
Partnership Act.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Bunning].
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, 4 years ago almost to the day, I spoke 
against and voted against the North American Free Trade Agreement. 
Unfortunately, time has proven that NAFTA was wrong for America, and by 
attempting to expand it today, we are only compounding that mistake. 
How many more jobs do we have to lose until we wake up and smell the 
Caribbean coffee?
  If you voted against the NAFTA or you are not happy with the effects 
that NAFTA has had on America, then do not vote today to expand it and 
for the CBI countries. Before you vote on this issue, ask yourself 
three simple questions: Are there any benefits to the American worker 
in extending NAFTA to the CBI countries? The answer is ``no''. Will 
extending the NAFTA to Caribbean countries increase American jobs? The 
answer is no. Will it cost U.S. jobs? The answer is ``yes''.
  Extending the NAFTA to Central American countries will only cost more 
hard-working Americans good-paying jobs. In fact, just last month a 
major textile manufacturer in my State announced that they were cutting 
800 jobs from their Campbellsville and Jamestown, KY plants and moving 
them south of the border. However, instead of saying adios to these 
jobs, we should be doing all that we can to protect them and keep them 
in places like Campbellsville and Jamestown, KY.
  NAFTA was a mistake, the wrong treaty at the wrong time. It is too 
late to stop NAFTA, but it is not too late to limit the damage. Join me 
in denying the extension of NAFTA trade benefits to the Caribbean and 
Central American countries. Vote ``no'' on CBI parity.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah].
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Rangel], ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, and 
also the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] and the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Crane]. This is a very, very important piece of 
legislation because it speaks to who we are as a country, what the 
nature of the contribution is that we are prepared to make to help 
build in this hemisphere the relationship that will be necessary.
  There has been a lot said here today. I wanted to rise in support of 
this bill. It is critically important that our neighbors in the 
Caribbean see that we are willing to work with their very fragile 
democratic circumstances, help to continue to build their economies. 
They are in a whole host of bilateral and hemispheric agreements with 
us relative to crime and safety, drug trafficking, money laundering 
that has been mentioned earlier. We have to make sure that these 
economies can lawfully participate in what has now been created as 
almost a market between Canada and Mexico and ourselves. We see the 
European Union being formed. We see our neighbors in the Pacific rim 
getting their act together.

                              {time}  1245

  We do not want these small island nations just to fall by the 
wayside. I want to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] for 
his leadership on this and would hope that all of us would find it 
within ourselves to be supportive of this.
  The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] said there would be some 
cost. He is correct. There will be some cost. There will be costs 
either way that we proceed. I think that what the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Rangel] offers for us is an opportunity for us to do what is 
right. And, in the end, not only will there be some costs, but there 
will be some rewards for our Nation for standing by our friends who 
have been our traditional allies.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis], a member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and 
colleague the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill does not make sense to me. It is bad news for 
American workers and bad policy. Supporters of this bill argue that it 
is designed to help Caribbean nations that have suffered as a result of 
NAFTA. They said that these countries have lost business to Mexico as a 
result of NAFTA.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, another group of people have suffered as a result 
of NAFTA, and they will suffer as a result of this bill, the American 
workers. Since NAFTA, exports from Mexico are up. Since NAFTA, exports 
from the CBI countries are up. Since NAFTA, our trade surplus with 
Mexico has changed to a trade deficit.
  NAFTA has helped Mexican exports. During the same time, the CBI 
countries have increased the apparel export to the United States. 
However, during that same time, one group has lost, American workers. 
More than 250,000 American apparel workers have lost their jobs to 
Mexico and the CBI nations. So this bill does not make sense. It does 
not make any sense to me.
  Many of the workers who lost their jobs are minorities and women. 
Many of them live and work in areas where there are few other jobs. 
These jobs are good jobs. The workers do not get rich in these jobs, 
but they make a living wage. And this bill will speed up the loss of 
these jobs.
  It is not necessary for the CBI nations. They are doing pretty well. 
Their exports to the United States have increased since NAFTA. I 
support trade with other nations. I support workers in Mexico and the 
CBI countries. But we need to be on the floor today considering a bill 
that helps American workers, a bill that helps keep jobs here at home, 
here in this country, a bill that promotes American products and helps 
American workers. We need a bill that promotes free and fair and open 
trade. We need trade with other countries. But it cannot, it must not, 
be trade at the expense of our working men and women.
  I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I remind my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis], that 
we have been at full employment for two straight years.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to our distinguished colleague, the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Crane] for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the Caribbean Basin 
Trade Partnership Act. I want to commend the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Crane], our distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade, 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Ways and Means, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Rangel], ranking minority member, for bringing this matter to the floor 
at this time.
  In 1983, President Reagan launched the Caribbean Basin Initiative to 
extend America's hand to our neighbors in the Caribbean. At that time, 
the threat was subversion sponsored by the Soviet Union and Cuba. 
Today, the threat of narcotics trafficking in the region is as grave 
and more insidious than ever.

[[Page H9879]]

  By fostering trade and legitimate investment, this bill will 
strengthen our friends and neighbors in this strategic region to resist 
the utterly corrosive temptation to turn to transshipping drugs onto 
our streets as a way of earning their livelihood.
  Helping our friends and neighbors in the Caribbean has benefited our 
Nation. Taken as a whole, the Caribbean Basin is our Nation's tenth 
largest export market, surpassing countries such as France. The 
Caribbean Basin is one of the few regions in the world where U.S. 
exporters have maintained a trade surplus each and every year for the 
past 11 years; 70 cents of each dollar spent in the Caribbean is sent 
right back here to our Nation on U.S. goods and services.
  In the garment industry, for example, Caribbean firms rely heavily 
upon U.S. produced textiles. This bill provides a more level playing 
field for American and Caribbean manufacturers to deepen their mutually 
beneficial partnerships.
  I would like to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to call on the 
administration to translate this bill into renewed attention to 
restarting the assembly firms in Haiti, which, along with businesses 
here in our Nation and in my own congressional district were devastated 
by the recent economic embargo.
  New York is the 7th largest supplier to that region. This bill will 
enhance New York's position in the Caribbean Basin. The Caribbean Basin 
Economic Recovery Act, unlike NAFTA, provides several important 
safeguards to participate in the program. Caribbean countries will have 
to satisfy conditions under existing CBI legislation. CBI countries 
will have to satisfy additional criteria relating to market access for 
U.S. products, investment guarantees, adherence to internationally 
accepted rules of international trade, observance of internationally 
recognized workers rights, and promotion of intellectual property 
rights.
  The President will be authorized to revoke a country's eligibility if 
that country fails to satisfy existing CBI criteria or meet any of the 
new criteria established under this law. Accordingly, passage of this 
bill will move it to conference where additional concerns may be 
addressed.
  I urge my colleagues to join in supporting the legislation.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant 
opposition to this bill. I say ``reluctant'' because it is always 
difficult to be on the opposite side of an issue from my friend, the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel], and also because, as a general 
proposition, I am a supporter of CBI parity.
  Unfortunately, this bill does not get us where we need to be, and it 
comes on the suspension calendar, where nobody can make any amendments 
or offer any amendments to improve the bill and address some of the 
issues which need to be addressed. Second, it has a particularly 
adverse effect on the workers in my State of North Carolina.
  The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane] indicated that we have been 
at full employment for some time now. Tell that to the workers in North 
Carolina. H.R. 2644 will reduce or eliminate tariffs and quotas on 
watches, food ware, tuna, and apparel. These industries enjoy some 
modest tariff and quota protection because they are vulnerable to cheap 
imports.
  Supporters of this bill imply that giving away the jobs in these 
industries, especially in the garment industry, is an acceptable 
sacrifice. But let me tell my colleagues a little about these people 
who work in this industry in North Carolina. These workers in these 
factories are hard-working people. They are considered unskilled 
workers, but only because their highly developed sewing skills do not 
have much application outside the garment industry. They have spent 
years perfecting their craft.
  This bill will pull the rug from under them. My colleagues will hear 
that garment jobs are low-paying jobs and we should sacrifice them, but 
an experienced seamstress in North Carolina makes about $10 an hour. 
Those are jobs that, if they cannot do these jobs, they are going 
somewhere else offshore and these people will be forced onto welfare. 
We should not have to make that sacrifice. We should defeat this bill.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Rangel] for yielding me the time.
  Since the Caribbean Basin Initiative in 1983, that legislation has 
created about 18,000 new American export-oriented jobs each year. What 
was once a trade deficit has grown into a very major trade surplus for 
us. And those CBI countries today purchase as much as 75 percent of 
their imports from the United States. A good portion of that gain has 
been in the textile and apparel industries.
  To maintain a globally competitive product and to offset the 
advantages of low wages from our Asian competitors, many United States 
firms have formed strategic alliances with garment firms throughout the 
Caribbean Basin region. I saw, with the distinguished gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Rangel] in a CODEL led by the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. 
Gibbons], our former chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade, that kind 
of a relationship ongoing in Jamaica, and that has been very beneficial 
for American firms.
  By using the combination of United States and Caribbean skills and 
materials, American and CBI firms have developed a joint production 
process that guarantees the viability of our domestic industry while 
ensuring the production of quality cost competitive garments. That is 
just one example.
  CBI has been conceived as a way to help the United States and 
Caribbean and Central American countries navigate the threats of the 
Cold War. That is over. But it is time to update this program to help 
the United States and its neighbors in the Caribbean and Central 
America face the challenges of the next century.
  I strongly urge passage of H.R. 2644. It will strengthen the U.S.-
Caribbean Basin trade partnership, while at the same time embracing the 
competitiveness of U.S. firms and workers.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Traficant].
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Cardin], my pit colleague, and as an old pit quarterback, today's 
debate is not about friendship. Today's debate is about business.
  I oppose this bill. I keep score. America is losing. Our trade 
deficit with Japan is at record levels; trade deficit with China will 
exceed $50 billion; trade deficit with Canada, $22 billion. And Mexico 
started out as a $2 billion surplus. It is now a $20 billion deficit. 
So let's forget about the $1 billion Caribbean surplus.
  Let's tell it like it is. For some reason, Congress and the White 
House keeps going forward on trade like a group of misdirected 
masochists, so help me God. It reminds me of a smoker dying of lung 
cancer who continues to chain smoke. Let's talk business today.
  If you manufacture a product in Youngstown, OH, IRS, Social Security, 
Workmen's Comp, Unemployment Comp, OHSA, EPA, bank regulations, 
security regulations, pension law, health inspectors, minimum wage, and 
$20 an hour average manufacturing costs. You move to Mexico or the 
Caribbean, like you want, no OHSA, no EPA, no regs, no minimum wage, no 
labor law, no labor unions, pensions, health insurance. What are you 
talking about? That is foreign language. Let me tell my colleagues 
something else. They hire people at 17 cents an hour.
  Beam me up here. So help me God, the Constitution says, ``Congress 
shall regulate commerce with foreign nations.'' Now evidently someone 
interpreted it to mean that Congress shall donate commerce to foreign 
nations. We are misdirected. We are wrong.
  Japan and China, for years every President has threatened Japan to 
open their markets, from Nixon up to Clinton. Evidently, Japan never 
opened their markets. We need reciprocal trade. Let me tell my 
colleagues something, this is a welfare program for Caribbean workers. 
I am opposed to it. We are putting American workers in

[[Page H9880]]

welfare lines and extending sophisticated commercial trade concepts to 
create welfare for foreign workers.
  I disagree with this policy. And the greatest respect in the world 
for the chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel], greatest 
respect in the world. I am proud to see the gentleman from Maryland 
[Mr. Cardin] step forward. I am glad to see it is a pitman.
  My colleagues, I keep score. America is losing. We are elected to 
look after the interests of the United States of America. We do not 
have to hurt the Caribbean nations. But we sure as hell do not have to 
give away the farm. I recommend my colleagues vote no on this.
  Let me say one last thing about NAFTA expansion. There is no 
amendment that can cure cancer. When we have cancer, we cut it out. 
Let's start taking care of number one. We do not have to hurt anybody 
else.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Becerra], my colleague on the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  (Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I come here with one particular concern. I believe it could have 
been addressed adequately in committee and was not. On top of some of 
the other things that have been said by some of my colleagues with 
respect to concerns with regard to expanding NAFTA to the Caribbean 
Basin, I do support and I did support NAFTA and I would support trying 
to extend to the degree possible the free trade zone into the Caribbean 
Basin. But let me focus my attention on one particular aspect which to 
me personally rubs very deeply within me. In committee, I asked that we 
try to extend trade adjustment assistance in this CBI proposal as we 
had in NAFTA. Trade adjustment assistance goes to workers who are 
dislocated as a result of companies moving from this country into the 
new area of the free trade zone. There is $6 million available in this 
legislation to pay for that type of adjustment assistance. We were told 
we had no CBO comparison to tell us exactly how much it would cost. We 
thought it would cost about the $6 million that was available. We find 
out now that it is only $2 million that it would cost to provide the 
protections to workers who may face dislocation as a result of this 
legislation. Yet we have been unable to get any commitment on the part 
of the Republican leadership to include the $2 million it would cost to 
protect American workers who may face dislocation as a result of this. 
What a small price to pay, especially when we have the money there. It 
rubs me the wrong way to have to stand here to say that $2 million 
stands in the way of being able to protect American workers. Why we 
would not do that, I do not understand, and I am somewhat speechless, 
because we have the money. We have $6 million available, $2 million to 
protect American workers, to give them things like unemployment 
benefits similar to unemployment benefits, to allow them to get 
training, to allow them to have some assistance to make sure that their 
families do not go without while they are unemployed. Yet we are not 
going to do it. It does not make any sense, it is shameless, and for 
that reason I had to take to the floor today.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Weller].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Packard]. The gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Weller] is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Crane] for yielding me this time and also commend him for his 
leadership as well as the gentlemen from New York and for Maryland for 
their leadership, even though they disagree today.
  Mr. Speaker, I plan to vote for this legislation, H.R. 2644 today, 
because I believe that we do need to move forward in providing greater 
trade opportunities, trade opportunities that do move towards free 
trade. But I also stand as one of those who believes that as we work 
for free trade, it should also be fair. I believe it is important to 
expand our trade opportunities, particularly when they benefit States 
such as Illinois, particularly Illinois middle-class working families. 
Mr. Speaker, I will be voting for this legislation because I want it to 
move forward, but what I ask as this legislation passes the House and 
goes into conference is that we take a very careful look at some of the 
ideas that are incorporated into the Senate version of this 
legislation, ideas that I believe will help Illinois as well. I support 
moving this legislation forward because I believe that we should always 
work to expand trade opportunities. It is important for jobs back home 
in Illinois.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] who has been one of the real 
fighters for U.S. textiles.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Spratt] is recognized for 4 minutes.
  (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. In just a short time I think we have shown that there are lots of 
objections to the bill before us. First of all, at a time when our 
trade deficit is reaching record highs, this bill, H.R. 2644, is 
totally one-sided. It lowers tariffs, it lifts quotas on apparel and 
six or seven different kinds of imports from 26 countries in the 
Caribbean and Central America, and it does so unilaterally. These 
countries are not required to make in return any trade concessions 
whatsoever to the United States.
  Second, this is a blanket grant of trade benefit to these CBI 
countries without any sanctions, without even any questions being asked 
about sweatshops or child labor or whether or not the country in 
question cooperates with the United States when it comes to 
interdicting drugs, money laundering and dealing with corrupt practices 
and corrupt customs, and those problems are endemic in some of these 
countries.
  Why do we do this? Why do we make these unilateral concessions? All 
in the name of fixing a nonexistent problem. Before NAFTA, the CBI 
countries exported, this is volume, 1.39 billion square meter 
equivalents of clothing to the United States. Since NAFTA, 1996, the 
CBI countries increased their exports to 2.26 billion SMEs, square 
meter equivalents. Before NAFTA, CBI imports accounted for 18.4 percent 
of all apparel imports into the United States. Since NAFTA, CBI imports 
have increased to 23.4 percent of all the apparel imports coming into 
the United States. They have got a huge share of our market. These 
countries are not suffering from NAFTA, far from it. They are shipping 
us more clothing, more apparel than ever.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii to comment on the 
lack of sanctions and labor provisions.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Would the gentleman agree that the result of this, 
then, is that the domestic industry is shrinking by thousands of jobs? 
As a matter of fact, I believe that the domestic industry shrank by 
56,000 jobs in 1996 alone and 52,000 more jobs through September of 
this year.
  Just today we had the announcement from the Levi Company that one-
third of all its employees in North America are going to be released. 
The union representing these workers is forced to negotiate their 
release. This clothing import situation under this bill will only get 
worse, and that means the loss of American jobs by the thousands.
  Mr. SPRATT. That is indeed the consequence of this and other 
legislation, no question about it. Slipping this bill through under 
suspension makes it appear to be uncontroversial or inconsequential. 
The point I am trying to make is that H.R. 2644 will have a greater 
impact on the U.S. apparel industry and U.S. apparel workers than NAFTA 
ever had.
  Because of rules, long-standing rules known as item 807 and item 
807(a), cloth that is cut and made in the United States can be sewn and 
assembled under clothing in a CBI country. Then when the clothing is 
reexported to the United States, the duties imposed when it comes back 
into our country are only imposed on the value added in the CBI 
country.

[[Page H9881]]

  Because of this concession, which has existed for a long time, the 
CBI countries now export to the United States more than twice as much 
apparel as Mexico, whether we measure it by volume in SMEs or by value. 
In 1996, the CBI countries shipped the U.S. 2.26 billion square meter 
equivalents of clothing. Mexico shipped us 1.1 billion square meter 
equivalents.
  Let me also comment as the ranking member on the Committee on the 
Budget on the revenue losses, the budgetary impacts of this bill. It 
results in substantial revenue losses. To get around these revenue 
losses and the pay-go rules, this bill uses a low-ball estimate from 
CBO, then it uses a contrived accounting technique.
  Mr. Speaker, all we have is the choice to vote this bill up or down, 
and I say we should vote it down.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Let 
me thank my colleagues that have come to the floor in support of this 
bill. Listening to the debate, one might believe that Cuba is a threat 
to our national security and now the CBI is a threat to our national 
economy. We are dealing with friends. Someone said that should not 
matter, that we are dealing with trade. But when we deal with friends, 
if they have a problem with the economy, we have been known to provide 
leadership in this hemisphere, even to the point that the American 
people and this Congress has seen fit to send troops to this part of 
the world in order to maintain peace. For decades, we have sent money 
there in terms of aid. Now they are coming and saying that in lieu of 
these things, they just want to be trading partners with us.
  Mr. Speaker, for those who visit the islands, going into a retail 
store is like going into a store in the United States if they are 
looking to see where the products have been manufactured, where they 
have been shipped from. I suspect after this debate is over, we soon 
will be hearing from those American companies that hire American 
workers that export these retail goods to our friends in the Caribbean. 
We have just been hit hard with the crisis that they have had with 
bananas, where we have taken the case to the WTO, the World Trade 
Organization, which gave a negative decision as relates to the 
Caribbean. They work hard every day. These are not people that are 
known to have slave labor. These are independent countries, literate 
countries. They work hard, they have labor unions, and there are 
provisions in the bill that provide for labor rights. But something 
that concerns me, too, is that these small islands out there in the 
Caribbean are really vulnerable to the international drug traffickers. 
They have fought against this and their countries have not succumbed as 
we have to become addicted to these drugs, even though corruptions have 
hit some part of the countries as relates to transshipment of drugs. 
The gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] and I have traveled in this 
part of the world and we have seen the impact. It seems to me that we 
just do not slap friends in the face at a time like this when so much 
of their own money has been protecting their borders against drugs 
coming in which is basically consumed by us.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this bill. It is the 
right thing to do. It is the fair thing to do. The President wants it. 
I think we owe it to the people in that part of the world.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my serious concerns 
about H.R. 2644. I have heard from many folks in my district who work 
in the textile industry who oppose this bill in its present form. I 
have also been contacted by some, such as Fruit of the Loom, who 
support the Senate version and are hopeful that passage of H.R. 2644 
will be a step toward enacting a fairer version of free trade for the 
Caribbean region.
  Which brings me to my concern about H.R. 2644 being brought up under 
the Suspension Calendar. I believe that this bill in its present form 
raises too many concerns, and that these concerns would be better 
addressed if H.R. 2644 was to be brought to the floor with a rule 
allowing the necessary changes to be made.
  H.R. 2644 in its present form will unilaterally provide Caribbean and 
Central American countries parity with Mexico under the North American 
Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA]. I fear that this legislation would 
inflict further damage on our Nation's textile and apparel industries, 
which have lost 250,000 jobs since 1994.
  Furthermore, it is my understanding that the premise of this 
legislation, that Caribbean-Central American countries have been harmed 
by NAFTA, is erroneous. While U.S. employment, particularly in the 
apparel industry, is plummeting, apparel imports from Caribbean-Central 
America are surging. The U.S. textile industry should not be subject to 
the same upheaval the apparel industry had to go through under NAFTA.
  Simply put, it is bad economic and trade policy to grant countries 
unilateral, free access to the U.S. market without obtaining reciprocal 
access to foreign markets. I support free trade--but in the end--it 
must be fair trade.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly object not only to 
the legislation before us, but to the tactics being used to push this 
bill through the House.
  On October 8, the Ways and Means Committee, on which I serve, passed 
by voice vote this bill to extend North America Free Trade Agreement 
benefits to Caribbean and Latin American nations. I requested a 
recorded vote in committee, but was denied this request.
  Now, the leadership of the House is trying to slide this measure by 
the full House in a similar manner by putting the bill on the 
Suspension Calendar. It is generally known that the Suspension Calendar 
is reserved for noncontroversial legislation, and that bills considered 
under suspension of the rules pass by voice vote. H.R. 2644 is highly 
controversial and ought to have full, open debate afforded to other 
bills of this magnitude.
  CBI parity has been rejected over and over by Congress because it is 
an expansion of the failing NAFTA. But, this year the debate on CBI 
parity is overshadowed by the larger discussion of fast track 
authority. We must not let this happen.
  NAFTA has hurt, not helped, the American worker. Passage of CBI 
parity will further jeopardize jobs and exports by opening the door to 
textiles and apparel made with cheap labor and in substandard working 
conditions. Plus, the taxpayer is hit with a double blow in lost 
revenues. Once parity is offered for a year to these countries, you can 
bet there will be a strong effort to renew this legislation when it 
expires.
  For these reasons, we should reject H.R. 2644 and keep American jobs 
at home.
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, we have a unique opportunity today to assist 
American business as well as supporting economic development in the 
Caribbean. The Caribbean basin is now the 10th largest export market 
for the United States greater than even some European countries. Our 
U.S. exporters maintain a trade surplus with the Caribbean and have 
done so for the past 11 years. Additionally, every 100 jobs in the 
Caribbean apparel sector creates 15 apparel jobs in the United States. 
Additional American jobs are also created in the textile, distribution, 
and retail sectors.
  We must acknowledge, Mr. Speaker, that NAFTA has been detrimental to 
the Caribbean. According to the ITC, Mexico's share of the garment 
assembly market has increased 50 percent, while the Caribbean share has 
dropped by 15 percent, since 1993. The Caribbean Textiles and Apparel 
Institute reports that, between 1995 and 1996, more than 150 apparel 
plants closed in the Caribbean resulting in the loss of 123,000 jobs.
  The bill before us today, H.R. 2644 will level the playing field for 
the Caribbean. It will ensure that Caribbean countries are prepared to 
meet their obligations, ranging from market access to intellectual 
property rights, as part of the free trade area of the Americas. To 
participate in this program, CBI countries must satisfy the additional 
criteria of adherence to internationally accepted rules of 
international trade and the observance of internationally recognized 
workers rights. I would urge my colleagues to support the bill and I 
urge its passage under suspension of the rules.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr.  Crane] that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 2644.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________